Follow palashbiswaskl on Twitter

Monday, February 28, 2011


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashok T. Jaisinghani <>
Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:29 AM

The Himalayan Voice.
    Let me state that all human beings and their works are imperfect. The Brahmins and their works cannot be exceptions. So, even Sanskrit and the Vedas cannot be perfect. Anybody who thinks he or his work is absolutely perfect needs to get his head examined.
    Mukund Apte, Venkatakrishna Sastry and Rajesh Patil can read what some of the big Sanskrit scholars of the United Hindu Front had said about the Sanskrit words, aatma and AATMAA, in their discussions about 3 years back.
    Mukund Apte and Rajesh Patil know the names of Ravi Bakhshi, Ramesh Jhalla, Rabinder Koul and Anil Bhanot, who were having endless discussions on the subject till I pointed out the difference between the two Sanskrit words. 
   Ashok  T. Jaisinghani.
     Editor & Publisher:    Top Nutritionist  
----- Original Message -----
Cc: Ramesh Jhalla ; Hindi Hitler Mohan Gupta ; Prof. Dr. Ved Shravah ; Jayesh Patel ; Koenraad Elst ; Samskrta Bharati ; Devinder Thakur ; Hindu Council UK ; Sanatan Dharma ; ranjeet singh ; Dr Raj Pandit Sharma ; Hindu Janajagruti Samiti ; Savarkar Vinayak ; Senthil ; Dr Madhukar Ambekar ; Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi - Aryavrt Government ; ; Bhupendra Gandhi ; Atul Sehgal ; Senthil ; KANAYALAL RAINA ; Satish swami vishwabharti ; shiv ram ; Padmesh Gupta ; Satish Misra ; ; N Hirani ; Sher Agrawal ; Hinduforum Hinduforum ; Deepak Rana ; BRAMHASTHRA ; Sadhak ; suraj prasad ; ramgopal gupta ; Bramh D Mishra ; Rudy Mishra ; Prithvi Kumar ; Prem Sabhlok ; govindan menon ; madan gupta ; ; Dinesh Agrawal ; Raj Chopra ; jaibharatam ; Raksha Aggarwal ; vasudeva rao ; vavamenon
Sent: 30 Apr 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Atmahatya and atmajanma ???

Ravi Bakhshiji,
    Many members of the United Hindu Front group like you think that you are big scholars on various subjects of Hinduism or Dharma. Some of you are actually a pack of big jokers who are needlessly quoting and misquoting the scriptures of different communities. Why are you fellows wasting your own time, and also the precious time of others, by using important words with incorrect spellings and incorrect pronunciations? Because of your carelessness, many of your discussions seem completely nonsensical.
    It is strange that even the big pretenders among you like Ramesh Jhalla, Anil Bhanot, Koenraad Elst, Rabinder Koul, Yashwini, and the Hindi fanatic Mohan Gupta, cannot define or explain the meaning of a simple word like AATMAA. You don't even know the difference between the two simple terms like Aatma and AATMAA. I have spelt them differently by using an extra A in one of the words. The two words must be spelt and pronounced differently in English to understand the difference in their meanings. Aatma means self. The closest meanings of AATMAA are Spirit in secular religion, Soul in Christianity, Rooh in Islam, Mind or Psyche in Psychology.
    Most of you want to win points in useless arguments and meaningless discussions of the United Hindu Front group. You don't really care for the actual survival of the Hindu community. For fellows like you, the real interests and the physical survival of Hindus are less important than the survival of some crazy beliefs and obscurantist ideas of the primitive people who wrote the Vedas and other outdated books many thousand years back during the Dark Ages.
    Why are you propagating the crazy beliefs and obscurantist ideas of the Dark Ages, which are against the interests of the majority of Hindus of modern times?
    Hinduism cannot be called a religion because it just cannot be defined precisely like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. None of you can define Hinduism or Dharma precisely, because Dharma does not mean the same thing to all the Hindus. Hinduism or Dharma is not a single entity. Dharma means different things to the different castes and sub-castes of the Hindus because they have many conflicting beliefs and customs. All the Hindus do NOT worship the same Gods and Goddesses. Even the acceptance and worship of different Gods and Goddesses are based on the wide differences in the beliefs and customs of the different castes and sub-castes of the Hindus. 
    What is so great about Hinduism which cannot even be defined? The Hindus can only feel ashamed of their scholars and leaders like you. All of you are like the disturbed souls and spirits, which are wandering aimlessly.
     Ashok  T. Jaisinghani. 
       Editor & Publisher:    Top Nutritionist 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 27 Apr 2008 2:10 PM
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Atmahatya and atmajanma ???



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 it then flows into another bucket.

Have you ever heard 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 !!!



--- On Sat, 26/4/08, Ravi Bakhsi <> wrote:

From: Ravi Bakhsi <>
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
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
and Reading about his ideas on archtypes of the self is a must for every educated hindu.


Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:55:59 -0700
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...

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.

Thsis is my last post on this issue

--- On Fri, 4/25/08, anilbhanot <> wrote:
From: anilbhanot <>
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
Cc:,,, "Mohan" <>
Date: Friday, April 25, 2008, 2:28 AM

Rabinder Ji
Thank 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 bhanot
PS. 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 -----
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:54 AM
Subject: {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


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 <> wrote:
From: anilbhanot <>
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 2:01 AM

Rabinder ji
Could you please elaborate on
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
You say humans and a soul and animals do not - what exactly is this soul then? What are its constituent parts?
anil bhanot
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:04 AM
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Sanskrit word for GOD is...

Here is typical Hindu unlettered in his/her tradition.
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.

--- On Tue, 4/22/08, <> wrote:
From: <>
Subject: Sanskrit word for GOD is...
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 8:42 AM

It 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 :
To post mail at:
Visit this group at:
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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ram B Chherti
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 3:05 AM
Subject: RE: 

To:The Himalayan Voice<>

Languages should develop  along with the passage of time and requirements;hence they must be dynamic. At best it is a controversial issue.

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.

R B Chhetri
Virginia, USA

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mukund Apte
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:58 AM
To: The Himalayan Voice <>

While talking about any subject in any language, unless both conversees are from the same environment and with similar experiences, they will have different concepts of meanings of one word in the SAME language. This is expected. Words are not like a luggage that you know and recognize when you get or see/hear it. Every word in any language will have different meanings in each individuals minds if they are from differing environmens. In case your conversing colleagues says, "गाय" , in case you are from Asia, you will conceive the word as referring to a 4-legged domestic cattle, whereas a Westerner will take is as an endearing term addressed to an unaquainted person. It does not mean the language is imperfect. Every word in any language has meaning for a person as HE IS aware about. No word in any language has universally same meaning.

Please remember that Nature has a special way by which it can send messages to the minds of all living entities, especially in case of natural (impending) disasters (like Tsunami). As during Dec 2004 tsunami around Indian Ocean peripheral states, the (so-called) educated and 'developed' human were killed to the tune of more than one and half Lakhs. But out of lower species of beasts and birds as well as 'uncivilized and jungle-residing' Jarwas of Andamaan islands hardly anyone was even injured. What was the language of the message that Nature sent to these minds that they could follow and save themselves, whereas 'Developed' humans could not (and therefore perished)? Can we call that language perfect?

The experiences of the words that the conversing individuals have obtained decide, if the transacted words are being able to convey correct meaning to both sides. The language is merely a medium. 

As far as Sanskrit is concerned, kindly note that it is well bound and evolved language. It happened to be the single language in Bhaarat till about a thousand years ago. Around the start of the AD कालगणना, it was properly bound by the rules and Grammer by महर्षि पाणिनी in his अष्टाध्यायी.

It is a language as perfect as one can be. Kindly note that on most of the books in Sanskrit has भाष्य or clarifying explanations (as they understood) written by subsequent पंडित (for common people like us) for understanding the 'inner meaning/s' of the book intended by the (initial) महर्षि who created it. 

If someone says the Vedas are 'plagiarised' work, he needs his brain examined. The Vedas are known to be the EARLIEST literature. From where they could have been plagiarized? Possibly from other minds, isn't it? That is of course possible. But it must be the minds of Bhaarateey people only, isn't it? This appears to be an effort by some foreigners who do not want to give Bhaarat its due credit of giving Vedas to the World.

Mukund Apte

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Venkatakrishna Sastry

Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:34 AM
To: The Himalayan Voice ;;

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:  Vedas, Upanishads, Vedangs,Puraans are Plagiarized Works!   You certainly need a level 101 lesson on the fundamentals of the tradition  Or a Full fledged research study. Half baked knowledge with prejudice will not help you to understand the value of the Vedas.

-   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.

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rajesh Patil
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:51 AM
To: The Himalayan Voice <>

This is totally Absurd !!! 

Which TWO people are referred here ? I haven't seen any two Sankrit speaking people arguing over the "Language" part. They may discuss over the "Philosophy" or "Vedas" etc but not over the correctness of language !! 

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:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Website counter


Blog Archive