Sanskrit Quotes on Blogging


No, i don’t have any Sanskrit quotes on blogging.There are couple of Subhashita ( Sanskrit quotes ), which can be applied to blogging also.


घटं भित्त्वा पटं छित्वा कुर्याद्वा गार्धभसवनं
एनकेनापि उपायेन प्रसिद्दः पुरुशो भव


Can be read as : ghaTam bhittvaa paTam chittvaa kuryAd vA gArdhabhahsvanam yena kenApi upAyena prasiddhah-purusho bhava.


Translation : if it needs to “break pots in public” or “tear off your clothes” or “bray like a donkey” to get attention, just do it. These or any other way , but Do become Famous!

This a tip for new blogger. I read it everywhere , be unique , different , and “controversial “ to be seen in blogosphear. Being controversial is very effective way to get attention , finally freedom of speech. My tip on this is Don’t create so much contovercy that it will effect your life expectancy.

Continue reading “Sanskrit Quotes on Blogging”

ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಓ. ಕೆ. … “ಕ್ಷ” “ತ್ರ” ಮತ್ತು “ಜ್ನ” ಯಾಕೆ ?


ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ,

ತುಂಬಾ ದಿನ ಆಯ್ತು, ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದು (ಟೈಪಿಸಿ). ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ. ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಅಧಿಕ ಪ್ರಸಂಗದ್ದು, ಎನ್ಮಾಡ್ಲಿ blog ಹೆಸರೇ “ನಾನು, ನನ್ ಗೀಚಾಟ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಅಧಿಕ ಪ್ರಸಂಗ”. ಹೆ ಹೆ ..

ಕನ್ನದ ಸ್ವರಮಾಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ “ಕ್ಷ” “ತ್ರ” ಮತ್ತು “ಜ್ಞ” ಯಾಕಿದೆ ?

ಇದೊಂದು ಹತ್ತು ಹದ್ನೆಂಟು ವರ್ಶದ ಹಿಂದೆ ಬಾಲಾವಡಿ , ಅಂಗನವಾಡಿ ಅಕ್ಷರಮಾಲೆಯ chart ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ತಲೇಲಿ ಬಂತು. ಆಗ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತ ಕಲ್ತಿದ್ದೆ… ರಾಮ: ರಾಮೇ ರಾಮೈ .. ಗೊತ್ತಲ್ಲ ಹೈ ಸ್ಕೂಲ್ ಪಾಟಗಳು.

ದೇವನಾಗರಿ ಲಿಪಿಯಲ್ಲಿ, “ಕ್ಷ” “ತ್ರ” ಮತ್ತು “ಜ್ಞ” ಗಳಿಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಚಿಹ್ನೆಗಳಿವೆ . So.. ಅದರ ಅಕ್ಷರಮಾಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ specific ಆಗಿ ಬರೆಯದಿದ್ರೆ ಒದುಗರು confuse ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ತಾರೆ ಅಂತ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಆದ್ರೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ “ಕ್ಷ” “ತ್ರ” ಮತ್ತು “ಜ್ಞ” ಒನ್ದೇ ತರ ಬರೆಯುವುದು ತಾನೇ. “ಕ್ಷ” – ಯಕ್ಷ, ತ್ರ – ನಕ್ಷತ್ರ , ಙ್ – ಯಜ್ಞ ಅಂತ

ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಓ. ಕೆ. … “ಕ್ಷ” “ತ್ರ” ಮತ್ತು “ಜ್ನ” ಯಾಕೆ ?

ಸಂಪದದಲ್ಲೂ ಇದನ್ನೇ ಪೊಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೆ, ನೂರು ಜನ ಓದಿದ್ರು ಯಾರೂ ಉತ್ತರ ಮಾತ್ರ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಕ್ಷರ ಮಾಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಮೂರು ಅಕ್ಷರಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಹಕಿದ್ದರೇನು ?

Free advertising.: If you recognize this font, please try to reply in the same. Use typepad or quillpad for the typing

Disclaimer: I have not seen Kannada text books from long. If they have removed those symbols from alphabet list, I have no questions to ask. I heard they did for a vowel “Ruu”, which was not getting used at all.

What’s wrong with your name?


To agree with Amitabh Bachchan English is very Phunny (or funny) language. A language which has greatest number of literature works happening (or happened) has serious scarcity of generalized language rules, e.g. how to spell a sound or how to pronounce a word. There can half a dozen different ways to pronounce one sound. Similarly it has half a dozen different spellings for a word which is pronounced uniquely.

Trouble comes when one needs to write on Indian word in English (karma, nirvana, guru, pundit etc) and otherwise also. I have encountered three names written in three different spellings but pronounced the same. Sandhya , Sandya , Santhya, Santhiya.. Which one is correct? Technically going, none of them. No combination of English alphabet can accommodate these kinds of thousand words (except otherwise UNICODE). Its English, you can spell your name the way you want, where is the problem? Problem is the attitude of “you way of spelling is not correct”.

In one way these differences are very useful, to guess where that is person is from. If a girl writes her name as Sandhya, she is south Indian. If Sandya , she is north Indian. Any “th” ( like “Santhya” or “Santhiya” ) is either from Tamilnadu or Kerala and north-east people don’t name their name daughter as “sandya”. Cool isn’t it ?

Anyways come to the point. To go technically, South Indians pick letters as exactly it sounds in alphabetical chart, north Indians pick it from English words where they are used. For example letter “t” sounds retroflex in alphabetical chart , in English words it can be dental , or retroflex.

Continue reading “What’s wrong with your name?”

Since it is written in books


purAnamityeva na sAdhu sarvam , na chApi kAvyam navamityavadyam
santaha parikshatart bhajante, muDhah parapratyayena buddhihi

पुरणमित्येव न साधु सर्वं न चापि काव्यं नवमित्यवद्यं |
सनः परीक्श्तरत भजन्ते मूढः परप्रत्ययेन बुद्दिः ||

– Unknown

Can be interpreted as :

Concepts need not be valid just because they are told in books (holy books especially ;-))), mythologies etc. Nor things are right if they are modern. Gentlemen test and then trust, fools believe what is told and written.

I don’t remember who wrote it, guess it is Brutruharai. This is the best spelling I can give for the quote here. If anyone finds better please comment. And also if you find a similar one.

Quote is quite relevant. People when can not justify what they are practicing and what they believe, just hold some outdated books responsible. “Since it is written in…”

The weak, the god and sacrifice


ashvam naiva gajam naiva vyaghram naivacha naivacha |

ajaaputram balim dadyaat devo durbala ghatakaha ||

अश्वं नैव गजं नैव व्यघ्रं नैव च नैव च
अजापुरत्रं बलिं दद्यात देवो दुर्बल घतकः

It translates something like this: They don’t sacrifice a horse, neither an elephant. Never ever a tiger. A poor lamb is sacrificed. God hurts only weak

Ever since God/protector was created, people wanted a way to “give back” in return to all the protection, mercy and other things he is offering. It is natural to think that god, who exists need to take something from us, when he doing so may miracles (like birth, death etc.). Now having created god, what one can naturally think about him, is “he is like us”. He eats what we eat. He likes ornaments like we do. And he likes to eat goat/buffalos like we do. This can be one answer.

The other what I can think about is. Relaxing the rules! So many religious rules, so much less time to follow. Or life is so advanced that, either one can not afford to or not allowed practice. So what the best solution is follow the rules which are convenient, comfortable. Or Change them according to your convenience and say this is actually the way.

Illustration of the Ashvamedha of Kaushalya in the Ramayana epic.
Illustration of the Ashvamedha of Kaushalya in the Ramayana epic.

Now in this context rule (bloody rule) was sacrifice is blood. There is always a concept that almighty asked them blood, but never mention when, how and where he asked. Initially there were people who were getting sacrificed. A fighting fit person will always show resistance, so women and kids. If the tribe has a feeling that they are their own, take someone from neighboring tribe. All these are about satisfying god.

As days passed, we became more civilized. We chucked human beings and started sacrifice what we tame. If it useful animal like a horse or a camel, again No. Find something where sacrifice is also some and we can eat it also later. Now what vegetarians do? Don’t laugh, they sacrifice a pumpkin!! and there is no blood in it, so put some “kumkum” (red powder) and make it look like flesh. Ultimately what people do if what is very convenient to them, and justify it. Continue reading “The weak, the god and sacrifice”