E dil-e-naadaan is one of my favourite songs of ALL TIME, and the way Lata Mangeshkar sings it, moistens the eyes of even a hardened cynic like yours truly.

However, it appears that really mis-spelt, inaccurate and generally unworthy lyrics are proliferating on the internet. Feeling that this gross insult should be rectified forthwith, I've posted the lyrics as I hear them. My Hindustani is hardly impeccable, feel free to provide feedback with abandon. I have used the Marathi script, since I can't read/write Urdu to save my life.

ए दिल्-ए-नादान् ए दिल्-ए-नादान्
आरज़ू क्या है जुस्तजु क्या है

हम् भटकते है क्योंभटकते है दश्त्-ओ-सेहरा मै
ऐसा लगता है मौज प्यासी है अपने दरिया मै
कैसी उल्झन् है क्यों ये उल्झन् है
एक साया सा रू-ब-रू क्या है.

क्या कयामत है क्या मुसीबत है
केह् नही सकते किसका अर्मां है
ज़िंदगी जैसे खोई खोई है हैरां हैरां है
ये ज़मीं चुप है आसमां चुप है
फ़िर् ये धडकन् सी चार सू क्या है.

and the last stanza that is not covered in the song -

ए दिल्-ए-नादां ऐसी राहों मै कितने कांटे है
आरज़ूने हर् किसी दिल् को दर्द बांटे है
कितने घायल है कितने बिस्मिल है
इस् खुदाई मैं एक तू क्या है?

अद्वैत अखंड नित्य भोक्ता
असंग निर्गुण अरुपाव्याय
अव्यक्त अनंत अमृतानंद
सम्पूर्ण सुख शिवोहं शिवोहं

सत्यं शिवं शुभं सुन्दरं
चैतन्य चिन्मय निर्मल
अचलाक्षर निश्चल शान्तं
निराकार ओमकार शिवोहं शिवोहं

कैवल्य केवल परंब्रह्म
शुद्ध सिद्ध बुद्ध शिवोहं
सत्यं ज्ञानमनंतं ब्रह्म
सत्यं ज्ञानमनंतं ब्रह्म

In response to the inane thread 'Claims of Buddhist Orgs about Hinduism'

While most of the allegations made by the Buddhists who are defaming Hindus and Hinduism just for the sake of getting some kind of media coverage, there are some undeniable truths that Hindus today must face.

• At one point in time, Buddhism was the most dominant belief system in India. At this point in time, there was no Hinduism. The chief opponents of the Buddhists were the Brahmins, and their belief system was also segregated into different belief systems that all centred around the singular principle of Brahma being absolute.
  
  
• Buddhism in India disappeared to a large extent because of the Muslim invasions, and loss of patronage from kings, who realised the socialist aspect of Buddhism. Even in Japan and China, where Buddhism received considerable patronage, it was never the official religion of the kings. It was only because of the practical approach of Buddhism and its direct benefits that were recognised by Chinese and Japanese monarchs that Buddhism received the patronage it did. However, in India, which was a land of distributed power centres rather than a powerful empire at the time of the decline of Buddhism, kings did not want a system that by definition was socialist in thought.
  
  
• Thirdly, in the intellectual arena, the formalisation of Advaitic thought by Adi Shankaracharya led to a lot of intelligentsia from the Buddhist camp crossing over to the Brahmin camp and from this loss, Buddhism found it hard to recover in India.
  
  
• However, Buddhism has not been shown to be erroneous. The idea of bhakti did not develop in Buddhism, but is not incompatible with it. You can see Chinese and Thai Buddhists worshipping deities and even the Buddhas. It is just that the idea of bhakti was developed in Hinduism and found mass popular appeal, whereas Buddhism was increasingly seen as a dry, intellectual, elitist religion.
  
  
• This said, it cannot be denied that there were atrocities against Buddhists. Especially in the Sunga dynasty, Buddhists were mercilessly persecuted and many monasteries destroyed. This cannot be ignored.
  
  
• Personally, I could care less what the Mahabharat is. For me, as a Hindu, it is possible to entirely reject Vaishnavism and yet be a Hindu, which I do. It is possible for me to not believe in any of the Gods that are worshipped in the Hindu pantheon and be a Hindu. Therefore, it must be understood that believing that the Mahabharat was true and that Krishna was God on earth is not a requirement for being a Hindu, like believing that the Bible is true and Jesus was God on earth is a requirement for being a Christian.
  
  
• Having made this point, it follows that there is nothing people say about the Ramayan or Mahabharat that can possibly be construed as a statement against Hinduism, per se, unless they are challenging the Upanishads. Personally, I am not O.K. with considering someone like Draupadi divine, or for that matter, any of the Pandavas. They could go to hell for all I care. If an effrontery to these people is being construed as an assault to Hinduism, then both the people trying to offend Hindus and the Hindus that are getting offended should get their heads examined.