[RE: [nama-singapore] FWD: May 18, 2001 ( Seventh Anniversary of the Founding of the Bhakthi List]]

[Guest guest]

Dear SrImathee & Shree Praveena & Anand " <may2192

 

> Fold 1: Bhakthi being the root.

 

General reply to fold 1:

For your kind information, no one attempted to refute the

above point or to establish the above point.

 

> 1. Firstly, there is no second opinion that Bhakthi List

> has been a vital tool in bringing together various

> individuals - across the globe.

 

If you believe so, then there is nothing wrong in someone else

to state that mAlolan net has been a vital tool in propagating

SrI sampradAya in authentic way. Plese read my mails.

 

> 2. Secondly, it is Bhakthi List that has made many

> individuals to grow into Sri Vaishnavas.

 

Please read my " General reply to fold 1: "

 

> 3. We would like to share that it is the committed efforts

> of Sri Mani Varadarajan in encouraging various

> members to contribute by way of postings that has

> enabled such significant knowledge sharing.

 

Please read my " General reply to fold 1: "

 

> 4. We, for one, have not come across any incidence of

> personal bias, as your mails suggest, in moderation.

 

Your point is very much valid. Similarly, for those who have come

across such an incidence, SrI Anand's mail is valid. Hope

the point is clear now.

 

> 5. As one of the members have pointed out in a mail, it

> is from Bhakthi List many more e-groups and websites

> have branched.

 

Please read my " General reply to fold 1: "

 

> Fold 2: Your Emphasis / Comparison on Bhakthi & Malolan_Net

 

General reply to Fold 2:

Comparison/contrast/emphasis cannot be ruled out.

In fact, Comparison/contrast/emphasis is definitely

an useful tool in all sorts of studies.

Comparison/contrast/emphasis have been done even

in our pUrvAchArya SrI sUktis. I do not find anything

wrong in the mail of SrI Anand K Karalapakkam.

Even in my mail, I had suggested malolan net but

never directed someone towards it. I suggest that

you read both the mails again-please.

 

>1. Firstly, all of us, have been members of Bhakthi and most

> of us continue to be members and get to share various

> views and acquire the right knowledge.

 

Who contradicted the above? Well. There may be exceptions also.

 

>2. Having said this, we think you will admit that Malolan_Net

> members were from Bhakthi List. It was Bhakthi list

> that enabled few like minded Sri Vaishnavas to know each

> other, thereby helping us to form Malolan_net.

 

Who contradicted the above?

 

>3. " True Reflection of Many Issues " - We don't think any one

> group can claim to " reflect the exact position on any

> particular issue " . All of us are in unison that our

> Acharya's holy words are final authority, in any matter.

> So, none of the e-groups - whether it is A or B list,

> can claim authority over any subject.

 

The above point that you have written is too general. I

find no point in commenting it. But I accept 100% that

SrI VaishNava AchArya's holy words are final authority

because they exactly repeat the teaching of the apowrushEya

Veda-VedAntha. The Veda-VedAntha are not authored by anyone.

 

> 4. Your mention on " True Reflection.... " suggests that

> Sri Vaishnavas who have a doubt over an issue can just

> refer an email group and be done with that.

> If you are suggesting this, then we fear that you are

> getting into a mode " of an authority " .

 

Well. I am not an authority. But will you have objections if

I become an authority or say SrI Anand K Karalapakkam becomes

an authority one day? Please do not immediately switch to

talking about ahamkAram, mamakAram, bhAgavatha apachAram and

so on. I have all these things in plenty. " ahamasmi aparAdha

chakravarthi " in its absolute meaning. This is not

" nahi nidA " . This is not " naichyanusandAnam " . But it is reality.

 

> 5. At this point, let us admit that we are as much a sincere

> follower of Malolan_Net as you are. At the same time, we

> have been observing that most of us, get various doubts

> clarified while we are able to get in touch with our

> Acharya - either in person and/or during Tele-Upanyasams.

 

Who contradicted the above?

 

Fold 3: Platform:

 

>1. Leaving out subject matter, authenticity etc., we found that

> your views - IN REPLY TO - " Seventh Anniversary of the

> founding of the Bhakthi List " mails - unethical and out of

> place.

 

General reply to Fold 3:

These replies are clarifications just like clarifications

to various mails. Terming both the mails as unethical and out of

place seems to be very much untenable.

 

> 2. Here we are, enjoying and re-collecting the start and growth

> of - what was a small group. We feel this is not the platform

> for such opinions.

 

Please refer the " General reply to Fold 3: "

 

> 3. It would have been the best to wish the members who were

> instrumental for such a growth. If you had other opinion,

> about the members / list / objective - we believe, this is

> not the occasion to share them.

 

Please refer the " General reply to Fold 3: "

 

> 4. It is unparliamentary to share other opinions while it was

> some sort of " birthday celebrations " .

 

Please refer the " General reply to Fold 3: "

 

>5. Worse, we found that you entered into a comparison between

> the two groups and went on to describe why and where people

> should come for " authenticated information " . It does look

> very petty and seems completely out of place.

 

Please refer the " General reply to Fold 3: "

 

6. Unfortunately, quiet a few points have gotten personal and

am sure is unwarranted.

 

Please refer the " General reply to Fold 3: "

 

7. We also find that you went on to judge a Sri Vaishnava.

 

Please refer the " General reply to Fold 3: "

 

>Summary:

 

>We feel that your mails are disturbing as we expect significant

>amount of harmony amongst all Sri Vaishnavas.

 

This point is refuted strongly by me as follows.

SrI Anand K Karalapakkam is a vidwAn who is doing traditional

kAlakshEpams at the feet of great SrI VaishNava vidwAns. He has

helped all of us through SrI mAlolan net by providing very

authentic and absolute SrI SampradAya arthams. Such a general

remark by you is untenable.

 

I too have written several articles and upanyAsams in authentic manner

(not because of myself but because of Bhagavath bhAgavatha

AachArya anugraham). They are well received by thousands of

people - scholars and many individuals of general public.

By bhagavath anugraham, I can name atleast one person who

got his mind changed from severe dEvathAntara sambandam

and such things after listening to my upanyAsams. He has

adopted SaraNAgathi now. Such a general remark by you is untenable.

I feel very sorry for your untenable comment. If you still feel

that my mails are disturbing you, please delete them from your mail box

as soon as you see my name against them. Or otherwise, please

find a way to block mails from my address. I feel very sorry

for your comment against SrI Anand.

 

>A first and couple

>of more readings of the mails [on the said subject] does give a

>divisive feeling and this is definitely not healthy.

 

Please read both the mails again[on the said subject].

There is absolutely no intention to create any divisive feelings.

 

>It is our sincere request that we focus our writings and discussions

>to specific subject on sampradayam and let individual

>Sri Vaishnavas be free to read and understand the right meaning.

No one interfered in the freedom of someone. SrI malolan net

articles were suggested as " authentic " that too only as

a clarrification.

> " ...avar avar vidhi vazhi adaiya ninranare... " Swami Nammazhvar

Yes. absolutely true. But the meaning of this is to be comprehended

as per bhagavath-vishyam commentary in traditional kAlakshEpam. Fine?

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

[Guest guest]

Dear SrImathI and SrI Nagu and Satyan,

 

> First we agree with the sentiments expressed by Sri.

> Sadagopan. We agree with your approach and concepts.

> Personally, our exposure to various aspiring

> Srivaishnavas and the best learning was thru bhakti

> list. Thanks to Mani for his initiative and effort. It

> is possible others may have thought of similar approach.

> However, it was Mani who put it in place and has helped

> various people follow their Sri Vaishnava roots.

 

I repeat that we did not refute the above points. I write this again because

my earlier communication as reply to SrI & SrImathI Praveena &

Anand seems to be missed out by you.

 

> To cricize about his moderator role begs a question

> whether we have consistent rules being applied in

> malolan net also. If it is consistent, then how can Sri

> Hari and CHi. Anand make such strong attacks on another

> Srivaishnava. This is contrary to our traditions.

 

These allegations made are baseless. For your kind information learned sir, no

one made any sort of " strong attack " on a SrI VaishNava. I think all the mails

in this context were easily comprehensible. Regarding consistent rules being

applied in malolan net, I request the moderator to kindly interfere.

 

> It is also clear that other Srivaishnava email

> discussion groups evolved based on bhakti list over a

> period of time.

 

> No email archives can be claimed to be the only true

> authority on Srivaishnavism.

 

I have a question for you. We had suggested that the archives of SrI mAlolan

net are authentic. That is all. If someone can claim as given above (as you

have done), then what is wrong in someone suggesting that a

particular group archive is " authentic " ? Please note that in many

communications, I had stressed the importance of traditional kAlakshEpam at

the sannadhi of SrI VaishNava vidwAns as " the authentic " way of learning our

SampradAyam. (Ref. My mail on upavAsa vrathAnsuTAnams).

Do you want to contradict this also?

Also, SrI K Anand is a person who has studied and continuing his studies in

traditional manner. If you refute his entire posting (or atleast one posting

of SrI Anand K) in the archives then your statement will be proved fit to be

told before scholars. Please note that I am not challenging you or anyone. I

can quote atleast one posting from him (on SaraNAgathi) as authentic

representation of SrI VaishNava SrI sampradAyam's upAya-anushtAnam. I suggest

you to kindly read the related mails again.

 

> Let us be truthful. To

> claim that only Malolan Net or any other net is

> authentic shows egoism or self proclamation as " experts " .

 

Let us be truthful. I definitely agree with you. If a valid point suggested is

going to make you call us as " showing egoism " , " self proclamation as experts "

etc., then nothing can be done. Let it be so. I am very happy that you are

very much present not showing any egoism and not having any self-proclamation

as " expect(s) " . May I suggest you a point! " Mere (twisted) theoretical

diplomacy does not serve any purpose! " .

 

Did we negate the significance of the other list archives?

Did we force someone not to read the other list archives?

Did we challenge that the other list archive is fully

" not authentic " ? Are these questions making sense to you?

 

SonnAl virOdhamidu Aagilum solluvEn - swAmi nammAzwAr.

 

I will reply to further mails (if any) in this context if a person equal

to SrI Anand K Karalpakkam in knowledge (at such an unbelievable young age) &

vairAgyam alleges the mails of SrI Anand K Karalpakkam. Hope this point is

clear because I have replied very clearly to all allegations.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1