vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>1
>>That was the biggest bag of garbage I have read here on this
>>newsgroup.
>
From Bhagavatam's point of view, blasphemy of vedic literature and
>pure devotees is to be condemned.  

Everything can be called blasphemy, if it threatens your holy
illusions. I saw no blasphemy, I saw reason, and a mind far more
subtle than yours.

>It was not ad-hominem, but
>recommened response TO ANANDA 

It was rude, besides being false.

>not to you so the rest of your message
>is also irrelevant to the point.  

It doesn't matter if it's to me or to the other participants, because
I quoted it to demonstrate your arrogance and rudeness.

>>2
>>People who cannot understand
>>it should keep their mouths shut or find someone who does understand
>>it.
>
>This is true.  You have not read the Bhagavatam so how do you know
>that it is NOT a superior explanation of the objective reality?

I repeat, how do you know what I did or did not read? I made no
conclusive statement in that regard. How do you know that _you_ have
read SB? You have obviously read Prabhupada's translation, which is so
lousy that I had to translate the slokas myself from the translation
of the individual words, in order to get what Vyasa actually _did_
say. Prabhupada rapes the holy scriptures with his interpretations, he
for instance translates brahman as the supreme person, he translates
Isvara as Krsna, he translates "loka" as "planet", etc. Because of my
knowledge of that fact, I don't know if I read SB or not, I read
something that seems to be a lousy translation of it, with a
disasterous comment. Prabhupada's comments and translations are so
bad, that I thought that Bhagavad-gita was a scripture of great depth,
until I read his version of it, the Gita as it is not. From his
version, I could only get the impression that Krsna and Arjuna are
both morons from some cult. Thank God that there are other
translations that are consistent with the sanskrt original (and I know
what is consistent with sanskrt, because there are translations of the
individual words, and I've read enough competent translations of
sanskrt literature such as Mahabharata, Gita, Upanisads and
Sankaracarya's texts to understand how it works. Unfortunately I don't
know sanskrt well enough to translate things myself, or read from the
originals).
Some of my friends who've read Prabhupada's translations were also
apalled by the amount of sectarian bullshit forced upon the original
text. Are you happy now?

>Most of my remarks were to counter your initiated ad-hominem.  Go back
>and read it yourself :)

Most of everything you write is rude and arrogant, and that tells
everything about you as a person.

>>Well, in conflict with such living evidence of a superior process, I
>>have no other option but to back out.
>
>But which part of the Bhagavatam did you try?  

When you tell me who I am, and address me as such, I'll tell you.

>Which part did you read?

Probably everything, but I would really like to get my hands on some
good, non-Prabhupada English translation, and read the real thing.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net