Monitoring policy - a clarification.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

adiyen is writing this mail to explain the rationale of the monitoring

committee in terms of what is the basis for taking action etc. This has

been necessitated due to the fact that we have been accused of partiality.

 

Enforcement of justice, moderation or monitoring etc., in relation to such

lists, as normally understood, includes the following assumptions. Nobody

knows anything with 100% certainity. Everybody is entitled to their

viewpoints. Civility and respect for all and sundry is what is to be

expected. Going by this guideline Swami Desikan who says in the Tattva

Mukta Kalapa that " This work is complete and precise. If there is something

that is ambiguous, then nobody other than myself will be able to clarify

it. " - words to this effect quoted from memory in SMS Chari's book - would

be guilty of egotism.

 

Here in Malola Paduka Sevaka Net, anybody strictly following the thiruvullam

of Swami Desikan as explained by today's Acharyas will be deemed to be

following Perumal's thiruvullam. Therefore, even if two people's actions

appear similar, if one has the backing of Saastras as explained by Swami

Desikan, and the other does not, then the former will be considered to be

correct and the latter will not. Therefore, there is strict impartiality.

Those whose anushTAnams are good and who have learned by service to their

Acharyas will vouch for this. Proper disclosure of this was made in the

charter of this net. Please visit

http://dileepan.busi.utc.edu//oct98/0127.asp

It is on the startup of Malolan Net in contrast with the

bhakti list. The password to get the article is: badran

 

Nagu Satyan wrote:

 

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. end of quote.

 

Please go back and read the articles again and tell us where any attack was

made. If you give us specifics, we have procedures in place to deal with

inconsistent monitoring of the net. General accusations do amount to no

more than slander.

 

>It is also clear that other Srivaishnava email discussion groups evolved

>based on bhakti list over a period of time.

 

This is not relevant to anything. Bhakti list has its role to play and

Malolan Net has its role to play. I have personally evolved as a

Srivaishnava by being on the Bhakti list. I have had several debates with

Mani, but I do not harbor any ill will towards him. I do not believe he

harbors any ill will towards me either. We learnt by the process of

discussion, or through trial and error. However archiving such discussions

may cause inaccurate information to be passed on as genuine information. I

have also personally contributed to wrong information that is currently

archived. I wrote that Hanuman was a mukta jivatma. As long as I was on

the list, this was never contradicted. No one can deny that this is

contrary to all that our Acharyas have said. All that Sri Ananthapadmanabha

Swamy did was to caution people about what they may take to be authentic

information. In fact Sri Mani himself has a note of caution. Please see

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/index.html#CAUTION. Having said

this, let us examine the above paragraph of Smt. Satyan.

 

 

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

>Srivaishnavism. Let us be truthful.

 

Did anybody claim this? The Paduka Sahasram being posted here is hosted in

some other web page by Sri Satakopan. Is this not authentic? There is a

web page and Visishtadvaita Sri Vaishnava Sri hosted by Sri Hari Swamy. Are

these not authentic? Did anybody say that Malolan Net is the only source of

authentic information?

 

adiyen learned a lot by having almost daily telephone conversation with

Vaikunthavaasi Sri U. Ve Kannan Swamy of Gaithersburg Md. and the founder

President of Sri Ramanuja Mission. Sri Kannan Swamy had done about 12 years

Kaalakshepam under Srimad Thirukudanthai Andavan and one other Acharya. Yet

it was through Sri Ananthapadmanabha Swamy that Sriman Narayana clarified a

couple of key issues that made adiyen see our sampradayam through a far

clearer vision. adiyen is not suggesting that Sri Kannan Swamy was not aware

of these points. It was Sriman Narayana's sankalpam that Sri

Ananthapadmanabha Swamy be His instrument to clarify these points for

adiyen. Vidwans in Chennai made Sri Ananthapadmanabha Swamy give a lecture

one one Pasuram of Thiruppavai. Srimad Azhagiya Singar was full of praise

for Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy in one dolai utsavam. If Mrs. Satyan's

statement above was to be accepted then her own Acharya and other acclaimed

vidwans in the community are collectively mistaken.

 

 

To

claim that only Malolan Net or any other net is

authentic shows egoism or self proclamation as " experts " .

 

If a doctor made a statement on the condition of a patient, or Janet Reno

made a statement about US law would Mrs. Satyan consider it to be egotism?

Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy and Sri Hari Swamy are post docs in the field

of Srivaishnavism. It is Sriman Narayana's sowlabhyam that they are there

on this list with us. For those of us struggling with primary school

material, we do not always have to go to Nobel laureates like Srimad

Azhagiya Singar. It is sufficient for us to go to these 2 post docs. I

thank Sri Muralidhar Rangaswamy and Sri Sathakopan for sending some of the

rajas from the Padukais this way, which enabled adiyen to recognize the

greatness of Sri Ananthapadmanabha Swamy and Sri Hari Swamy.

 

 

 

adiyen Ramanuja daasan,

jagan.

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com