[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sri Tattva-muktavali
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Sri Tattva-muktavali
-
From: Raymond Crawford <dasa@ozemail.com.au>
-
Date: 20 Jul 1995 13:52:54 GMT
-
From root@oznet03.ozemail.com.au Thu Jul 20 09: 41:07 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Aumkara Productions
-
References: <3u4e67$7nt@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>In article <3tujba$7hu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Raymond Crawford <dasa@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps I am jumping the gun here, but I feel I have to say something.
>>to 1,000 years ago by Sriman Madhvacarya:". I just thought I would mention
>>this in passing as you are always berating others about being precice.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At this point I would like to offer my most humble apologies to Michael if my
response to his posting offended him. I could try to make excuses for my
behaviour, but they would only be excuses for what was bad behaviour on my part.
>>I am hopeing some other well versed Dvaitin will be so kind as to clarify
>this
>>point for Michael as we all know how much a stickler for correctness he is.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My reason for making the post was my concern that perhaps Michael had made am
error in attributing something to Madhva that may not be correct. I would
still really appreciate it if some one would correct me if my if my
understanding of who the author of the book quoted is wrong.
>Raymond, it's funny that you should accuse MT of such things, when you are the
>one who keeps posting your own personal (and usually inaccurate) versions of
>Gita verses everytime someone else posts verses from an authorized translation
>of the Gita. One would think you were trying to imply that your translations
>were somehow more correct.
>
>At least if your translations were accurate, I could accuse you of being the
>stickler for correctness. But then, maybe your problem with MT is that he
>likes being accurate and honest while you like pushing through with your own
>opinions. So, I guess that speaks more of envy on your part, does it not?
>
>-- HKS
My reason for posting my translations are to balance the translations that are
being quoted. After all, to see another translation of the same verse can
quite often make it much clearer and easier to understand. How often do we see
others pointing out the perceived inaccuracies in the verses you and Michael
quote. I am not stating my personal views on your translation, I am only
giving you, and anyone else who may be interested, an alternate choice.
By the way, I am wondering just what qualifications you have for making the
statement that my Geeta translations are innacurate while yours are not? I am
asking, in a non threatening manner, just what qualifications you have to be
able to say that *any* translation, other than the one you quote from, is
*authorised* or not?
>EDITOR'S NOTE: THIS IS THE LAST IN THIS SERIES OF PERSONAL ATTACKS ON BOTH
>THAT I WILL ACCEPT. PLEASE AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ALT.HINDU, HELP KEEP
>THE DISCUSSION ON THIS NEWSGROUP ON A HIGHER PLANE. THANK YOUR FOR YOUR
>COOPERATION ...AJAY SHAH
And now I would like to sincerely apologise to Mr Ajay Shah for any
inconvenience or upset I may have caused him in my postings. By nature I have
a "slightly" abrasive character and, if I rush in and say things I should not,
I hope he will take this into account and forgive me.
R
