Guest guest Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Dear Bhaskar Ji, Pls. apply ur common sense, some body put shloka in valmiki ramayana and it's continued as there is no authority to check what is original content of our scriptures. we are such a careless community, we remember our gods when we need their blessings otherwise we have our business to keep us engaged. this weakness in ourselves allows srinadh like people to make fun of our culture and classics as he has his own motives and he has changed his faith, he is marketting himself. regards, Lalit. , " 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Bhaskar ji, I have forwarded ur mail to chandrashekhar Ji, I sure he will reply soon, he checks his mails after midnight. pls. wait. regards, Lalit. , " 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Dear Bhaskar, To start with, the episode of Aswamedha Yaga by Dasaratha is a later inclusion. If you read balakanda you will easily understand this because after the aswamedha and confirmation by R'shringa who has conducted the yajna, suddenly they will think of Putrakameshti out of blue and there is no link between these two yajnas. In fact, Aswamedha is not a fertility exercise as imagined by sheenadh but is done for the expansion of one's kingdom(Aswat= expanse) (note that the balakanda with the meanings is available on the net. Kindly refer there) Secondly, you would do well to understand that some of the rituals, even if they exist are purely symbolic in nature. For eg., even if we assume that the chief queen has spent the night with the dead horse, it is merely symbolic with the queen merely spending her night in the yajna sala. the yajna salas of those days are large halls built in acres and acres of place. If it is to accommodate three hundred animals for sacrifce, imagine how big the yagna sala should be. So, obviously Kausalya spent the night in the yajna sala in which the corpse of the horse was lying. It is your modern brains's wild imagination that she 'slept with the horse' In fact, some of the sites go to the extent to say that the chief queen has to undergo intercourse with the dead horse even as the other queens keep abusing her all the way. All this is pretty nonsense and the scriptures, the vedas or Ramayan or whatever you want to refer, do not support all this modern imaginations. You are making me do bad karma by making me recount all this but if you read an article in boloji.com, you would understand the heights of the imagination. The author rejects all that is given in the Ramayan and crates his own story and according to him, Rshringa is the father of Rama. Obviously, all this is pretty useless stuff to discuss. Let us discuss something positive, even if it does not pertain to astrology. Hinduism did not die in spite of concerted efforts by great intellectuals like Max Mueller and these efforts were on from the time of Krishna, whose cousin is a Jain muni and that is why Jains hate krishna. He has appropriated all the fame that should have belonged to the Jains! So if all these great efforts of people who are much more knowledgeable, intelligent and committed than these modern guys could not bring about the ruin of Sanatana dharma, do you think these people can bring about its fall? No never, Think positively and do something for the expansion of your mother religon and stop fidgeting about the nonsense uttered by these midgets. regards, Kishore patnaik On 10/29/07, litsol <litsol wrote: > > Bhaskar ji, > > I have forwarded ur mail to chandrashekhar Ji, I sure he will reply > soon, he checks his mails after midnight. > > pls. wait. > > regards, > Lalit. > > > <%40>, > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > " 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. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Dear Lalit, There is no need for anyone to apply common sense or any type of sense. It is pretty well understood that Valmiki is not going to write such gutter language. even a small child born recently in our Hindu Dharma knows this. It is also well understood now after speaking with few people, that this fellow sreenadh is just looking for marketing his wares (Books) and wants to become famous at our cost, so that the minority section would buy his stuff, out of curiosity, and he will have money coming home, which otherwise he cannot earn through hard work and honesty. Our community needs God most of the time when it needs blessing is a general statement which I agree, we are weak, is also what I agree to. We are weak when we do not oppose such people or do not have powers to send such persons to hell where their place rightly is. We are weak when we do not unite and have our own differences and each going his own way, instead of forming a strong force to face the tormentors. regards, Bhaskar. , " litsol " <litsol wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar Ji, > > Pls. apply ur common sense, some body put shloka in valmiki ramayana > and it's continued as there is no authority to check what is original > content of our scriptures. we are such a careless community, we > remember our gods when we need their blessings otherwise we have our > business to keep us engaged. > > this weakness in ourselves allows srinadh like people to make fun of > our culture and classics as he has his own motives and he has changed > his faith, he is marketting himself. > > regards, > Lalit. > , " 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Sir, I m with u, always ! regards, Lalit. , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Lalit, > > There is no need for anyone to apply common > sense or any type of sense. It is pretty well > understood that Valmiki is not going to write > such gutter language. even a small child > born recently in our Hindu Dharma knows this. > It is also well understood now after speaking > with few people, that this fellow sreenadh > is just looking for marketing his wares (Books) > and wants to become famous at our cost, so that > the minority section would buy his stuff, > out of curiosity, and he will have money > coming home, which otherwise he cannot earn > through hard work and honesty. > Our community needs God most of the time > when it needs blessing is a general > statement which I agree, we are weak, > is also what I agree to. > We are weak when we do not oppose such people > or do not have powers to send such persons to > hell where their place rightly is. > We are weak when we do not unite and have our own > differences and each going > his own way, instead of forming a strong force > to face the tormentors. > > regards, > Bhaskar. > > , " litsol " <litsol@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar Ji, > > > > Pls. apply ur common sense, some body put shloka in valmiki ramayana > > and it's continued as there is no authority to check what is original > > content of our scriptures. we are such a careless community, we > > remember our gods when we need their blessings otherwise we have our > > business to keep us engaged. > > > > this weakness in ourselves allows srinadh like people to make fun of > > our culture and classics as he has his own motives and he has changed > > his faith, he is marketting himself. > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " 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. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Dear Kishoreji, I have already mentioned about the Yagna related to Ashwa, in one of the nails given to the largest Forum on astrology, but it has not been allowed on the Board since last 4 days. Though the owner knows and respects me, but it seems he is not sure due to my Fiery language in the mail. I have clearly mentioned " merely sleeping with a horse " in a Yagna due to rituals does not imply having sex with the horse, as that idiot has written. same way, when someone mentions that " the boy slept with his mother that day " , or " the brother and sister slept under the tree that night " does not imply otherwise. This tatamounts to twisting the language as per ones own dirty mind , to make it look spectacular. I am not making You do a bad karma, on the contrary you are doing a good karma by keeping the fire alive in Your hearts. Dealing with this small midget also in my dictionary, relates to doing something for my religion.I am already doing few other things for my religion which would not look good if I recount here. God knows, is enough for me. Your mail is very positive though. You have mentioned the absolute truth, none can bring down this religions downfall. Thank You. I appreciate your affections and love for the same. regards, Bhaskar. , " kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar, > > To start with, the episode of Aswamedha Yaga by Dasaratha is a later > inclusion. If you read balakanda > you will easily understand this because after the aswamedha and confirmation > by R'shringa who has conducted the yajna, suddenly they will think of > Putrakameshti out of blue and there is no link between > these two yajnas. In fact, Aswamedha is not a fertility exercise as > imagined by sheenadh but is done for the expansion of one's kingdom(Aswat= > expanse) (note that the balakanda with the meanings is available on the net. > Kindly refer there) > > Secondly, you would do well to understand that some of the rituals, even if > they exist are purely symbolic in > nature. For eg., even if we assume that the chief queen has spent the night > with the dead horse, it is merely symbolic with the queen merely spending > her night in the yajna sala. the yajna salas of those days are large halls > built in acres and acres of place. If it is to accommodate three hundred > animals for sacrifce, imagine how big the yagna sala should be. So, > obviously Kausalya spent the night in the yajna sala in which the corpse of > the horse was lying. It is your modern brains's wild imagination that she > 'slept with the horse' In fact, some of the sites go to the extent to say > that the chief queen has to undergo intercourse with the dead horse even as > the other queens keep abusing her all the way. > > All this is pretty nonsense and the scriptures, the vedas or Ramayan or > whatever you want to refer, do not support all this modern imaginations. > > You are making me do bad karma by making me recount all this but if you > read an article in boloji.com, you would understand the heights of the > imagination. The author rejects all that is given in the Ramayan and crates > his own story and according to him, Rshringa is the father of Rama. > Obviously, all this is pretty useless stuff to discuss. Let us discuss > something positive, even if it does not pertain to astrology. > > Hinduism did not die in spite of concerted efforts by great intellectuals > like Max Mueller and these efforts were on from the time of Krishna, whose > cousin is a Jain muni and that is why Jains hate krishna. He has > appropriated all the fame that should have belonged to the Jains! > > So if all these great efforts of people who are much more knowledgeable, > intelligent and committed than these modern guys could not bring about the > ruin of Sanatana dharma, do you think these people can bring about its fall? > > > No never, > > Think positively and do something for the expansion of your mother religon > and stop fidgeting about the nonsense uttered by these midgets. > > regards, > > Kishore patnaik > > > On 10/29/07, litsol <litsol wrote: > > > > Bhaskar ji, > > > > I have forwarded ur mail to chandrashekhar Ji, I sure he will reply > > soon, he checks his mails after midnight. > > > > pls. wait. > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > > > <%40>, > > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 , " litsol " <litsol wrote: > > Sir, Dear Lalitji, My plan was to bring in Pradeepji and Chandrasekharji, and translate the shlokas for us, if positive then good for us, if negative translation favouring the idiot then we could have easily said, what these Sanskrit scholars had said a few months ago, that if verses from Parashar or other astrological shastras are not complete and genuine, then how can we treat those from Valmiki Ramayana available today as genuine. But you have already said this before I could make them say it. regards, Bhaskar. > > I m with u, always ! > > regards, > Lalit. > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > There is no need for anyone to apply common > > sense or any type of sense. It is pretty well > > understood that Valmiki is not going to write > > such gutter language. even a small child > > born recently in our Hindu Dharma knows this. > > It is also well understood now after speaking > > with few people, that this fellow sreenadh > > is just looking for marketing his wares (Books) > > and wants to become famous at our cost, so that > > the minority section would buy his stuff, > > out of curiosity, and he will have money > > coming home, which otherwise he cannot earn > > through hard work and honesty. > > Our community needs God most of the time > > when it needs blessing is a general > > statement which I agree, we are weak, > > is also what I agree to. > > We are weak when we do not oppose such people > > or do not have powers to send such persons to > > hell where their place rightly is. > > We are weak when we do not unite and have our own > > differences and each going > > his own way, instead of forming a strong force > > to face the tormentors. > > > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " litsol " <litsol@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar Ji, > > > > > > Pls. apply ur common sense, some body put shloka in valmiki > ramayana > > > and it's continued as there is no authority to check what is > original > > > content of our scriptures. we are such a careless community, we > > > remember our gods when we need their blessings otherwise we have > our > > > business to keep us engaged. > > > > > > this weakness in ourselves allows srinadh like people to make fun > of > > > our culture and classics as he has his own motives and he has > changed > > > his faith, he is marketting himself. > > > > > > regards, > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 dear bhaskar, nice that you have not taken me amiss. regards, Kishore patnaik 98492 70729 On 10/29/07, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Kishoreji, > > I have already mentioned about the Yagna related to Ashwa, in one of > the nails given to the largest Forum on astrology, but it has not > been allowed on the Board since last 4 days. Though the owner knows > and respects me, but it seems he is not sure due to my Fiery language > in the mail. I have clearly mentioned " merely sleeping with a horse " > in a Yagna due to rituals does not imply having sex with the horse, as > that idiot has written. same way, when someone mentions that " the boy > slept with his mother that day " , or " the brother and sister slept > under the tree that night " does not imply otherwise. This tatamounts > to twisting the language as per ones own dirty mind , to make > it look spectacular. > > I am not making You do a bad karma, on the contrary you are doing a > good karma by keeping the fire alive in Your hearts. Dealing with this > small midget also in my dictionary, relates to doing something for my > religion.I am already doing few other things for my religion which > would not look good if I recount here. God knows, is enough for me. > > Your mail is very positive though. You have mentioned the absolute > truth, none can bring down this religions downfall. > Thank You. I appreciate your affections and love for the same. > > regards, > Bhaskar. > > <%40>, > " kishore patnaik " > > <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar, > > > > To start with, the episode of Aswamedha Yaga by Dasaratha is a later > > inclusion. If you read balakanda > > you will easily understand this because after the aswamedha and > confirmation > > by R'shringa who has conducted the yajna, suddenly they will think of > > Putrakameshti out of blue and there is no link between > > these two yajnas. In fact, Aswamedha is not a fertility exercise as > > imagined by sheenadh but is done for the expansion of one's > kingdom(Aswat= > > expanse) (note that the balakanda with the meanings is available on > the net. > > Kindly refer there) > > > > Secondly, you would do well to understand that some of the rituals, > even if > > they exist are purely symbolic in > > nature. For eg., even if we assume that the chief queen has spent > the night > > with the dead horse, it is merely symbolic with the queen merely > spending > > her night in the yajna sala. the yajna salas of those days are large > halls > > built in acres and acres of place. If it is to accommodate three > hundred > > animals for sacrifce, imagine how big the yagna sala should be. So, > > obviously Kausalya spent the night in the yajna sala in which the > corpse of > > the horse was lying. It is your modern brains's wild imagination > that she > > 'slept with the horse' In fact, some of the sites go to the extent > to say > > that the chief queen has to undergo intercourse with the dead horse > even as > > the other queens keep abusing her all the way. > > > > All this is pretty nonsense and the scriptures, the vedas or Ramayan or > > whatever you want to refer, do not support all this modern imaginations. > > > > You are making me do bad karma by making me recount all this but if you > > read an article in boloji.com, you would understand the heights of the > > imagination. The author rejects all that is given in the Ramayan and > crates > > his own story and according to him, Rshringa is the father of Rama. > > Obviously, all this is pretty useless stuff to discuss. Let us discuss > > something positive, even if it does not pertain to astrology. > > > > Hinduism did not die in spite of concerted efforts by great > intellectuals > > like Max Mueller and these efforts were on from the time of Krishna, > whose > > cousin is a Jain muni and that is why Jains hate krishna. He has > > appropriated all the fame that should have belonged to the Jains! > > > > So if all these great efforts of people who are much more knowledgeable, > > intelligent and committed than these modern guys could not bring > about the > > ruin of Sanatana dharma, do you think these people can bring about > its fall? > > > > > > No never, > > > > Think positively and do something for the expansion of your mother > religon > > and stop fidgeting about the nonsense uttered by these midgets. > > > > regards, > > > > Kishore patnaik > > > > > > On 10/29/07, litsol <litsol wrote: > > > > > > Bhaskar ji, > > > > > > I have forwarded ur mail to chandrashekhar Ji, I sure he will reply > > > soon, he checks his mails after midnight. > > > > > > pls. wait. > > > > > > regards, > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > <%40><%40>, > > > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > <%40>, > > > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 dear bhaskar, if one is trying to sell books through such cheap gimmicks, please understand that you will neither be acdepted by hindus or the minority. On 10/29/07, litsol <litsol wrote: > > Sir, > > I m with u, always ! > > > regards, > Lalit. > > <%40>, > " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish > wrote: > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > There is no need for anyone to apply common > > sense or any type of sense. It is pretty well > > understood that Valmiki is not going to write > > such gutter language. even a small child > > born recently in our Hindu Dharma knows this. > > It is also well understood now after speaking > > with few people, that this fellow sreenadh > > is just looking for marketing his wares (Books) > > and wants to become famous at our cost, so that > > the minority section would buy his stuff, > > out of curiosity, and he will have money > > coming home, which otherwise he cannot earn > > through hard work and honesty. > > Our community needs God most of the time > > when it needs blessing is a general > > statement which I agree, we are weak, > > is also what I agree to. > > We are weak when we do not oppose such people > > or do not have powers to send such persons to > > hell where their place rightly is. > > We are weak when we do not unite and have our own > > differences and each going > > his own way, instead of forming a strong force > > to face the tormentors. > > > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > " litsol " <litsol@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar Ji, > > > > > > Pls. apply ur common sense, some body put shloka in valmiki > ramayana > > > and it's continued as there is no authority to check what is > original > > > content of our scriptures. we are such a careless community, we > > > remember our gods when we need their blessings otherwise we have > our > > > business to keep us engaged. > > > > > > this weakness in ourselves allows srinadh like people to make fun > of > > > our culture and classics as he has his own motives and he has > changed > > > his faith, he is marketting himself. > > > > > > regards, > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Right. He should have that much sense to understand this. For temporary gains he would be boycotted from his own society and community become a Pariah and would befriend only dushtatmas. Above and all, he would fall out of favour from God, and good Bhagya. regards/Bhaskar. , " kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > dear bhaskar, > > if one is trying to sell books through such cheap gimmicks, please > understand that you will neither be > acdepted by hindus or the minority. > > On 10/29/07, litsol <litsol wrote: > > > > Sir, > > > > I m with u, always ! > > > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > <%40>, > > " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > > > There is no need for anyone to apply common > > > sense or any type of sense. It is pretty well > > > understood that Valmiki is not going to write > > > such gutter language. even a small child > > > born recently in our Hindu Dharma knows this. > > > It is also well understood now after speaking > > > with few people, that this fellow sreenadh > > > is just looking for marketing his wares (Books) > > > and wants to become famous at our cost, so that > > > the minority section would buy his stuff, > > > out of curiosity, and he will have money > > > coming home, which otherwise he cannot earn > > > through hard work and honesty. > > > Our community needs God most of the time > > > when it needs blessing is a general > > > statement which I agree, we are weak, > > > is also what I agree to. > > > We are weak when we do not oppose such people > > > or do not have powers to send such persons to > > > hell where their place rightly is. > > > We are weak when we do not unite and have our own > > > differences and each going > > > his own way, instead of forming a strong force > > > to face the tormentors. > > > > > > regards, > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > > " litsol " <litsol@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar Ji, > > > > > > > > Pls. apply ur common sense, some body put shloka in valmiki > > ramayana > > > > and it's continued as there is no authority to check what is > > original > > > > content of our scriptures. we are such a careless community, we > > > > remember our gods when we need their blessings otherwise we have > > our > > > > business to keep us engaged. > > > > > > > > this weakness in ourselves allows srinadh like people to make fun > > of > > > > our culture and classics as he has his own motives and he has > > changed > > > > his faith, he is marketting himself. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > > " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 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. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 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. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Prabodh Ji and Bhaskar Ji, Namaskaar, Pls. remove misunderstandings between you two, Bhaskar ji pls. admit prabodh ji has provided authentic interpretition of the shloka, pls. send this interpretition to that cheap idiot srinadh. Prabodh Ji, you also pls. admit that Bhaskar ji had no personal issues or gains behind calling Sri Chandrashekhar Ji, he did for a purpose like rama took birth in treta. Pls. admit that there is no value of knowledge if a person has no courage to act in line of the knowledge. if a person has no inspiration to stand against Ravana like elements after reading Ramayana, his knowledge is good for nothing. regards, Lalit. , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Dear Shri Bhaskar I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace on a few stanzas..nothing more) Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of us. There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will continue to do so. Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You may address me as you wish. Kind Regds Pradeep , " 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Mr. Pradeep, It's not that plain, if we have not made noise, he w'd not have deleted the file in which he deliberately changed the interpretition. When it's not required u r replying in the group, I m angry at you. Why knowledge makes people diplomatic. That's some classics say - " Gyanam Bandhanam " is it this what u have learnt lap of mata amriytananda mai. you are worried for degrading of Sri ChandraShekhar Ji, who is like a guru for me, but, you failed to show same sentiments when Valmiki and Ramayana's degradion was being done. It's true there are stages of evolution !! ~Lalit. , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Shri Bhaskar > > I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor > in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these > appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class > astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an > expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the > past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace > on a few stanzas..nothing more) > > Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to > interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of > tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl > we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and > create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a > child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol > of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real > horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless > nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of > us. > > There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of > religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are > the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma > Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i > am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. > > Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will > continue to do so. > > Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You > may address me as you wish. > > Kind Regds > Pradeep > > , " 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Dear Shri Pradeepji, You people come like the Police in Hindi movies when the crime has already been committed and the villains run away. I am not here to degrade anybody neither you, nor Shri Chandrasekharji neither his immature disciple Prabodh who may be good in sanskrit language, but worse in Loka- vyahvaar.. After wasting all the members hundreds of days and hours in fruitless discussions on Sanskrit shlokas, when you were required the most, you were nowhere to be seen. All this show of humility is uncalled for and unwarranted and artificial. You said there is no need to create unnecessary noise or shout. At least I have shouted and created noise for my Dharma. What have you done ? You have come here to prove yourself when the whole story is over ? Tons of big talks without an ounce of action ? Any small child can do that and he would be better at that because he is innocent. Yes of course in todays India it is Hindus like you who form the weak links in the chain for the invaders to enter as usual. You said " There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of religion " . So we are not doing that. We are the workers who are removing that. What is your role here ? You are like the psuedo secularist Hindus of today who have no foresight to see what the future generations will face if people like you are allowed to subsist. The people who talk wrong about our Gods, you dont have a word for them but you are ready to allegate us for the crimes we have not committed. God save you from unnatural alpayu with such thoughts and affections for the perpetrators and hatred for the people who are doing the Lords work. What amritananda amma says we are not interested. Please spare us from more self styled Gurus. I have no hatred for you or Chandrasekharji or for his accomplice Prabodh. You people have done nothing for the Hindu Dharma but just standing on the roofs and trying to portray and project wiseness which is not present. Yes but I have already thanked Mr. Prabodh for his contribution and proper use of Sanskrit knowledge which came late, but did come after all. Why are you not awakened souls and why do you need to be called with mails which talk derogatorily about you , without which you will not show Yourself front screen? Dont you feel the call of duty when the Hindu Dharma and Gods are maligned, ? Why do you wait for someone to call You ? Do you need garlands or people coming to you with a special invitation ? Are you people that worthy enough ? I dont think so. You people have been impotent by your silence uptil now, and more degraded in my eyes, then what You think. This is not because of us, but because of your lack of inaction. And dont try to create rifts between us, between Chandrasekharji and me, by quoting that I have called him 3rd class. You all fall in the same category, if you remain silent when your weapons are not picked up, in the call for a Dharma yudh. For me every Hindu whose blood does not boil when he hears wrong utterances about his Lord, is 3rd class. I had always respected you both , Chandrasekharji and Yourself, but your absence in this situation and silence has degraded you and you have fallen in our eyes, at least in mines. That knowledge which does not help, is of no use. Just shed away all your knowledge and become simple. You will be respected more. every army is not just made of soldiers, bit a cook is needed to cook the food, a entertainer is needed to entertain the troops in evening when they come tired from the days war, a Doctor is needed to attend to the wounded soldiers etc. In same way, you too are needed for our Hindu army. Your job too is a integral part of the armys subsistemnce. You have your own role to play, which you must to remain respected in eyes of Your own Deity. And please know that I still respect you both, but that respect is lowered, thats all. regards, Bhaskar. Dear Shri Bhaskar I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace on a few stanzas..nothing more) Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of us. There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will continue to do so. Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You may address me as you wish. Kind Regds Pradeep , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Shri Bhaskar > > I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor > in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these > appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class > astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an > expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the > past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace > on a few stanzas..nothing more) > > Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to > interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of > tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl > we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and > create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a > child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol > of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real > horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless > nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of > us. > > There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of > religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are > the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma > Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i > am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. > > Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will > continue to do so. > > Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You > may address me as you wish. > > Kind Regds > Pradeep > > , " 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 ll HARE RAM ll Dear Mr.Pradeep, What Upnishad says about Stars and Horse,leave it but the matter is,in which chapter of Valmiki Ramayan such Shloka is written? In fact Mr.Bhaskar wanted to know the same. Shashie Shekhar vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: Dear Shri Bhaskar I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace on a few stanzas..nothing more) Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of us. There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will continue to do so. Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You may address me as you wish. Kind Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Shri Shashie Shekharji, Ram Ram Bhai. Bhai kahan the itne din ? Aap to Vrindavan jaa kar baith gaye mujhe in dushton ke beech mein chhood kar. Magar maine aapki dee hui taakat se ladai ladi hai thodi bahut.Ab aap aa gaye ab chinta nahin. In teen char dinon ki ladai mein mere kaam ke absence se teen chaar hajaar ka nuksaan bhi ho gaya, magar woh gaya Shri Ramji ke khate mein. Woh jaane unka kaam jaane, ,magar mujhe khaan toh deh hi rahe hain do time ka.In dushtom ko main chhodunga nahin agar yeh jyaada fadfadaye toh main inko khatm kar doonga. Yeh mera waada hai aapse. regards, Bhaskar. , Shashie Shekhar <polite_astro wrote: > > ll HARE RAM ll > Dear Mr.Pradeep, > What Upnishad says about Stars and Horse,leave it but the matter is,in which chapter of Valmiki Ramayan such Shloka is written? In fact Mr.Bhaskar wanted to know the same. > > Shashie Shekhar > > > > vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > Dear Shri Bhaskar > > I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor > in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these > appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class > astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an > expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the > past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace > on a few stanzas..nothing more) > > Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to > interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of > tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl > we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and > create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a > child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol > of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real > horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless > nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of > us. > > There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of > religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are > the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma > Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i > am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. > > Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will > continue to do so. > > Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You > may address me as you wish. > > Kind Regds > Pradeep > > , " Bhaskar " > 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Inki charbi bahut badh gayi hai, kuch bhi likh dete hain Shri Ramji ke baare mein aur Kaushalya Maa ke baare mein. Inko pata nahin kisse se pala pada hai. Saalon ki charbi kya haddiyan tak nikal doonga sharir se, agar apne par aa gaya toh. The secularism of today prevelanet in our society is the cause of their unwarranted perverted utterances. It is high time these people should be shown their place, which is hell and no other. Ham apni 3/4th jindagi toh jee chuke. agar baaki jindagi in darindon ko khatm karne mein chali jaaye toh bhi gam nahin. Yeh neem hakeem acchi society ke laayak nahin hain. Inko eradicate karne par hi kalyan hoga jagat ka. Maaf karna aapke aane se josh aa gaya hain mujh mein. regards/Bhaskar. , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Shri Shashie Shekharji, > > Ram Ram Bhai. > > Bhai kahan the itne din ? Aap to Vrindavan jaa > kar baith gaye mujhe in dushton ke beech mein chhood > kar. Magar maine aapki dee hui taakat se ladai ladi > hai thodi bahut.Ab aap aa gaye ab chinta nahin. > In teen char dinon ki ladai mein mere kaam ke > absence se teen chaar hajaar ka nuksaan bhi > ho gaya, magar woh gaya Shri Ramji ke khate mein. > Woh jaane unka kaam jaane, ,magar mujhe khaan toh > deh hi rahe hain do time ka.In dushtom ko main > chhodunga nahin agar yeh jyaada fadfadaye toh main > inko khatm kar doonga. Yeh mera waada hai aapse. > > regards, > Bhaskar. , Shashie Shekhar > <polite_astro@> wrote: > > > > ll HARE RAM ll > > Dear Mr.Pradeep, > > What Upnishad says about Stars and Horse,leave it but the matter > is,in which chapter of Valmiki Ramayan such Shloka is written? In fact > Mr.Bhaskar wanted to know the same. > > > > Shashie Shekhar > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > Dear Shri Bhaskar > > > > I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor > > in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these > > appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class > > astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an > > expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the > > past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace > > on a few stanzas..nothing more) > > > > Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to > > interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution of > > tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl > > we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and > > create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a > > child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol > > of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real > > horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless > > nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of > > us. > > > > There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of > > religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are > > the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma > > Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i > > am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. > > > > Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It will > > continue to do so. > > > > Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You > > may address me as you wish. > > > > Kind Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Mr. Pradeep. You have to pay off, check ur dasha and timings in ur daily life. remember, you have to pay off. You are the one who dared the misuse of knowledge, You dont deserve it, so, you have to loose it immediately. Immediately. Immediately. ~Lalit. , " litsol " <litsol wrote: > > Mr. Pradeep, > > It's not that plain, if we have not made noise, he w'd not have > deleted the file in which he deliberately changed the interpretition. > > When it's not required u r replying in the group, I m angry at you. > Why knowledge makes people diplomatic. That's some classics say - > > " Gyanam Bandhanam " > > is it this what u have learnt lap of mata amriytananda mai. you are > worried for degrading of Sri ChandraShekhar Ji, who is like a guru > for me, but, you failed to show same sentiments when Valmiki and > Ramayana's degradion was being done. > > It's true there are stages of evolution !! > > ~Lalit. > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Shri Bhaskar > > > > I have never claimed myself to be a scholar- neither in Jyotish nor > > in Sanskrita Bhasha.It is you who is giving all these > > appellations.Thus your consideration as a scholar or 3rd class > > astrologer is the same for me.As usual the rest of your mail is an > > expression of love from you and hence is welcome too.(Regarding the > > past Jyotish discussions i was expressing my views with Lords grace > > on a few stanzas..nothing more) > > > > Regarding Kausalya/Horse etc -It is upto each individual to > > interpret the shlokas and the hidden symbols.Similar to evolution > of > > tattwas there is an evolution for jeevatmas as well.At each leverl > > we may see/perceive a different horse.There is no need to shout and > > create unnecessary noise.As Amritananda mayi Amma say when one is a > > child one thinks a toy horse is a horse.In that age a roopa or idol > > of horse is needed.When one grows up he will understand the real > > horse.Similarly the intertwining of time and space and the formless > > nature is a puzzle for us and let the Lord grant wisdom for all of > > us. > > > > There is no point in creating and spreading hatred in the name of > > religion.In Brihadarnayakopanishad it is mentioned that stars are > > the bones of the Horse.We know that we are coming from stars- Janma > > Nakshathra.So if you think w.r to bones you will understand what i > > am talking about.Hinduism is eternal because of its tolerance. > > > > Hinduism was able to withstand on its own without my support.It > will > > continue to do so. > > > > Kindly refrain from degrading Chandrashekhar ji - 3rd class etc.You > > may address me as you wish. > > > > Kind Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " 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. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.