Curreny note - choices - response (from Sri Anbil Ramaswamy Swami)

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaagavatas:

 

We have received overwhelming responses for the questions.

We extend our heartfelt thanks to all those who responded

enthusiastically.

 

Choice # 1

A handful of friends have honestly admitted that they would pocket

the find, especially in the circumstances provided in the amendment

taking it as a Bhagavad prasaadam (a gift of God).

 

An analysis would reveal a lot of flaws in this choice:

 

1. The assumption that nobody is watching is not correct. Saastras

say that there are 16 witnesses to all our actions.

 

2. In this high-tech age it is possible that even when none is seen

around, you can be seen on the screen in the control room through

hidden cameras. It is common knowledge that in these days, this

method is employed to detect crimes.

 

3. Assuming that none of the above is in place, your conscience will

tell you that it is morally wrong to pocket what does not belong to

you. Mahatma Gandhi calls conscience as " the little inner voice " and

there can be no greater warning than the dictate of your conscience.

 

4. Pocketing something that does not belong to you and that too,

without the knowledge and willing consent of the rightful owner is

known as `sthEya " or theft and is obviously illegal besides being

immoral.

 

5. The excuse that it is a " gift of God " is just a pretext - however

one may try to justify it!

 

Choice # 2

A majority of respondents have voted for Choice 2, with some

explaining why they preferred it.

The question was " What would you do? " Explanation of rationale for

adopting this course was not called for.

 

Whether it is put in the Temple Hundi or turned over to the Temple

Administration or handed over to the Archakar (as some have

suggested) makes no difference because even the Hundi collections

are opened, counted and supposed to be added on to the temple funds

(assuming that no pilferage occurs in the process!), while passing

on to the poor Archakar will tantamount to passing on your dilemma

to him!

 

H.H. Azhagiya Singhar (in his Poorva Asramam) was very emphatic that

you have no business to pick up anything that does not belong to you

and that which you have not earned through your own efforts on

Dharmic lines and you have no right to dispose it of through

donation or offering to the temple or for any charity or

kainkaryams.

 

In this view, one is advised against collecting funds through " fund

raising " for any cause unless one is sure that arrangements exist

for the proper accounting of the funds both at the collection end

and at the disposal end and proper auditing is in place to guard

against misuse and YOU own absolute responsibility to indemnify the

donors should any irregularity or misuse comes to light at any

stage.

 

 

What is collected is NOT one's money and one has no right to dispose

it of as per one's judgment on whether the cause is

worthy or unworthy whether it is from a Registered Trust or not,

whether exemption under the Income Tax rules are in force.

Many of the so called " Trusts " that have mushroomed from time to

time have forfeited their trust by disappearing without trace but

not without the moneys collected!

 

Handling public money is like playing with fire. This will put the

solicitors in a vulnerable position and they should be prepared to

face investigations in any potential PIL litigation. The solicitors

have to be an open book and have to be scrupulous in keeping

themselves beyond even a shadow of doubt (like Caesar's wife) at all

times.

 

The argument that no one has raised a finger of accusation SO FAR is

no cause for taking it with smug satisfaction. It does not guarantee

against anyone posing as " pro bono publico " to raise the issue AT

ANY TIME in trying to besmirch the Srivaishnava groups and in the

process damage the fair name of our Acharyas themselves.

 

This is the reason why, Paragraph 10 of Guidelines was drafted for

those who wish to post " Appeals for funds " in " Sri Ranga Sri "

(reproduced below at the end for your information)

 

Acharyas being Acharyas are adorned with Jnaanam (Absolute Knowledge

of the divine dispensation) and more importantly Vairaghyam (total

detachment from material world) " Jnaana Vairaaghya bhooshaNam "

Acharyas being Acharyas, they are totally devoted to their calling

in Tureeya Asrama and totally unmindful of Pooja, kyaadi, laaba etc.

Did not Swami Desika throw away the coins he found in the bikshaa he

received on his rounds?

 

The only undivided concentration of Acharyas will be on Bhagavaan

and the welfare of Sishyas (for whom they instruct through

KaalakshEpams and administer SamasrayaNam, BharaNayaasam etc). They

do not involve themselves in the day to day administration of funds

collected by individuals or groups of individuals on their behalf

and in their names.

Acharyas may, however bless kainkaryams undertaken by devout

Bhaagavatas. But, simply dropping the names of Acharyas like

claiming to have obtained their blessings will not be enough. The

entire responsibility for the accounting rests squarely on the

shoulders of the solicitors who do so in the name of the Acharyas.

Should any irregularity come to light, it will not only spoil the

reputation of the solicitors but might show the Acharyas themselves

in a bad light in the eyes of the public, especially in the backdrop

of a hostile and atheistic administration.

 

H.H. Azhagiya Singhar in his Poorva Asramam once described asmad

Achharyan, His Holiness Srimad Andavan, Poundarikapuram Swami

Asramam, Srirangam as an ideal Acharya in terms of Swami Desika's

definition in his " Nyaasa Vimsati " and that he was verily

a " NaDamaaDum Deivam " and 'VasishTa'

 

Asmad Acharyan would never solicit any samrapaNais for any purpose.

He would refuse to accept any offering, if made with ulterior

motives and he had his own methods of finding out this eventuality.

Choice # 3

 

A few have opted for choice # 3. Some of them, however, would

prefer to donate it to some charity like Spastics Society or

other " noble " causes

 

The conclusion of H.H. Azhagiya Singhar (in his Poorva Asramam) as

expressed in his KaalakshEpam

 

The conclusion of H.H. Azhagiya Singhar (in his Poorva Asramam) was

that the best course would be to " consciously ignore the find and

walk away " . The reason he gave was that if someone else picks it up,

it is Bhagavaan's Sankalpam that it should be so and we have no role

in it. Obviously, the find was not earned by us through our own

efforts on Dharmic lines. Therefore, we have no right to pick it up

or decide how it should be disposed of. In other words, it is a test

of our `Vairaaghyam " .

 

Thanks again to one and all for your enthusiastic participation.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

****************************

Clause 10:

 

" 10. APPEALS FOR FUNDS:

Would anyone venture to appeal for funds for an avowedly unworthy

cause?

 

No appeal for funds is normally made except under the cloak of

some " worthy " cause or other. The money spinning technique of con

artists to beguile the gullible and credulous folks by playing upon

their humanitarian emotions and sympathy have been so perfected that

the pretext of " helping a worthy cause " is routinely touted as a

useful ploy.

 

(For example, a recent appeal was for a medical treatment that was

found to be false). We should not fall for these.

 

The same holds good for the some of the much too numerous appeals

for funds for this, that or the other " Kainkaryams " flashed on the

Internet day in and day out impacting on the sentimental

susceptibilities of Bhaagavatas.

 

Complaints have surfaced, of late, regarding misuse of funds

collected in the name of so called " worthy projects " .

 

This is not to say that all appeals are of this kind.

 

IMPORTANT:

IN FACT, APPEALS BEARING THE SPECIFIC OFFICIAL SPONSORING BY THE

YATIVARAS THEMSELVES OF MATAMS AND ASHRAMAMS (LIKE AHOBILA MATAM,

PARAKLAALA MATAM, POUNDARIKAPURAM ASHRAMAM, PERIYASHRAMAM,

VANAMAMALAI MATAM ETC) CAN BE FREELY POSTED.

 

All other appeals solicited by individuals or groups of individuals

for funds for whatever " kainkaryam " will be allowed only with the

express undertaking IN WRITING that the solicitor ensures the

following:

 

(i) Officially acknowledging the receipt of contributions submitted

(ii) Utilization of the funds fully and precisely for the purposes

for which they are proposed to be mobilized through their appeal and

(iii) Adequate audit and accounting are in place to the entire

satisfaction of the donors both at the collection end and

utilization end

(iv) Responsibility to personally indemnify the donors against any

inconvenience or loss due to any irregularity that might come to

light at any time, with regard to their solicitation.

 

In the absence of such undertaking, we may be seen as encouraging

indiscriminate fund-raising appeals and also become liable for any

potential legal action later on,

given the conduct of numerous trusts that have mushroomed and

disappeared with the collections "

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

This applies also to some of our members of Board of Advisory

Consultants. While we have great regard for them personally, such

postings by them invite adverse comments from readers who convey

their displeasure and annoyance through phone and direct

conversations.

 

Readers complain that we are showing partiality to members of BAC

while rejecting such appeals from others because everyone of their

individual appeals for funds neither indicate any personal /

official involvement / sanction of Yathivaras nor do they contain

any of the " Commitments " required from sponsors in terms of

Paragraph 10 cited above on " Appeal for funds " .

 

We request all (including BAC members) that from now on Appeals for

fund

raisings (whether directly expressed or veiled covertly concealed in

any part of the texts), for this, that or the other cause WILL NOT

BE APPROVED in " Sri Ranga Sri " .

 

If anyone wishes to donate any funds for any kainkaryam, they can do

it from out of their personal funds (as was done in the case of Tiru

Anbil Dwajasthambham kainkaryam without collecting funds from

others) or through private collections or through other Internet

groups that may allow such appeals .

 

We wish to reiterate that " Sri Ranga Sri " IS NOT the forum for such

appeals that do not conform to Paragraph 10 cited. Besides annoying

the readers, this also places us in an embarrassing situation. We

request them to understand and cooperate with us and save us from

such accusations.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy