svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 1 10:11:22 CDT 2011
Dear Sri Srikanta,
It is clear that you do not read the details in other people's posts at all, while expecting
everybody to remember the details of your posts. This is not conducive to a fruitful
discussion. I entered into this thread only to clear the unintended confusion that your
contentions and unique word interpretations would have caused a number of list members.
In this final response, I would like to clarify the following comments you make:
> Having exhausted all arms in your arsenal starting with "you must have
> viveka','dont tilt the windmills'you have taken recourse to the another way as a
I do not think in terms of arms and arsenal at all, at least on this list. "Tilting at windmills"
is a well-known idiomatic usage in English, that is all. It is merely my shorthand way of
saying that in the madhyamAm/madhyagAm issue, you were confronting and engaging
in conflict with a totally imagined opponent or threat.
> "grammerian".you can verif any grammar book that any compund word must
> necessarily have samasa in it.it is not 'shankaracharya madhyamah",but it is
> "shankaracharya madhymam'among the madhyama,which gives unintended understanding
> as you yourself
> say.The word 'madhyagam"has the intended understanding without the the nibbling
> it has brought.Firstly,I want to know whether you are really aware of the usage
> of "madhyagam"?otherwise.,let there be no "kite flying".
Where, pray, have I accepted your contention that there is an "unintended understanding"
arising from the word madhyama? All the nibbling and nitpicking are of your own creation,
and it has been my point that this whole thing is based on multiple misconceptions on your
part. I attempted to clear at least some of your misconceptions, but obviously, I have failed.
As for whether I have been aware of the madhyagAm reading in the past, please re-read
my earlier postings where I touched upon it, while mentioning that I have learnt it only as
madhyamAm. In any case, whether I was aware of alternative pATha-s and when I became
first aware of them are all quite immaterial.
It is obvious that you are firmly entrenched in your belief that madhyagAM is not merely
a superior reading, but the only correct one, whereas madhyamAM is defective. So be it.
Please have it your way! In this, as in so many other topics, your beliefs and ideas are
certainly unique. You are welcome to them, but please do not expect everyone else to
agree with whatever you think and fancy.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list