Guest guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 , " Prabodh Vekhande " <amolmandar wrote: Dear Bhaskar Namaste Your problem is that you are a Neta! See you want everybody to react as you feel correct. You want to decide when how what should be reacted by every person. Intensity of the reaction will as well be decided by you. Now look at the chronology of events. 1)Shree Sreenadh tried to play with Valmiki Ramayana on his group. 2) It was brought to your notice by somebody 3) You and others started 'fighting' against sreenadh. Now lets see why did you react? According to you, since it was an attack on Hindu dharma and you being very truthful and faithful follower of Hindu dharma, had to fight back this. It may be true but I doubt. Nothing new about what Sreenadh wrote The kind of a translation Sreenadh did about Ramayana is not new at least to me . There were many attempts about creating controvery regarding birth of Rama. I remember similar kind of the translations on Hindu hatred sites. Gautam Buddha followers living in Maharashtra are very vocal about this. For many people, Hindu dharma itself is a big riddle. I live in a city where I have to solve this riddle and expalin this real Hindu dharma many times as we have many followers of Buddha here. Over the period of time I have realised that it is always better to avoid such people else they get undue attention and publicity as well. So for last few years I have been neglecting such people. It seems from your reaction that you( and few others as well) heard about this version(provided by Sreenadh) of birth of Rama for the first time. So possibly you reacted in this way. Zero Tolerance Since you and others were involved in fighting, I thought that you will possibly get a authentic copy of Ramayana and read actually the shlokas and learn to translate them as I did when first time we encountered similar situation. But you went for a bad short cut! You asked for the help, ofcourse under the pretext that by doing so you are saving Hindu dharma! Since you were saving Hindu dharma you had all rights to say anything about anybody! With this position of Hindu dharma Saver, you demanded(no request) translation of what you were not able to do yourself from Sanskrit scholars and as well invoked others to consider them as useless astrolgers if they dont comply to your demand. Perfect Netagiri! As a matter of fact you should have gone to this subject yourself and learned it and then gone for the fight. But that requires Time and good-natured tolerance of incompetence and possibly delay as well. Who are you and which political party? By the way every time I read " I am a secretary of big political party " Why are you hiding indentity of your big party? A true fighter and a Hindu neta will always disclose his party's identity. Being in Maharashtra for so many years, I know some good number of secretaries of big political parties of Maharashtra but I am sorry to say that I find no name starting with Bhaskar. It will be good if you give your full name as well or should I assume that you are hidding your identity? Do as demanded(in your style!) Write your full name, your current party's name, your position within current party, your all previous political party names and positions. As a Janta janardan I have right to know my Neta! Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > Bhai Sahab, > > This is heer waste of time having to reply > unnecessary mails. > > It is > people like you who create partitions in our Hindu religion > with caustic words towards ones brothers. > Not that my real brother would ever speak like this in a > disrespectful or derogatory manner ever to > his elders. > Aadmi ka class, culture and upbringing pata padta hai > uske abhinandan karne ke tareeke se. > Now abhinandan means " to address " . > > I have seen you adressing Sreenadh in your last > mail as " Sree Sreenadh ji " while > those who work for the cause of > Hindu religion in their own small way are addressed > otherwise. That is your class. > Check ever mail of mines addressed to you > and check ebvery mail of yours > addressed to me. Observe the difference. > And you are giving pravachans here. > > // he does not require my help to deal > with students like you. I wrote to you not because I > wanted to defend Chandrashekahrji but to make you > understand that Netagiri is not required all the time. > I have written what I know about Ramayana an..// > > You are mistaken if you think that you are the > only person who knows Sanskrit over here. Kabhi > kabhi bandar ko kaam nikalne ke liye babool ke > jhad par chadhana padta hai. > > My netagiri is better then the impotent > handicapped silence of you people , when your > Sanskrit knowledge was needed the most to sort > out the matters. But you remained silent, You > Pradeepji and Chandreskharji, like a person lying > in bossom of his sweetheart after he has spent away > and exhausted. > > You also told me in your last mail, that if I need help > I should approach Chandrasekjarji adn Pradeepji > politely. My Dear do I need help ? Dont we all > need help as Hindus when a person writes in that manner > the way it was done ? Did I need help , or did we all not > need help ? Why were you sleeping till > I specially worded my 2 mails for the purpose of > awakening you people for a joint cause. Was it > not your duty and your Guru Chandrasekharjis duty > to come out on their own, instead of being called ? > What use is a warriors knowledge of > weapons if it cannot come out when his female folks > are being tormented by abductors ? > > I am not interested in talking with Him, or neither with you. > I just want that with your weapons of knowledge you > should come forth and join a common cause > instead of sitting at home like a veiled women, when > most needed. > > Regarding of you calling me a " student " and saying that > You can handle a student like me, while Chandrasekharji > is not needed, You are grossly mistaken if you > think you people are fit to be my Gurus. > Student I will always be, eternally , but not > under people like you. > > Main na Vidwaan hone ka dhong karta hoon na > Gyaani hone ka dhong karta hoon, na aap logon ki > tarah Guru hone ka dhong karta hoon. > > I have always mantained I am a normal person > with normal plus or minus, aur Bhagwaan se > pyaar karta hoon. Bas sirf itna kahna hai. > > Aapse ek nivedan hai, agar apne aap ko Guru > kahlane ka shauk hai, to apne andar namrata laayiye. > Namrata ( Politeness) har Guru ka pratam (Primary) > Gahna (Jevar- jewellry) hota hai. > > I wish to say many more things to you lot, but > I am refraining, because you have been a good > part of this ussue by coming out with your > translation. > > All the best, and now leave me alone. > I do not wish to cause you anguish as you have caused > me by having to reply mails forced on me. > regards, > Bhaskar. > > > > > > - > Prabodh Vekhande > > Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:24 AM > Re: Calling Chandrasekhar and Pradeep > > > Dear Bhaskar Namaste > > >I appreciate Your Guru Bhakti,and remember that I too do > > respect them, in many areas, if not all, and you > > may please thank Shri Chandrasekharji on my behalf, > > because I am sure you must have written your mail > > in consultation with him. > > > > Again you are wrong. I dont consult Chandrashekhar ji for these > things. We respect each other and he does not require my help to deal > with students like you. I wrote to you not because I wanted to defend > Chandrashekahrji but to make you understand that Netagiri is not > required all the time. I have written what I know about Ramayana and > I really do not know whether Chandrahekhar ji accepts it or not. If > you want to talk to him just drop a mail to him personally or try to > get his mobile number. > > Vidwan ho to Gyani ban ke raho. > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce. > > Prabodh Vekhande > Jai Jai Shankar > Har Har Shankar > > - > > -- In , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Prabodh ji, > > > > Namaste. > > Just like the word " Day " cannot exist or have meaning > > without the word " Night " , in same way " happiness " cannot > > exists without the word " Sadness " , AND in the same > > way the word " Listen " cannot exist without the > > word " Noise " . I have to make noise for certain people > > to listen, for social cause. > > Anyway I am overlooking all your personal > > comments , and looking beyond these, > > because of the happiness you have given me by your > > mail. > > > > You have beautifully pointed out the mistakes in the > > translation by Sreenadh and your > > effort does guarantee a applaud from me.You have also > > pointed out the probable words which could have been > > placed instead , in the shlokas sounding the same, but > > yet the meaning would not come to what was written by > > this impudent fellow. This is great help. > > > > I was actually looking for aauthentic translation from > > the revered Sanskrit scholars. You may not > > believe but I do revere them (Pradeepji and Chandrasekharji) > > for whatever knowledge they possess. It is just that, > > it should coem forth when most needed, is why I wrote > > that mail. You have just provided the authentic > > translation which was needed for this purpose. > > > > Now because of this mail which you have sent, I have > > further proof of this chaps misguiding, twisting,and > > misinterprating the Sanskrit Shlokas towards > > achieving his perverted ends. I wish they (Chandrasekharji > > and Pradeepji ) had pointed out these purposeful errors > > on this chaps part, a few months ago, when I had pointed > > this out to the Forum members in his other translations. > > Because i do not have knowledge of Sanskrit, I could have > > done no better other than approaching you people. > > But better late than > > never. > > > > I appreciate Your Guru Bhakti,and remember that I too do > > respect them, in many areas, if not all, and you > > may please thank Shri Chandrasekharji on my behalf, > > because I am sure you must have written your mail > > in consultation with him. > > > > Thanks once again, > > > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Prabodh Vekhande " > > <amolmandar@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar Namaste > > > > > > As always you are creating unwanted noise. If you feel that > > > Chandrashekhar ji or pradeep ji should react to this issue then > you > > > should be more polite. After all you can not tell others what > they > > > should think about these two people. Please limit to your mails > to > > > yourself and to those who are ready to talk to you. > > > > > > Shree Shreenadhs shlokas and translation are wrong. One of the > shloka > > > is very wrong and translation of all most all the shlokas is > > > absolutly wrong. > > > > > > Shloka 33 reads like this > > > > > > Kausalya tam Hayam Tatra SamantataH | > > > KrupaNairVisasarainam TribhiH paramaya muda ||33|| > > > > > > Meaning: > > > Kausalya reverently did the Pradakshina to the horse and touched > > > three times with three knife without actually killing the horse. > > > > > > Shloka 34 > > > > > > PatattriNa sada sardhya susthitena cha chetasa | > > > avasad Rajanim Ekam Kausalya DharmaKamyaya || 34|| > > > > > > Meaning: > > > FOr one night along with Kausalya other queens with composed > state of > > > mind to get desired results performed Seva of the horse. > > > > > > In this shloka there is no mention of Sambhoga or sleeping with > > > horse. But in the next shloka Valmiki explains how that seva is > done. > > > > > > The shloka given by sreenadh uses the word " Hastena Samayojana " > that > > > is wrong and it should be " Hayena Samayojana " . Samayojana means > > > giving protection. Many have translated as copulation and that is > why > > > there is a problem. > > > > > > The shloka goes like this > > > > > > Hotadharwyusthaudgata Hayena Samayojan | > > > Mahisya parivrutyatha vavatamparam thatha ||35|| > > > > > > Meaning: > > > Hota adwaryu and udgata ask Kausalya(Mahishya PattaRani) and > other > > > queens(Parivruti) to protect the Ashwa. > > > > > > So there is no reference of Kausalya and others sleeping with > Ashwa > > > if you do not want to create controversy. Even if we take > Hastena > > > instead of Hayena, still what sreenadh says is not correct. > > > > > > I hope that is good enough to read Valmiki Ramayana in correct > sense. > > > It is really very difficult to read and understand Valmiki > Ramanaya > > > as compared to other Ramayana versions. > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce. > > > > > > Prabodh Vekhande > > > Jai Jai Shankar > > > Har Har Shankar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > What happened ? No reply from the Sanskrit scholars ? Uptil now > > > they were > > > > giving us lengthy discourses on Sanskrit shlokas and > translations to > > > > prove what ? > > > > What is the use of their Sanskrit knowledge, when at such > times, it > > > is > > > > not coming > > > > forth to clear matters ? > > > > If people like me who are Non-Sanksrit knowers (I do not know > abcd > > > of > > > > Sanskrit), > > > > can talk, then why cannot you ? > > > > Sanskrit knowledge which cannot come to aid of its Mother > Source- > > > > the Vedas, the Hindu religion and the Shastras, then what > > > > is the use of this Sanskrit knowledge ? The cobblers of > Tamilnadu- > > > Chennai > > > > who cannot understand a word of Hindi, when you ask them > > > > how much to pay, after they have stitched a torn Slipper > > > > or shoes, are much better than such self ordained Sanskrit > > > > shcolars. At least the Cobblers are doing their Karma where > > > required . > > > > > > > > I knew these mascots and jokers of their games long back, but > > > > somehow cannot believe that they will stoop so low > > > > as not to come when help is asked for. Empty vessels > > > > who have been making the most noise with nothing > > > > much ado in their kitties. > > > > > > > > I request the other Sanskrit knowers to please translate the > > > > shlokas in Sreenadhs article and let us know, what > > > > is the exact meaning of the verses, which he has translated > > > > as (Kaushalya xxxxxxxxxxxxxx). If you can translate > > > > it properly then we become stronger in fighting this > > > > impudent person. Because I think I know what the shloka > > > > means exactly. I just wish some Sanskrit knower to accentuate > > > > what little knowledge I have derived. > > > > > > > > The other pseudo fakes professing their knowledge of > > > > Sanskrit would also be exposes eventually. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Calling Chandrasekhar and Pradeep--------- > > > > > > > > > > These great sanskrit scholars as they professed themselves to > be, > > > > > I call upon them, to please translate the Sanskrit shloka of > > > Valmiki > > > > > Ramayana, > > > > > which Sreendah has translated as " Kaushalya has sexual > > > intercourse with > > > > > the horse and slept with it for one night, and so did the > other > > > wives of > > > > > Dashrath " : > > > > > > > > > > Is that shloka from Valmiki Ramayana, I ask them ? > > > > > If so, then is it meant in the shloka that kaushalya had > > > > > sex with the horse ? If so then which Sanskrit > > > > > equivalent words are there in the shloka to indicate this ? > > > > > > > > > > If Chandrashekhar and Pradeep do not reply this, > > > > > then I ask all the members > > > > > to remove the scholarly image of > > > > > them from their hearts > > > > > and consider them as Impostors and third class > > > > > astrologers, and nothing else. > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep is a friend of Sreenadh, so must have sold himself > > > > > to him, but I hope Chandrasekhar is not sold yet, and will > tell > > > > > us the truth. > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Prabodh Vekhande " > <amolmandar@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar Namaste > > > > >I appreciate Your Guru Bhakti,and remember that I too do > > > respect them, in many areas, if not all, and you > > > may please thank Shri Chandrasekharji on my behalf, > > > because I am sure you must have written your mail > > > in consultation with him. > > > > > > > Again you are wrong. I dont consult Chandrashekhar ji for these > > things. We respect each other and he does not require my help to deal > > with students like you. I wrote to you not because I wanted to defend > > Chandrashekahrji but to make you understand that Netagiri is not > > required all the time. I have written what I know about Ramayana and > > I really do not know whether Chandrahekhar ji accepts it or not. If > > you want to talk to him just drop a mail to him personally or try to > > get his mobile number. > > > > Vidwan ho to Gyani ban ke raho. > > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce. > > > > Prabodh Vekhande > > Jai Jai Shankar > > Har Har Shankar > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > -- In , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Prabodh ji, > > > > > > Namaste. > > > Just like the word " Day " cannot exist or have meaning > > > without the word " Night " , in same way " happiness " cannot > > > exists without the word " Sadness " , AND in the same > > > way the word " Listen " cannot exist without the > > > word " Noise " . I have to make noise for certain people > > > to listen, for social cause. > > > Anyway I am overlooking all your personal > > > comments , and looking beyond these, > > > because of the happiness you have given me by your > > > mail. > > > > > > You have beautifully pointed out the mistakes in the > > > translation by Sreenadh and your > > > effort does guarantee a applaud from me.You have also > > > pointed out the probable words which could have been > > > placed instead , in the shlokas sounding the same, but > > > yet the meaning would not come to what was written by > > > this impudent fellow. This is great help. > > > > > > I was actually looking for aauthentic translation from > > > the revered Sanskrit scholars. You may not > > > believe but I do revere them (Pradeepji and Chandrasekharji) > > > for whatever knowledge they possess. It is just that, > > > it should coem forth when most needed, is why I wrote > > > that mail. You have just provided the authentic > > > translation which was needed for this purpose. > > > > > > Now because of this mail which you have sent, I have > > > further proof of this chaps misguiding, twisting,and > > > misinterprating the Sanskrit Shlokas towards > > > achieving his perverted ends. I wish they (Chandrasekharji > > > and Pradeepji ) had pointed out these purposeful errors > > > on this chaps part, a few months ago, when I had pointed > > > this out to the Forum members in his other translations. > > > Because i do not have knowledge of Sanskrit, I could have > > > done no better other than approaching you people. > > > But better late than > > > never. > > > > > > I appreciate Your Guru Bhakti,and remember that I too do > > > respect them, in many areas, if not all, and you > > > may please thank Shri Chandrasekharji on my behalf, > > > because I am sure you must have written your mail > > > in consultation with him. > > > > > > Thanks once again, > > > > > > regards, > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Prabodh Vekhande " > > > <amolmandar@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar Namaste > > > > > > > > As always you are creating unwanted noise. If you feel that > > > > Chandrashekhar ji or pradeep ji should react to this issue then > > you > > > > should be more polite. After all you can not tell others what > > they > > > > should think about these two people. Please limit to your mails > > to > > > > yourself and to those who are ready to talk to you. > > > > > > > > Shree Shreenadhs shlokas and translation are wrong. One of the > > shloka > > > > is very wrong and translation of all most all the shlokas is > > > > absolutly wrong. > > > > > > > > Shloka 33 reads like this > > > > > > > > Kausalya tam Hayam Tatra SamantataH | > > > > KrupaNairVisasarainam TribhiH paramaya muda ||33|| > > > > > > > > Meaning: > > > > Kausalya reverently did the Pradakshina to the horse and touched > > > > three times with three knife without actually killing the horse. > > > > > > > > Shloka 34 > > > > > > > > PatattriNa sada sardhya susthitena cha chetasa | > > > > avasad Rajanim Ekam Kausalya DharmaKamyaya || 34|| > > > > > > > > Meaning: > > > > FOr one night along with Kausalya other queens with composed > > state of > > > > mind to get desired results performed Seva of the horse. > > > > > > > > In this shloka there is no mention of Sambhoga or sleeping with > > > > horse. But in the next shloka Valmiki explains how that seva is > > done. > > > > > > > > The shloka given by sreenadh uses the word " Hastena Samayojana " > > that > > > > is wrong and it should be " Hayena Samayojana " . Samayojana means > > > > giving protection. Many have translated as copulation and that is > > why > > > > there is a problem. > > > > > > > > The shloka goes like this > > > > > > > > Hotadharwyusthaudgata Hayena Samayojan | > > > > Mahisya parivrutyatha vavatamparam thatha ||35|| > > > > > > > > Meaning: > > > > Hota adwaryu and udgata ask Kausalya(Mahishya PattaRani) and > > other > > > > queens(Parivruti) to protect the Ashwa. > > > > > > > > So there is no reference of Kausalya and others sleeping with > > Ashwa > > > > if you do not want to create controversy. Even if we take > > Hastena > > > > instead of Hayena, still what sreenadh says is not correct. > > > > > > > > I hope that is good enough to read Valmiki Ramayana in correct > > sense. > > > > It is really very difficult to read and understand Valmiki > > Ramanaya > > > > as compared to other Ramayana versions. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce. > > > > > > > > Prabodh Vekhande > > > > Jai Jai Shankar > > > > Har Har Shankar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What happened ? No reply from the Sanskrit scholars ? Uptil now > > > > they were > > > > > giving us lengthy discourses on Sanskrit shlokas and > > translations to > > > > > prove what ? > > > > > What is the use of their Sanskrit knowledge, when at such > > times, it > > > > is > > > > > not coming > > > > > forth to clear matters ? > > > > > If people like me who are Non-Sanksrit knowers (I do not know > > abcd > > > > of > > > > > Sanskrit), > > > > > can talk, then why cannot you ? > > > > > Sanskrit knowledge which cannot come to aid of its Mother > > Source- > > > > > the Vedas, the Hindu religion and the Shastras, then what > > > > > is the use of this Sanskrit knowledge ? The cobblers of > > Tamilnadu- > > > > Chennai > > > > > who cannot understand a word of Hindi, when you ask them > > > > > how much to pay, after they have stitched a torn Slipper > > > > > or shoes, are much better than such self ordained Sanskrit > > > > > shcolars. At least the Cobblers are doing their Karma where > > > > required . > > > > > > > > > > I knew these mascots and jokers of their games long back, but > > > > > somehow cannot believe that they will stoop so low > > > > > as not to come when help is asked for. Empty vessels > > > > > who have been making the most noise with nothing > > > > > much ado in their kitties. > > > > > > > > > > I request the other Sanskrit knowers to please translate the > > > > > shlokas in Sreenadhs article and let us know, what > > > > > is the exact meaning of the verses, which he has translated > > > > > as (Kaushalya xxxxxxxxxxxxxx). If you can translate > > > > > it properly then we become stronger in fighting this > > > > > impudent person. Because I think I know what the shloka > > > > > means exactly. I just wish some Sanskrit knower to accentuate > > > > > what little knowledge I have derived. > > > > > > > > > > The other pseudo fakes professing their knowledge of > > > > > Sanskrit would also be exposes eventually. > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Calling Chandrasekhar and Pradeep--------- > > > > > > > > > > > > These great sanskrit scholars as they professed themselves to > > be, > > > > > > I call upon them, to please translate the Sanskrit shloka of > > > > Valmiki > > > > > > Ramayana, > > > > > > which Sreendah has translated as " Kaushalya has sexual > > > > intercourse with > > > > > > the horse and slept with it for one night, and so did the > > other > > > > wives of > > > > > > Dashrath " : > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that shloka from Valmiki Ramayana, I ask them ? > > > > > > If so, then is it meant in the shloka that kaushalya had > > > > > > sex with the horse ? If so then which Sanskrit > > > > > > equivalent words are there in the shloka to indicate this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > If Chandrashekhar and Pradeep do not reply this, > > > > > > then I ask all the members > > > > > > to remove the scholarly image of > > > > > > them from their hearts > > > > > > and consider them as Impostors and third class > > > > > > astrologers, and nothing else. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep is a friend of Sreenadh, so must have sold himself > > > > > > to him, but I hope Chandrasekhar is not sold yet, and will > > tell > > > > > > us the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.