Monday, December 20, 2010

#102/#001 H Replies to Comments of Shri Viitahavya

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#088, Ambarisha- Bring the sacrificial animal or a...":

are you being economical with truth? naram (man) va (or) purusharshabha. the qualifier :or: points to one other choice of animal - purusharshabha which is uncastrated ox. why didn't you mention this?

Thank you very much for pointing out. Sacrificing oxen, was not a taboo. The question, now arises: 'Why did Ambarisha choose a man? An ox is easily available when compared to a man'. Answer: I do not know.

vitahavya has left a new comment on the post "#086, Kausalya-Kaikeeyi enemies for seventeen year...":

shouldn't it 14 years rather than 17? where did get those 3 years from?

Thank you for pointing out.
I have corrected the error today, as: "several years".
The error of seventeen years has arisen owing to inadvertance. This seventeen years was the period Rama spent in Ayodhya, from his marriage to the time of Dasaratha deciding to crown him as heir apparent. There was animosity between Kausalya and Kaikeeyi, during this period also. But the animosity might have been older. Parrots know the answer better.


Why animosity of several years between Kausalya and Kaikeeyi?
The animosity might have started the moment Dasaratha brought in Kaikeeyi as the youngest Queen. We have to count the number of years elapsed till Putra Kameesht'hi. Then, from Rama's birth to his marriage. Then plus 17 years mentioned above. Total may be at least 35 years.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#57, REPLIES TO COMMENTS, Raajya Shulkam":

well the truth is that when dasaratha proposed marriage, ashavapati had stated that kaikeiyi's son shall become the king. most people seem to forget the inheritance laws in those good old days could be patrilineal or matrilineal. thus you have arjuna being called kaunteya (son of kuniti as it occurs more often in B.gita then as pandava) or patrilineal. ashvapati could have been following matrlineal succession rules same as chitrangada of manipur in mahabharatha. or in modern times same as in nair families in keral and very few namboodiri families in north keralaa.

or it could have been the only "legal" queen could be kaushalya. this is borne out by the fact that dasaratha gave the payasam born out of putrakamesthi to only kaushalya, who then shared it to kaikeiya and sumitra. interestingly enough, kaikeiya also gave a person to sumitra (hence sumitra getting two children). if kaikeyi and sumitra where "dharma" patnis, why then did they not sit together with dasharatha as yajamana patnis in the yaga shala?. the war of succession was it appears pre-written in their matrimonial relationships it appears. thus ashavapati knowing the actual status of kaikeyi could have been bargaining for more than what could have been the actual "entitlement".

Dasaratha should not have accepted Asvapati's propossal, if Asvapathi was bargaining for more than actual entitlement. Having accepted, how can he break his promise?

1-15-27 to 29:
Kausalyaayai narapatih paayasa ardham dadau tadaa
ardhaat ardham dadau ca api Sumitraayai naraadhipah
kaikeyyai ca avashisht'a ardham dadau putraartha kaaran'aat.
pradadau ca avashisht'ha ardham paayasasya amrrita upamam
anucintya Sumitraayai punah eva mahiipatih
evam taasaam dadau raajaa bhaaryaan'aam paayasam prithak.

Dasaratha distributed the potion to the three queens at his whim and not Kausalya. The word 'bhaaryaanam' shows that all the three were his wives, presumably dharmapatnis. He would have, otherwise , distributed the potion to all his 350 neglected wives and even concubines.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#54 , WHY DASARATHA DID NOT INVITE BHARATA'S UNCLE...":

was yuddhajit in ayodhya at the time when bhraratah was getting married to sruthakriti?

Chapters 68 to 73 of Book 1, Book of Childhood: I am unable to trace any invitations made by Dasaratha to Kausalya's, Sumitra's, Kaikeeyi's parents.

Yudhajit seems to have come to Ayodhya to see / or take Bharata and Satrughna to their grandfather's place. He came to know that Dasaratha and his sons were in Mithila for the marriages of RLBS. Yudhajit went to Mithila.

We are fortunate that Yudhajit was not angry for not being invited.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#071, This Earth belongs to Ikshvakus!":

interesting. i always found two aspects difficult to explain. baali vadham and sita tyagam.

we read ezhuthachan's ramayanam every day at the end of day in kerala (after ramayana is read there are not further scriptural exercises for that day), even my grandmother found it difficult to defend sita tyagam. nay on the contrary she always said that rama was in the wrong and one doesn't abandon wives on the say so of some stupid person in the market.

Indian language translations have numerous additions and deletions. My mother tongue is Telugu. Same problem. I, Hence as far as possible, confine myself to Valmiki. Valmiki Ramayana even has several insertions and deletions, mostly made by temple preachers. Valmiki was more particular to mention about cow donations to brahmins and the four caste system, rather than discussing the plight of common and poor people. My aim : search and trace how the people of Ramayana days, Ramayana initial writing days, Ramayana evolution centuries , were living.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#072, Rama speaks like a hunter and not like a dig...":

if you had read manu smriti, it says prajapathi created all this as food. in other words, man is the king of creation in biblical terms. in modern biological terms, he on top of the food chain [an aside: wonder what would have happened if man existed during dinosaur era]

Hands and brain made man the supreme. I have about 10 orphan cats visiting me for food everyday. They watch me with wonder when I perform my daily chores with my hands. They try their forelegs on playing with things and food I give them , but they often fail. Were their forelegs as developed as our hands, we would have become mice in their forelegs!

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#085, Sita offered thousand pots of liquor to rive...":

if you didn't know in nirudha pasu bandha yajna (which every brahmin is supposed to do once a year), not only goat is offered to agni, but liquor is also offered. the method of brewing liquor (very very very primitive) is also described. all in a day's work i will say,

not drinking liquor is a buddhist prohibition that has been adopted by the hindus

Thank you for the info.

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#101 Sita - Kaikeyi wants me to die!":

possibly. this humanises rama and enhances his strature and makes ramayana more readable more human. your comment enhances the value.story of rama.ramayana rather than diminises it.

Are you not as great as Rama in stature, if not greater than him? Have self-confidence and self-respect. Rama was below an average human.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#017 Sita - Why do you hide your banana stalk like...":

in this case i have to agree with wanderingmindz comment. you missed the point entirely.

Could you please check up my reply to wanderingminds? I believe that I have adequately replied about pathos. Post No. is apparently, 001D.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#041 WHAT A GREAT EGALITARIAN?":

is killing of sambuka there in valmiki ramayana? have you checked?

yes about bali and sugriva i agree

Yes, in Valmiki Ramayana, Uttara Kanda.
Some say: Valmiki was not the author of Uttara Kanda. Presumaby: a later day addition.
Bhavabhuuti's Sanskruta Uttara Rama Charitra too has a good depiction, but a slight variant of the story. Killing is same.

vitahavya has left a new comment on post "#040 WHY SHOULD A GOD BE CRAZY OF OBLATIONS?":

very true. can you then explain why yehweh wants a perfect sacrifice for the supposed sin done by one man?

then again why should yehweh kill all the first born of egyptians alone - partiality perhaps?

what about all those fishes and frogs that died in when sea turned red. what point was he trying to prove? should he require that?

Societies are like lakes, rivers and streams. Water sources stagnate when they retain water for too long-a-time. Societies atrophy, decay and perish if they retain despicable customs for too long-a-period. Societies cannot compete in retaining mud. They have to compete in cleansing themselves of inherited mud.

Anecdote: Two brothers were performing 'penance'. God appeared before one brother and asked him to choose a boon. Brother: 'Have you gone to my brother?'

God went to the younger brother and asked him to ask for a boon. Younger brother: 'Have you gone to my brother?'

God : 'Yes, I have gone to your brother. He asked me to see you first.'

Younger : 'OK. Please go to my elder brother again. Please bestow me double of what he chooses.'

God went to the elder and said : 'Your brother has asked me to bestow him, double of what you choose. Please , now say , what you want.' .

Elder brother: 'Let me lose one eye'. God granted the boon. Elder brother lost one eye. Younger brother lost two eyes.

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#011 HOW DID Dasaratha take back Kaikeyee's rajya ...":

it is true that there was a practice of kanya shulkam. dasharatha had said to ashvapati that a son thru marriage to kaikeyi will inherit the kingdom. but you should know the circumstances too. ashvapati had questioned him as to why he wants to marry again especially when he had two other wives. dasharatha had replied that he is marrying because he wants an heir. then the next question of ashvapati was will such a son inherit the kingdom?

there can also be on other interpretation. it can be interpreted that only the chief queen was considered legitimate and other marriages were simply illegal and could not inherit anything.

in any case, if you are a lawyer you should have known that in ancient india only the eldest inherited everything (no i am not talking about just kingdoms alone) i am talking about properties and livestock. this rule is what is mentioned in baudhayana. now apasthambha who was a student of baudhayana lineage, criticizes this unequal and allows equal division of property among all the children. ashvapati may merely represent the forward thinking elements in the society

The question here is not that of law prevailing at that time. Dasaratha apparently made a promise to Aswapathi. (Kings make promises out of 'kaama' to get the hand of the partiular maiden(s) whom they get crazy to enjoy). Dasaratha might have made similar promises to Kausalya's father and Sumitra's father at the spur of weak moments. Dasaratha might have, at a later date, wanted to coronate Rama, probably out of fear of going to hell for breaking the custom of primogenitor inheriting the kingdom or because he had realised his error.

King Santanu was hesitant (in Mahabharata) to make a similar promise to Daas'araja and his wife who wanted the offspring of their daughter to inherit the Kaurava Kingdom. Great Bhishma made the promise on behalf of his father and kept it up. I , in my humble view, place Bhishma at a higher level than Rama in terms of sacrifices. We should worship Bhishma as a God, if sacrifice is the key parameter to decide the worshippability.

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#009 HOW INTELLIGENTLY HANUMAN SPEAKS AND HOW THOU...":

spoken once again without thinking and knowing. your blog is very clear and your earlier disclaimers No. 000A etc not withstanding this is also once blog/comment that shows your prejudice against ramayana very clearly.

if you had known a little bit of muhurta, mid-day is know abhijit muhurtam (jit = victory). it occurs every day. mid-day everyday is good for all works. that is why order for mobilization was given.

does the verse say at any time that food etc was not collected? don't jump to conclusions.

OK, let us assume that midday is the auspicious time to get victory.
The South bound Vaanaras returned from a tedious and exhausting journey of more than a month. Won't they need sometime to inform their wives and children that they (fathers) are going on an adventure of war and take their leave. Couldn't they have onenight's love with their wives? Rama denied sex life to Lakshmana and Urmila for 14 years , while he himself enjoyed it for 13 years with Sita attached to him. Rama's haste to go on battle cry without waiting even oneday denied sex life to the South-searching Vaanara Warriors.

Our Rama is like the CEO and the bosses in the verti-linear hierarchy of modern Corporates who are interested only in 'their orders getting implemented', even if the Company's employees and workers perish or suffer in the process.

Sugriva, in my humble view, ought to have asked Rama for a one day leave to his South-searched soldiers.

The entourage could have started the next 'midday' as you are very particular about the muhurta.

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#008, Lakshmana- Even pea-hen is following her hus...":

your criticism is excessive. you should have said that the poet should have considered laxmana's feelings. this blog reveals that you are not dispassionate

I greatly appreciate your comment. I get passionate when I thank of Lakshmana and Urmila's plight. I also worry about the sufferings of Vaanaras who were made to toil for several months, walk several thousands of kilometers and undergo injuries and death. Rama was more dispassionate / apathetic / callous - like our modern middle level managers, as he was self-centred in getting things done for himself (his prestige).

vitahavya has left a new comment on your post "#004, What happened to the cow gifted by Bharadwaj...":

bharadwaja did what is stiuplated in ancient scriptures. you present cow to a snataka, bridgegroom, srotriya, during death ceremonies.

it is upto the person who receive the cow to say to dress it or to release it.

south indian priests do not take madhuparka to be clothes - it is a mixture of milk, curds, ghee and honey and it is to presented to all revered guests. king being one.

you say that the poet did not mention the cow going with rama. it can also mean that the cow was left behind with bharadwaja. one need not always assume that it was eaten. (I have nothing angainst beef any way)

About Madhuparkam : There may be some regional (area) variations. I shall check up again. Please, in the meantime, check up the TTD Kalyanootsavam on SVBC channel , at midday, your abhijit muhurtam. You can also discuss this with some Purohits in your area. TTD has also published a booklet on the Hindu marriage process, which as far as I could recollect , referred to madhuparkam as some special vastram. I do not, right now, have the booklet, as I have lent it to somebody.

SRL might have left behind the cow in the Bharadwaja Ashram, as pointed out by you. Valmiki wrote 24,000 verses describing seasons , four caste system, duties of kings and what not. He did not, unfortunately, write something about the daily routine of SRL during the 13 years of their forest life.

Tourists visit Chitrakoot (between Jabalpur and Allahabad) are shown Sita's Rasoyi (Kitchen of Sita). There was an under-ground Godavari at that place.

I, once, had a dream : Lakshmana and Sita were asking Rama to cook in turns. Rama was always sleeping with his head on her lap. Where was the time for her to cook? Lakshmana might have cooked. Please excuse me for this dream of mine, which may be out of indigestion or fatigue of reading Aranya Kand'a.

vitahavya has left a new comment on the post "#041 WHAT A GREAT EGALITARIAN?":

OK. but there is one little problem. if you were to check the purva ashrama of valmiki, he was robber (presumably he was also of a low caste). yet he is advised by narada to chant rama nama mantra and he becomes so immersed in it that ant hills grow around him. if varna-ashrama dharma was so established in those "good old days" like kriti and treta, why didn't some on think of killing valmiki/ratnakara?

2. varna-ashrama dharma is for all the four varnas; thus theoretically even shudras were (or should have been) eligible for sannaya. shambuka in his old age was following ashrama dharma.

3. the problem with the story additionally is rama personnally rushes to find the source of "disturbance" and "punishes" him on the spot. however, in case of the ashvamedha horse, he sends one brother after another to recover it. one would have thought recovery of horse would have merited a personal response from him for it impinges directly on his claim to suzeranity over other kings. further in case of shambuka he personnaly decides to "investigate" whereas in the case of sita, he was content with a report of a mere spy. this whole thing looks so fantastical and incongrous. very clearly a later day addition me thinks

It will be incongruous to assume that pandits, preachers and priests would , so easily allow, the lower castes, the privilege of penance. The story of Valmiki as being biological son of a hunter , I am unable to trace in Uttarakanda (said to be canto 76, no seems incorrect). You can give a link to the canto of Uttarakanda which has the story of Valmiki. My search on the web suggests that Valmiki was a birth Brahmin s/o a sage by name Prachestas. Valmiki as a boy was said to have lost his way in the forest and was picked up by a hunter--foster-father. Narada might have advised and allowed Valmiki to perform penance, knowing that Valmiki was a birth brahmna. This story was said to be in Adhyatma Ramayana. They might have allowed the story of Valmiki's penance to continue, under the impression that he was a birth brahmana.

Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kanda, 1-2-31

Mat cchandaat eva te brahman
pravrittee ayam sarasvatii

raamasya charitam kritsnam
kuru tvam rishisattama.

The Creator addressed Valmiki as a Brahman (Oh Brahmana!). The Creator might have in his mind Valmiki either as a Birth Brahmin or a Conferred Brahmin after penance.

I am not really interested in knowing whether Valmiki was a birth Brahmin or a conferred Brahmin or some other Brahmin or a non-brahmin. What he wrote is important. He, and succeeding compilers have produced a gread book of 24,000 verses which has a lot of wisdom and un-wisdom.

I can only stress that , it was not easy for a Sudra of those days, to be allowed to perform penance, unless he had blessings of Great sages like Narada.

We have in India, different castes and tribes of I.A.S. and I.P.S. Officers. The IAS and IPS Officers selected by UPPSC Delhi and alloted to States are supposed to be the Original IAS-IPS caste-tribe. They are regarded as divine. The State Governments can also, with the consent of Central Government, can confer the status and scale of IAS/IPS to their local service Officers. These are ordinary mortals. They are given less important positions in hierarchy. They retire within a few years of getting their so called honor, while the divine IAS-IPS reach the pinnacles of some Chief Secretary, Foreign Secretary, DGP etc.

Do P3 (Pandits, preachers and priests) treat Valmiki and Vasisht'ha equally? They treat Vasisht'ha as a super-God and handle Valmiki only as good writer, who gave shelter to Sita.

summary: Equality is a myth. This is true not only in Hinduism, but also in every religion including Christianity and Islam. I say this in advance , because you have apprehensions that I favor Christianity or Islam and hate Hinduism. We are searching truth. We have no love or hate. We go for facts or near-facts.

vitahavya has left a new comment on the post "#002 PRIESTS- TAKE AWAY MAY WIVES AND GIVE ME CHIL...":

I am not sure if your interpretation is right. It does not mean the hotr, adhvaryu, udgatr had sex with the wives. My own reading of texts of baudhayana sutras do not suggest this.

1. Do you believe that children will be born , by Dasaratha's smelling the smoke from the burning fat of the horse's omentum?

2. Dasaratha gave away his kingdom to the priests at 1-14-45 and 1-14-46. The Priests were happy and that the King was free froms sins.

The Priests returned the Kingdom to Dasaratha, stating that he alone could rule the entire Earth.
They wanted cows, gems, and gold at 1-14-49. They didn't find any use with land. Land was not probably precious in those days. Tatas or Ambanis would have grabbed it, had it been the case now.

The King gave the Priests million cows, hundred million gold coins and 400 million silver coins at 1-14-50. How much did the King give to poor non-brahmins? He might have given them left over foods. The Brahmins gave all the gold, silver and cows to Rishyasringa and Vasishta who distributed them among the Brahmins.

The King gave another 10 million gold coins to other Brahmins. 1-14-53.

Valmiki had the patience and time vividly describe all this gold business. But he could not care to mention when or whether the Brahmins returned the three Queens to Dasaratha , at the time of returning the Kingdom. Did they not return the Queens at that time? When did the Queens come back to gynecium?

Ramayana is supposed to be a sacred text. What is so sacred about gifting gold, kingdom, wives, neglected wives and concubines, smelling burnt fat of horses, queen stabbing the horse, sleeping with the horse? How is it that great sons are born from this process?

OK, we shall assume that there was no involvement of a sexual element in gifting the wives.

vitahavya has left a new comment on the post "#002, Rama and Lakshmana mounted on PRINCES AND MI...":

you are picking and chcoosing like the priests whom you critize. the story has some internal dynamics. i thought they were also monkeys weren't they?

Further, what about palanquins then? the rickshaw pullers of calcutta?

Was Rama not a maryaadaa purushoottama? (Great master of courtesy and etiquette)? An analysis and criticism has become necessary, because it is necessary to recognise how rulers treat the subjects. Virappa Moili called Rama a Great Socialist in his recent book released by the Chief Justice of India. How did Virappa Moili handled this mounting business, in his book. I am poor, I cannot afford his book which is priced at Rs. 1,500 or so.

The rickshaw mounters of Calcutta are not maryaada purushoottamas. This is Kaliyuga.

Some Vijayanagara Kings went to battles in palanquins. Rama and Lakshmana mounted Hanuman and Angada, presumably for several months, till they got a great chariot from Indra. Kishkindha, didn't apparently have carts, chariots and palanquins. This might have been the case during the Ramayana period or the Gupta period.

There may be times in history when some geographical regions might not have experienced the wheel. E.g. You can see from Alex Halley's Novel 'Roots' that West Africa didn't have carts even during 16th Century. People were carrying headloads. We are not, Africa, of course.

vitahavya has left a new comment on the post "#003 Guha- Know me as an ascetic wearing deer skin...":

well know rama performed panchashira sthapanam when he built his hut. pancha - five; shiras - heads; sthapanam - establishment of; this is done even today in kerala - albeit heads are made of metal;

oh most people think that ancient rishis didn't eat meat. they are quite wrong. even buddha died eating pork. he only asked monks to forbid householders from killing if the householder said to a monk that come tomorrow i will give you meat.

baudhyana in his sutra says that it is a sin for sannyasa to refuse to take meat if it is offered by householder who is performing sraddha on that day.

rama eating meat is quite normal. if fact he would have faced protein deficiency if had survived on fruits and roots alone.

the above para only exposes two different atttiudes towards meat eating through time and changing socio-economic and religious mores

The issue is not very much about meat eating. The issue is about 'drid'ha vrata' characteristic of Rama. Narada and Valmiki used about 100 adjectives to describe the virtues of Rama. My worry is, why Rama broke his pledge, the very next day of entering the forest. Chandrababu Naidu and K.C.R. have taken up fast-unto-death, knowing pretty well that police will break it and inject them intravenous fluid. There would be nobody in forests to admit sufferers to Intensive Care Units and monitor health, using numerous meters.

Protein deficiency
Hermits have cows. Vegetarians in India today, survive with milk proteins and pulse proteins. They enjoy quite a good longevity. Legumes grow in wild also. They can also be cultivated around the cottages. Valmiki spent several verses describing plants and trees. He could have added one or two verses about kitchen gardens around Rama's thatched cottages.

Attachment of sin to sannyaasis declining to take meat
The spirit behind asking monks not to reject whatever was offered, was to dissuade them from seeking delicacies from poor housewives who may not have anything to offer. A monk has to surive on a few cuds of food. He cannot expect feasts from housewives. E.g. : A poor woman had nothing to offer to Adi Shankara. She dropped a gooseberry fruit in his hands. Shankara sang Kanakadhaara stavam. It might not have been true that golden gooseberries showered from the sky. This shows Shankara's sincerity.

Swamy Vivekananda, on the other hand used the quote that monks should not reject anything offered, to crave for meat. You can see my blog-posts about Swami Vivekananda's craving at : Click to have a look at : He used this pretext at Belgaum. He craved for fish at Tiruvananthapuram (Travancore, Kerala). You can also see his argumentative letter to the Sanskrit scholar of London, about his wife offering him only lentils, three times a day!

Buddha's advice to his disciples
The advice shows the hypocrisy of Buddha. Most Godmen are hypocrites. How can Buddha be an exception? Kabir, probably may be an exception. I humbly and personally feel that Godmen should earn their livelihood through honest occupations (Kabir was a weaver. Potana was a farmer.). Preaching all the time, makes them hypocrites. Working exposure to people is different from preaching exposure to people.

vitahavya has left a new comment on the post "#103 RAMA - Bharata wanted the kingdoml":

Lakshmana comparing himself with ....... audacious.

I don't think you have any background in literature despite your professed love for carnatic music. don't you understand any alankaras. I make this observed based not on this alone, but on several statements (sita's thighs, rama's vilaapam etc. etc.

pl remember ramayana is a kavyam; not a legal brief.

Sir: I have done my PG in English Literature. I have done another PG in History. I loved literature from my childhood.

Is Ramayanam a kaavyam or an itihaasam? Itihi = thus, aasit = happened. Many people say that Ramayanam is an itihaasam which undertakes to narrate what had happened. Kaavyam (poetic work) is an aritistic contribution of a kavi (poet). He can embellish his style with figures of speech like simile -upama, metaphor - utpreeksha, ruupakam - personoification, ardhaantara nyaasam etc. He can use atisayooktis (hyperboles), euphemisms, oxymorons etc. He can use varieties of sabdaalankaarams like cheekanupraasa, laat'aanupraasa, yamakam etc. Ramayana is very rich in similes and metaphor. Somewhat poor in sabdaalankaarams. Yet, Ramayana is splendid with its rhythm and rhyme.

The problem: Ramayana is a sacred book. People adore and worship it calling it 'Srimad Ramayanam'. Thigh is a niichoopama, a lowly comparison. It draws the attention of a reader to a body part which is very near to sexual organs. Sita was a pativrata, a pious woman. Hanuman was new to her, when he found her in Lanka. Lakshmana was not a child. He was a grown-up person. How can she ask about the thighs of a grown up person? Place and time are also important.

I run an English Institute, when I find time. I have recently prepared two students for their C.A. Foundation Course of the ICAI (Institute of Chartered Accountants). I taught Accounts, Economics and Commercial Law .

Writing a legal brief is more difficult than handling literature. Once we commit something to the court or to the advocate of the other side, it will be difficult to wriggle back. Just as we have a Doctor's Dilemma of George Bernard Shaw, we have a Lawyer's dilemma in the character of Saujanya Rao, which you can see in Gurajada Appa Rao's Kanyasulkam, a Telugu play of 1900c. English translations and reviews may be available on net.

Please accept my sincere thanks for reviewing all my blog posts. I hope you will give a similar attention to my blog Please see, if you want something positive without criticism, my blog on Bhartruhari: .

I hope I have not hurt you intentionally or unintentionally.

No comments: