All Purana-s are only different parts of the Lord's Body
587 views
Skip to first unread message
V Subrahmanian
Apr 10, 2014, 3:54:18 AM4/10/14
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Someone sent me the following verse, though not correctly showing, which depicts the Lord's Body as representing the various purana-s. A nice imagery. Although parts are named differently, the Madhwa school does not admit svagata bheda in the Lord's Body. One cannot hold one part of the Lord's body to be superior to another.
regards
subrahmanian.v
According to Maharshi Suta, all the Puranas are nothing but the mediums through which Sri Hari manifests himself
- Brahma Purana is said to be the 'forehead' of Sri Hari,
- Padma Purana is said to be the 'heart' of Sri Hari,
- Vishnu Purana is said to be the 'right arm' of Sri Hari.
- Shiva Purana is said to be the 'left arm' of Sri Hari.
- Srimad Bhagawat is said to be his 'thigh',
- Narada Purana is said to be his 'navel',
- Markendeya Purana is said to be his 'right-foot'.
- Agni Purana is said to be his 'left foot',
- Bhavishya Purana is said to be his 'right-knee',
- Brahma Vaivrata Purana is said to be his 'left-knee'.
- Linga Purana is said to be his 'right ankle',
- Varaha Purana is said to be his 'left ankle',
- Skanda Purana is said to be the hair on the body of 'Sri Hari'.
- Vamana Purana is said to be his 'skin'.
- Kurma Purana is said to be his 'back'.
- Matsya Purana is said to be his 'stomach'.
- Garuda Purana is said to be his 'bone-marrow'.
- Brahmanda Purana is said to be his 'bone'.
Dr. T. Ganesan
Apr 10, 2014, 4:47:06 AM4/10/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
If each of the 18 purANa-s forms each
part of God's Body, then there is absolutely no question of
dumping some purANa-s as taamasa, raajasa and praising others as
saattvika. !!!
A similar view is also found in the Saiva Agama tradition where each of the 28 Muula Agama-s forms part of one of the holy limbs of Siva, of which there are verses in certain Saiva Agama-s.
Ganesan
A similar view is also found in the Saiva Agama tradition where each of the 28 Muula Agama-s forms part of one of the holy limbs of Siva, of which there are verses in certain Saiva Agama-s.
Ganesan
--
Nityanand Misra
Apr 10, 2014, 5:53:43 AM4/10/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:47:06 PM UTC+8, Ganesan wrote:
If each of the 18 purANa-s forms each part of God's Body, then there is absolutely no question of dumping some purANa-s as taamasa, raajasa and praising others as saattvika. !!!
The verses comparing various Purāṇas to the body of Śrīhari are from Purāṇa (Padma Purāṇa). The verses categorizing them into Sāttvika Tāmasa Rājasa are also from Purāṇa (Padma Purāṇa and Devī Bhāgavatam).
One can say the former contradict the latter, but if we say that, are we not implying there is Vyāghātadoṣa in the Purāṇas? Or are we saying (without proof) that the latter verses are interpolated?
What is needed is Sāmañjasya between these two, not necessarily rejection of one position and acceptance of another.
Karapātra Svāmī has written that any Vyāghātadoṣa in our scriptures is only apparent, and exists until a Sāmañjasya has been established.
It would be interesting to see how various commentators have explained them. Are there any known commentaries on Padma Purāṇa we may consult? What adds to the difficulty in understanding Purāṇas is that Guru Parampāras exist only for some of them Purāṇa - I know the Śrīmadbhāgavatam is still learned traditionally in Gurukulas but other Purāṇas - I am not aware.
One can say the former contradict the latter, but if we say that, are we not implying there is Vyāghātadoṣa in the Purāṇas? Or are we saying (without proof) that the latter verses are interpolated?
What is needed is Sāmañjasya between these two, not necessarily rejection of one position and acceptance of another.
Karapātra Svāmī has written that any Vyāghātadoṣa in our scriptures is only apparent, and exists until a Sāmañjasya has been established.
It would be interesting to see how various commentators have explained them. Are there any known commentaries on Padma Purāṇa we may consult? What adds to the difficulty in understanding Purāṇas is that Guru Parampāras exist only for some of them Purāṇa - I know the Śrīmadbhāgavatam is still learned traditionally in Gurukulas but other Purāṇas - I am not aware.
Usha Sanka
Apr 10, 2014, 10:29:28 AM4/10/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste
The verses comparing various Purāṇas to the body of Śrīhari are from Purāṇa (Padma Purāṇa). The verses categorizing them into Sāttvika Tāmasa Rājasa are also from Purāṇa (Padma Purāṇa and Devī Bhāgavatam).
Yes, very much.
Though not related to main discussion, this is what (pl. see image attached) MR Kale says about पद्मपुराण source of शकुन्तला story in his commentary on "The Abhijnana-shakuntalam of Kalidasa" (MLBD, Delhi, 10th Ed. 1969, Reprint-2005). Thought, would share it as an instance researched on by a great scholar like Kale, on this पुराण issue.
There were other instances as well when पद्मपुराण authenticity was at question (no other पुराण enjoys as many cases of contradictions as this one, as I heard it-).
And I also read that- it is देवीभागवतम् for the first time, which raises issues of greater and lesser gods (esp. विष्णु, शिव, देवी comparisons). (References due from me. Will provide as soon as I find where exactly I read it.)
Rest is to be decided by authentic sources, and the issue is waiting for a serious research.
Thankyou
-इत्थं विनीता
उषा
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"
Usha Sanka
Apr 10, 2014, 10:30:45 AM4/10/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
The image- source- Introduction of the book mentioned- pg.lxxiv
Nityanand Misra
Apr 10, 2014, 10:05:46 PM4/10/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:29:28 PM UTC+8, Usha Sanka wrote:
Yes, very much.Though not related to main discussion, this is what (pl. see image attached) MR Kale says about पद्मपुराण source of शकुन्तला story in his commentary on "The Abhijnana-shakuntalam of Kalidasa" (MLBD, Delhi, 10th Ed. 1969, Reprint-2005). Thought, would share it as an instance researched on by a great scholar like Kale, on this पुराण issue.
Yes, the timing and authenticity of Purāṇas are questioned by many, but even the most intelligent and wise challengers have no conclusive answers - they give their "opinions" and "beliefs" but no concrete proofs. Some believe Padmapurāṇa predates Kālidāsa (as Kane cites), some believe it copies from Kālidāsa's work (as Kane "believes" - "It seems ..."), some others believe Padmapurāṇa predates Bhavabhūti and Uttararāmacarita draws from Padmapurāṇa, some others believe Padmapurāṇa came around 1000 CE. In all this debate, nothing is proven beyond doubt, these are all conjectures and.or opinions (something like there was Jaya, then Bhārata then Mahābhārata). The traditional Āstika belief is that the eighteen Smṛtis and eighteen Purāṇas are compositions of the same seers who saw the Mantras of the Vedas. In the absence of concrete proof from any of the questioners, I have no choice but to believe in somebody's view. In such a case, I would rather believe in this traditional Āstika view.
There were other instances as well when पद्मपुराण authenticity was at question (no other पुराण enjoys as many cases of contradictions as this one, as I heard it-).
Firstly we do not even know if this is an example of Vyāghāta. The comparison to body parts, and categorization as Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa may be two different perspectives. Is this contradiction? Subrahmanian Ji and Prof. Ganesan seem to suggest this is, but I do not think there is a contradiction here. If this is contradiction, then one can argue that Gītā 18-41 (ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप। कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः॥) which admits different Guṇa for four Varṇas, contradicts the Puruṣasūkta (ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीत्। बाहू राजन्यः कृतः। ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः। पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत॥) which says the Varṇas came from different body parts of the cosmic Puruṣa. When we talk of Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa - there is no superiority or inferiority intended, it is the inherent Guṇa which is being talked about.
Secondly, sweeping statements like "no other पुराण enjoys as many cases of contradictions as this one" need to be corroborated with evidence and examples. It is expected that Western scholars and modern writers reject the historicity and authenticity of Purāṇas, or call them as "full of contradiction". But coming from a traditional scholar like you, suggestions that Purāṇas have Vyāghāta or interpolations is a bit surprising.
Rest is to be decided by authentic sources, and the issue is waiting for a serious research.
Research is most welcome, but cannot decide for all in this case - Purāṇas are matters of faith for a large section of Hindu population. Historicity and accuracy of immaculate conception, virgin birth, splitting of the moon, al-Buraq, et cetera can all be researched - but those who believe in these hardly bother about research.
V Subrahmanian
Apr 11, 2014, 7:19:45 AM4/11/14
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
There were other instances as well when पद्मपुराण authenticity was at question (no other पुराण enjoys as many cases of contradictions as this one, as I heard it-).
Firstly we do not even know if this is an example of Vyāghāta. The comparison to body parts, and categorization as Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa may be two different perspectives. Is this contradiction? Subrahmanian Ji and Prof. Ganesan seem to suggest this is, but I do not think there is a contradiction here.
The two 'verses' are connected thus: In the verses teaching that certain puranas of Veda Vyasa himself will lead to hell and only certain of them will lead to heaven/liberation, the purana-s themselves are categorized as saattvika, raajasika and taamasika. So, the message, as far as I see, is excepting the saattvika purana-s, the rest are not even to be studied, believed in, etc. As the mAyAvAdam... set of verses say: these shAstra-s are initiated for the lokanAshArtham. So, there is an obvious higher status for some puranas to the detriment of the rest of the puranas, although all of them are from the pen of Veda Vyasa.
In the other set of verses describing the puranas as various parts of the Lord's Body, no such hierarchy/gradation is even suggested. As I had pointed out, there cannot be a higher body part and a despicable/reprehensible body part as far as Hari's body is concerned. In the Purusha sukta reference too such a suggestion is not there.
In the BG itself it is said: sve sve karmaNyabhirataH samsiddhim labhate naraH. So, even a shUdra who is said to be predominantly tamas-rajas, if he sticks to sva dharma there is hope for upliftment. But the tAmasa rAjasa purANas themselves, wholesale, lead to hell according to those verses.
In the BG 14 and other chapters delineating on the three gunas, their kAryams, etc. the message is clear: one should identify them in oneself and seek to develop the sattvik ones and give up the others that are detrimental to one's upliftment. Ultimately, the BG teaches guNAtItatva; transcending even sattva.
How is one to draw such a message from the categorization of whole puranas as saattvika, etc.? If raajasa/taamasa puranas are not to be studied at all why did Veda Vyasa pen them at all? If the puranas are from the pen of the vedic seers, we do not understand if such seers could compose something first and then ask people not to study them. In niShiddha karma-s like 'brAhmaNo na hantavyaH, nAnRtam vadet, na surAm pibet', these karma-s are natural and were not taught how to do them first and then a niShedha followed. But in the case of puranas of the second lot, the glories of various deities have been elaborately sung and even moksha mArga has been specified therein. But if the message is that these puranas will lead one to hell, then the purpose of composing them first is in question.
It is in this background that the two sets of verses, both believed to be from the Padma purana, were bracketed together for a study.
subrahmanian.v
If this is contradiction, then one can argue that Gītā 18-41 (ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप। कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः॥) which admits different Guṇa for four Varṇas, contradicts the Puruṣasūkta (ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीत्। बाहू राजन्यः कृतः। ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः। पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत॥) which says the Varṇas came from different body parts of the cosmic Puruṣa. When we talk of Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa - there is no superiority or inferiority intended, it is the inherent Guṇa which is being talked about.
Dr. T. Ganesan
Apr 11, 2014, 7:51:21 AM4/11/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
If this is contradiction, then one can argue that Gītā 18-41 (ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप। कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः॥) which admits different Guṇa for four Varṇas, contradicts the Puruṣasūkta (ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीत्। बाहू राजन्यः कृतः। ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः। पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत॥) which says the Varṇas came from different body parts of the cosmic Puruṣa.
Yes. The Gita verse under discussion 18-41 contradicts the Vedic
passage (PuruShasuukta): Gita, the Smriti contradicts the
PuruShasuukta, the Sruti. Therefore, Gita passage is not valid; a
Smriti that contardicts a Sruti is definitely not valid according
to the Vedic tradition accepted by all Astika-s.
When we talk of Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa - there is no superiority or inferiority intended, it is the inherent Guṇa which is being talked about.
No. By classifying as saattvika, raajasa and taamasa definitely,
there is the idea of superiority and inferiority. Otherwise why
should one classify ? These three guNa-s along with their effects
are discussed in almost all the Saastra-s and one is advised to
strive to develop the sattvaguNa alone leaving the other two which
quality is the sine qua none for any spiritual upliftment,
be it any darshana or tradition.
It is so well-known that even the much acclaimed Gita discusses a lot about these guNa-s with regard to food, activities and mental dispositions, etc. and speaks highly only of the sattvaguNa.
Also, in the classification of the 18 purANa-s as saattvika, etc. the same hierarchy and the idea of superiority-inferiority is the basis, which view, as I had mentioned in an earlier message, was a later concoction by some VaishNava teachers and foisted upon the PurANa corpus and which had ably been analysed threadbare and refuted by NiilakaNThadiikShita in his puurvapIThikA to his elaborate commentary on the SivaaShTottarasatanaamastottra.
Ganesan
It is so well-known that even the much acclaimed Gita discusses a lot about these guNa-s with regard to food, activities and mental dispositions, etc. and speaks highly only of the sattvaguNa.
Also, in the classification of the 18 purANa-s as saattvika, etc. the same hierarchy and the idea of superiority-inferiority is the basis, which view, as I had mentioned in an earlier message, was a later concoction by some VaishNava teachers and foisted upon the PurANa corpus and which had ably been analysed threadbare and refuted by NiilakaNThadiikShita in his puurvapIThikA to his elaborate commentary on the SivaaShTottarasatanaamastottra.
Ganesan
V Subrahmanian
Apr 12, 2014, 12:42:05 AM4/12/14
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:
Also, in the classification of the 18 purANa-s as saattvika, etc. the same hierarchy and the idea of superiority-inferiority is the basis, which view, as I had mentioned in an earlier message, was a later concoction by some VaishNava teachers and foisted upon the PurANa corpus and which had ably been analysed threadbare and refuted by NiilakaNThadiikShita in his puurvapIThikA to his elaborate commentary on the SivaaShTottarasatanaamastottra.
Dear Sri Ganesan,
Could you kindly give any link or source to access/purchase the above stated work as I could not locate it online?
warm regards
subrahmanian.v
Ganesan
On 11-04-2014 16:49, V Subrahmanian wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
There were other instances as well when पद्मपुराण authenticity was at question (no other पुराण enjoys as many cases of contradictions as this one, as I heard it-).
Firstly we do not even know if this is an example of Vyāghāta. The comparison to body parts, and categorization as Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa may be two different perspectives. Is this contradiction? Subrahmanian Ji and Prof. Ganesan seem to suggest this is, but I do not think there is a contradiction here.
The two 'verses' are connected thus: In the verses teaching that certain puranas of Veda Vyasa himself will lead to hell and only certain of them will lead to heaven/liberation, the purana-s themselves are categorized as saattvika, raajasika and taamasika. So, the message, as far as I see, is excepting the saattvika purana-s, the rest are not even to be studied, believed in, etc. As the mAyAvAdam... set of verses say: these shAstra-s are initiated for the lokanAshArtham. So, there is an obvious higher status for some puranas to the detriment of the rest of the puranas, although all of them are from the pen of Veda Vyasa.
In the other set of verses describing the puranas as various parts of the Lord's Body, no such hierarchy/gradation is even suggested. As I had pointed out, there cannot be a higher body part and a despicable/reprehensible body part as far as Hari's body is concerned. In the Purusha sukta reference too such a suggestion is not there.
In the BG itself it is said: sve sve karmaNyabhirataH samsiddhim labhate naraH. So, even a shUdra who is said to be predominantly tamas-rajas, if he sticks to sva dharma there is hope for upliftment. But the tAmasa rAjasa purANas themselves, wholesale, lead to hell according to those verses.
In the BG 14 and other chapters delineating on the three gunas, their kAryams, etc. the message is clear: one should identify them in oneself and seek to develop the sattvik ones and give up the others that are detrimental to one's upliftment. Ultimately, the BG teaches guNAtItatva; transcending even sattva.
How is one to draw such a message from the categorization of whole puranas as saattvika, etc.? If raajasa/taamasa puranas are not to be studied at all why did Veda Vyasa pen them at all? If the puranas are from the pen of the vedic seers, we do not understand if such seers could compose something first and then ask people not to study them. In niShiddha karma-s like 'brAhmaNo na hantavyaH, nAnRtam vadet, na surAm pibet', these karma-s are natural and were not taught how to do them first and then a niShedha followed. But in the case of puranas of the second lot, the glories of various deities have been elaborately sung and even moksha mArga has been specified therein. But if the message is that these puranas will lead one to hell, then the purpose of composing them first is in question.
It is in this background that the two sets of verses, both believed to be from the Padma purana, were bracketed together for a study.
subrahmanian.v
If this is contradiction, then one can argue that Gītā 18-41 (ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप। कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः॥) which admits different Guṇa for four Varṇas, contradicts the Puruṣasūkta (ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीत्। बाहू राजन्यः कृतः। ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः। पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत॥) which says the Varṇas came from different body parts of the cosmic Puruṣa. When we talk of Sāttvika, Rajāsa, Tāmasa - there is no superiority or inferiority intended, it is the inherent Guṇa which is being talked about.
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
V Subrahmanian
Apr 12, 2014, 1:49:49 AM4/12/14
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Here is a link for the work sent by a friend:
Giving below link to SVV edition of Siva Tattva Rahasya (commentary on Sivashtottara).
Nityanand Misra
Apr 13, 2014, 8:40:36 PM4/13/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 1:49:49 PM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote:
Here is a link for the work sent by a friend:Giving below link to SVV edition of Siva Tattva Rahasya (commentary on Sivashtottara).
Thanks for the link. I went through the first 16 or so pages of the book, after which the discussion moves to other points. An elaborate Purvapaksa (of whom it is not clear, but certainly not the Puranic Paksa) says that the Shaiva Puranas are unauthentic or only authentic when they agree with Vaishnava Puranas. The Purvapaksa makes certain interpretations based on the Sattvika-Rajasa-Tamasa categorization of Puranas/Mahatmyas in Puranas. This Purvapaksa is contradicted by the commentatory.
However, I did not find a single place where the Sattvika-Rajasa-Tamasa categorization in Puranic verses per se is contradicted or contested. Nor is it indicated that they were concoctions. Maybe I missed it or maybe it is in a different work, please point out in either case where the author has contradicted the Puranic verses.
In fact, the commentator has cited similar verses from the supposedly Shaiva Puranas like Matsya, Skanda and Linga which talk about similar Sattvika-Rajasa-Tamasa categorizations, e.g. Mahatmya of Siva being greater in Tamasa Kalpas, et cetera.
The claim that the Padma Purana verses are interpolated by Vaishnavas needs corroboration and is not helped by the cited commentary. Surely Vaishnavas did not concoct those verses in Shaiva and Shakta Puranas also!
What I did find was that the commentator has shown एकवाक्यता in the Puranas. And in his favour he cites that whatever Kalpa Brahma had in mind when he first uttered the Puranas, corresponding to that Sattvika-Tamasa-Rajasa Kalpa, different (divisions of) Puranas came into existence. This is the Samanjasya that I was referring to, which confirms the belief that there is no self-contradiction in our Puranas.
Similarly, some Puranas leading to Niraya surely has a deeper meaning, which we may not be aware of. Maybe some commentary on Padma Purana will help.
However, I did not find a single place where the Sattvika-Rajasa-Tamasa categorization in Puranic verses per se is contradicted or contested. Nor is it indicated that they were concoctions. Maybe I missed it or maybe it is in a different work, please point out in either case where the author has contradicted the Puranic verses.
In fact, the commentator has cited similar verses from the supposedly Shaiva Puranas like Matsya, Skanda and Linga which talk about similar Sattvika-Rajasa-Tamasa categorizations, e.g. Mahatmya of Siva being greater in Tamasa Kalpas, et cetera.
The claim that the Padma Purana verses are interpolated by Vaishnavas needs corroboration and is not helped by the cited commentary. Surely Vaishnavas did not concoct those verses in Shaiva and Shakta Puranas also!
What I did find was that the commentator has shown एकवाक्यता in the Puranas. And in his favour he cites that whatever Kalpa Brahma had in mind when he first uttered the Puranas, corresponding to that Sattvika-Tamasa-Rajasa Kalpa, different (divisions of) Puranas came into existence. This is the Samanjasya that I was referring to, which confirms the belief that there is no self-contradiction in our Puranas.
Similarly, some Puranas leading to Niraya surely has a deeper meaning, which we may not be aware of. Maybe some commentary on Padma Purana will help.
Shivosha Vyasan
Dec 9, 2014, 8:33:02 AM12/9/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
अभिवाद्य,
सम्बद्धं किञ्चित् प्राप्तमिति कृत्वा प्रेष्यते।
पुराण-प्रतिषु प्रक्षेपः जातः इति अयं परिशोधकः लिखति। सम्पूर्णं पुस्तकं अत्र प्राप्यते।
Nagaraj Paturi
Dec 9, 2014, 12:35:35 PM12/9/14
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
The guNa-wise classification of purANas (even dars'anas/s'Astras) was discussed in the threads
These links are for the benefit of those interested in the connected discussions.
Body parts imagery is to communicate the idea of intertextuality and organic unity among purANas.
guNa-wise classification of purANas is neither in consonance nor in dissonance with the body parts model of looking at the set of purANas.
These two are two mutually independent perspectives.
The validities of these two perspectives are not interdependent too.
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Prof.Nagaraj Paturi
Hyderabad-500044
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages