Hai cercato la traduzione di we must eat to live and n... da Inglese a Hindi (indiano)

Contributi umani

Da traduttori professionisti, imprese, pagine web e archivi di traduzione disponibili gratuitamente al pubblico.

Aggiungi una traduzione

Inglese

Hindi (indiano)

Informazioni

Inglese

we should then eat to live , not live to eat .

Hindi (indiano)

तब हम जीने के लिए खायेंगे , न कि खाने के लिए जीयेंगे ।

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Inglese

we should then eat to live , not live to eat .

Hindi (indiano)

तब हम जीनेके लिए खायेगे , न कि खानेके लिए जीयेंगे ।

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Inglese

one should eat to live , not live to eat

Hindi (indiano)

जीने के लिए खाना चाहिए, खाने के लिए नहीं

Ultimo aggiornamento 2019-11-21
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Inglese

we have to eat to live

Hindi (indiano)

हमें जीने के लिए खाte है

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-07-28
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Inglese

for both flesh - meats and liquor the sovereign rule is we must not live in order to eat and drink and be merry , but eat and drink in order to make our bodies temples of god and use them for service of man .

Hindi (indiano)

मांसाहार और शराब , दोनों के बारे में उत्तम नियम तो यह है कि हमें खाने , पीने और आमोद - प्रमोद के लिए नहीं जीना चाहिये , बल्कि इसलिए चाना और पीना चाहिये कि हमारे शरीर ईश्वर के मन्दिर बन जायं और हम उनका उपयोग मनुष्य की सेवा में कर सकें ।

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Inglese

at the same time we continue to live and act through our individual birth and becoming , but with a different knowledge and quite another kind of experience ; the world also continues , but we see it in our own being and not as something external to it and other than ourselves .

Hindi (indiano)

इस अनुभव के होने पर भी हम अपने व्यक्तिगत जन्म और व्यक्त अस्तित्व के द्वारा जीवन यापन तथा कर्म करना जारी रखते हैं , पर एक भिन्न प्रकार के ज्ञान तथा बिल्कुल और ही तरह के अनुभव के साथ; यह जगत् भी तब बराबर चलता ही रहता है , पर हम इसे अपनी सत्ता के अन्दर देखते हैं , किसी ऐसी वस्तु के रूव में नहीं देखते जो हमारी सत्ता के बाहर एवं हमसे भिन्न हो ।

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Inglese

in order to live and thrive in a knowledge - driven era , we must create a nation of fully literate citizens .

Hindi (indiano)

ज्ञान से संचालित आज के युग में जीने और आगे बढ़ने के लिए हमें संपर्ण साक्षर नागरिकों वाले राष्ट्र का निर्माण करना होगा ।

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Inglese

emerson said, toward the end of his writing career, "i have taught one doctrine, namely, the infinitude of the private man." that's why we begin our study of american transcendentalism with this essay. his basic philosophical faith (one shared by many americans) is that the ultimate source of truth is within ourselves. we recognize truth outside ourselves, in nature or in others, and the key word here is "recognize," even if only very dimly. we are often not "in touch" with ourselves or trust ourselves enough to find these truths and so must often depend on others, books, etc. to express it for us, but it is somehow within us. now, there's no particular empirical evidence for this; emerson is making a great intuitive leap of faith, and you either believe (because you've experienced it to some degree) or you don't. it is this concept of what some critics call the "imperial self" which lies at the heart of romanticism, both positively and negatively. however, this is not necessarily self-centered, because the truth which lies within is universal, shared and recognized by all (if they only knew it) and generated by self (god, over-soul, whatever). all we can really know is within us, but we must assume that other people have the same potential as we do--and assume that they do, in fact, exist (although you really can't prove it!) presumably, trusting oneself means much more than that; it means trusting that somehow or other we have an innate wisdom which is a projection of the god within, and that every person has that wisdom, although few have much access to it. those few we often call poets and prophets (but never politicians!) and we cherish the insights into our own truths that we glimpse through them. theoretically, then, to believe in our selves and our deep capacity to understand and recognize truths is to believe in every self, though we have no access to any other self besides us. practically it may be another matter, but emerson is a bit of an idealist and not terribly practical (we can't all be everything!) one characteristic of emerson's essays is the gaps he leaves the reader to fill (or to flounder in); it is probably their greatest strength (because you may personalize what you read) and greatest weakness (it can be confusing). for example, at the beginning of the essay he speaks of verses he has read which are original, but he does not tell you what those verses are. you have to imagine what "original" might be. his emphasis is not on these particular verses, or even the definition of originality in poetry, but a discussion on originality and recognizing your own ability to be original and not imitative. after all, he can't say what would be original for you, could he? but he wants you to imagine what that might be. this will happen repeatedly through the essay. try your best to fill those blanks in ways that make sense to you and your experience, and if you can't, ignore them and keep going. one problem you may find with this essay is that you feel that he is hitting you over the head with the same idea over and over, like a big hammer labeled "believe in yourself." i'm sure you wished to cry out, "ok ralphie, i've got it, i've got it!" he makes sure that you consider the implications of this idea in every way possible. it doesn't matter if there are gaps in what you understand; he'll catch up with you somewhere or other in the essay. a little overkill, perhaps. why? whom is he trying to convince? perhaps himself as well as his reader. but the message seems to be one that we all need, especially today when the ever-present media assaults us with ideas and images of how we should live and what we should believe. remember that we are reading this 150 years later or so. what seemed like a rather novel idea then has deteriorated into a cliche, embedded in just about every self-help "psychology" book in the local mall bookstore that you can find. it is hard for us to see the original force of this in 1838, when people felt far less secure about themselves, as individuals and as americans (whatever that was). in many ways, this is as much a cultural/intellectual declaration of independence as it is an exhortation to believe in yourself. its major power today is probably directed toward the younger reader, struggling with the very powerful forces toward conformity that seem endemic in american high schools. however, it also works in a class like this, where i am, in a sense, forcing you to express your ideas and not giving you such an easy way out as taking notes on what wisdom i might have to impart. emerson had his own personal reasons for writing this. he was deeply insecure in many ways (aren't we all?), and a rather revolutionary speech about religion that he delivered at the harvard divinity school about this time (asserting the doctrine of the god within) caused a tremendous uproar and criticism from people he respected. there would be no job for him at harvard! he had left the ministry a few years earlier and had lost his young wife to tuberculosis after 18 months of marriage. he didn't really have a career at that point; he just had the ideas he believed passionately and thought needed to be heard. he was involved in a very deep career crisis (which many of us can relate to). there simply was no way to earn a living doing what his heart told him that he must do--to write and to speak. except, as it turned out, there were ways to realize his dream, as long as he didn't lose his faith in himself. the rhetoric of this essay shows signs of his years in the pulpit; it's like he's demanding you to listen and to go out and act. but he may well be exhorting himself just as much as, if not more than, his readers. what he wanted to do--to establish himself a place as a writer and thinker--was extraordinarily difficult to do outside of an institution like the church or the university (so what else has changed!), and it would take all the nerve he could summon. and after all, he was no kid; he was 35 years old and counting. it all sounds so simple: just make up your mind to trust your deepest instincts and go for it! i know it isn't that simple--and in fact, so did emerson, and seeing the problems inherent in such a personally energizing idea kept him busy writing for some time. if you look carefully, you can see some awareness of this conflict in the essay, but it doesn't really blossom forth for a while. for one thing, he gives a lot of credit to innate goodness, and almost totally ignores the very crucial environmental shaping factors. he and his readers were raised in an extremely "moral" environment, and though they might rebel against church doctrine, they were deeply "indoctrinated" with those moral codes. this is not necessarily the case in the "murder capital of the world"! another problem is the extreme "masculinity" of the essay--one of his favorite words is "manliness." i can just visualize this very assertive and muscular male as an underlying ideal (was emerson insecure about that too? probably, since writers/thinkers/preachers were considered rather feminized by his society, unlike those competitive, money-making businessmen so idealized by his compatriots.) i don't believe that self-trust is a male-marked trait, although i suspect that he does believe it (though, bless his heart, he doesn't really know it!). i know, i'm reading this from my own perspective, but as emerson would say, isn't that the only way you can read? actually, i think you can try to place yourself in another context, but that must be a work of imagination to some degree (i can try, anyhow; i'll just substitute woman for man and you can do whatever you like!) emerson doesn't just keep preaching the same doctrine though, you may be relieved to hear, or at least not with the same simplistic fervour. there is a flip side to this: as exciting and energizing it may be to follow your deepest instincts and do/say what you think is right, it's also depressing to think that maybe all we can know is what is within us. in a sense, we may be imprisoned within our own perceptions and experiences, and can never really know what might be true. we can't even be sure if anyone or anything else exists, because all we can know is what's in our little individual heads. emerson will come to see this, as well as the many limitations on our power that are imposed by circumstances and environment, which he calls fate. he gets a lot more interesting when he confronts these conflicting forces. wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do is "trust ourselves" and follow our own stars? actually, it's rather amazing what people can accomplish if they do just that. however, that's not the whole story, and emerson knew it, especially after life dealt him a few more tough blows--like his beloved 5 year old son dying of scarlet fever. self-reliance can look like a pretty puny doctrine in light of a tragedy like that, but it did sustain him (although perhaps in a modified form).. so the important thing is not whether emerson is right or wrong here. he's both--and we are to draw from the essay what means the most to us. that's one reason it's written as it is. buried in there are sentences which strike right to the heart of readers, and suggest all kinds of possibilities for them. for example, many students trying to see their way ahead in life have found great comfort in this metaphor: the voyage of the best ship is a zigzag line of a hundred tacks. see the line from a sufficient distance, and it straightens itself to the average tendency. your genuine action will explain itself, and will explain your other genuine actions. you could interpret this in several ways. when you look at your life, especially when you are young, if you follow your "inner gyroscope" and do things and take courses that just "feel right," it might look to others (parents in particular) as if you just can't make up your mind and are zigzagging all over the place. the coherence will be an inner one, perhaps not even visible to you, but over time, it will probably make sense, just as you have to zigzag when sailing to reach a point most directly. one difference, of course, is that you (unlike the sailor) often haven't a clue where or what that "point" might be, and have to trust that by following your instincts and strengths, you'll actually reach some kind of point. i find that rather profound, as i look at my own life, and the decisions that i made that didn't make a lot of sense, perhaps, to others and seemed inconsistent, but that were in fact quite consistent with who i was and what i wanted to be, although i hadn't a clue what that might be (i never dreamed i'd end up teaching, etc.!) ok, that's my personal testimony (although i'll admit, i cruised past that passage when i was in college and needed to read it most)--you'll have your own, i imagine. if you'll be patient with emerson (and his vocabulary and greater reading knowledge), he is likely to speak very personally to you, if not on this reading then maybe on another. besides, just think of all the money you can save on those self-help books and therapy groups by going right to the source! ;

Hindi (indiano)

आत्म स्वतंत्रता निबंध

Ultimo aggiornamento 2015-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo
Attenzione: contiene formattazione HTML nascosta

Inglese

emerson said, toward the end of his writing career, "i have taught one doctrine, namely, the infinitude of the private man." that's why we begin our study of american transcendentalism with this essay. his basic philosophical faith (one shared by many americans) is that the ultimate source of truth is within ourselves. we recognize truth outside ourselves, in nature or in others, and the key word here is "recognize," even if only very dimly. we are often not "in touch" with ourselves or trust ourselves enough to find these truths and so must often depend on others, books, etc. to express it for us, but it is somehow within us. now, there's no particular empirical evidence for this; emerson is making a great intuitive leap of faith, and you either believe (because you've experienced it to some degree) or you don't. it is this concept of what some critics call the "imperial self" which lies at the heart of romanticism, both positively and negatively. however, this is not necessarily self-centered, because the truth which lies within is universal, shared and recognized by all (if they only knew it) and generated by self (god, over-soul, whatever). all we can really know is within us, but we must assume that other people have the same potential as we do--and assume that they do, in fact, exist (although you really can't prove it!) presumably, trusting oneself means much more than that; it means trusting that somehow or other we have an innate wisdom which is a projection of the god within, and that every person has that wisdom, although few have much access to it. those few we often call poets and prophets (but never politicians!) and we cherish the insights into our own truths that we glimpse through them. theoretically, then, to believe in our selves and our deep capacity to understand and recognize truths is to believe in every self, though we have no access to any other self besides us. practically it may be another matter, but emerson is a bit of an idealist and not terribly practical (we can't all be everything!) one characteristic of emerson's essays is the gaps he leaves the reader to fill (or to flounder in); it is probably their greatest strength (because you may personalize what you read) and greatest weakness (it can be confusing). for example, at the beginning of the essay he speaks of verses he has read which are original, but he does not tell you what those verses are. you have to imagine what "original" might be. his emphasis is not on these particular verses, or even the definition of originality in poetry, but a discussion on originality and recognizing your own ability to be original and not imitative. after all, he can't say what would be original for you, could he? but he wants you to imagine what that might be. this will happen repeatedly through the essay. try your best to fill those blanks in ways that make sense to you and your experience, and if you can't, ignore them and keep going. one problem you may find with this essay is that you feel that he is hitting you over the head with the same idea over and over, like a big hammer labeled "believe in yourself." i'm sure you wished to cry out, "ok ralphie, i've got it, i've got it!" he makes sure that you consider the implications of this idea in every way possible. it doesn't matter if there are gaps in what you understand; he'll catch up with you somewhere or other in the essay. a little overkill, perhaps. why? whom is he trying to convince? perhaps himself as well as his reader. but the message seems to be one that we all need, especially today when the ever-present media assaults us with ideas and images of how we should live and what we should believe. remember that we are reading this 150 years later or so. what seemed like a rather novel idea then has deteriorated into a cliche, embedded in just about every self-help "psychology" book in the local mall bookstore that you can find. it is hard for us to see the original force of this in 1838, when people felt far less secure about themselves, as individuals and as americans (whatever that was). in many ways, this is as much a cultural/intellectual declaration of independence as it is an exhortation to believe in yourself. its major power today is probably directed toward the younger reader, struggling with the very powerful forces toward conformity that seem endemic in american high schools. however, it also works in a class like this, where i am, in a sense, forcing you to express your ideas and not giving you such an easy way out as taking notes on what wisdom i might have to impart. emerson had his own personal reasons for writing this. he was deeply insecure in many ways (aren't we all?), and a rather revolutionary speech about religion that he delivered at the harvard divinity school about this time (asserting the doctrine of the god within) caused a tremendous uproar and criticism from people he respected. there would be no job for him at harvard! he had left the ministry a few years earlier and had lost his young wife to tuberculosis after 18 months of marriage. he didn't really have a career at that point; he just had the ideas he believed passionately and thought needed to be heard. he was involved in a very deep career crisis (which many of us can relate to). there simply was no way to earn a living doing what his heart told him that he must do--to write and to speak. except, as it turned out, there were ways to realize his dream, as long as he didn't lose his faith in himself. the rhetoric of this essay shows signs of his years in the pulpit; it's like he's demanding you to listen and to go out and act. but he may well be exhorting himself just as much as, if not more than, his readers. what he wanted to do--to establish himself a place as a writer and thinker--was extraordinarily difficult to do outside of an institution like the church or the university (so what else has changed!), and it would take all the nerve he could summon. and after all, he was no kid; he was 35 years old and counting. it all sounds so simple: just make up your mind to trust your deepest instincts and go for it! i know it isn't that simple--and in fact, so did emerson, and seeing the problems inherent in such a personally energizing idea kept him busy writing for some time. if you look carefully, you can see some awareness of this conflict in the essay, but it doesn't really blossom forth for a while. for one thing, he gives a lot of credit to innate goodness, and almost totally ignores the very crucial environmental shaping factors. he and his readers were raised in an extremely "moral" environment, and though they might rebel against church doctrine, they were deeply "indoctrinated" with those moral codes. this is not necessarily the case in the "murder capital of the world"! another problem is the extreme "masculinity" of the essay--one of his favorite words is "manliness." i can just visualize this very assertive and muscular male as an underlying ideal (was emerson insecure about that too? probably, since writers/thinkers/preachers were considered rather feminized by his society, unlike those competitive, money-making businessmen so idealized by his compatriots.) i don't believe that self-trust is a male-marked trait, although i suspect that he does believe it (though, bless his heart, he doesn't really know it!). i know, i'm reading this from my own perspective, but as emerson would say, isn't that the only way you can read? actually, i think you can try to place yourself in another context, but that must be a work of imagination to some degree (i can try, anyhow; i'll just substitute woman for man and you can do whatever you like!) emerson doesn't just keep preaching the same doctrine though, you may be relieved to hear, or at least not with the same simplistic fervour. there is a flip side to this: as exciting and energizing it may be to follow your deepest instincts and do/say what you think is right, it's also depressing to think that maybe all we can know is what is within us. in a sense, we may be imprisoned within our own perceptions and experiences, and can never really know what might be true. we can't even be sure if anyone or anything else exists, because all we can know is what's in our little individual heads. emerson will come to see this, as well as the many limitations on our power that are imposed by circumstances and environment, which he calls fate. he gets a lot more interesting when he confronts these conflicting forces. wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do is "trust ourselves" and follow our own stars? actually, it's rather amazing what people can accomplish if they do just that. however, that's not the whole story, and emerson knew it, especially after life dealt him a few more tough blows--like his beloved 5 year old son dying of scarlet fever. self-reliance can look like a pretty puny doctrine in light of a tragedy like that, but it did sustain him (although perhaps in a modified form).. so the important thing is not whether emerson is right or wrong here. he's both--and we are to draw from the essay what means the most to us. that's one reason it's written as it is. buried in there are sentences which strike right to the heart of readers, and suggest all kinds of possibilities for them. for example, many students trying to see their way ahead in life have found great comfort in this metaphor: the voyage of the best ship is a zigzag line of a hundred tacks. see the line from a sufficient distance, and it straightens itself to the average tendency. your genuine action will explain itself, and will explain your other genuine actions. you could interpret this in several ways. when you look at your life, especially when you are young, if you follow your "inner gyroscope" and do things and take courses that just "feel right," it might look to others (parents in particular) as if you just can't make up your mind and are zigzagging all over the place. the coherence will be an inner one, perhaps not even visible to you, but over time, it will probably make sense, just as you have to zigzag when sailing to reach a point most directly. one difference, of course, is that you (unlike the sailor) often haven't a clue where or what that "point" might be, and have to trust that by following your instincts and strengths, you'll actually reach some kind of point. i find that rather profound, as i look at my own life, and the decisions that i made that didn't make a lot of sense, perhaps, to others and seemed inconsistent, but that were in fact quite consistent with who i was and what i wanted to be, although i hadn't a clue what that might be (i never dreamed i'd end up teaching, etc.!) ok, that's my personal testimony (although i'll admit, i cruised past that passage when i was in college and needed to read it most)--you'll have your own, i imagine. if you'll be patient with emerson (and his vocabulary and greater reading knowledge), he is likely to speak very personally to you, if not on this reading then maybe on another. besides, just think of all the money you can save on those self-help books and therapy groups by going right to the source! ;

Hindi (indiano)

आत्म स्वतंत्रता निबंध

Ultimo aggiornamento 2015-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo
Attenzione: contiene formattazione HTML nascosta

Inglese

the purpose of god is to create and sustain. thus those who sustain human beings, those who are in the service of man are really in the service of god. it is often said that worship of god can be done through service of mankind. many great men laid their lives to serve man. they actually served god. abraham lincoln served the cause of negroes. he abolished slavery and made them free. it was a divine task. jesus laid in the service of man, so did buddha. st joan of arc served the people of her nation and was burnt at the stake. the service to man is considered to be at par with the service to god. service to society is called social service. a social worker always ties to do some good to people. a general man is social being. he has some duties to society. a social worker is selfless. his considers social service as a service to the god. he does not need any reward for his service. he never likes to take advantage of it. mahatma gandhi also says, ‘what the vast mass of mankind does for self or at best for family, a social servant does for general good’. we can serve our society in various ways. our society faces a number of problems. we must try to solve as many of them as possible. india lives in villages. illiteracy of both men and women is a serious problem here. most of the villagers do not know what happens in the world. farmers have no knowledge of scientific methods of farmers. to educate the villagers is to educate india. to make the villagers literate and educated is a great social service. there is another kind of service. our villagers do not know even the simple rules of hygiene. many of them live at dirty places. they also suffer from diseases. a large family is another fruit of ignorance. the health of mother is ruined. so a social worker must teach the villagers how to live well. sometimes our country men suffer at the time of famine floods and fire. these things make their life miserable. any help to those suffering people will be a valuable social service. at the same time, we must try to make villages life worth living. a social worker tries to bring peace and goodwill to society. social service develops in people a sense of fellow feeling and co-operation. it tries to maintain order in society. thus social service should be made compulsory subject in school and colleges. it is must in a country like india. god actually loves those who love his creation and serve society. abu ben adam did not list his name in the list of those who love god for he had no time to worship. the next night he was told by the angel that god loved him the most as he loved and served his creation. only can find people serving the creation not only in legends. there are people serving the tribal and downtrodden india. in serving human beings and society they actually serve god. let us hope that the number of such people increases so that the work of god may be shared by man.

Hindi (indiano)

अंग्रेजी हिन्दी translet sury करने के लिए

Ultimo aggiornamento 2016-11-23
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Inglese

then , his blistering finale : “ we cannot accept the idea that jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of jerusalem . i can only describe to myself what would happen if someone would propose that jews could not live in certain neighborhoods in new york , london , paris or rome . there would certainly be a major international outcry . accordingly , we cannot agree to such a decree in jerusalem . ”

Hindi (indiano)

अंत में कठोर रूप से , “ हम इस विचार को स्वीकार नहीं कर सकते कि यहूदियों को जेरूसलम के सभी भाग में निवास करने या खरीदने का अधिकार न हो । मैं केवल अपने तक इसकी व्याख्या कर सकता हूँ कि यदि यह प्रस्तावित किया जाये कि न्यूयार्क , लन्दन , पेरिस या रोम के कुछ विशेष पडोस में यहूदी नहीं रह सकते । निश्चित रूप से एक अंतरराष्ट्रीय वितंडावाद ख़डा हो जायेगा । इसी प्रकार हम जेरूसलम में ऐसी किसी आदेश पर सहमत नहीं हो सकते”

Ultimo aggiornamento 2020-05-24
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
Qualità:

Riferimento: Anonimo

Ottieni una traduzione migliore grazie a
4,401,923,520 contributi umani

Ci sono utenti che chiedono aiuto:



I cookie ci aiutano a fornire i nostri servizi. Utilizzando tali servizi, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie da parte nostra. Maggiori informazioni. OK