Sanskrit did not have any punctuation marks. Even the vertical bar indicating the end of a line or sentence was introduced quite late in the 1500s. Giving meaning to 9.32 and 9.33 that contradicts the other concepts propounded by Lord Sri Krishna elsewhere in BG such as karma, rebirth, etc. gets you into the realm of personal opinion.
I know about Sanskrit language structure. But your explanations are just the same as mine - they are interpretations. It is just that I think yours do not fit the context. Please, if you want, feel free to quote other verses in Gita to correspond with your interpretations.
Well, I can live with that
![Smile :-) :-)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
.
There are probably hundreds of commentaries for Srimat BG. I have read less than just one handful of these. Therefore I am in no position to say whether my view is a small minority view or not. It could very well be. However, even if it is indeed a minority view, it does not matter, as it includes such luminaries as Adhi Sankara. Bhagavat Ramanuja, and Swami Madhvacharya. From more recent times, the commentary of Swami Sidbhavanandhar of Sri Ramakrishna Thapovanam of Thirpparaythurai also says these are births that result out of papa.
Sir, I tried to locate and read these commentaries, as the commentaries I have read are numerous and different. Everyone I have read (must be about two dozen, including one by Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan) differ from yours. And given the context of the verse I tend to go with their interpretation. I sincerely doubt that both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhvacharyal in particular would have viewed Srimad Gita as you do. Will you please give me the interpretations in English, if you have them
This clearly shows that this insidious Varna theory makes otherwise goodhearted people do such terrible things. I daresay supremacist feeling is quite prevalent among Brahmins even today as evidenced by a majority of postings we see in this site.
I agree with you partially - this 'supramacist' feeling is not due to a self choice. It is due to following a tradition blindly. This is why we can not change this overnight by logic. It takes time. People do not change when you berate and shame them for their behaviour.
I hope you will reconsider this statement. If this logic is accepted there is no need for the US government to regret slavery, the Australian government to regret their policies against aboriginal population, or the British to regret colonialism.
Why should I? Did I do anything wrong to these other communities? People who need to apologize are the ones who did harm. That may be our forefathers. But it is entirely valid for certain religious/cultural organizations who represent our community to apologize, if they feel so.
Historically this is not entirely true. Having said that, I must say I never proposed revolution that too based on violence. My views are perhaps revolutionary. My prescription if any is for Brahmins to ownup to their culpability and make amends, thats all. I am not proposing that any self proclaimed reformer must go around forcing Brahmins to apologize to other varnas, savarna or avarna. There must be genuine change of heart. The leadership has a responsibility to guide this process.
Well, then show me examples where 'revolution based on violence' (I mean that what is imposed on the violators) that has succeeded in history. Revolution is always violent. Violence is not just about spilling blood - it is as much about changing one's way of life suddenly and losing grip on what one feels as the foundation for one's life purpose. For a lot of 'intellectuals', changing a life is just a matter of adapting to new ideas. I am sorry to say, I have found this to be not the case.
You have said that you love/revere your elders in your family. May I ask, whether you have people in your family who do not adhere to your ideas and how you treat them?
Cheers!