No subject

concerned, there is really no problem anywhere. However, to understand
this, one has to realize that by the time we traverse from point 1 above
to point 5 above, we are referring to different books. If we do not keep
in mind that in the crucial point 3 above, we have gone from a
particular book (published in 1996) to a general set of books (with
different publication dates given in the Digital Library), readers are
apt to get confused.

If at all there is to be any result of this discussion, it should be to
alert DLI that providing publication dates on the search results page,
without specifying the era is confusing. I should also point out that
the kathaka upanishad book, which is given a date of 1885 in the search
results page (point 8B above), was actually published in SakAbda 1884.
This is from page 4 of this publication. It would be nice if any members
of this list, who have established contact with DLI, bring this to their
attention and have them correct their records and perhaps also influence
them in providing a clearer search results page, that includes the era
reference along with publication year. I would imagine that such an
issue would arise for most of the DLI's collection, given that usage of
multiple eras is a given fact of public life in India.=20

Having said that, may I request the participants of this discussion to
move on and to attempt to clarify exactly what they are saying and why,
as the discussion progresses? I cannot overemphasize the importance of
being as clear as possible; otherwise, these threads are all in danger
of being quite futile. Person A says something and perhaps intends it,
perhaps not; person B understands it slightly differently, but imparts a
meaning further away than what person A intended; person C comes in and
understands it yet differently and misunderstands both A and B; person D
jumps in and finds fault with A, B and C; the comedy of errors goes on.

Except, in this case, it threatens to become a tragedy of personal
recriminations on this list. I reiterate, that is precisely what all the
moderators would like to avoid. Please, focus on fundamentals, be as
clear as possible, work on improving the clarity and resist the
temptation to make barbed comments about one another. I do not
particularly like to sound so patronizing, but somehow, the situation
seems to call for it. I hope I don't have to repeat such a message
again, at least for a couple of weeks!

Best regards,
> Vidyasankar