From: Ashok T. Jaisinghani <ashokjai@sancharnet.in>
Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:29 AM
Subject: RE: SANSKRIT NOT A PERFECT LANGUAGE AND VEDAS PLAGIARIZED WORKS
Editor & Publisher:
www.Wonder-Cures.com
www.Nutritionist-No-1.com
www.Top-Nut.com Top Nutritionist
www.SindhiKalakar.com
Editor & Publisher:
www.Top-Nut.com Top Nutritionist
www.Wonder-Cures.com
www.SindhiKalakar.com
----- Original Message -----From: Ramesh JhallaCc: Ravi BakhsiSent: 27 Apr 2008 2:10 PMSubject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Atmahatya and atmajanma ???
27-4-08
Raviji,
U R sidetarckeed to say that ATMA is self..may be as a part of PARAMATMA it is!! As microcosm, it is part of macrocosm.
Being a part of macrocosm.PARMATMA, IT IS INDESTRUCTIBLE. bUT The GROSS material that it vivifies is shed i transmigration from one body to other.
Atmahatya does not mean destruction of ATMA, but sucessatioof gross physical body, or evction of atma from anbody !!
Compare this atmahatya to a dripping bucket..with an overtuyrned bucket.
Overturned bucket is atmahatya..atma it is tha bucjet that emptied,...not the atma..as it then flows into another bucket.
Have you ever heard atmajanma...so how can there be atma hatya ??/ We also maitain that atma has NO birth and no death 111
Ramesh Jhalla--the sharir..I do not know name of my atma !!!
000000000000000000
--- On Sat, 26/4/08, Ravi Bakhsi <ravibakhshi@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Ravi Bakhsi <ravibakhshi@hotmail.com>
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
To: unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 26 April, 2008, 5:22 PM
There seems to be a bit of beating around the bush here. The correct translation for Atma is Self & not soul. our term for soul may be sukshma sharira, etc the are many so called sheaths kosh etc.
Atma is Self as in Atmahathya, suicide, (your)self kill. A close approximation to these ideas is found in the works of the great seer of the 20th century, Babaji Swami Jungji maharaj.
As you know he was the main motivator of the new age movement
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node112.html
and Reading about his ideas on archtypes of the self is a must for every educated hindu.
Ravi
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:55:59 -0700
From: arrk00@ameritech.net
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
To: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Ruh is not closer to Atma for one simple reason. The Ruh suffers in "Dozhak/Jahanum) and enjoys (including sexual activity) in Janat. It has no connection to Atma.
If you want to destroy a tradition a civilization a Dharma, then destroy its language of Dharma. The rest will happen on its own. Our language of Dharma, Philosophy, culture is Sanskrit. And that is dying, and our traditions will not be far behind. If we want to undertsamd it thrive with it and become the first class citizens with offering from our own world view, we can not afford not to learn Sanskrit.
All this confusion in this little debate was because we read second hand writtings from aliens.
Ravindra
Thsis is my last post on this issue
--- On Fri, 4/25/08, anilbhanot <abhanot@hinducounciluk.org> wrote:
From: anilbhanot <abhanot@hinducounciluk.org>
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
To: yashwini1@aol.com, Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Cc: ravibakhshi@hotmail.com, aryasamaj@hotmail.com, aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mohan" <mgupta@rogers.com>
Date: Friday, April 25, 2008, 2:28 AM
Rabinder JiThank you for all that and of course I don't need any references to what you have elaborated upon. But this makes the case for us to dig deeper into your original point about the mis-use of translations.We are using the Abrahmic words as if they are our own, according to our own concepts of Parmatma and Atma. But to the "owners" of those words like God and Soul the meaning is different as you have explained below for the word soul.Hindus are generous and they say, "Koi baat nahi, everything ultimately leads to the same thing, the difference is only in interpretation. THIS IS DAMAGING OUR DHARMA.If I may add that soul of Christianity is also different from the Ruh of Islam, according to my understanding. Ruh is closer to Atma than the soul is but is still different.This is where Mohan Gupta ji should come in and start making his noises, especially to our Swamis who are loosely preaching that these words are the same and as they preach in English they use these translations erroneously.Thank you for the clarification, Rabinder ji.anil bhanotPS. I had a meeting with an eminent Kashmiri Pandit in London a few days ago and he said that in this Hindu lark, "Koi baat nahi....", he sees that we are set to lose various parts of Northern India, as it happened with Bhutan.----- Original Message -----From: Rabinder KoulSent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:54 AMSubject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
Anil Ji:
I should have been careful in elaborating. In the sentence where I wrote this, I was comparing the Christian/Islamic notion of Soul/Ruh with the Aatma.
Christianity (at least Catholics) believes that humans have soul where as the animals do not have soul. The stand is similar among Muslims. In particular Catholics believe that God created soul and as ultimate punishment can also destroy soul. So in these traditions soul has a beginning and the end. Also notice that soul feels pain and suffering, because it is the soul which gets punished.
In Hinduism Aatma is Brahman in Advaitic traditions and it is a part of Brahman in Dvaita traditions. So it is inn both these traditions un-created. The Sankhya (a dualistic tradition) does not talk of Aatma it talks of "Purusha" and Sankhya does not talk of Ishwara or Parmaatma. In Sankhya the Purushas are many. But the agency of the activity lies in the Prakruti (which is only one) and not in Purusha. In Yoga Sutra tradition there are "Purushas) and there is Ishwara. This Ishwara is similar to Purushas but distinct, and it does not get inflicted by the Prakruti as the Purushas do. However in both these traditions Purushas are uncreated and eternal, as is Ishwara in Yoga sutra tradition. Notice that where as Sankhya is dualistic the Yoga Sutra is Trilistic (i.e three realities.).
I will also answer Atul ji's question in this email.
As i have given a flavor above it is very difficult to characterize these categories in a particular way. The view about the Brahman and the Ishwara i had expressed earlier is more peculiar to teh Advaitic traditions. For example in Shankara Advaita
The Maya is in effect is an equilibrated presentation of the Sato-Rajo-Tamoguna. Howver the precise definition is as follows.
Brahmaashraya SatoRajoTamogunaatmica, iti Maya Asti. (That is Maya takes the support of Brahman and in itself is the Three-Guna in equilibrium. That is why in the Taitriya Upnishad, (2nd hapter BrahmandaVaali) Tatah Aakasha Sambhuta, Akaashat vaayo:, Vayo Teja: Tejaso Aapa: tadbhya Prithvi: etc. etc.. It give the whole genesis of the cosmology starting from the Maya. However this Brahman enveloped (so to say) by Maaya is the Ishwara. That is why I said Ishwara is Trigunaatmika. This Maya taking the support of the Brahma masquerades as the creates. And it acts as Ishwara. (But this is only Shankara Advaita.
In YogaVashista which is also Advaita, Ishwara appears during the manifestation of the Universe. Again (as also in abheda Shiva) this Ishwara arises as part of manifestation of the Universe at a particular stage. However it is not eternal, and eventually will get absorbed back in to ParaShiva/ParaBrahman. Here the manifestor is the Shakti the consort of Shiva or the Shakti of the Brahman. What is this Shakti, it is the Vimarshini the awareness aspect of the consciousness (which is witnessing aspect). Here Maya and the Gunas appear at a later stage,, and Ishwara even though not trigunaatmika, is also a state (tatva) of manifestation.
If Atul Ji wants I can provide him sources of all these from appropriate Hindu texts, starting from Sankhya Kaarika of Ishvarakrishna, to Patanjali Yogasutra, to Shankara works of BrahmasutraBhasya, Vivekachudamani etc, to Yogavashista and finally my favorite Abheda Shiva traditions of (SpandaKaarika, Pratybijnyana Kaarika, etc..).
By the way the reason the Shakti is shown feminine has to do with the Sanskrit vaiyaakarna issues and not with the sex issues.
Thank You
Ravindra
If Atul Ji wants teh Sanskrit reference, I can give it but I will have to dig up my books whcih I do not have handy.
--- On Thu, 4/24/08, anilbhanot <abhanot@hinducounciluk.org> wrote:
From: anilbhanot <abhanot@hinducounciluk.org>
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
To: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com, yashwini1@aol.com
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 2:01 AMRabinder jiCould you please elaborate onhumans (who have soul) and different from other animals (who have no soul). In particular at least in some denominations, the soul is both created and destroyed by this "God". The Atma on the other hand is unbornYou say humans and a soul and animals do not - what exactly is this soul then? What are its constituent parts?anil bhanot----- Original Message -----From: Rabinder KoulSent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:04 AMSubject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
Yashwini Ji, please do some study and find out the difference between the Brahman and the Ishwara. May be you may learn something and next time be careful in making a statement about a subject you have read very little.
Next, the BRAHMAN (Nirguna) is not what Ishwara is. Ishwara is TriGuni. And eventualy impermanant like an ordinary Jeeva, even though with longer span. That is why Brahma Ji has age and days and years etc.
On the other hand Universe is not of the nature of "God", but a different reality than the humans (who have soul) and different from other animals (who have no soul). In particular at least in some denominations, the soul is both created and destroyed by this "God". The Atma on the other hand is unborn.
Ravindra
--- On Tue, 4/22/08, yashwini1@aol.com <yashwini1@aol.com> wrote:From: yashwini1@aol.com <yashwini1@aol.com>
Subject: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
To: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 8:42 AMIt really should not matter what word one uses
to define God......regardless of using Ishwar,
Bhagwan, Prabhu, Anteryami or Brahman, we
still are referring to same Supreme Power. And
all of these words are Hindi words!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "United Hindu Front" group.
Related websites : http://shehjar.kashmirgroup.com
: http://www.hindujagruti.org
: http://kashmirgroup.com
To post mail at: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Unsubscriptions: Unitedhindufront-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at: http://groups.google.com/group/Unitedhindufront?hl=en
*************************************************************************************
Views and opinions expressed are only of the persons posting the mail and not of the Owner/Moderator of UHF group. Anyone who wishes to unsubscribe from this group can do so by sending an email to Unitedhindufront-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
***************************************************************************************
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ram B Chherti
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 3:05 AM
Subject: RE: SANSKRIT NOT A PERFECT LANGUAGE AND VEDAS PLAGIARIZED WORKS
To:The Himalayan Voice<himalayanvoice@gmail.com>
Sanskrit ,as per the scholars,originated in India-Bharatbarsha. But the Indians take great pride in ignoring their own languages and speak English,although in their own heavily accented forms. Look at their film actors. They have become stinking rich by acting in Hindi films but show ignorance of Hindi when asked by reporters.Almost all the Cabinet Ministers speak in English.
There are far more important issues facing the nation and the world in general rather than language controversy.No offence intended.
From: Mukund Apte
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: SANSKRIT NOT A PERFECT LANGUAGE AND VEDAS PLAGIARIZED WORKS
To: The Himalayan Voice <himalayanvoice@gmail.com>
From: Venkatakrishna Sastry
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: SANSKRIT NOT A PERFECT LANGUAGE AND VEDAS PLAGIARIZED WORKS
To: The Himalayan Voice ;himalayanvoice@gmail.com;
1. There can not be any argument where the debater has a preconfigured conclusion, as in this article. Much of the argument (if not 99%) is based on data-fallacies and imagination of 'dogs for cats .
The post here is ad-nauseous repetition of incorrect facts and regurgitation of false propaganda.
2. The author of this article /post clearly shows : Colonial mind set, Colonial training on Society-frames and historicity issues, Non-traditional exposure to Sanskrit, Tremedous amount of misunderstanding of Dharmic traditions based on bad translations and prejudiced writing.
3. What if all the things said here are true ? Some basic question still needs to be answered:
- Give at least another perfect /near perfect language which can stand by Samskrutham.
- Reg: Sanskrit is a language that had not developed naturally / Sanskrit is meant to Confuse People ; Is English a naturally developed language ? What is natural development ? Related to nature as it is OR it is a continuing dynamic decay yielding fissure and breaking away from past ? How many english speakers can understand and read Chaucer or Shakespeare today with the same fluency as of the erst while period ?
- Reg: If all the languages were derived from Sanskrit, as many of the Brahmins wrongly claim, why is it not possible to decipher the script of the Sindhu Valley Civilization? Why are there no references in Sanskrit books, which can help in reading the inscriptions of the Sindhu Valley Civilization? Very Simple, Sir, the current scholarship of Sanskrit from colonial tradition has destroyed many a valuable resoruces needed for this decoding; Research is needed. Can any one start retracing studies of IVC from a frame out of the 'Aryan -Dravidian historicity' and take it back to the 'Society of Veda -yoga practitioners' You will find all the answers you are seeking. When thousand crows make for the audience, the song of cuckoo will end up as noise.
- Reg: It is not surprising that one of the greatest thinkers of modern India and the world, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution, became a Buddhist during the last part of his life. If what Dr.Ambedkar said was followed truely tribe of your type would not have been writing this non-sense. In the given stage, neither you have the true Buddha - Dharma or Veda-Dharma.
- Reg: It is the word "Divya" which means "Divine" in English. The Vedas were never named as Divya Veda, which can mean Divine Knowledge or Divine Books. ; Amen, May God of your choice bless you and help you to improve your linguistics.
From: Rajesh Patil
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: SANSKRIT NOT A PERFECT LANGUAGE AND VEDAS PLAGIARIZED WORKS
To: The Himalayan Voice <himalayanvoice@gmail.com>
This is totally Absurd !!!
The motive of author seems to be to divide Hindu society and act as an agent to benefit non-Hindus who are eying on "direct opportunity" !!!
Why should The Himalayan Voice publish such articles ?
Rajesh Patil
(Editor's note: The Himalayan Voice promotes healthful debates on issues related to the Himalayan region and beyond. It does offer platform to those also who are unheard not being able in finding an outlet to tell at the national spectrum. You may check check this video for your reference as well.)
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment