[Advaita-l] madhyamam

Sriram Krishnamurthy asksriramjobs at gmail.com
Thu Mar 31 05:10:17 CDT 2011

Dear Srikanta,
have you read the Bhaja govindam?

Thanks and Regards,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Srikanta Narayanaswami <
srikanta.narayanaswami at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If it is your contention that we should form some highly unique and
> personal
> > views
> > about Sanskrit verses with absolutely no regard for basic grammar at all,
> then
> >I
> >
> >
> > can only say, good luck to you! If on the other hand, you agree that
> language
> > usage
> > has an element of grammar to it, please re-read my posting with an open
> mind.
> > Nothing further to add...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Vidyasankar
> >
> > __________________________
> >
> > Exactly,The issue is not on basic grammar but the use of the
> > word"madhyamam"or"madhyagam"I have also seen in most of the cases the
> > word"madhyagam"is used.Here the word "madhyamam'is used as a noun,but the
> > word"madhyagam"is used as a verb.There is nothing wrong in using this way
> I hesitate to respond to this, but am doing so only to clear all the
> confusion
> that may
> have been created in the minds of those who may be silently reading this
> thread.
> The issue you have raised is ALL about grammar and connotations of words.
> You
> say
> it is not about grammar, yet go on to talk about nouns and verbs. The Sloka
> in
> question
> salutes the guru paramparA as a whole, not an individual. The first line of
> the
> Sloka
> has two samAsa-s (compounds) in it, which are both nouns, referring to the
> paramparA.
> Whether the reading be madhyamAM or madhyagAM, that grammatical situation
> is not
> going to change. Contrary to your assertion in another post, "SankarAcAryaH
> madhyamaH"
> will never work in this context, again for purely grammatical reasons. That
> paramparA,
> which has SankarAcArya in the middle can only be SankarAcArya-madhyamA or
> it can
> be SankarAcArya-madhyagA. Whichever it is, the samAsa has to further take
> on an
> anusvAra at the end, as it an object of the verb vande, in the second line
> of
> the verse.
> Everything else that you have said is a mere flight of fancy. The supposed
> reference to
> bauddha madhyamaka-s is non-existent. The supposed reference to
> uttama-madhyama-
> adhama is also non-existent, given that the verse explicitly has
> Arambha-madhyama-
> paryanta. All I can add at this juncture is that a reading of any of the
> numerous textbooks
> on Sanskrit grammar along with a good Sanskrit dictionary would be
> beneficial.
> 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
> "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".
> P.S:I have also verified from a Vyakarana vachaspati,vidya bhushana
> T.S.Sathyanarayana from the oriental library in Mysore,that there is
> "Deshavaci"here,but only "sandharbha vaci'in context with the slokah.
> N.Srikanta.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list