sorry to add another 2 cents

[Guest guest]

Couldn't just a comma do it?

 

But it appears to be contextual, for while on tour He regularly ate

in homes of Vaisnavas of various sampradayas, whose sadhana did not

include extensive nama-japa.

 

Hare Krsna.

 

 

> > At 06:05 AM 11/1/2006 -0500, Jayadvaita Swami wrote:

> >

> > > >Referring to Lord Caitanya's statement that He only eats in homes of

> > > >persons who chant a lakh of holy names daily:

> > > >

> > > >"But it appears to be contextual, for while on tour He regularly ate

> > > >in homes of Vaisnavas of various sampradayas whose sadhana did not

> > > >include extensive nama-japa."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >I am informed that "and" is required after "sampradayas" [b/c "whose"

> > > >doesn't refer to sadhana]. Although admittedly I'm grammatically

> > > >challenged, this suggestion doesn't make any sense to me.

> >

> > Should say -- "sampradayas" [b/c "whose" doesn't refer to sampradayas].

> > Otherwise, as written, it certainly doesn't make any sense.

> >

> > I don't know -- Is it clear that what's meant is Vaisnavas whose

> > sadhana doesn't include a lot of japa? It appears that some will think

> > it's the sampradayas whose sadhana etc. But putting "and" before "whose"

> > doesn't solve the problem.

> >

> >

> > >To me neither.

>

> "...regularly ate in the homes of Vaisnavas -- of various sampradayas --

> whose sadhana did not include ... "

>

> maybe?

> > >

> > >

> > >--

> > >

> > >

> > >Version: 7.5.428 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date:

> > >10/31/2006 4:10 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >--

> > >

> > >

> > >Version: 7.5.428 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date:

> > >10/31/2006 4:10 PM

> >

> >

> > --

> >

> >

> > Version: 7.5.428 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date:

> > 10/31/2006 4:10 PM