Must-Read Analytical Essays on the shruti--Vedas and Upanishads

[saidevo]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

namaste Patel.

I think during the time the Vedas were revealed, all the words of the original Sanskrit were only yaugikas, which is why, as SvAmi DayAnanda says, they should be given priority in Vedic interpretations.

I don't agree with DayAnanda's or VidyArthi's view about the PurANas. They miss an important aspect of Hinduism, namely bhakti, which is what sustains our religion in this Kali Yuga. Still, we can't set aside their interpretations of the Vedas or compare them with the Western interpretations, most of which have an agenda. Only based on the interpretations of DayAnanda, Aurobindo, KapAli ShAstri and Professor KAshyap developed their interpretations, which today give us the true message and philosophy of the Vedas.

SAyaNAchArya's interpretations were definitely traditional and used today in the Vedic rituals. But the Western interpretatiions, although based on SAyaNa, because of their dismissive view of the Vedic rituals and Hindu gods, and also because of their Christian agenda, definitely do not in any way represent our parampara, so we need to dismiss most of them in our studies of the Vedas.

 

[patel]

Harih Om,


The Vedas are eternal, and so is the meaning of their words. So being, many words will have an eternal meaning as yaugika or rUDha, and only those who heard the Vedas explained in a bona fide parampara coming down from NArAyaNa, BrahmA, Rudra or LakSmI have any authority to speak, what is obviously not the case of any of the ‘scholars’ you mentioned aboved. You might be aware that no one belonging to any orthodox school gives a damn for what they say.


sampradAya-vihInA ye mantrAs te viphalA matAH


“Mantras have no efficacy if not received from a bona fide sampradAya” (Padma PurANa)


You hit the spot when you mentioned how Dayananda ignores bhakti. If mAyAvAda is disguised Buddhism, then Dayananda’s philosophy is open atheism, for what he means to say is that there is no ViSNu, no Siva, nor anyone to be called God. Of course, he will still use the word ‘God’ just to get the sympathy of the public. And since it would be very difficult to hold his view before all the PurANas, he just rejected all of them. This is called arddha-kukkuTI-nyAya, and it is against the zruti:


nAma vA Rg-vedo yajur-vedaH sAma-veda AtharvaNaz caturtha itihAsa-purANaH pancamo vedAnAM
vedaH.


“Indeed Rg, Yajur, SAma, and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The ItihAsas and PurANas are the fifth Veda” (ChAndogya Up. 7.1.4)


From this perspective, it is quite obvious that Dayananda also had his ‘agenda’:


nAsAv RSir yasya mataM na bhinnam (“No one is considered a sage who does not have his own opinion”) MahAbhArata (Vana-parva 313.117)


By giving an opinion totally antagonistic to that of Sankara, Ramananuja, Madhva, Caitanya, Vallabha, etc. , Dayananda posed as superior to all of them. And by ignoring Lord Krishna, he posed as superior of svayam bhagavAn:


avajAnanti mAM mUDha manusIm tanum Azritam
param bhAvam ajAnanto mama bhUta-mahezvaram


“Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.” Bg 9.11


The western scholars at least based their interpretations on SAyaNa, while Dayananda made his own out of his imagination. Just to give an example, anyone knows that the vocative (sambodhana) is used to address a person, but since Dayananda doesn’t believe there is anyone who can be called Indra, Vayu, etc, he leads the reader to think that the RSis are addressing inorganic elements. And since he doesn't believe that God is a Supreme Person, no vocative could be properly refering to Him either. In this way, all the thousands of vocatives in the Vedas become meaningless according to Dayananda's exegesis. This sounds more like a mockery of the Vedas, the RSis, and the readers than anything else.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Patel.

We agree to disagree on certain points where we have personal perceptions with the understanding that we are entitled to it and that neither of us is totally wrong.

As I have said elsewhere in this forum, I am not well read in Hindu scriptures, specially the Vedas, or in SvAmi DayAnanda's interepretations (which are in Hindi), although I did read some of those of Aurobindo and KapAli ShAstri. So, I don't dispute your statement that the Vedas are eternal, and the meanings can be yaugika or rUDha, which only means that the Vedas are capable of different levels of interpretations and that all of them should be right in their own approach.

I think that your staement:

"Just to give an example, anyone knows that the vocative (sambodhana) is used to address a person, but since Dayananda doesn’t believe there is anyone who can be called Indra, Vayu, etc, he leads the reader to think that the RSis are addressing inorganic elements."

is not correct. Pandit Guru Datta VidyArthi is a direct disciple of DayAnanda, who has stated clearly that the Vedas were revealed initially the three Rishis Agni, VAyu and Ravi (post #19 of this thread). It is the western interpretation that ridicules the ancient Hindu tradition of worshipping Agni, VAyu and SUrya as devas as barbaric and superstitious in the sense they worshipped natural forces as gods!

Thus, in my strong opinion, on all accounts, most Western translations of the Vedas are based on ignorance and impertinence, not impartial scholarship, strongly backed by their Christian agenda. Hindus who are not Sanskrit-literate (like me) no longer need to rever them or refer to them where Hindu translations are available.

To his disciples and devotees, SvAmi DayAnanda was a Maharshi, and it does not matter that you and I dispute his spiritual and philosophical status. If you read KAnchi ParamAchArya's 'shrI Shankara Charitam', which is in volume 5 of the 'Deivatthin Kural', you would understand that Advaita which you call by the derogatory name mAyAvAda, is not disguised Buddhism but is the ultimate jnAnam.

 

[patel]

>the Vedas are capable of different levels of interpretations and that all of them should be right in their own approach.


I never said anything of the sort, nor did any real AcArya. “yathA mata tathA pAtha” is another bogus modern distortion meant to create havoc in the sanAtana-dharma. No scripture can just be interpreted in whatever way someone wishes. MImAMsA prescribes very clearly the directions for properly understand the texts.


>It is the western interpretation that ridicules the ancient Hindu tradition of worshipping Agni, VAyu and SUrya as devas as barbaric and superstitious in the sense they worshipped natural forces as gods!

Anyone who read even a bit of the smRtis knows very well that the demigods are not any western superstition. Thousands of years before any western came to this country, Indra, Vayu, Agni, etc. were being worshipped as Vedic personalities, and to say that this is a western concoction is in fact barbaric. The barbaric western thought, however, is the one you seem to support, that nature’s elements are working without anyone’s supervision, what indeed contradicts even common sense, since not even a small village exist without intelligent management. It is the same as saying that we can have electricity without a light department.


>you would understand that Advaita which you call by the derogatory name mAyAvAda, is not disguised Buddhism but is the ultimate jnAnam.

First of all, mAyAvAda is not necessarily a synonym for advaita. Secondly, this is not my statement, but the black-on-white scripture:

mAyAvAdam asac-chAstraM pracchannaM baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitaM devi kalau brAhmaNa-rUpiNA (Padma PurANa, Uttara-khaNDa)

“[Lord Siva informed the Goddess DurgA] ‘In the Age of Kali I take the form of a brAhmaNa and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.’ ”

 

[saidevo]

namaste Patel.

>the Vedas are capable of different levels of interpretations and that all of them should be right in their own approach.


I never said anything of the sort, nor did any real AcArya. “yathA mata tathA pAtha” is another bogus modern distortion meant to create havoc in the sanAtana-dharma. No scripture can just be interpreted in whatever way someone wishes. MImAMsA prescribes very clearly the directions for properly understand the texts.

MIMAmsa is not the ultimate in the interpretation of the Vedas. ParamAcharya has clearly classified it as only karma mArga (without even assigning it the status of karma yoga) and says that Shankara criticized it the most. The ultimate aim of the Vedas as prescribed in their jnAna kANDa, the UpaniShads, is only the Self-Realization of the jIva as the paramAtma, past all rituals, rites, and pujas.

DayAnanda, Aurobindo, KapAli ShAstri, and Prof. KAshyap are not simply someone who interpreted the Vedas as they wished. They don't need your or my certificate for the efficacy of their interpretations.

>It is the western interpretation that ridicules the ancient Hindu tradition of worshipping Agni, VAyu and SUrya as devas as barbaric and superstitious in the sense they worshipped natural forces as gods!

Anyone who read even a bit of the smRtis knows very well that the demigods are not any western superstition. Thousands of years before any western came to this country, Indra, Vayu, Agni, etc. were being worshipped as Vedic personalities, and to say that this is a western concoction is in fact barbaric. The barbaric western thought, however, is the one you seem to support, that nature’s elements are working without anyone’s supervision, what indeed contradicts even common sense, since not even a small village exist without intelligent management. It is the same as saying that we can have electricity without a light department.

Why do you try to give a twist to my statement without properly reading it? I said that it was the Hindu tradition to worship natural forces as gods such as Agni, VAyu, SUrya and that it was the western interpretation of the Vedas that sought to ridicule it as superstitious and barbaric.

Whereas you misinterpret my statement about the Hindu traditional worship as if I attributed its origin to the Western interpretation, name it "western concoction" and call my statement "barbaric". And you presume that I seem to support "the barbaric western thought that nature's elements are working without anyone's supervision". Did I say it anywhere in my post above?

Watch what you post.

 

[patel]

>MIMAmsa is not the ultimate in the interpretation of the Vedas. ParamAcharya has clearly classified it as only karma mArga (without even assigning it the status of karma yoga) and says that Shankara criticized it the most. The ultimate aim of the Vedas as prescribed in their jnAna kANDa, the UpaniShads, is only the Self-Realization of the jIva as the paramAtma, past all rituals, rites, and pujas.




I was referring to the exegetical principles specifically mentioned in the mImAmSA texts which are commonly accepted by the other schools, not to the philosophical conclusions that school holds. Moreover, if Sankara is an authority for you, then I see no scope to meddle with Dayananda’s speculations.


>DayAnanda, Aurobindo, KapAli ShAstri, and Prof. KAshyap are not simply someone who interpreted the Vedas as they wished.


This is something to be proved, as none of them is backed up by any orthodox lineage.


>They don't need your or my certificate for the efficacy of their interpretations.


In a country where anyone can be publicly proclaimed as an ‘avatAra’ simply by displaying some magic, no one needs any certification for sure. THIS is one thing that till now makes the Christians and Muslims look upon the Hindus as barbarians: their worship of self-proclaimed ‘divinities’.


>Why do you try to give a twist to my statement without properly reading it? I said that it was the Hindu tradition to worship natural forces as gods such as Agni, VAyu, SUrya and that it was the western interpretation of the Vedas that sought to ridicule it as superstitious and barbaric.



Max Muller represented Hinduism as polytheism, not as pantheism. It was Dayananda the one to describe the Vedas as pantheism, since he doesn’t believe in any devatA. This is a real ‘twist’.


>Whereas you misinterpret my statement about the Hindu traditional worship as if I attributed its origin to the Western interpretation, name it "western concoction" and call my statement "barbaric". And you presume that I seem to support "the barbaric western thought that nature's elements are working without anyone's supervision". Did I say it anywhere in my post above?





Yes, watch your post: >…which today give us the true message and philosophy of the Vedas.

Here you are openly accepting the interpretations you posted before as being correct, since they represent Dayananda’s view. As he doesn’t believe that fire is ruled by a deity called Agni, he is the one supporting barbaric worship of natural forces, and you just come along saying this is ‘the true message’.

 

[nachi naga]

Patel,

In a country where anyone can be publicly proclaimed as an ‘avatAra’ simply by displaying some magic, no one needs any certification for sure. THIS is one thing that till now makes the Christians and Muslims look upon the Hindus as barbarians: their worship of self-proclaimed ‘divinities’.

The entire visible cosmos is a magic of god.All of us are avataras of the divine nature,only the awareness and being conscious of it ,is sometimes lacking in people worldover.

Only a limited,Christian or Muslims uphold such a view,in order to protect their share of market,in the religious sphere.

Max Muller represented Hinduism as polytheism, not as pantheism. It was Dayananda the one to describe the Vedas as pantheism, since he doesn’t believe in any devatA. This is a real ‘twist’.

For a kindergarten student of hinduism,polytheism is an acceptable notion,which max mueller explained to Germans.Indians need not be told of their own religion by max mueller,imo.Whereas for a Phd student of hinduism,its a monotheism,as ultimately we are brahman,you are brahman,if Vedams are the grounds for debating.

nachi naga.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Patel.

I was referring to the exegetical principles specifically mentioned in the mImAmSA texts which are commonly accepted by the other schools, not to the philosophical conclusions that school holds. Moreover, if Sankara is an authority for you, then I see no scope to meddle with Dayananda’s speculations.

As a Hindu I respect the scriptural interpretations of Hindu AchAryas and scholars more than those of the Christian western scholars who called themselves Indologists and Oriental scholars while shamelessly publishing their Christian agenda in their 'scholarly works' under the guise that these books were meant for Europeans. My main purpose in starting this thread to expose such works that are highly--albeit wrongly--revered by gullible Hindus who are not Sanskrit-literate.

The Vedas, tradition, culture, history, and every other sacred thing of antiquity of this greation nation are all being prejudicially scrutinized and dubiously criticized by non-Hindu scholars and the commies. If a Hindu scholar does the same about the Abhramic scholars will they tolerate it, so why should we? Hindu intellectuals do their doctrate based on their works, instead of seeking to research the original Sanskrit works by acquiring Sanskrit pAndityam, which will be far more beneficial to them as well as the nation. And we common Hindus are under illusion about their scholarship and thus have wrong perception of our sacred scriptures, without making any elementary efforts to know what our Hindu scholars say about our scriptures.

Yes, Shankara is my authority but that doesn't mean I need to spurn the works of other AchAryas and pandits, whether they have a lineage or not. It is the tradition of Shankara to view other perceptions in a spirit of reconciliation, not separation. So long as the interest is genuine and the exposition logical, there is no harm in welcoming alternate views and interpretations from Hindu AchAryas and scholars. This is my personal view.

Max Muller represented Hinduism as polytheism, not as pantheism. It was Dayananda the one to describe the Vedas as pantheism, since he doesn’t believe in any devatA. This is a real ‘twist’.

Is Brahmam polytheistic, pantheistic or monotheistic? I would say he is all of these: monotheistic in nature, panthesistic in the Dharma ShAstras and polytheistic in his manifestation. DayAnanda sought to worship only one God, the formless Brahman and viewed the Vedas in this angle, so what is wrong with that? A whole lot of Hindu and discerning international research scholars are doing research as to the scientific nature of our scriptures, mainly the Vedas, not in the metaphysical ultimate alone, but in the aspects of physical science too. If Vedas contain all the knowledge mankind requires at all times, then they should also contain the knowledge of physical sciences, so any research and interpretation in this angle does not run contrary to other traditional interpretations, unless it seeks to be exclusive.

Yes, I subscribe to many of the interpretations of SvAmi DayAnanda as given by Pandit Guru datta VidyArthi (I said I have not read DayAnanda in Hindi) and subscribe even more to the interpretations of Aurobindo, KapAli ShAstri and Prof. Kashyap. I have no such problem as their interpretations running counter to traditional ritualistic and worshipful interpretations which is the mainstay of us Brahmins, because I see different levels of interpretation in the Vedas.

One small suggestion: When we are discussing things normally, don't try to shout your points by using enlarged bold text, when just normal bold text would be more than enough.

 

[patel]

[FONT=&quot]>The entire visible cosmos is a magic of god.All of us are avataras of the divine nature,only the awareness and being conscious of it ,is sometimes lacking in people worldover.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you tell me:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Where in the shastra it is written that ‘all of us are avataras’?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Why the smRtis give a list of the past and future avataras of the Lord, including name, date, place and dynasty?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Why everyone is not able to display the vishva-rUpa?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Why the whole sruti and smRti prescribe the worship of God?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]>Only a limited,Christian or Muslims uphold such a view,in order to protect their share of market,in the religious sphere.[/FONT]


Whatever they might be, they do accept the authority of a scripture and have strong belief on the Supreme Lord, a stage which seems obviously many lifetimes away for you to attain. And this is supposed to be a community of ‘Hindu’ ‘brAhmaNas’…

ajnaz cAzraddadhAnaz ca saMzayAtmA vinazyati
nAyaM loko 'sti na paro na sukhaH saMzayAtmanaH

“But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.” BG 4.40

 

[patel]

>It is the tradition of Shankara to view other perceptions in a spirit of reconciliation, not separation.


Far from the truth. Sankara’s sampradaya has many centuries of history of attempts to refute any non-Sankarite conclusion.



>The Vedas, tradition, culture, history, and every other sacred thing of antiquity of this greation nation are all being prejudicially scrutinized and dubiously criticized by non-Hindu scholars and the commies.


Look carefully and you will see that the so-called Hindus are doing much greater harm than the westerners, as the later left India alone long ago and the former ones, so-called SvAmis, AcAryas and avatAras are the ones leading the public to speak blasphemies like ‘everyone is an avatAra’, ‘there is no one like a Supreme God’, ‘no need to do any pUjA’, ‘nothing wrong in eating meat’, etc,etc.

>DayAnanda sought to worship only one God, the formless Brahman and viewed the Vedas in this angle, so what is wrong with that?


Again arddha-kukkuTI-nyAya and non-vedic view:


vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaM yaj jnAnam advayam
brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAn iti zabdyate


“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, ParamAtmA or BhagavAn.” BhAgavata, 1.2.11


>One small suggestion: When we are discussing things normally, don't try to shout your points by using enlarged bold text, when just normal bold text would be more than enough.


And I suggest that you change your browser before making such adhyAropas.

 

[nachi naga]

re

patel,

Can you tell me:
1. Where in the shastra it is written that ‘all of us are avataras’?
2. Why the smRtis give a list of the past and future avataras of the Lord, including name, date, place and dynasty?
3. Why everyone is not able to display the vishva-rUpa?
4. Why the whole sruti and smRti prescribe the worship of God?

Read the Bhagavath Gita,in the last chapter and in the first chapter is the clue.

Smiriti giving a list is wonderful,especially when you read Bhavishya Purana.But god need not stick to anyones schedule,its his will and pleasure to announce ahead or behind schedule,as he is sarva adhikari.

Right now,you have displayed your swa-roopam?Maybe Viswa-swa-roopam later for all us folks??Athithi DEvo Bhava.

sruti and smriti are the fundamentals for any aspirant.With such minimal knowledge that you have displayed,its not worthy for me to waste time with you,when in the present generation,at the finger tips,you can arrange for knowledge and comprehend.We can awake a sleeping person,but never can we awake a person who pretends that he is asleep,you sir,belong to the latter cadre,in my understanding of your posts,thus far.

Whatever they might be, they do accept the authority of a scripture and have strong belief on the Supreme Lord, a stage which seems obviously many lifetimes away for you to attain. And this is supposed to be a community of ‘Hindu’ ‘brAhmaNas’…

The choice of words that you have chosen,makes me think,whether you are first an hindu,tamizh,brahmin?Strange,to say the least.

“But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.” BG 4.40

Now sir,you quote from Gita.And yet you ask for clarification from us about smiriti and sruti?Lord Krishna in the very first chapter explains to Arjuna,that this is not the first time that he is explaining this trancendental knowledge and he lord krishna,remembers each and every incarnation prior to his poorna-avataram.For a Krishna Conscious person,Lord Krishna is the beginning middle end of it all.Its sharanagathi for such a individual,which is really terrific faith.

You sir,are NOT following,any of our bonafide acharya sampradays,so i wish to end my conversation with you,as this is my last post with your postings.

nachi naga.

 

[patel]

Regarding this 'nagi nachi's comments:


>Lord Krishna in the very first chapter explains to Arjuna,that this is not the first time Lord Krishna in the very first chapter explains to Arjuna,that this is not the first time...

This suffices to prove that he never read the Gita in his life, as even at first reading one can see that there is nothing of the sort in the FIRST chapter. As he instead of replying to a single of my questions just made abusive insinuations, it makes me wonder if there is any moderator here in this forum, where anyone can come in claiming to be 'an avatata' and instead of proving it, addresses abuses to other members. I vote for banning heretics.

azraddadhAnAH puruSA dharmasyAsya parantapa
aprApya mAM nivartante mRtyu-saMsAra-vartmani

"Those who are not faithful in this dharma (bhakti-yoga) cannot attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in this material world."

 

[patel]

nanda-vrajaM gate rAme karUSAdhipatir nRpa
vAsudevo 'ham ity ajno dUtaM kRSNAya prAhiNot

“ O King, while Lord BalarAma was away visiting Nanda's village of Vraja, the ruler of KarUSa, foolishly thinking "I am the Supreme Lord, VAsudeva," sent a messenger to Lord KRSNa.”

tvaM vAsudevo bhagavAn avatIrno jagat-patim
iti prastobhito bAlair mena AtmAnam acyutam

“PauNDraka was emboldened by the flattery of childish men, who told him, "You are VAsudeva, the Supreme Lord and master of the universe, who have now descended to the earth." Thus he imagined himself to be the infallible Personality of Godhead.”

dUtaM ca prAhiNon mandaM kRSNAyAvyakta-vartmane
dvArakAyAM yathA bAlo nRpo bAla-kRto 'budhaH

“Thus slow-witted King PauNDraka sent a messenger to the inscrutable Lord KRSNa at DvArakA. PauNDraka was acting just like an unintelligent child whom other children are pretending is a king.

katthanaM tad upAkareya pauNDrakasyAlpa-medhasam
ugrasenAdayam sabhyA uccakair jahasus tadA

“ King Ugrasena and the other members of the assembly LAUGHED loudly when they heard this vain boasting of unintelligent PauNDraka.”

BhAgavatam, 10th Canto, Chapter 66

 

[jmercay]

accurate translation of Rig Veda

Can anyone tell me where I can find an accurate translation of the Rig veda (or any vedas) in English? I have been reading these posts which confirm my understanding thet European translations are innacurate. Please email me at [email protected] if you can suggest an accurate translation for me to purchase or download.

thanks,
Jessie

 

[saidevo]

namaste.

As far as I happen to know, the translations of R.L.Kashyap of the Rig, and Yajur Vedas, published by SAKSI are not only from a Hindu scholar, but one that reveals the inner meanings. You can buy his books here:

Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture Trust
: SAKSI :

Can anyone tell me where I can find an accurate translation of the Rig veda (or any vedas) in English? I have been reading these posts which confirm my understanding thet European translations are innacurate. Please email me at [email protected] if you can suggest an accurate translation for me to purchase or download.

thanks,
Jessie

 

[vikrama]

I read the translation of Krishna Yajur Veda by Dr. R.L.Kashyap. His introductory chapters are quite logical. But when it comes to the translation of the verses, one finds it difficult to comprehend him clearly. For example, he consistently translates गौ, धेनु as Ray-cows, or knowledge. But when the horns, legs or vapa of the cow are referred to, he does not enlighten us as to what these mean in his new interpretation. Similarly, ashva is translated as life energies but what does the 'legs of the ashva' mean is left to our imaginations.

At times the interpretations are forced and one gets the impression that the whole exercise is aimed at proving the non-existence of animal sacrifice in vedic period.

.

 

[pvraman]

Dear Sri Saidevo,

I am thankful to you for this post. Its really encouraging to know more and more. I am also sad to read the tone of exchanges between you, Sri Patel & Sri N.Naga. Hopefully the tone changes to more friendly one.

Namaste.

 

[nachi naga]

Dear Sri Saidevo,

I am thankful to you for this post. Its really encouraging to know more and more. I am also sad to read the tone of exchanges between you, Sri Patel & Sri N.Naga. Hopefully the tone changes to more friendly one.

Namaste.

pvr

english language is such,it's the incumbent who reads and comprehends to understan or mis-understand the puport of the tone,isn't it?

take for example,uncle.in tamizh we have peria-appa,chitt-appa,mama,thai maman...etc every human relationship is clearly defined in tamizh,unlike english.hope you understand now about tone in english language,in the absence of hearing while reading in english language.saidevo is a punya aathma,imho.

 

[pvraman]

pvr

saidevo is a punya aathma,imho.

நாகா சார், idhula maatru karuththe illai.


Lets carry on....................

 

[saidevo]

naNbargaLE, en thalaiyai uruTTAdhIrgaL; nAn oru sAdhAraNa sAmAnyan--generic and common.

 

[nachi naga]

naNbargaLE, en thalaiyai uruTTAdhIrgaL; nAn oru sAdhAraNa sAmAnyan--generic and common.

sairam saidevo.hope you are not vazhukka mandai as uruttal might hurt the mandai,peace brother,just kidding

 

[saidevo]

sairam nachi naga.

Kidding, me too, so my head (which is fortunately not vazhukkai even at fifty-eight) does not get puffed up at any hyperbolical appreciation, although happiness is an inevitable accompaniment of praise.

Seriously, I don't consider my translations or compilations to be anything beyond anyone who has the patience, time and basic knowledge.

sairam saidevo.hope you are not vazhukka mandai as uruttal might hurt the mandai,peace brother,just kidding

 

[nachi naga]

sairam nachi naga.

Kidding, me too, so my head (which is fortunately not vazhukkai even at fifty-eight) does not get puffed up at any hyperbolical appreciation, although happiness is an inevitable accompaniment of praise.

Seriously, I don't consider my translations or compilations to be anything beyond anyone who has the patience, time and basic knowledge.

true true ,sharddhai and sabhuri as shirdi sai baba told us,now parthi sai baba says prema sathya ananda dharma shanthi ahimsa,wonder what mandya sai baba will tel us in future :kiss: sai ram saidevo saar.

p.s. do you use 'veppilai ennai' as my girl friend used it and got her disease of falling hair cured completely,now she lives in coimbatore.