STD 3 TO 8 EXCEL FILE
ધોરણ 3 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 4 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 5 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 6 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 7 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 8 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
STD 3 TO 8 PDF FILE
ધોરણ 3 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 4 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 5 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 6 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 7 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
ધોરણ 8 ની અધ્યયન નિશ્પતિ માટે અહી ક્લિક કરો
Radhakrishnan's arrangement, as a southerner, to "the most vital seat of reasoning in India" in the north, used to be disliked through an amount of people from the Bengali mental world class, and The Modern Review, which was once crucial of the arrangement of non-Bengalis, developed to be the fundamental car of analysis. Not long after his appearance in Calcutta in 1921, Radhakrishnan's compositions have been ordinarily reprimanded in The Modern Review. At the point when Radhakrishnan posted his Indian Philosophy in two volumes (1923 and 1927), The Modern Review bewildered his utilization of sources, censuring the absence of references to Bengali researchers. However, in a proofreader's note, The Modern Review expressed that "As educator's Radhakrishnan's digital book has now not been gotten for assessment in this Journal, The Modern Review is presently not in a job to shape any assessment on it.
In the January 1929 difficulty of The Modern Review, the Bengali philosopher Jadunath Sinha made the announce that parts of his 1922 doctoral postulation, Indian Psychology of Perception, posted in 1925, had been duplicated by utilizing his coach Radhakrishnan into the section on "The Yoga machine of Patanjali" in his digital book Indian Philosophy II, posted in 1927. Sinha and Radhakrishnan traded many letters in the Modern Review, in which Sinha conversely parts of his proposal with Radhakrishnan's distribution, bestowing by and large 110 instances of "borrowings." Radhakrishnan felt constrained to react, referencing that Sinha and he had each utilized the indistinguishable old style messages, his interpretation had been in vogue interpretations, and that similitudes in interpretations have been therefore unavoidable. He likewise contended that he used to address on the issue sooner than distributing his book, and that his digital book used to be prepared for manage in 1924, sooner than Sinha's proposal used to be distributed.
Researchers, for example, Kuppuswami Sastri, Ganganath Jha, and Nalini Ganguli set up that Radhakrishnan used to appropriate the notes in question given that 1922. Ramananda Chatterjee, the supervisor of The Modern Review, wouldn't present a letter via Nalini Ganguli affirming this reality, while enduring with distributing Sinha's letters. The General Editor of Radhakrishnan's distributer, teacher Muirhead, what's more confirmed that the guide was once deferred for a very long time, because of his keep on being in the United States.
Reacting to this "methodical exertion [… ] to destroy Radhakrishnan's ubiquity as an understudy and an individual of note," Summer 1929 the debate swelled into a juristic battle, with Radhakrishnan presenting a work out positively for maligning of character against Sinha and Chatterjee, stressing Rs. 100,000 for the injury done, and Sinha presenting a case contrary to Radhakrishnan for copyright encroachment, horrendous Rs. 20,000. The fits had been gotten comfortable May 1933, the expressions of the understanding had been not, at this point revealed, and "every one of the claims made in the pleadings and in the segments of the Modern Review had been removed.
No comments:
Post a Comment