[Advaita-l] FW: Kingpin status of anubhava - mistaken or out ofcontext (was re:

[Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)]

My previous posting
(http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2007-May/019535.htm
l) got truncated for some reason. Here is the rest of it ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is clear that so far as publication dates are concerned,
there is really no problem anywhere. However, to understand this, one
has to realize that by the time we traverse from the quotation in Rama's
paper to the publication date of 1881, we are referring to different
books. If we do not keep in mind that at the point where the DLI
collection comes in, we have gone from a particular book (published in
1996) to a general set of books (with different publication dates), we
are going to get totally confused.

If at all there is to be any result of this discussion, it should be
that DLI needs to be made aware of the potential confusion in providing
publication dates on the search results page, if they do not specify the
era correctly. I should also point out that the book on kathaka
upanishad, which is given a date of 1885 in DLI's search results page,
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, one 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. 

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;
person B understands it 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 your clarity and resist the
temptation to make barbed comments about one another. I absolutely do
not like to sound so patronizing, but somehow, this 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