Astrostudents-Group Discussions: [astrostudents] Re: Lal Kitab Confusions

I strongly agree with Mr. Rajinder Bhatia
I have both the books by YRP Ji and by LKV Ji and the copy of original
text too
The Gukta (Lal Kitab Teesra Hissa)transliterated by Shri Yograj
Prabhakar Ji is most accurate till today in the market

The Gutka by shri LKV has a lot of mistakes and almost on every single
page e.g
On first page first he missed the word "arjh"
and first line suppose to be "kya huya tha kya bhi hoga"(right)by YRP
it is written as "kya huya tha yaa kya abhi hoga"(wrong)by LKV
it is a big mistake on very first line.
on second line suppose to be "ilm jyotish hast rekha haal sab farmaa
gaya"(right)By YRP
written as "ilma-e-jyotish hast rekha haal sab pe farmaa
gaya"(wrong)by LKV

on third line it suppose to be "janam kundli yaa ki chandar hissae
doo batla gaya" (right)by YRP
written as "janam kundli yaa chander kundli hissae do batla
gaya"(wrong)by LKV

So I think the gutka transliterated by Shri YRP Ji is more accurate

Thanks
Gaurav Sharma

--- In astrostudents@yahoogroups.com, Rajinder Bhatia
<rajinderbhatia2002@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Dr. Vinay,
> You have done wonderful work to keep the authors (actually the
translators and the transliterators) honest. Thanks for the hard work
you put into keeping the LalKitab lovers informed about proper choice
of the version they should invest into.
> Coincidentally, as of a last few days, there has been a discussion
going on between Pt Umesh Sharma, Pt Lakshmi Kant Vashisth (LKV), who
are defending their modus operndi (translated work) vis-a-vis Shri
Yograj Prabhakar (YRP) (transliterated work.) Pt LKV is a professional
Arabic/Urdu/English translator for the government of India.
>
> I tried to verify your findings with my independent analysis by
comparing the original Urdu version (Lal Kitab 1941), versus
the version transliterated by Sh Yograj Prabhakar (YRP). I don't have
the version by Pt LKV so I took your interpretation for comparison
purposes. If you have interpreted something wrong from Pt LKV's
translated version, then my profuse apologies to Pt LKV in advance.
>
> My findings are indicated in in red color and enclosed in { }. It is
very clear that there are some serious problems in Pt LKV's version.
It is for our readers/forum members to decide what they want to
subscribe to.
>
> Let me state clearly that I have no commercial interest in either
Shri Yog Raj's book or Shri Goswami's transliterated work on Lal
Kitab. My atttachment and loyalty is only to LalKitab and to those who
are honestly dedicated to the cause of Lal Kitab.
>
> Thanks again for such painstaking work.
>
> Respectfully,
> Rajinder Bhatia
>
> --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Vinay kumar <v4vedic@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vinay kumar <v4vedic@...>
> Subject: [astrostudents] Lal Kitab Confusions
> To: astrostudents@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 10:56 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Experts,
> I have two roopantars of 1941 books one by Pt Vashishtha and
another is from Yograj Prabhakar. Both are called themselves Expert in
Urdu language. But the books tells different stories. I sent the mail
to lalkitabastrology group regarding this but they have not approved
my message. Some of the conflicting lines are:
>
> page 5 second line of pakka ghar no. 3 of Pt.Vashishta( LKV)
>
> "Khush data rabb bhai apne"
> The same line at p13 of Pt yograj prabhakar(YRP) book is
> "Khavesh o- aqarab bhai apney"
> { YRP version is 100% correct.
> LKV couldn't even come close to reading this word and missed it by a
mile. This can't be categorized as a typographical error or a spelling
mistake.}
>
>
> Page 5 line 14 from top (LKV )
> "duniya kee keemat hai aakaash budh mein"
> same at page 12 first line(YRP)
> 'Duniya kee kismat hai aakaash budh mein"
> {The actual word is "qismat" - YRP is 100% correct.
> LKV - Again inexcusable error. This is not a typographical error;
the word seems toi have been read wrong by LKV.}
>
> LKV Page 7 last line
> ' hamdardi foofi budh kee hai"
> YRP page 18 line 11
> "hamdardi foqi budh kee hai"
> { YRP 100% correct.
> LKV wrong again. Not a typographical error. An easy word, totally
misinterpreted by LKV. Of course, foofi is an item of budh but this
interpretation is out of context.}
>
> LKV page 8 line 2
> 'peshaani(Maaya) chehra hoti hai"
> YRP page 18 line 13
> " peshani chehra hoti hai"
> {YRP: 100% correct.
> LKV: There is no such word as (Maaya) in the original text, not even
in the footnotes.}
>
> LKV page 11 line 14
> " rahu ketu budh teesra, teenon hee shakti hain"
> YRP page 27 line 3
> "rahu ketu aur budh teesra, teenon hee shakki hain"
> {The word is "shakki". YRP 100% correct.
> LKV - could be a typographical error. The error is serious as it
changes the meaning of the sentence. But I will give LKV the benefit
of doubt.}
>
> LKV page 11 5th line from bottom
> "Khud rooh bura bul bhee hai"
> YRP page 28 line 8
> "khud rau boota bel bhee hai"
> {YRP: 100% correct. The word is clearly written as "booTaa bail"
Also it is not "rooh" as in LKV version. Three errors in one line in
the LKV "Translation?" Does it deserve any better rating than the old
"Dalda" books?}
>
> LKV Page 19 last line Brihaspati No 7
> "Log gaye jo mela bela kabhi lala ji jhagde mein ghar ke raakha"
> YRP page 45 line 13
> "Log gaye jo mela baisakhi lala ji jakde hai ghar kee raakhi"
> {YRP 100% correct!
> The LKV book takes the award for jumbling up the whole entire
sentence to make it utter jibberish and nonsensical. Did he try to
understand what he was reading before "translating" it ?}
>
> LKV page 25 line 4 from bottom sooraj no 2
> "bachhiya se vo galta ho"
> YRP page 56 line 5
> " Bhichhiya se vo galta ho"
> {YRP: 100% correct. The word is clearly written and corrrectly
interpreted by YRP.
> LKV seems to have not even undertood the meaning of this word and
thus arth kaa anarth ho gayaa! This is actually Punjabi version of
the word "bhiksha" (begging; "Begging will rot him/her" is the
meaning. Not the animal "bachhiya") This can't be classed as a
typographical error but an error of interpretation.}
>
> LKV page 35 line 3 chander 4
> Mama se taarey daya se taarey"
> YRP page 80 line 7
> " Maya se taarey daya se taarey"
> {YRP - 100% correct. The word is clearly written in the original text.
>
> We will give LKV the benefit of doubt, this is a typographical error.}
>
> LKV Page 56 line 5 from bottom mangal 6
> "Dhandey mein dam na ho chaahey khair hogi jaan ki"
> YRP page 127 line 5
> ' damdamey mein dam na hon khvah khar hogi jaan ki"
> { YRP 100% correct. The word is very clearly NOT "dhandhey" LKV:
wrong again. This is not a typographical error.}
>
> LKV page 111 Para 3 line 13
> " dono registaan aur samundar hongey"
> YRP page 223 line 14
> " Dono kohsar aur samunder hongey"
> { This is not on page 223. So I can't rate it. But there is a huge
difference between the words "kohsaar (mountain) and registaan (desert). }
>
> It is the same book these two writers published and referred but
with different meanings. there are several instance in both the books
I listed only few.
> Readers purchased these books from their hard earned money. It is
writer's moral duty to give correct version to their clients, whether
in the shape of translation or transliteration. or at least they can
do is to publish the errata separately for there readers to correct
their books.
> Can any one guide which book from above is to be read or referred as
correct.
> Regards
> Dr.Vinay
>