Dear tks, once again I start with the disclaimer that what I am about to say is nothing more than just a different POV, nothing personal.
You are assuming that my POV preceded my understanding of Chapter 9. Au contraire! It is my understanding of Chapter 9 of BG that inevitably fashioned my POV.
My indictment is not on the entirety of BG, only those verses that underscore birth-based Varna system. Srimat BG does have many thoughtful reflections, but it also contains superstitious Bhakti stuff, and, unfortunately, a small sprinkling of odious Varna stuff.
What BG teaches about Varna starts from Chapter 1 verse 41 - 43, where Arjuna clearly asserts a connection between chastity of women and Varna. The fact that Lord Sri Krishna goes to lot of trouble to relieve Arjuna of many of his doubts, but not what he states in these verses must be kept in mind when we come to Chapter 9 and to Chapter 18. When taken in total, I think I am on firm grounds when I say BG teaches some really offensive stuff. Please tell me why I am wrong about this.
Now, your assertion that the true purport can be ascertained only from a qualified Acharya is indefensible. This amounts to conceding to orthodoxy even before we begin.
tks, I value my internal honesty more than sticking to my own opinion a la உடும்புப் பிடி. To be wedded to a particular opinion is to be closed-minded. I promise you, with all the earnestness that I can possibly command, I am ready to be persuaded.
On the other hand, the way you deal with opinions with which you disagree, I get a feeling you have little tolerance for POV that do not align with your own. Contrary to your aversion for opposing POV, the great Brahminical Acharyas of yore never hesitated to argue with those who did not agree with them, They never demanded that their opponents must first accept the authority of orthodox Acharyas they themselves approve.
My dwesha is strictly about the idea of Brahminism and what it stands for. I don't agree that Brahmin identity is nothing more than a cultural identity. No practicing Brahmin will accept someone who is willing to adopt this cultural identity in all its nuances, unless both his/her parents are Brahmins as well. It is this birth prerequisite that makes it more than mere cultural identity.
BTW, I am of the firm belief that what is good for Brahmins is to shun their superficial Brahmin identity and embrace their human identity, just as much as the Chettiar must abandon their Chettiyar identity and embrace human identity, repeated for each dominant caste. The reason I am singling out dominant caste is they wield the power that can be wielded this way or not.
To me, Mr. R. is nothing more than a parable of sorts. Mr. R is nothing more, or less, than all the young Brahmin kids who crossed the uncrossable ocean, seeking that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, had kids, grew nostalgic and a little guilty, wanted the kids to be what they were not and what they could never be.
Most, like me, realized the hypocrisy and allowed the kids to love us, and there were few Mr. Rs, who unfortunately deprived themselves of bliss, and worse, robbed their own kids of some of it for no fault of their own -- after all they didn't ask be born and brought up in this western culture, did they?
Cheers!
Sri Nara-ji -
I never used the word Orthodoxy.
I find study of BG or Upanishad to be as complex as or more complex than learning any Physics or engineering or management/leadership topics. My experience is that it requires a fair amount of infrastructure attained by studying with a qualified teacher. Such a teacher is able to provide the context which is derived from learning many areas (from their teacher). Since this is not preaching it requires the same dedication and effort as studying any other subject.
If someone wants to work say on a project like Mars Project by NASA they would want that your background is shaped from fine institutions of excellent reputation. A pre-requisite might be completion of an advanced training program that is accredited and recognized for engineering and research excellence.
I was saying that serious studies of our scriptures require the same rigor. I was not trying to present my POV. If that is the case it is easy to debate with your POV. I am trying to mention about a text that has been researched and analyzed over thousand years and it presents information that you have mis-interpreted. Since it is BG point of view it is up to you to be satisfied with your understanding and interpretation or research it more. Why should you be persuaded to see it differently? It is about learning a truth and only you can decide if you have reached that level of understanding. You can only take my statements to perhaps to do a revisit of the text under a proper teacher. Or not do anything which is the most likely result.
It took me many years to begin to appreciate the profundity of the teachings and I am still learning. Due to my background I started not wanting to believe anything. I know I was not an easy student and has been and still a struggle to begin to put together a picture that is fully reconciled. It is work in progress but I am convinced that it is one of the most well thought out text.
Please do not take this personal but I have no other way to express why I am refusing to engage in spite of your statement that you are completely open. I am highly impressed by your command of many different sources of references and how you use them in your posts. But your posts and questions come across to me to be lacking 'funda-knowledge' a term we used to use at IIT back when I was a student many years ago. I am sure you disagree but that is my sense. Also often your responses (not just to me) come across as not absorbing what was said to you (even if you dont agree with the point). This means I feel totally unqualified to convince you on any point. I have no reason to defend the scriptures such as BG to anyone.
I understand your point that your POV came about by studying BG verses of Chapter 9 you mentioned. What I said was that it is an incorrect understanding and that correct understanding requires learning with a proper Guru. I know you find that statement unacceptable.
Engaging with anyone with opposing point of view is actually fine. But I would demand prerequisites.
For example I would ask a few basic questions:
- I say Vedanta is not Philosophy and if you study with that in mind you will never get it. Do you agree? If it is not a Philosophy what is it?
- Why is Pramana not a faith?
- Is BG a Pramana?
- What does it mean to say Dharma is a Purushartha? What Dharma is being talked about? Why should this be an explicit pursuit?
I am not asking you to answer but I wanted to tell you that proper debate would need a few agreements on the basics. I don’t think we have those basics squared away.
I am curious. If you are satisfied with your POV about BG verses why even bother to debate?
Finally I got this defintion of Adhikara from this site:
adhikara -
I reproduce it here to make my point regarding need for qualification for one to be a teacher and a student.
adhikara (Sanskrit: ) literally means "authority and ownership." — being spiritually competent for spiritual study; the ability or authorization to do; rule; jurisdiction; privilege, ownership; property.
A person in an advanced chemistry class, for example, has taken previous chemistry courses and so has the adhikara to be in the advanced class. He is qualified to be in the advanced class. Someone who has not taken chemistry has no adhikara to be in a graduate class. We could translate adhikara as "qualification," which is implied, but more than qualification, the term suggests ownership. This means, in the case of chemistry, that the person at the advanced level has the right to interpret, apply and teach chemistry. He is an "owner" of that body of knowledge and consequently has a right to that knowledge. A person in an elementary class of chemistry has no adhikara for the body of advanced chemical knowledge. Such a person has no right to teach and apply the knowledge of chemistry. The kinds of information and experiments a beginner will receive will be different from the activities of the advanced graduate. Their adhikaras are different and therefore their activities and rights are different. This is what is meant by the word adhikara.
Life is a great evolution taking place over many lifetimes, even through many species of life! We can say the world is a school and each lifetime is a classroom. Some of us are in elementary grades, others are in middle grades, and some are in advanced grades. And just like students of chemistry, every person has a particular adhikara over a certain level of spiritual development. Students in elementary grades see the world in a certain way and must be taught in a certain way. Students at an advanced level similarly need to be approached in an appropriate way. The different adhikaras have different perceptions and spiritual rights. The idea of adhikara and spiritual evolution spanning many lifetimes is a distinct feature of Hinduism and becomes a powerful tool in understanding spirituality and how to apply our accumulated religious traditions.
Regards,
. Go ahead, take pride in your belief and keep the non-believing barbarians out of your gates.
