Narasingh

 

Hi could anyone please translate the name David Wayne into hindi please, can you please do it in large font so i can print it out. Many thanks

 

Also the phrase forever love into hindi please

 

Thanks

Mandy

 

डैविड वैन

 

Originally Posted by guest

could anyone give me the translation for the name Brian in hindi script

 

ब्राइन

Upon review of the other posts by Mantravid, they are all phonetic renderings of english grammar into devanagari letterings. Just a consideration for those who need to know.

 

 

Thank you so much for this! Im getting this as a tattoo going down the back of my neck (spine) starting in the hairline area and will be about 5 inches or so.. Since it's not being done as a straight accross line is there a different way i should have it written? or is it even possible to have this saying going vertically down my neck? I really appreciate your time.

 

 

 

Annette, this is a phonetic translation and wont mean anything in sanskrit. It may be what you want, but I'd just want you to know for certain before you permanently put it on your body. As I said before, I cant render devanagari (Sanskrit) at the moment but, in Hindi, it would basically be, ghusa mein peeche pher ke nehi dekhna. Sanskrit would be very different though. The rendition by Mantravid says "don't lok bak in ungayr"...No offense, Mantravid... but as the saying goes, "Two sets of eyes are always better than one"

 

Hello,valleysgirl09

 

Here is the Sanskrit translation of Catherine Louse 24.06.1987:

 

अथेरिने ळोसे २४।०६।१९८७

Catherine Louse 24|06|1987

Mantravid, my computer is currently being repaired, and the one I'm currently using does not have the ability to render devanagari fonts. I wanted to ask you to re-assess this translation. I think there is a missing "ka" sound at the beginning of the first name and a questionable matra at the end of the last name. Perhaps valleysgirl09 can provide a phonetic rendition of this name since Devanagari is a phonetic alphabet whereas english is not.

Some sections feel that Jagannath, Baladeva, and Subhadra are in the process of going back to be with the Vrajabasis and are leaving their royal life behind.

Prasad, I truly appreciate the questions you have asked recently. They are valuable ones for all of us to consider.

I am surprised at your sanskar to ask such questions. Your last question was inspiring and so is this. You are a very fortunate person.

 

The Gita is filled with instruction regarding performing action and not being goaded by the possible results of our action. Krsna is persistent that one should come to this stage.

 

Bhagavan Krishna posseses all fortune. One aspect of that fortune is tyaga. Tyaga can only truly come from the heart, where forced tyaga is not really tyaga at all. Detachment is a sign of true wealth, for the need to acquire wealth only indicates a deficiency in it. The self-satisfied who is detached from needs is the wealthiest.

 

There is none who can posess self-satisfaction to a greater degree than Bhagavan Krishna. However, Krishna prescribes action, and performs action as well. He is Gopal, Giridhari...Yashodanandan.

 

Action without attachment to the results of action is truth. It is commonly said, "Never judge a book by its cover". This is because it is not what is on the outside that we can know something for what it truly is, but on the inside. Krishna is atma-rama so how can He not be Brahmachari. After all, the role of being a Brahmachari is to be atma-rama.

 

If one posesses wealth, what need is there to work? Work becomes play. Krishna already posesses detachment and self-satisfaction.

Krsna has the power to do anything including talking to us. However, He is emphatic on the fact that he is knowable through the Vedas.

 

 

vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

 

 

My question is, how has your Salvia-Divinorum induced trance agreed or disagreed with the realizations of the Vedas.

Congratulations Melvin1!

True prayaschit is found in changing one's ways and one's heart. One can chant mantras (which are good to do) but all mantras have a disclaimer that says one should not commit wrongful acts on the strengths of those mantras.

 

Please read this link and you'll find prayaschit in undertaking this.

Sri Gopala-sahasra-nama

Sin no more. Develop your consciousness to a higher state of Love. Repentance is natural and proper, for it is the shame felt in repentance which can give one the motivation to change their ways.

 

Often, physical, sexually-oriented activities are construed as acts of Love. However, as one dives deeper into the ocean of Love, one finds that this is only skin deep, lustful and a deficient way of expressing Love. Love knows no bounds, Lust goes as far as the skin.

 

Your shame and repentance show that you have great love for your sister, and the best thing you can do is to Love her more. Become great in your heart, and humble in your actions.

 

All the best to you and your sister.

 

Thank you Narasingh,

 

now I almost feel like" nashta moha, smruti labhda" Ignorance gone, knowledge gained.

_Prasad.

I almost feel the same way There is still so much more I can learn, realize, and do

 

I have only offered what I feel is true in my heart. As you can see, there are others who feel otherwise, particularly in respect to free will.

 

I understand that the jiva is elemental. It is what it is, in much the same way that gold is gold and iron is iron. Each has its own unique attributes and there is no malice in the creation of either one. If one could try to be the other, it would be out of character.

 

Our suffering is much like this. Suffering is simply being out of character. Sin is action which brings us out of character. That is all.

 

That is what I also thought. That is also the popular belief.

 

But yesterday when I was writing something about Rama in Sanskrit I was using रामः

So I checked the grammar part and got this doubt.

 

The avagraha : at the end of the words is generally used when the word is at the end of a stanza in Sanskrit. We rarely see the avagraha in Hindi or when the word is in the middle of a stanza in Sanskrit. It doesn't necessarily indicate a replacement of the आ matra though. It may also be a replacement for the अ matra.

can someon translate Andy Odisho to Hindi

ऐन्डी ओडिषो

 

Hi,

 

good evening, could anybody please translate "my son" for me?

thx you so much!!

मेर पुत्र

 

Gender of a Sanskrit noun

 

 

 

कृष्णः is male. कृष्ण is female. We do write रामः

Any Sanskrit pundit who can throw some light on this?

 

I'm no pundit, but I'm pretty sure you got the female version of Krsna different from the generally accepted way.

 

As I've understood... कृष्ण is the son of Yashoda and कृष्णा is the daughter of Draupada.

There is a beautiful prayer by Vidyapati which illustrates this sentiment:

 

 

Shri Vidyapati

madhava, bahuta minati kari taya

dei tulasi tila, deha samarpinu,

daya jani na chadabi moya (1)

O Madhava, with this offering of a tulasi leaf and sesame seeds, I beseech You and

pledge my body in Your service. I know Your compassion is such that You will not

reject me.

ganaite dosha, gunalesha na paobi,

jaba tuhu karabi vicara

tuhu jagannatha, jagate kahaosi,

jaga-bahira nahi mui chara (2)

While considering this appeal, You will only be able to count my faults. You will not

find even a trace of good qualities in me. You are known throughout the creation as

Jagannatha. Therefore do I, a worthless soul living within this universe, not have the

right to accept You as my master?

kiye manusha pashu-pakhi je janamiye,

athava kita-patange

karama vipake, gatagati punah punah,

mati rahu tuwa parasange (3)

Birth after birth, as a result of my karma, I repeatedly come and go, sometimes as a

human, sometimes as an animal and sometimes as a bird, worm or insect. But in

whatever birth I take, may my mind always remain fixed on Your narrations.

bhanaye vidyapati, atishaya katara,

taraite iha bhava-sindhu

tuwa pada-pallava, kari avalambana,

tila eka deha dina-bandhu (4)

With great remorse, the poet Vidyapati humbly prays, “O Madhava, O friend of the

fallen, please give this insignificant person shelter at the tender leaf of Your lotus feet.

In this way I may cross over this ocean of material existence.”

In as much as we want Him to take responsibility, He says He will. In Bhagavad Gita 9.22 He emphasizes this. The question is, do we truly want Him to take responsibility?

 

Of course, God is the creator, and everything that exists is part of Him. This includes the Jiva. The elements you mentioned above are elements which are provided by Him so we can enact our endeavors as being separate from Him.

 

If you quote from the Gita, don't neglect to include the references towards the permanence of the soul. Our sufferings are caused by the identification with material elements; such as earth, water, fire, air etc... and the sensual receptors which correspond with such elements.

 

As the saying goes, "If you love someone, set them free. If they love you, they will return." This is our relationship with God...

 

God has created the Jiva and endowed it with free will. Because of this endowment, He will not take away our free will. It is up to us, how we use this free will, and therefore it is not His responsibility...untill we offer our free will unto Him...

Are you using a mac or pc? The bengali font should be visible because it is unicode. I think Amlesh has a point and it should be easy to remedy. (Maybe just by going to the help section of your computer and searching for font problems.)

হরে কৃষ্ণ হরে কৃষ্ণ কৃষ্ণ কৃষ্ণ হরে হরে হরে রাম হরে রাম রাম রাম হরে হরে

A suggestion is to go to baraha.com and download the application (free) which will probably give you updates to your south asian fonts automatically.

 

 

 

 

Dear fellow devotees,

 

I understand that humans are creation of the almighty, created for the sake of his pleasure, and he plays with humans, as we play with toys.

so, how can the humans be responsible for their actions, suffer consequences of their sins etc, when every thing is planned and controlled by god? or are we free, and not under his control?-Prasad.

 

With some slight adjustment to your question I think you can harmonize it nicely.

 

Jivas (regardless of those in human bodies or otherwise) are a by-product of the pleasure of the Almighty, not necessarily created for His pleasure. The nature of the Jiva is similar to the Almighty, albiet to a smaller degree. There has often been used an analogy of a bonfire and a small spark of combustion. While it is only an analogy, incapable of giving the whole gist, it still serves as an idea for our constitution. As close as the small spark is to the bonfire, it has the same characteristics, ie. it produces warmth and effulgence, as though one with the fire, but when it is removed from the fire it lacks these features.

 

Your question presupposes that the Almighty created us to sin and suffer for His amuzement. First, however, we should try to clarify what the nature of sin and suffering is.

 

Our sin and suffering has its roots in the attempt to leave the influence of the fire and its radiance to try to set up our own individual radiance apart from the fire. In other words, to try to act as the Almighty and usurp His role for ours.

 

The Bhagavad Gita suggests that we have the right, constitutionally, to perform action, however, the Almighty, is the producer of the results of action. Where suffering comes into play is when the result is not to our satisfaction and we become depressed, jealous, or envious at seeing other Jivas obtaining results of their action to their liking.

 

When one sees the hand of God in the fruits of their undertaking, one has the choice to either be resentful or thankful for what they get.

 

We are only responsible for our actions which remove us from the radiance and warmth of the Almighty. Our responsibility is to our self in this regard, in that we can only meet suffering at the end of these actions, in that they aren't related to the Almighty. They are an attempt at disassociation from the Almighty.

 

So, in conclusion: Brahman is the basis of all consciousness. No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman. All individual consciousness, is a part or a specific conscious sub-set or projection or function or quality of Brahman. Nevertheless, the whole Brahman, is a conscious entity himself, called Vishnu, Krishna or God..

When you say, "No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman" are you including Bhagavan as a conscious entity?

 

I would say that there can be only one conscious entity who can be the basis of Brahman, and that would be Bhagavan.

Hear the mantra from the lips of a saintly person, and chant that mantra. That is the best

Mata (Mother), Pita (Father), and Bhagini (Sister)

माता, पिता, भगिनी

The point behind Valmiki was, I believe, his incapacity to say Rama in his past life. Narada asked him to say Rama but since he couldn't he was coaxed to say Mara over and over again. Narada's requesting him to say Hari Nam along with Valmiki's endeavor enabled him to realize his ulimate goal.

 

I think the point is that if one is trying to say the name of God, even if it is done improperly, there is still great benefit. At some point, it will be able to be done.