On Non-SrI-SampradAya Texts

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaH

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SaThakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear members,

 

The Membership Committee discussed the matter about

non-samradayic texts with the Net administrator. We

wish to state that Rule #7, like all other rules

of the net, must be strictly followed.

 

Rule #7: " Discussions of works that do not belong to

Sri Sampradayam must be avoided " .

 

Thank you.

 

- Monitering Committee.

[Guest guest]

Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

 

> The Membership Committee discussed the matter about

> non-samradayic texts with the Net administrator. We

> wish to state that Rule #7, like all other rules

> of the net, must be strictly followed.

>

> Rule #7: " Discussions of works that do not belong to

> Sri Sampradayam must be avoided " .

 

In the spirit of enquiry, I would like to request further

clarification on this rule. To begin with, the definition

of " Sri sampradAyam " - I assume that in this context

it means only the sampradAyam of Swami Desikan

and his legatees. But there could be ambiguity even

here. For example, the entire divyaprabandham is

part of Sri sampradAyam (unless the commitee thinks

otherwise!). Would that mean commentaries on DP

by thennAchAryas is a violation of rule # 7? Also,

there are numerous works by authors in Sanskrit,

Tamil and English which expand on the meanings of

prasthAna-traya and other Srivaishnava texts; many

of them will not be in conformance with Sri sampradAya

as defined here. So, who decides? The commitee, I

would assume - on behalf of Sri (desika) sampradAya.

But is the committee a complete representation of

desikar sampradAyam itself? I say this because even

within this sampradAyam there are differences. For

example, the commentary on DP by periya parakAla

swami could interpret certain verses differently than

say, that of Sri. uttamoor Swami's commentary.

Recent English articles by Prakalamutt vidwAns refer

to Swami Desikan himself as the founder of the mutt,

as opposed to the common perception that it was

Brahmatantra Swatantra Jeer. Even beyond the

written word, there are differences of opinion. Sri.

Sannidhi's position on the chanting of Vishnu Sahasra

nAmam is different from that of Srimad Andavan

periyAsramam. Therefore, should we not have

representatives of all schools of desikasampradAya

on the committee, in order to ensure fairness?

 

aDiyEn,

-Srinath C.

[Guest guest]

>

> Srinath Chakravarty [xsrinath]

> Thursday, September 21, 2000 6:37 PM

>

> Re: On Non-SrI-SampradAya Texts

>

>

> In the spirit of enquiry, I would like to request further

> clarification on this rule. To begin with, the definition

> of " Sri sampradAyam " - I assume that in this context

> it means only the sampradAyam of Swami Desikan

> and his legatees.

 

Dear Sri Srinath:

We do not want a debate about the rules of the

net. We developed these rules more than two years

ago, after long consultations among a few of us,

and was approved by the Board of Sri Ahobila Muth.

These rules have served us very well up to this

point and hope they will continue to serve us well

in the future also. Rule, #7, i.e., discussion of

non-sri sampradaya text is not allowed, is just that.

If you wish to discuss a particular text and is not

sure whether it is permitted, please feel free to

contact one of the members of the committee or adiyEn

and we will give you an answer promptly. Rest assured

we will try our best to be consistent with the stated

purpose of the net and to apply the rules impartially

and in a manner that is best for all concerned. Let

us not get into a debate of what-ifs. If you wish to

discuss this matter any further please contact me in

private.

 

Thank you,

 

-- adiyEn