[FairfieldLife] Re: Too "pornographic" for a Victorian(?) translator? :D

2008-10-07 Thread bob_brigante
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, Maharishi *did* say the knowledge > had been lost. ... > > ;-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" > > wrote: >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Too "pornographic" for a Victorian(?) translator? :D

2008-10-07 Thread Patrick Gillam
Well, Maharishi *did* say the knowledge had been lost. ... ;-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" > wrote: > > > > All right, cardemaister, don't be coy - > > how would those verses read if th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Too "pornographic" for a Victorian(?) translator? :D

2008-10-06 Thread cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All right, cardemaister, don't be coy - > how would those verses read if they had > not been bowdlerized? > > na seshe yasya rambate 'ntaraa sakthyaa kapRt > sed iishe yasya romashaM niSeduSo vijRmbhate [vishv

[FairfieldLife] Re: Too "pornographic" for a Victorian(?) translator? :D

2008-10-06 Thread Patrick Gillam
All right, cardemaister, don't be coy - how would those verses read if they had not been bowdlerized? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Griffith has omitted the verses 16 and 17 from his translation > of Rgveda X 86: > > > 14 Fifteen in number, t