தினமும் சுபவீயின் ஒரு நிமிடச் செய்தியை whatsappல் பெற விரும்புவோர் subavee.blog@gmail.com என்ற மின்னஞ்சல் முகவரிக்கு தங்கள் அலைபேசி எண்ணை அனுப்பவும்.

Monday, 29 December 2014

கீதை - தொடரும் விவாதம்!


கீதை - யாருக்குப் புனித நூல் என்னும் என் கட்டுரையைத் தொடர்ந்தும், கீதை குறித்த என் உரையைத் தொடர்ந்தும், நம் வலைப்பூவில் ஒரு நீண்ட விவாதம் நடைபெற்றது. அதில் நண்பர்கள் பலர் கலந்து கொண்டனர் என்றாலும், வினோத், கணேஷ்வேல், விருபாக்ஷன்  ஆகிய மூவரும் குறிப்பிடத் தக்கவர்கள். அறிவார்ந்த முறையிலும், நாகரிகமாகவும் தங்கள் வாதங்களை முன்வைத்த அம்மூவருக்கும் முதலில் என் நன்றியையும், பாராட்டுதல்களையும் தெரிவித்துக் கொள்கின்றேன்.


கிருஷ்ணதாஸ் என்று ஒரு நண்பர் இடையில் தன் கருத்துகளை வெளியிட்டுள்ளார். கீழ்த்தரமான, குறுக்குப்புத்தி கொண்டவன் என்று என் மீது தனி மனிதத் தாக்குதலை அவர் தொடுத்துள்ளார். இவை போன்ற பதிவுகள், தரமற்றவை என்பதை நண்பர்கள் உணர வேண்டும். ஆயிரக்கணக்கான கீதையின் பாடல்களில்,ஏதோ ஒன்றிரண்டை எடுத்துக் கொண்டு விவாதிக்க கூடாது என்று அவர் கூறுகின்றார். ஒரு நூலில் உள்ள எல்லாப் பாடல்களும் முதன்மையானவையே என்பது என் கருத்து. அத்துடன், கீதையில் ஆயிரக்கணக்கான பாடல்கள் இல்லை, 700 பாடல்கள்தாம் உள்ளன.

இவ்விவாதத்தில் கூடுதலாக இடம்பெற்றுள்ள கீதையின் பகுதிகள் மூன்று!. 
(1) இயல் 4, பாடல் 13
(2) இயல் 9, பாடல் 32
(3)இயல் 18, பாடல்கள் 41-47. 

இவற்றுள், 18ஆம் இயலில், குணத்தின் (சுபாவம்) அடிப்படையில்தான்  வருணங்கள் பிரிக்கப் பட்டுள்ளனவே தவிர, பிறப்பின் அடிப்படை என்று கூறவே இல்லை என்பது நண்பர் வினோத்தின் வாதம். அதற்கு ஆதாரமாக, சுவாமி பிரபுபாதா மற்றும் சமற்கிருத வல்லுனர்களின் மொழிபெயர்ப்பை அவர் காட்டியுள்ளார். தான் காட்டியுள்ள மேற்கோள் எந்த மொழிபெயர்ப்பிலிருந்து எடுக்கப்பட்டது என்பதை சுபவீ கூற வேண்டும் என்றும் அவர் கேட்டுள்ளார். 

நான் மேற்கோள் காட்டியுள்ள மொழிபெயர்ப்பு, பிரேம்நாத் பசாஜ் எழுதியுள்ள 'இந்திய வரலாற்றில் பகவத் கீதை' என்னும் நூலில் உள்ளது. பிரேம்நாத் பசாஜ் காஷ்மீர் இந்து. சமற்கிருதப் புலமை மிகுந்தவர். எனினும், வினோத் எழுப்பியுள்ள வினாவை மனத்தில் கொண்டு, பிரபுபாதா உள்ளிட்ட பலரின் மொழிபெயர்ப்புகளையும் நான் படித்தேன். அவை அனைத்தும், வினோத் கூறியுள்ளதை ஒத்தே இருக்கின்றன.  பொதுவுடமைச் சிந்தனையாளரான தோழர் ஜவஹரும் என் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு தவறானது என்பதைச் சுட்டிக் காட்டினார். எனவே,  பல தரவுகளையும்  சரி பார்க்காமல் ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட மொழிபெயர்ப்பை வெளியிட்டமைக்கு என் வருத்தத்தைத் தெரிவித்துக் கொண்டு என் மன்னிப்பைக் கோருகின்றேன். தெளிவு படுத்திய நண்பர்களுக்கு என் நன்றி!

இவ்விடத்தில் இன்னொன்றைச் சுட்ட வேண்டியுள்ளது. நண்பர் வினோத்தே 9ஆவது இயலில் 32ஆம் பாடலுக்கு பிரபுபாதா எழுதியுள்ள உரை தவறானது என்று கூறியுள்ளார். வினோத் தனக்கும் சமற்கிருதம் தெரியாது என்று கூறுகின்றார். எனவே நாம் அனைவரும் ஆங்கில அல்லது ஆங்கில வழித் தமிழ் மொழி பெயர்ப்பையே நம்ப வேண்டியுள்ளது. எனவே என் சமற்கிருத -  தமிழ் மொழிபெயர்ப்புக்கு உள்நோக்கம் ஏதும் இல்லை.   .

இனி மீண்டும் நாம் விவாதத்தைத் தொடரலாம்.

வருணம் என்பது குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில்தானே தவிர, பிறப்பின் அடிப்படியில் என்று கீதையில் கூறப்படவில்லை என்பதை மட்டுமே திரும்பத் திரும்பக் கூறுவதன் மூலம் நாம் ஒரு பெரிய உண்மையை மறைத்துவிட முடியாது, கூடாது.  ஒரு நூலில் உள்ள சொற்களுக்கும், அவை நடைமுறையில் உணர்த்தும் பொருளுக்கும் இடையில் உள்ள இமாலய வேறுபாட்டை எப்படி மறப்பது? குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில்தான் வருணம் என்றால், குணம் மாறும்போது வருணம் மாறுமா? எங்காவது மாறியுள்ளதா? மதம் மாற முடியும்,  நாடு விட்டு நாடு கூட மாற முடியும், ஆண் கூடப் பெண்ணாக மாற முடியும். ஆனால் சாதி மட்டும் மாறவே முடியாது என்றால் அது எத்தனை இறுக்கமாகக் கட்டப்பட்டுள்ளது என்பதை உணர்ந்து அதனை ஒழிக்கப் பாடுபட வேண்டாமா?

எந்தச் சிறுவனுக்காவது குணம் பார்த்துப் பூணூல் அணிவிக்கப் படுகின்றதா? பார்ப்பனர்களில் கூடப் பெண்களுக்குப் பூணூல் உண்டா? சமற்கிருதச் சொற்களுக்கு 'வியாக்கியானம்' சொல்லித் தப்பித்துவிடுவது நேர்மையானதுதானா? இந்த வருண சாதி அமைப்பை எதிர்த்துப் போராடிய பூலே, பெரியார், அம்பேத்கர் ஆகியோருக்கு நாம் நன்றி உடையவர்களாக இருக்க வேண்டாமா? அவர்களைப் பின்பற்றிப் போராட வேண்டாமா? 

கீதையைப் புனித நூல் என்று போற்றுவதன் மூலம் குண அடிப்படை என்ற பெயரில், நடைமுறையில் பிறப்பின் அடிப்படையிலான  வருண வேறுபாடுதானே தொடரும்? அது நண்பர் விநோத்திற்குச்  சம்மதமா?

வருண சாதி அடிப்படையில்  பெருவாரியான உழைக்கும் மக்களும், பால் அடிப்படையில் ஒட்டுமொத்தப் பெண்களும் இழிவுபடுத்தப்படும் சமூக அமைப்பை எதிர்த்துப் போராடாமல். கீதையைக் காப்பாற்றுவதை மட்டுமே நாம் நோக்கமாகக் கொள்ளலாமா?

அடுத்ததாக, சம்பூகன் பற்றிய விவாதத்தில் வினோத் ஒரு பெரிய உண்மையை அப்படியே மறைக்கப் பார்க்கிறார். சம்பூகன் ஒரு சூத்திரன் என்பதற்காக ராமர் அவரைக் கொல்லவில்லை.  தன் உடலோடு அவர் சொர்க்கம் செல்ல விரும்பினார். அதற்காகத்தான் அவரைக் கொன்றார் என்பது எவ்வளவு உண்மைக்கு மாறானது! சரி, அப்படியே வைத்துக் கொண்டாலும், சம்பூகன் உடலோடு சொர்க்கம் செல்ல முயன்றதில், ராமருக்கு என்ன பிரச்சினை? அதற்காக ஏன் அவரைக் கொல்ல வேண்டும்?

உண்மை அதுவன்று!  'சங்கீத பீஷ்ம, சங்கீத விமர்சகாசார்ய, அபிநவ த்யாஹபிரம்ம, கீர்த்தனாசார்ய ஸ்ரீ உ,வே.சி.ஆர்.சீனிவாச ஐயங்கார்  அவர்களால் மொழிபெயர்க்கப் பட்டுள்ள 'உத்தரகாண்டம்-தமிழ் வசனம்' என்னும் நூலிலிருந்து அந்நிகழ்வைக் கீழே தருகின்றேன். 

உத்தரகாண்டத்தின் 'தபஸ்வியைக் காணுதல்' என்னும் 75ஆவது சருக்கத்தில் ராமரும், சம்பூகனும் சந்திக்கும் காட்சி இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது. 'இந்தச் சரீரத்துடன் தேவ பதவியை அடைய விரும்புகிறேன்' என்று சம்பூகன் சொல்வது உண்மைதான். ஆனால் அதனை அவர் தானாகச் சொல்கின்றார். ராமர் கேட்ட கேள்வி என்ன தெரியுமா? "இவ்வளவு உறுதியாய்த் தவம் செய்யும் நீ யாரென்று அறிய ஆசை கொண்டேன். நான் அயோத்தியாதிபதி . தசரத புத்திரனான ராமன். நீ எந்த வருணத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவன்? நீ பிராமணனா? பராகிரமசாலியான ஷத்திரியனா? நான்காம் வருணத்தவனா? நிஜத்தைச் சொல்"  என்றுதான் கேட்கிறார். ஆக, ராமரின் நோக்கம் சம்பூகனின் வருணத்தை அறிந்து கொள்வதுதானே தவிர, தவத்தின் நோக்கத்தை அறிந்து கொள்வதில்லை.

'நான் நான்காம் வருணத்தவன். சம்பூகன் என்று பெயர்" என்று கூறியவுடன்,  வேறு எதுவும்  பேசாமல், தன் வாளால் அவர் தலையைக் கொய்து  விடுகிறார் ராமர். 

இதற்குப் பிறகும் வினோத் என்ன சமாதானம் சொல்லப் போகிறார் என்று தெரியவில்லை.

இறுதியாக இன்னொரு வினாவையும் முன்வைக்கிறேன். குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில்தான் வருணம் என்றால், மனிதர்களுக்கு அந்தக் குணத்தைப் படைத்தவர், பக்தி அடிப்படையில், கடவுள்தானே? ஏன் ஒரு பிரிவினருக்கு நல்ல குணத்தையும், இன்னொரு பிரிவினருக்குத் தீய குணத்தையும் அந்தக் 'கடவுள்' கொடுக்க வேண்டும்? சமத்துவமின்மையை, ஏற்றத் தாழ்வை உங்கள் கடவுள் திட்டமிட்டே உருவாக்கினாரா? 


அறிவார்ந்த விவாதத்தை மீண்டும் நண்பர்கள் விரும்பினால் தொடரலாம். புதிய நண்பர்களும் இதில் பங்கேற்கலாம். 

99 comments:

  1. There is also another issue when one talks about "Uttara Kandam". There are sanskrit scholars who claim that the bala and uttara kandam were later additions to the original Ramayana. This debate itself is not over yet. Anyone who wants to talk about the Shambukan incident must first clear this debate. Suppose the Uttara Kandam is a later addition. Then people who believe the Ramayana to be true will claim that the Shambukan incident itself is false, and never really happened. They will say it was an addition by those people who also misinterpreted the gita, to show Sudras in bad light. I am a scientist by profession and In my opinion, talking about the Shambukan incident itself is not an அறிவார்ந்த debate because it is based on a lot of unanswered questions. I regret now that I even replied to Ganeshvel when he raised the Shambukan issue. I hope you now at least understand that I am not trying to hide anything and there is no need for me to say சமாதானம் to anyone. Your words are hurting me, especially when I am debating with good intentions. I feel that you are also doing this தனி மனிதத் தாக்குதல on me as Krisnadoss was doing on you. Please avoid it.

    Third issue, "God" also pertains to belief, so I am not interested in such debates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Vinod,

      I don't think that Subavee sir is doing this personal attack on you. He has to refer your name to refer your view point. That's all.

      anbudan,
      Viru

      Delete
    2. Dear Virupakshan,
      Subavee specifically said that I an trying to hide a big truth, whereas in reality, I had no such intention. That is why I say he is doing a personal attack on me. Wrongly accusing a person of any deed is definitely an attack on the person. He assumed wrongly that I have a viewpoint to hide a truth, and based on that, he said I am trying to hide a truth. First of all, as I have mentioned in a previous comment, there is no "truth" here in the Shambukan incident. Only two different beliefs, both unsupported by any fact. Since his assumption is wrong and I have no such viewpoint, his words amount to accusing me and not my viewpoint simply because I have no such viewpoint. I definitely did not expect such a harsh reaction from Subavee, so I was hurt. Moreover, it was Ganeshvel who brought in the Shambukan-Ramayana topic into a debate about the bhagavad gita. This itself is a wrong way to debate. When debating the meaning of verses in a particular book, there is no need to refer to another book written by another author which has no citations or references to the book under debate. What the Uttara Kanda says about the Varna system(If at all it says anything, which itself is not clear, and pertains to belief!) has no consequence to what the gita says about the varna system. Then why bring it unnecessarily into this debate about the gita verses? All this confusion and accusation is because of this. But Subavee did not find this to be a problem at all, but was only concerned about my reply to it, and that too with a wrong assumption. So naturally, I had to conclude that he was attacking me personally.

      Delete
    3. Ganeshvel Manigandhi18 February 2015 at 14:17

      All are interrelated.

      We cannot just take few lines from a book and confirming the blind meaning based on the words used in it.

      Until otherwise we understand the big picture, we cannot understand the 'real' meaning of it. In order to understand the big picture it is essential to refer the related books, that's what I did.

      Whoever defending the actions of Rama in Sambukan's incident are really hiding the BIG TRUTH.

      Delete
  2. அருமையான விளக்கத்திற்கு மிக்க நன்றி அய்யா!

    இறுதியில் தாங்கள் எழுப்பிய கேள்வி மிகவும் நியாயமானது.

    "பகவான்" கிருஷ்ணா் சொல்கிறார்:
    அத்தியாயம்-10, பதங்கள்-4-5:

    "புத்தி, ஞானம், ஐயம், மயக்கத்திலிருந்து விடுதலை, மன்னித்தல், வாய்மை, புலனடக்கம், மன அடக்கம், சுகம், துக்கம், பிறப்பு, இறப்பு, அச்சம், அச்சமின்மை, அகிம்சை, சமத்துவம், திருப்தி, தவம், தானம், புகழ் மற்றும் இகழ்ச்சி - என உயிர்வாழிகளிடம் காணப்படும் பல்வேறு குணங்கள் அணைத்தும் என்னால் படைக்கப்பட்டவையே."

    இப்படி குணத்தையும் அவரே படைத்து, வா்ணத்தையும் அவரே படைத்து - மனிதா்க்கிடையே ஏற்றத்தாழ்வை உண்டாக்கி சாதிய சமூகத்தைக் கட்டமைத்த பெருமை யாவும் பகவானுக்கே.


    மக்கள் அனைவரும் கல்வி பெற்று சாதியத்தை உடைக்க, சாதி மறுப்பு திருமணங்கள் நடக்கும் என்பதையும் அறிந்த "பகவான்" இவ்வாறு சொல்கிறார்- (அத்தியாயம்-1, பதம்-42):

    "குடும்ப பண்பாட்டை அழித்து, தேவையற்ற குழந்தைகளை தோற்றுவிக்கும் தீயவர்களின் செயல்களால், அனைத்து வித ஜாதி தா்மங்களும் குல தா்மங்களும் அழிவுறுகின்றன."

    இவ்வாறு, "பகவான்" கட்டமைத்த சாதியத்தை காக்க , "பகவானே" மெனக்கெடுவதை கீதை நெடுகிலும் காணலாம்.

    இதுதான் தேசிய நூலா?

    ReplyDelete
  3. குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில்தான் வருணம் என்ற கருத்தாக்கத்தை ஆதரிக்கும் நண்பர்களுக்கு இன்னும் சில கேள்விகள்:

    1) ஒரு குழந்தை பிறந்த பின், எப்போது இந்த வர்ணம் அந்த குழந்தைக்குச் சொந்தமாகிறது?

    2) இந்த வருணம் இவருக்கு என நிர்ணயிப்பது யாருடைய வேலை? நிர்ணயிப்பவருடைய வர்ணத்தை நிர்ணயிப்பது யார்?

    3) ஒருவருடைய குணம் மாறும் போது அவருடைய வர்ணத்தை மாற்ற வேண்டியது யார் பொறுப்பு? இதற்கான கட்டமைப்பு என்ன?

    இதற்கெல்லாம் கீதையில் பகவானின் பதில் என்ன?

    குணத்தை பற்றியும், வருணத்தை பற்றியும் இவ்வளவு விளக்கிய பகவான், ஏன் இந்த கட்டமைப்பை உருவாக்கி விளக்க வில்லை?

    கீதையின் வருணம் 'சரி', அதை நடைமுறைப் படுத்தியவர்களின் தவறுதான் 'சாதியம்' என கீதையை தாங்கி பிடிக்கும் நண்பர்கள், மேற்கண்ட கேள்விகளுக்கு கீதையிலிருந்தே பதிலளித்து தங்கள் கருத்தை நிறுவுமாறு அன்புடன் கேட்டுக்காள்கிறேன்.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ///நான் நான்காம் வருணத்தவன். சம்பூகன் என்று பெயர்" என்று கூறியவுடன், வேறு எதுவும் பேசாமல், தன் வாளால் அவர் தலையைக் கொய்து விடுகிறார் ராமர். ////
    கொடுமை ஐயா

    ReplyDelete
  5. Subavee Sir,
    Thanks for the detailed reply. I see, from your reply, that you have agreed with me on the debate about some of the verses of the bhagavad gita. So I think we can close that debate.

    You have raised three new issues. I will reply to them one by one.

    First, you are asking whether we can forget or forgive the difference between the correct meaning of the gita and the obviously wrong practical application(varnas and caste by birth). If you read my previous debate with Ganeshvel carefully, you can see that I have already told my opinion about it. My intention, even when I was raising this debate on this blog, was not to justify all the practical nonsense that we have heard of in our history by saying that your gita translation is wrong. On the contrary, I was trying to prevent you from making the same mistake that some selfish people made in the past to achieve their own selfish needs, namely such mistranslation of the gita. I am always totally against treating varna by birth, the caste system and making bhagavad gita a national book. I was merely saying that one of the reasons you gave for not accepting the gita as a national book(namely, "gita says varnas are by birth") is wrong and you have accepted it. I am not making any other implications here. I hope
    you understand my true intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Next, regarding Shambukan. From my very first post, my topic of discussion was about the correct meaning of certain verses in the bhagavad gita. It was Ganeshvel who was trying to jump from one topic to another, and he was talking about the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. It was he who raised the Shambukan issue, and while replying to him, I was merely quoting some other people(not explicitly, to my great regret!) who give the argument that he was trying to go with body and so Rama killed him. Personally, I hate going into such debates, and I will give my reasons shortly. But now, since you have also raised the same issue, I will just mention here one point from your reference for the Shambukan incident itself, to show you that such debates themselves are totally pointless. Rama only asked him "நீ எந்த வருணத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவன்?" Not "Which varna were you born in?". Now, people who try to justify Rama's act will say "This establishes that each varna was a profession(not by birth) during Rama's time. And this implies that each profession has some strict rules. If the rules are violated, then the people in the kingdom will suffer(According to the shambukan story, a brahmin's(not by birth) son died due to Shambukan's violation), and the extent of suffering depends on which varna(again, not by birth) person violated. The suffering(hence, punishment) is the most if Sudra varna(profession) violated the rule that one should not go to heaven with body. So Rama asked his varna before killing him". Some others may say "Shambukan had sinned in his past life. So Rama only gave him Motcham". I hope you see now why I say such debates are pointless. These debates rely on BELIEF to put forth their arguments, and as long as two people each have their own opposing beliefs, such debates will never ever come to an end and will be of no use to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vinod:

      I jumped between the topics in order to bring the big picture in a context.

      Again I am repeating here, we cannot ask for a specific word to prove that the Varna is based on birth. We need to put things in a context to understand the simple meaning that it is grouping people and asking one group to work for another group in the name of the god.

      If you still believe that the Varna is ONLY based on ghuna and not by birth, please answer the question (last paragraph of the article) raised by SubaVee sir and also the three questions I raised in the comment #3.

      Delete
    2. I have already replied to Subavee's last paragraph and your questions too in my previous comments. Practical application of the varna system was very bad, and I have repeated this many times in this blog.

      Delete
  7. "மீண்டும் விவாதத்தில் பங்கேற்றுவரும் நண்பர்களுக்கு நன்றி! நடைமுறையில் வருண-சாதி அமைப்பு எவ்வாறுள்ளது என்பதில் வினோத் தெளிவாகத் தன் கருத்தைப் பதிவு செய்துள்ளார். நாம் அனைவரும் ஒன்றுபடுகின்ற இடம் அது. எனினும் குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில் வருணம் என்று கூறும் நண்பர்களை நோக்கி, நண்பர் கணேஷ்வேல் எழுப்பியுள்ள மூன்று வினாக்கள் இன்னும் விடையற்று நிற்கின்றன. அவ்வினாக்கள் மிக மிக இன்றியமையாதவை என்று கருதுவதால், அவற்றைக் கீழே சுருக்கமாக மீண்டும் நினைவுபடுத்துகின்றேன்.

    1. குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில் வருணம் என்றால், அது எந்த வயதில் முடிவு செய்யப்படுகிறது?
    2. அதனை முடிவு செய்வோர் யார்? அவர்களுக்கான தகுதி என்ன?
    3. குணம் மாறும்போது, அதனைக் கண்டறிந்து மாற்றுவதற்கான கட்டமைப்பு என்ன?

    யார் வேண்டுமானாலும் இவ்வினாக்களுக்கு விடை சொல்லலாம். சரியான விடை கிடைப்பின் இவ்விவாதம் மிகவும் பயனுடையதாக அமையும்.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I have said before, these are practical issues, and people failed to implement it as specified in the gita. But today, we do have the real varna system all over the world. We just don't call it by the name "Varna" anymore. We call them "Professions". Only the name has changed. Not the meaning. In the ancient days, there were only four main professions(brahmins - Studying and practising Hindu(Indian) philosophy, Kshatriyas - Administration, ruling etc, Vaishyas - Business, Agriculture and Sudras - Service work and hence four varnas. If this had been properly implemented in the old days, brahmins would have been like today's teachers, educationists and philosophers, Kshatriyas like today's politicians, military and police, Vaishyas like today's businessmen and farmers and Sudras like today's government service people. But we know this did not happen and everything degraded to caste and these professions became tied to birth and not talent(gunas). The brahmin and Sudra profession became the worst-degraded because philosophy became religion and brahmins became religion-mongers instead of true philosophers like Socrates, and Sudras became slaves and untouchables. But today we have many professions and all professions are decided by talent(gunas). The three questions you have asked here have well-known answers in today's world. We all know at what age a person's profession(varna) is decided, who decides it, and, even though the transition is a bit difficult, we have people who study for one profession(varna) and then decide they don't like it, and go for another profession.

      Delete
    2. Vinod:

      Ghuna is NOT talent, it is BEHVIOUR.

      பகவான் கிருஷ்ணா் சொல்கிறார்.
      (அத்தியாயம்-18, பதம்-42)

      "அமைதி, சுயகட்டுபபாடு, தவம், தூய்மை, சகிப்புத்தன்மை, நேர்மை, அறிவு, பகுத்தறிவு, ஆத்திகம் ஆகிய இயற்கையான தன்மைகளில் பிராமணர்கள் செயல்படுகிறார்கள்"

      Krishna not only lists the behaviours but also says it is natural. So he is also confirming that it is based on birth.

      (அத்தியாயம்-18, பதம்-59):

      "அர்ஜுனன் ஒரு போர் வீரன், சத்திரிய தன்மையுடன் பிறந்தவன். அவனுடைய இயற்கையான கடமை போரிடுவதாகும்"
      So it proves that the Varna is by BIRTH.

      If you still believe that the varna is based on Ghuna, please answer those 3 questions with the reference to Gita itself.

      அந்த மூன்று கேள்விகளுக்கு, கீதையில் பகவானின் பதில் என்ன?

      குணத்தை பற்றியும், வருணத்தை பற்றியும் இவ்வளவு விளக்கிய பகவான், ஏன் இந்த கட்டமைப்பை உருவாக்கி விளக்க வில்லை?

      குறிப்பு: கீதை மேற்கோள்கள் -அ.ச.பக்திவதோந்த சுவாமி பிரபுபாதரின் " பகவத் கீதை - உண்மையுருவில்" என்னும் நூலிலிருந்து.

      Delete
    3. பகவான் கிருஷ்ணா் சொல்கிறார்.
      அத்தியாயம்-18 பதம்-47:

      "மற்றரது கடமையை ஏற்று அதனைப் பக்குமாகச் செய்வதை விட, முறையாக செய்யாவிட்டாலும் தனது சொந்த கடமையில் ஈடுபட்டிருப்பதே சிறந்தது"

      இதற்கு நண்பா் வினோத்தின் பதில் என்ன?

      Delete
    4. Ganeshvel, The discussion on the bhagavad gita verses is over since Subavee has accepted my arguments. However, since you specifically ask, I will quote directly from Swami Prabupada's translation of verse 47 in chapter 18:-

      "One's occupational duty is prescribed in bhagavad gita. As already discussed in previous verses, the duties of a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya and sudra are prescribed according to their particular modes of nature(gunas). One should not imitate another's duty. A man who is by nature(guna) attracted to the kind of work done by sudras should not artificially claim to be a brahmana, although he may have been born into a brahmana family. In this way, one should work according to his own nature."

      Also, please note the context in which this verse occurs. Arjuna is not willing to perform his duty of Kshatriya since that means killing his family members and his teachers. In verse 5 of chapter 2, he says "It is better to live by begging(One of the duties of a brahmin) than to kill my teachers. He is saying this just because he wants to escape from his Kshatriya duty due to his attachment to his family, and not because he is attracted to a brahmin's life by his nature. Krishna says, through this verse, that he should not change his occupation for such reasons, no matter how well he may do that other occupation.

      Delete
    5. A person's talent comes from his behaviour. And "NATURAL" does not mean "BIRTH". Each person has his own individual nature which he/she develops as he/she grows up, and it is in no way related to whom he/she was born. So your interpretation of Swami Prabupada's translation of verse 59 of chapter 18 is wrong. And we all know the gita does not say anything about practical application of the varna system, so how can you refer that book when talking about practical application?

      Look, I will say this one last time... The debate on "What does gita say about the varna system" was over the moment Subavee agreed to my interpretation. Why are you still discussing that topic? I have no interest in debating something that is already very clearly proven with evidence. If you still want to believe that varnas are by birth according to the gita, even after all the explanations I have given, then please do go ahead and believe it. Its your belief, and I don't want to debate about your beliefs.

      Delete
    6. Vinod,

      You are bringing in the 'context' whenever it is convenient for you. Asking for a specific word when you don't want to see things in a context.

      Not sure how you are telling me that I misinterpreted the meaning of verse 59 of chapter 18. It clearly says the Ghuna is BY BIRTH (சத்திரிய தன்மையுடன் பிறந்தவன்).

      You have been asking for specific word to prove that the Varna is by birth. The above verse clearly says that. The above line is ALSO from the same book (Prabubadar's 'Gita as it is').

      Not sure what you proved with evidence.

      When I started giving evidences from Gita itself, you are saying the debate is already over :)-

      Based on the debate till now, I can understand that you are trying to safeguard Gita 'as it is' and not Willing to accept anything as wrong even though I provided specific verses.

      You somehow want to transfer the blame to the people who implemented the Gita but NOTHING against Gita, that is why you don't want to give the answers for those questions.

      Anyway , that is your belief and I don't want to debate further on your beliefs.




      Delete
    7. One final point:

      One's Talent comes from Learning,Training and Practice NOT from the behaviour.

      Delete
    8. It is enough for me if Subavee understands my arguments, and he has. I am not interested in debating with you. Goodbye.

      Delete
    9. But still SubaVee sir's question is unanswered.

      "இறுதியாக இன்னொரு வினாவையும் முன்வைக்கிறேன். குணத்தின் அடிப்படையில்தான் வருணம் என்றால், மனிதர்களுக்கு அந்தக் குணத்தைப் படைத்தவர், பக்தி அடிப்படையில், கடவுள்தானே? ஏன் ஒரு பிரிவினருக்கு நல்ல குணத்தையும், இன்னொரு பிரிவினருக்குத் தீய குணத்தையும் அந்தக் 'கடவுள்' கொடுக்க வேண்டும்? சமத்துவமின்மையை, ஏற்றத் தாழ்வை உங்கள் கடவுள் திட்டமிட்டே உருவாக்கினாரா? "

      Delete
    10. I have answered it by saying I don't debate about God. See my earlier comment.

      Delete
    11. Vinod said on 30 December 2014

      //"One's occupational duty is prescribed in bhagavad gita. As already discussed in previous verses, the duties of a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya and sudra are prescribed according to their particular modes of nature(gunas). One should not imitate another's duty. A man who is by nature(guna) attracted to the kind of work done by sudras should not artificially claim to be a brahmana, although he may have been born into a brahmana family. In this way, one should work according to his own nature."//

      when caste is not related to birth, What did you mean by "born into a brahmana family"?

      How come a society or kingdom is affected, if a serviceman wants to become a teacher?

      Delete
    12. Dear Mr.Ganeshvel,

      Please check English verse

      Chapter 18, Verse 59

      If you do not act according to My direction and do not fight, then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in warfare.

      There is no word by birth. So you wrongly interpreted it.

      Check another translation too.

      18:59
      yad ahamkaram asritya
      na yotsya iti manyase
      mithyai 'sha vyavasayas te
      prakritis tvam niyokshyati
      If, resorting to egoism, you think, "I will not fight"
      absurd is this, your resolution. Nature will compel
      you.

      So please first check your translation, then ask question.

      Delete
    13. Jagannathan,
      I never said "caste is not related to birth". I only said varna as specified in the gita is not related to birth". Caste, indeed, is only decided by birth, and hence is the root cause of social evil. By saying "being born into a brahmin family" when talking about varna means being born to brahmin varna parent(s). What I have said is, even if your father and/or mother is a brahmin by varna(not caste), it is not necessary for you to follow the same varna. Your varna can be different.

      I don't fully understand your second question. What do you mean by "affected"? If a serviceman has a natural leaning towards teaching, then he should pursue it for his own good. If he becomes a good teacher, then society will be benefited by his teachings.

      Delete
  8. Subavee Sir,
    Ungal Sorpozhivin nambikkai naan... enakku eppozhudhum oru varutham irundhadundu adhavdhu Thanthai Periyar kaalathil naam pirakkavillaye endru, adhai ungal vazhiyaka payan petru magizhchi adaikiren... naan vettru (Thamizhilaana) thaai mozhi kaaran irupinum thamizhai ennai vida adhigamaka nesipavan... chennai vaasi veru..ungalidamirundhu Sri Lanka vin varalarum thamizhargalin eezha porattathin sarithiramum ketka aavalaga irukiren (idhu sammandha patta puthagam parinthurai seythaalum vaanga thayar). ungal sevai innum melongi thodaravum ennai pondravar innum payanperavum vendukiren.. neril pesum vaaippai pola mana ezhuchi kaarnamaga vaarthai thadumatrathudan idhai pagirkiren... nandri

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Najesh nanu,

      Thanks for your participation in the debate.If you want to meet me in person or to get some information on my books, pl contact me through email. My email id is subavee11@gmail.com.  

      Delete
  9. கீதை குறித்த ஆக்கபூர்வமான ,அறிவுபூர்வமான கலந்துரையாடல்..கீதை குறித்த மொழிபெயர்ப்பு குறைபாடு. வினோத் குறிப்பிடுவது உன்மைதான். இருப்பினும் கனேஸ்வேல் கேள்விக்கு வினோத் பதிலளிக்க மறுப்பது ஏற்புடையதல்ல ...nature என்பது birth என்பதைத்தான் குறிக்கிறது பிறப்பு இயற்கையானதுதானே...குணம் என்பது மாறுபடக்கூடியது ..பிறப்பினால் தீர்மானிக்கப்படுகிற சாதி மட்டுமே மாறாதது..கனேஸ்வேல் கேள்விக்கு வினோத்தின் நம்பிக்கை பதில்தராது. திருக்குறளுக்கு ஆயிரம் உரை இருந்தாலும் பிறப்பொக்கும். எல்லா உயிருக்கும் என்பதற்கு மாறுபட்ட கருத்துரைகள் இல்லை ..கீதையின். செயுள் வடிவத்திற்கு ஆயிரம் விளக்கங்கள் சொல்லப்பட்டாலும் அது அடிப்படையில் நடைமுறையில் வர்ணாசிரம சாதிய பாகுபாடுகளை கட்டமைக்கிறது .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please read all my previous comments and then comment, Anonymous!

      Delete
  10. திரு சுபவீ என் கேள்வி இந்த விவாதம் பற்றியது அல்ல .சமிபத்தில் பாரதி ஆரியம் பேசினான் என்று தமிழச்சி தனது வலை தலத்தில் எழுதி இருந்தார் நீங்களோ எல்லோரையும் சந்தேகி என்கிறிர்கள் .காக்கை ,குருவி எங்கள் ஜாதி என்று பாடியவனா ஆரியம் பேசினான் ?,பாலின் நிறம் ஒரு குட்டி என்று பாடியவனா ஆரியம் உயர்ந்தது என்று சொன்னான் ,ஹரிஜன குழந்தைகளுக்கு புணூல் போடவனா ஆரியம் சரி என்று சொன்னான் ஒருவேளை எல்லோரும் ஆரியர்கள் .அவர்களே உயர்ந்தவர்கள் என்று நினைத்தனா ?தயவு செய்து விளக்குங்கள் .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. திரு அனானிமஸ்,

      பாரதியார் குறித்து நாம் தனியாகவும், விரிவாகவும் பேசுவதுதான் சரியாக இருக்கும். இவ்விவாதத்திற்கிடையில் அதற்கு இடமில்லை என்றே கருதுகின்றேன். மன்னிக்கவும்.

      Delete
  11. To everyone who took part in the gita debates, including Prof. Subavee:-
    Tomorrow(1st Jan 2015) I have to go to Grenoble in France for a conference. So I would not be able to take active participation in any further debates for around two to three weeks. I hope to meet you all here later by the end of January. Thanks for all your comments and support, and wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year :). Bye for now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vinod - All the Best for the Conference there and Wish you a very happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  13. இனிய புத்தாண்டு வாழ்த்துக்கள்

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear all,

    Happy New Year 2015.

    In other blogs or websites, I write a comment as soon as I finish reading the article. But here in Subavee.com, I am unable to do it so quickly as I have to understand each and every word first and then write a comment.

    So, I will do it soon.

    anbudan,
    Viru

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr. Subavee aiya and others in the forum,
    This is a very informative and enlightening argument /analysis on Varna by birth or guna.
    But, for a moment, shall we take a step back and see if there is any valid explanation for the very reason of classifying people et al..no matter.. if it is by birth or by guna.
    It is clearly a brilliant and simple ploy by Brahmins who wrote all the vedic texts and bhagavat gita.
    If the theoary had been just around Brahmins and others, this wouldn’t have survived for this long. By virtue of making it four they have created a space for every body to be happy that some one else is below them and so Brahmins or okay to be on the top of the heap.
    Today, Brahmins argue that, almost all of the atrocities against dalits are perpertrated by caste hindus and not by Brahmins. Which is in fact sadly true. The reason is not a brainer. Simply, every caste hindu group is claiming that they are the descendants of chozhas, pandias etc and thereby are kshatriyas, few others are happy to tag themselves as vyshias which is not bad because they are business men and are rich or were rich. But nobody wants to call themselves as shudras. Today people think dalits are supposed to be shudras which is not true. They are not even part of the varnasram. So everybody is happy to feel they are superior to someone else and don’t feel much about Brahmin superiority. Because the moment they question Brahmin superiority, theirs over others become invalid. But for Brahmins, everybody else is a shudra. Long live Gita..let us even make Rig veda as a national book which further describes what a low life this son of the soil is...
    Thanks,
    Vishnu sakkaravarthy
    P.S: If any Brahmin or any self proclaimed descendant of a royal family gets hurt by reading this..you don’t deserve to talk about ‘Varna by guna’ because the moment you feel you belong to some caste yourself, then there is no logic for that theory.

    ReplyDelete
  16. May I join in the debate?

    In Gita Verses 1.39 to 1.41 Arjuna says that by killing the men of a family, the women become 'polluted' by bearing the progeny of men of other castes.

    I am unable to type the quotes as I am typing from my phone and it is tedious to quote the verses. I have given a gist of the verses. These verses are evidence that caste is based on birth, otherwise how can there be an 'intermixing' of castes as spoken of in these verses?

    I request Subavee Sir to please post these verses-1.39 to 1.41.

    It is not fair to jump into a debate without quotes so if anyone does have a reliable translation please post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I give below the verses 1.39 to 1.41 in English transliteration:

      1.39: Kula-ksaye pranasyanti kula-dharmah sanatanah dharme naste kulam krtsnam adharmo 'bhibhavaty uta

      1.40: adharmabhibhavat krsna pradusyanti kula-striyah strisu dustasu varsneya jayate varna-sankarah

      1.41: sankaro narakayaiva kula-ghnanam kulasya ca patanti pitaro hy esam lupta-pindodaka-kriyah

      Please note here that these three verses do not talk about caste or varnam. Even the phrase "varna-sankarah" means "unwanted progeny", and does not refer to the varna classification. These three phrases talk only about Kulam, meaning family, and how by killing the elders in a family will result in degradation of the rest of the family. The verses are said by Arjuna as an excuse to avoid fighting.

      Verse 39 translation: With the destruction of the dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in evil doings due to the absence of elders to guide the younger family members.

      Verse 40: When evil doings are prominent in the family, O Krishna, the women of the family become forced into adultery(and hence become "polluted") and from the degradation of womanhood comes unwanted progeny.

      Note here that the notion of "pollution" of women is not because they bear the progeny of other caste males, but because they indulge in adultery and become prostitutes without the guidance of elders in the family. And all this is said by Arjuna as an excuse to escape from fighting, so there is not much truth in what these verses say, and they are refuted by some of the following verses in the gita which are supposed to be said by Krishna.

      Verse 41: An increase of such unwanted population certainly causes hellish life for both the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.

      So, as I hope you can see, these verses are definitely NOT evidence that varna is based on birth simply because these verses never talk about varna or caste. They talk about family values and family tradition.

      Delete
    2. Ganeshvel Manigandhi18 February 2015 at 15:04

      பெண்களை இழிவாகக் காட்டும் கருத்துகள் பொதிந்ததுதான் கீதையின் பதம்-40 (அத்தியாயம்-1).

      இதை ஆதரிப்பவர்கள் யாராக இருந்தாலும் அவர்களும் பெண்களை இழிவாகக் கருதுபவர்களே என்பது எனது தாழ்மையான கருத்து.

      இதை மறுப்பவர்கள் கீழே படிக்கவும்.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      நூல் : "பகவத் கீதை உண்மையுறுவில்"

      ஆசிரியா்: "தெய்வத்திரு அ.ச. பக்திவேதாந்த சுவாமி பிரபுபாதர்" (அகில உலக கிருஷ்ண பக்தி இயக்கத்தின் ஸ்தாபக ஆச்சாரியாா்)

      அத்தியாயம்:1 , பதம்: 40

      பொருளுரை:
      "வாழ்வில் அமைதி, வளம் , ஆன்மீக முன்னேற்றம் ஆகியவற்றிற்கான ஆதாரம், மனித சமுதாயத்தில் நன்மக்கள் இருப்பதாகும். நன்மக்கள் தழைத்தோங்குவதின் மூலம், நாட்டிலும் சமூகத்திலும் ஆன்மீக முன்னேற்றம் ஏற்படும். அதற்குத் தகுந்தார் போல் , வர்ணாஷ்ரம தருமத்தின் கொள்கைகள் வடிவமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. இத்தகு சமுதாயம், அதன் பெண்குலத்தின் கற்பையும் நம்பகத் தன்மையையும் பொறுத்திருக்கிறது.

      குழந்தைகளைத் தவறாக வழிநடத்துதல் எளிது, அதுபோலவே பெண்களும் எளிதில் வீழ்ச்சியடையும் சுபாவம் உடையவர்கள். எனவே, குழந்தைகளுக்கும் பெண்களுக்கும், குடும்பத்தின் மூத்த உறுப்பினர்களின் பாதுகாப்புத் தேவை.

      பல்வேறு அறச்செயல்களில் ஈடுபடுத்தப்படுவதின் மூலம், பெண்கள் கற்புக்குப் புறம்பானத் தவறான உறவுகளை வளர்த்துக்கொள்ள (சோரம் போக) மாட்டார்கள்.

      சாணக்கிய பண்டிதரின் கூற்றுப்படி பெண்கள் அறிவாளிகள் அல்ல, அதனால் நம்பகமானவர்களுமல்ல. எனவே, அவர்களை எப்போதும் பலவிதமான அறம் சார்ந்த குலப்பண்பாடுகளில் ஈடுபடுத்த வேண்டும். அதன்மூலம், அவர்களது கற்பும் பக்தியும் வர்ணாஷ்ரம முறையில் பங்கேற்கத்தக்க நல்ல சமுதாயத்தை தோற்றுவிக்கும்.

      இத்தகு வர்ணாஷ்ரம தர்மம் சீர்குலையும் போது, இயற்கையாகவே பெண்கள் ஆண்களுடன் கலந்து செயல்படுவதற்கான சுதந்திரத்தைப் பெறுகின்றனர்.

      இதனால் பெண்களின் கற்புநிலை இழக்கப்பட்டு தவறான உறவுகள் தோன்றி, தேவையற்ற சந்ததிகள் என்னும் அபாயத்தை உண்டு பண்ணுகின்றன. "
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------

      இப்பொழுது சொல்லுங்கள்.

      இதை விட இழிவாக பெண்களை எவறாவது சித்தரித்துவிட முடியுமா?

      Delete
  17. Subavee sir,

    By Mr vinod argument I have few doubts...Gita is for Universe or only for india..The

    West did not adopt the principles of gita..but they gone well above than us..Its against gods rules as said in gita right..?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gita talks about a lot of philosophies like karma, rebirth, reincarnation etc. And it also talks about certain concrete things like the Varna system of classification. Like I mentioned in an above comment, we see now that the varna system as specified in the gita is more or less practically implemented all over the world in the name of professions. So the varna classification system applies to the whole world, since it is known to be a natural phenomenon. As for Gita's philosophies, like all philosophies all over the world, one can only either choose to believe or not believe for the time being. Science has not developed enough to give a definite answer as to the validity of these philosophies. Right now science only says there is no known scientific evidence. So, until science says something definite about these philosophies, any human being is free to either believe or disbelieve as he/she sees fit. So Gita's philosophies, like all other philosophies, are for the whole universe to think about wherever intelligent life exists.

      Delete
    2. Ganeshvel Manigandhi16 February 2015 at 13:36

      This is nothing more than a pure LIE. This is the propaganda of the ones who want to safeguard the varna and caste structure.

      Today's 'profession' structure is nothing to do with the varna system because of a simple fact that "anyone can change his/her profession anytime" which is NOT allowed by the Gita in Varna system.

      Also the Gita's varna system is based on BIRTH and some people who are not able to see that the varna system is getting demolished will explain this in terms of BEHAVIOR.

      How can the varna system (birth/Behavior) applicable for the today's world which is based on TALENT?

      The Gita's philosophies are NOT applicable for even our own whole country. Then how can this is applicable for the entire world where people follow different philosophies?

      Gita's philosophies like "karma, rebirth, reincarnation" are all shattered by many people including the Budha. And for your kind information- Budha is being followed in many parts of the world with more number of followers than India.

      Delete
  18. If birth is not caste and Brahmins were not glorified, Why did Parasurama say I will teach Brahmastra only to Brahmins? and he cursed Karna for lying. What was the need for a Brahmin to learn Brahmastram? Its not his job to fight anyway. Drona was considered a Brahmin though he did no 'work' of a Brahmin. He lived as a Shatriya only as a profession

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Throughout this debate, I have never claimed that the four varnas never became by birth, and that brahmins(by caste) were not glorified. All I am claiming is that the verses in the bhagavad gita DO NOT say that varnas are by birth, and my claim is supported by Prof. Subavee himself. As I have said in my previous comments, I do acknowledge that over a period of time, the varna classification system slowly deteriorated and varna became caste and by birth. But the gita definitely does not advocate this sort of treatment of the varna system.

      However, since you have raised some topics in the Mahabharata, I would like to clarify some points where I think you are mistaken. Of course, I may be wrong, but with the (limited) knowledge I have now about the Mahabharata, I don't think my viewpoint is wrong. If you have any important piece of knowledge that I have missed, and which changes my viewpoint drastically, please do let me know. But now, I will state my viewpoints on the topics you have raised.

      First, regarding Parasurama and Karna, I have already talked about it in another comment as a reply to Ganeshvel. Please refer to that. Parasurama hated kshatriyas and there is a long story behind it. Due to want of space, I will not mention the story here. That is why he said he will teach Brahmastra only to brahmins. Learning and gaining/imparting knowledge to others (not only of the vedas) are two of the most important duties of a Brahmin varna(profession). So there is no point in asking what the need is for a brahmin to learn a military art. He learns the art not to fight, but to teach. A brahmin(varna, not caste) is free to learn and gain wisdom in whatever field he wishes. So Parasuram was not supporting any caste when he said it. He was partial to a particular profession for a totally different reason. By the same argument, Drona was also doing the work of a brahmin for most of his life, namely learning and teaching the military arts to the Pandavas and Kauravas. Only later on, he took up the role of a Kshatriya during the Kurukshetra war to support the Kauravas since he was duty-bound to serve Hastinapur, as the story goes, and not as a profession.

      Delete
    2. Ganeshvel Manigandhi9 March 2015 at 19:02

      In my view, SubaVee Sir NEVER accepted or acknowledged that the Varna is NOT by birth. All he accepted is it is not telling explicitly in Prabhupada's book.

      Gita verses may not be using exact word to explicitly convey the meaning but one can easily understand why it is dividing people in groups.

      Reasons why I strongly believe that it is by Birth:

      1) It is branding people as 'Brahmins' , 'Ksatriyas' , 'Vaishyas' and 'Shudras'.  All these names are for the HUMANBEINGS and not for Ghunas. This itself is enough to prove that it is by birth. If Kriahna's original intention is to identify different Ghunas then Krishna should have NEVER branded the people with those names as the Ghuna can be changed any time.

      2) It never talks about how the Ghunas are identified and at what stage a person gets the varna brand.

      3) It never talks about the mechanism through which how the brand name of a person can be changed when his/her Ghuna gets changed.

      4) It refers Vedas in the book and Krishna claims that he is the one created Vedas.
      We all know the varna definition in 'Purusha sukta' in Rig Veda. It says "பிரம்மத்தின் தலையிலிருந்து தோன்றியவர்கள் பிராம்மணர்கள், தோளில் பிறந்தவர்கள் சத்திரியர்கள் , இடையில் தோன்றியவர்கள் வைசியர்கள் , பாதத்தில் பிறந்தவர்கள் சூத்திரர்கள் ( ரிக் வேதம்- அத்தியாயம்10 )"

      5) It refers Manus also in the book. We all know what Manusmriti is made up of. Manu says "பிராமணன் சம்பளங்கொடுத்தேனும் கொடாமலேனும் சூத்திரனிடத்தில் வேலை வாங்கலாம், ஏனெனில் அவன் பிராமணன் வேலைக்காகவே பிரமனால் சிருஷ்டிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறனவல்லவா (மனு அத்தியாயம்-8, சுலோகம்-413)". I can quote 100 more slokas from Manu to show it is by birth.

      The main intention of Gita is to enforce KARMA and AANMA ( கா்மா & ஆன்மா ) in the society in the name of God but just touched upon the Varna. And it leaves all other conditions, rules and regulations for all the Varnas to the later books like Manu.

      We need to consider all these texts and books to expose the hidden agenda of the ones who wrote all these things.

      If anyone is still asking for proof I will assume they are doing cover-up act for safeguarding the caste structure.

      Delete
    3. Let me make one thing very clear. It is fundamentally wrong to link two or more texts, each written by a different author(s) when debating about the meaning of verses in one of the texts, even if they all talk about the same topic. We are not debating about any hidden agenda here. Only the straightforward meaning of the gita text. For that, the text has to be seen in isolation, not in relation to other texts, that too, written by some other author and probably in some other period. The Gita's authorship, as part of the Mahabharatha, is traditionally ascribed to Veda Vyasa, whereas, Manusmriti does not seem to have a single author. The Gita's date of composition is still unresolved (Ref: Fowler, Jeaneane D (2012), The Bhagavad Gita: A Text and Commentary for Students, Eastbourne: Sussex Academy Press), whereas the Manu smriti is generally dated between 200 BCE and 200 CE., the Gupta-Maurya period(Ref: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manusmrti#Dating_and_historical_context). Also from the same reference, I directly quote: "The Bhagavad Gita contradicts many statements in Manu Smriti, including the fixture of one's varna at birth." Not only is the authorship different, but both the texts contradict each other in many places. Then how can Manu smriti be used to understand the Gita verses?

      Also, the Purusha Sukta's authenticity is under serious debate, and many sanskrit scholars are of the opinion that it was a modern addition to the ancient Rig vedic text. Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha_Sukta#Authenticity_of_Purusha_Sukta for details.

      And, Ganeshvel, Manu and Manu smriti are not the same. Both the Gita and Manusmriti talk about Manu, which, in Hindu tradition, means "Progenitor of humanity". That does not mean Gita is referring to Manusmriti, which is another text that claims its contents were originally said by Manu to the sage Bhrigu.

      As I have mentioned quite a few times in this debate, all this only strengthens the idea that the wrong interpretation of the Varna classification system as by birth was a later development in Indian society, and the Varna classification was originally meant to be decided based on a person's gunas(closely related to talent, since for example, leadership is a guna of kshatriya as per gita chap 18 verse 43, but that is possible only if one has a talent to be a leader) as said in the bhagavad gita.

      Delete
    4. "அதர்மம் மிகுதலால் குலப்பெண்கள் கற்பிழக்கின்றனர். கிருஷ்ணா, மாதர் கற்பிழக்குமிடத்து வர்ணக்கலப்பு உண்டாகிறது (அத்தியாயம் ஒன்று, சுலோகம் 41)"

      From this Gita verse, one can easily understand that the Varna system existed in the society well BEFORE Gita was written. We can also understand that people violated the Varna system.

      Krishna says “விருஷ்ணிகளுள்  நான் வாசுதேவன், பாண்டவர்களுள் தனஞ்செயன், முனிகளுள் நான் வியாசர், கவிகளுள் நான் சுக்கிரன்” - If the Gita was written by Vyasar, why he mentioned his name itself in the list? It clearly proves Gita was NOT written by Veda Vyasa.

      Krishna says “இந்த ஜகத்தின் தந்தை, தாய், பாட்டனாரானவனும், கர்மபலனைக் கொடுப்பவனும், அறியத்தக்கவனும், தூய்மை செய்பவனும் ஓங்காரம், ரிக், சாம யஜுர் வேதங்கள்ஆகின்றவனும் நானே (அத்தியாயம் ஒன்பதில் பதினேழாம் சுலோகம்)". It means all the Vedas were already in place ( Including Purusha Shukta's Varna definition ) before someone written Gita.

      Krishna says ”பார்த்தா, கீழான பிறவியர்களாகிய பெண்பாலர் வைசியர் சூத்திரர் ஆகியவரும் என்னைச் சார்ந்திருந்து நிச்சயமாகப் பரகதி அடைகின்றனர் (அத்தியாயம் ஒன்பது சுலோகம் 32)". It clearly proves that Women (can come only by birth), Vysiyas and Shudras as low graded people which is again by birth as the names only denotes the HUNNBEINGS and not Ghunas.

      So it is clear that the Varna is NOT the creation of God Krishna with the introduction of Gita. So naturally the question is "WHAT IS THE NEED FOR GITA?"

      Here comes the HIDDEN AGENDA of some group of people who claimed themselves as God's agents. We need to consider the timeline also when these things happened. All the researchers are coincided with the timeline somewhere between 500 BC and 500 AD. This is the time Buddhism peaked in India.

      So there was a need to reemphasize the Varna in the society in name of God to reap benefits from the working people so there was GITA introduced.

      I agree with you that Manu and Manusmriti are not same but the point here is the same Manusmriti (explicitly says that Varna us by burth) is also written during the same period around GITA.

      In this context, how are you expecting me to just look at few lines from a book and understand the straightforward meaning? It is natural to beyond to see WHY it was written in that way.

      If you calculate all above things you should get the answer that Gita's Varna is also by BIRTH.

      Delete
    5. I have already talked about the verses that you now mention. Please refer to my reply to Sahana regarding verse 41 of chapter 1. That verse does not even talk about Varna. It only talks about Kulam, which means family, and how it will be affected by war within the family. Also, these verses are supposed to be said by Arjuna as an excuse to avoid war, so there is not much truth in them.

      According to the Mahabharatha epic itself, Vyasa lived during the time of the epic and his mother, Satyavati, married King Shantanu of Hastinapur, and so he is also related to the royal family of Hastinapur. So it is only natural that Krishna, another character of the epic, mentioned him by name. Mahabharatha's story includes Vyasa's own life story. Can a person not write his own life story as part of a bigger story? So Krishna's words definitely do not mean that Vyasa is not the author of Mahabharatha and Bhagavad Gita which forms a part of the epic.

      Regarding verse 17 of chapter 9, Krishna only mentions the three vedas, Rig, Yajur and Sama vedas by name. The verse does not say anything about the content of any of the vedas. The doubt is about whether Purusha Sukta was actually part of the ancient Rig Vedic text, or a modern addition, since Sanskrit scholars feel that Purusha Sukta verses have a modern tone in language, metre and style. They are still debating about this, and this verse says nothing at all about these things.

      Verse 32 of chapter 9 came up for debate during the initial stages of this debate itself, and I have given much explanation to show that the term "Papa yonaya" DOES NOT refer to women, vaishyas and sudras. Please refer back. And moreover, Subavee himself has said that my explanation is correct and has apologised for his mistake. I directly quote him below:

      "இவ்விவாதத்தில் கூடுதலாக இடம்பெற்றுள்ள கீதையின் பகுதிகள் மூன்று!.
      (1) இயல் 4, பாடல் 13
      (2) இயல் 9, பாடல் 32
      (3)இயல் 18, பாடல்கள் 41-47.

      இவற்றுள், 18ஆம் இயலில், குணத்தின் (சுபாவம்) அடிப்படையில்தான் வருணங்கள் பிரிக்கப் பட்டுள்ளனவே தவிர, பிறப்பின் அடிப்படை என்று கூறவே இல்லை என்பது நண்பர் வினோத்தின் வாதம்.

      வினோத் எழுப்பியுள்ள வினாவை மனத்தில் கொண்டு, பிரபுபாதா உள்ளிட்ட பலரின் மொழிபெயர்ப்புகளையும் நான் படித்தேன். அவை அனைத்தும், வினோத் கூறியுள்ளதை ஒத்தே இருக்கின்றன. பொதுவுடமைச் சிந்தனையாளரான தோழர் ஜவஹரும் என் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு தவறானது என்பதைச் சுட்டிக் காட்டினார். எனவே, பல தரவுகளையும் சரி பார்க்காமல் ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட மொழிபெயர்ப்பை வெளியிட்டமைக்கு என் வருத்தத்தைத் தெரிவித்துக் கொண்டு என் மன்னிப்பைக் கோருகின்றேன்."

      Though he is explicitly mentioning only Chapter 18 for the apology, I think he is also referring to the other above-mentioned chapters also, since he has listed them out. It would be better if he could clarify on this, because otherwise it would seem as if he is saying that the Gita verses are contradicting themselves. In any case, I am standing by what I have said unless someone puts forth a new argument that clearly disproves my arguments that I have given previously in this debate, that is, regarding "Papa-yonaya".

      There is no final consensus on the date of composition of the Gita as per the reference I gave earlier, and so one cannot simply say that Gita and Manusmriti were composed in the same period. And nowhere have I heard anyone, except you, claim that Veda Vyasa did not write Bhagavad Gita. You are not accepting something that is generally accepted throughout the world. I don't understand why.

      Anyway, by my above arguments, there does not seem to be any hidden agenda in the Gita to show that Varna is by birth, and only the straightforward meaning that Varnas are by guna.

      Delete
    6. கணேஷ்வேல்13 March 2015 at 13:35

      Vinod:

      Most of the times you are mentioning that 'some Sanskrit scholars are still debating, not accepting' etc., wherever there is a clear definition or explicit mentioning of injustice.

      But you never mentioned WHO are those Sanskrit scholars. If you can explicitly tell WHO are those Sanskrit scholars, it will be easy to understand why they are doing like that.

      Delete
    7. கணேஷ்வேல்13 March 2015 at 22:48

      My intention to mention the verse 1.41 is to prove that the Varna system was already there in the society before Gita was drafted. Another point I wanted to make is there was violation in Varna system by means of marriage between Varnas. That is why it mentions not only kulam but also Jaathi and Varna in those verses.
      (1.40, 1.41, 1.42 and 1.43)

      I am fine with the fact that Vyasa lived during that period etc., but the point is that Krishna says in one of the verses that 'I am Vyasa'. This is why I am doubting that Vyasa might not have written Geetha as no one will refer himself as GOD Krishna.

      And regarding Vedas - two points. One he did not mention the Adarvana Veda ( not sure why he purposefully left). Second these Vedas were already in place in the society so there was Varnas. I don't think we can accept the 'amature' Sanskrit scholars as a credible source because of a simple fact that THEY CANNOT DECLARE THAT THE DEFINITION IS NOT CORRECT.

      Verse 32, You cannot JUSTIFY why Krishna included Women in the list, and considering some of the other verses , Gita considers Women as low graded people. Even KRISHNA cannot justify this INJUSTICE.

      And regarding SubaVee sir's reply - he only accepted and apologized for mentioning the single translation without comparing others. However he never mentioned that Varna is NOT by birth.

      I agree that there is no final consensus on the date of composition. But ALL researchers including Dr. Radharishnan confirmed that the period should be between 500 BC and 500 AD.

      Budhism was the main threat to the Varna and caste during that period so there was a need to retain the varna structure for the so called high class people. The RESULT is Gita.

      I repeat the same 3 points I made earlier to prove that Varna is by birth ( from your perspective this is not explicit but my perspective this is the THEME / TAKEAWAY from Gita.)
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1) It is branding people as 'Brahmins' , 'Ksatriyas' , 'Vaishyas' and 'Shudras'.  All these names are for the HUMANBEINGS and not for Ghunas. This itself is enough to prove that it is by birth. If Kriahna's original intention is to identify different Ghunas then Krishna should have NEVER branded the people with those names instead he should have named the Ghunas as the Ghuna can be changed any time.

      2) It never talks about how the Ghunas are identified and at what stage a person gets the varna brand.

      3) It never talks about the mechanism through which how the brand name of a person ( Varna) can be changed when his/her Ghuna gets changed.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Delete
    8. Ganeshvel, Please read my comments fully before asking questions like this. I have already mentioned two references in one of my previous comments. For the sanskrit scholar reference, I gave the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha_Sukta#Authenticity_of_Purusha_Sukta. Go to wikipedia and read it first. Then you will know the answer to the question you have asked. The wikipedia page gives four sanskrit scholars' names. Those are WHO I mentioned in my comment.

      Delete
    9. Verses 1.40 to 1.43 only talk about adultery and not at all about marriage. So there is no question of Varna or Jaathis here.

      Krishna says that as God, he is in everyone and everything, including Vyasa. That does not create any doubt wheter Vyasa wrote Gita or not.

      Adarvana Veda was left out because it was considered a veda only in later periods, and not during the time of composition of gita. The first three vedas were called "trayī vidyā"(Ref: MacDonell, Arthur Anthony Arthur Anthony Macdonell (2004), A History of Sanskrit Literature, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1-4179-0619-7). And, who are you calling "amateur"? Max Muller was a philologist(study of language in written historical sources) and Orientalist(academic field of study that embraces Near Eastern and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages, peoples, history and archaeology), Colebrooke was an orientalist, John Muir was an indologist(academic study of the history and cultures, languages, and literature of the Indian subcontinent) and sanskrit scholar and Weber was an Indologist and historian. And you call them amateur! LOL!

      Please don't say "You cannot justify". I have explained the correct meaning of verse 32 very much in my previous comments. Please refer back, and don't make me repeat the same things again and again.

      Subavee apologised for giving that single translation BECAUSE THAT SINGLE TRANSLATION IS WRONG!!! He undestood that after I raised my objections and after he referred to other translation texts, and after listening to his friend Jawahar(who told Subavee his interpretation is wrong!) If that single translation is correct, then why should he apologise? So the correct translation means that Varna is NOT BY BIRTH!

      No, all researchers did not "CONFIRM"! If all of them confirm, then that is called "Final consensus"! There is still doubt, so there is no final consensus. The people who sought to attack Buddhism did not write Gita. They misinterpreted the gita to suit their own whims and fancies.

      Delete
    10. கணேஷ்வேல்14 March 2015 at 12:13

      Two things...

      1) If you fully agree with these scholars that this is the later addition to the Rig veda, then this itself is enough to add value to my claims that there was a HIDDEN AGENDA.

      2) So WHOEVER wrote Gita, mentioned those Vedas to claim that they are also given by Krishna.

      3) Promoting Varnas in the name of GOD was the main HIDDEN AGENDA of those people. I believe they are the ones manipulated the Vedas also (If I go with your Scholars)

      Delete
    11. Actually, you have said three things ;)

      1) The point is not about agreement or disagreement. The point is that these scholars are professionals who have seriously studied the Vedic texts and have raised a doubt about the authenticity of the Purusha Suktha. So their words cannot be simply ignored. They have not said anything conclusive, so the authenticity of the Purusha Suktha is under the shadow of doubt. Such verses which are under doubt cannot be used to prove a point in a debate, especially when the point that is under debate depends a lot on clearing the doubt surrounding the verse.

      2) As per my arguments, the Gita was not written with any "HIDDEN AGENDA" in mind, especially regarding the verses that speak about the Varna classification system, since the verses are not ambiguous, and are very clear in their meaning that the varnas are to be decided based on gunas. The Gita was misinterpreted later on by evil people to achieve their own selfish goals. That is where your "HIDDEN AGENDA" comes - as a later development, not initially. Verses like the Purusha Suktha MAY HAVE BEEN ADDED LATER(there is still doubt regarding this) to the Rig Veda by the same people who misinterpreted the Gita. It is better to leave such doubtful verses as the Purusha Suktha out of the debate, since nothing can be concretely concluded based on them.

      3) As I have said many times before, all this manipulation and "HIDDEN AGENDA" only came later, and that is what the scholars I have mentioned suggest(by suggesting that the Purusha Suktha could be a modern addition to the ancient Rig Vedic text), not that there is a "HIDDEN AGENDA" in the original version of the Vedic texts, and the Gita. But you are saying there is a "HIDDEN AGENDA" in the Gita and the original vedic texts itself, and you are showing the Purusha Suktha as an evidence for your claim. But if so, then clearly you are not going with the scholars I have mentioned.

      Delete
    12. கணேஷ்வேல்16 March 2015 at 15:25

      I call them 'amatures' only because they CANNOT make any amendments in the religious text. When the religious leaders, Gurus, madathipathis, etc, are SILENT about this what these scholars can do. But I agree on a fact that they can EXPOSE the HIDDEN meanings of those texts by correlating with history.

      For Verse 32, Even Krishna CANNOT justify for showing women in bad lights as low graded people.

      Mentioning of Jaathi and Varna are all over the place in Gita so no one can deny that Krishna wanted to safeguard Jaathi and Varna.

      I still standby my view that SubaVee sir never agreed that Varna is not by birth.

      And regarding the timeline you cannot mention many who claimed that Gita was written before 500 BC. Nine out of ten confirmed that the timeline is somewhere between 500 BC and 500 AD. So there is a consensus already :)

      Delete
    13. கணேஷ்வேல்16 March 2015 at 20:58

      If there was NO hidden agenda, do you see any brighter side of the Varna system in the past 2500 years? All we can see throughout our history is the DARK side of it.

      Buddha protested against this some 2500 years ago which is an AMPLE EVIDENCE to prove that the Varna was in DARK side even 2500 years ago.

      If there was NO HIDDEN AGENDA and we all know its dark side exists even today, WHY there was no effort made by anyone in last 2500 years?

      1) NO new concept.
      2) NO new way of explaining.
      3) NO Punishments for the ones who misinterpreted the GENUINE CONCEPTS.
      4) NO Framework to implement the Varna without deviating its GENUINE intentions.
      5) NO new AVATARS of GOD to implement the GENUINE CONCEPTS.

      With these so many 'NO's, one can come to a conclusion that these texts were written with HIDDEN AGENDA to benefit one section of people.

      Rubbing salt in the wound, there was Manusmriti which further added more DARKNESS.

      Not sure how you are still defending Varna without considering any of these things by just looking at 4 lines.

      Delete
    14. கணேஷ்வேல்16 March 2015 at 21:24

      By the way, you did not answer my 3 questions.
      You are conveniently ignoring them ;)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1) It is branding people as 'Brahmins' , 'Ksatriyas' , 'Vaishyas' and 'Shudras'. All these names are for the HUMAN BEINGS and not for Ghunas. This itself is enough to prove that it is by birth. If Kriahna's original intention is to identify different Ghunas then Krishna should have NEVER branded the people with those names instead he should have named the Ghunas as the Ghuna can be changed any time.

      2) It never talks about how the Ghunas are identified and at what stage a person gets the varna brand.

      3) It never talks about the mechanism/process through which how the brand name of a person ( Varna) can be changed when his/her Ghuna gets changed.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Delete
    15. The scholars I have mentioned are not making any amendments. They are only casting a genuine doubt about the timeline of the Purusha Suktha through facts and reason. And, as I have said before, they are professional scholars, so please refrain from calling them "amateurs". Btw, who gave your so-called religious leaders and madathipathis the right to make amendments to ancient religious texts, huh? They are the true "amateurs" with no real qualification whatsoever! And one madathipathi have even gone to jail!

      But you didn't ask Krishna about verse 32, did you? You asked me, and I have explained in my much earlier comments itself that the verse is NOT SHOWING WOMEN IN BAD LIGHT! I have asked you to refer back, but clearly, you are conveniently ignoring my suggestion, and repeating the same thing over and over again!

      I don't know what you mean by linking "Jaathi" and the Gita text. As far as I have seen, only Varna is mentioned in the Gita, not Jaathi, at least in the verses that we have discussed thus far. If you have found another verse where "Jaathi" is mentioned, please mention the verse and chapter number.

      Then why did Subavee acknowledge that his friend Jawahar told him his translation is wrong, and he himself verified the same through multiple cross-references and then apologised? If he is not accepting that his translation is wrong and hence not accepting that the Gita says Varna is by Guna, then why should he apologise???

      There is a lot of difference between "CONFIRMING" and "SUGGESTING". Scholars have only SUGGESTED the dates you have mentioned. CONFIRMATION requires SOLID PROOF, which is non-existent. And look at the reference I gave you for saying that final consensus is not reached. Its a book by Prof. Jeaneane Fowler. She is one of the "Nine out of ten" scholars you have mentioned. She herself is saying in her book that final consensus is not reached yet.

      I never said there was no hidden agenda. I have only said that the hidden agenda CAME LATER ON, and was not there originally in the Gita text itself. Just because a text and the concepts it mentions were misinterpreted and wrongly implemented later on, the text and the concept themselves don't become DARK. As I have mentioned before, the correct implementation of the Varna system is, more or less, what we see today all over the world. Of course, you have not accepted that, but then you have not accepted even what Subavee has accepted, so that's no surprise.

      There is NO NEED for me to "conveniently ignore" you. I didn't reply to those three points because, in your own words, those are a repeat of what you have already said. You said "I repeat the same 3 points I made earlier to prove that Varna is by birth". If I reply to that, I will also be only repeating my previous answers.

      Already we have both repeated a lot of things again and again in this debate. I do not want any more repetition, since it is only a waste of time and energy. So from here on, I plan to reply to your comments only if there is some new point that you have not already said before. You are also welcome to do the same to my comments. And that is why I am not going to separately reply to your reply to my comment on Karma yoga, since you have not mentioned anything new there, and not because I am "conveniently ignoring you" :). I will end my comment with one last line: Truth may be always bitter, but all bitter things are not necessarily true!

      Delete
    16. கணேஷ்வேல்18 March 2015 at 21:21

      I think you NEVER answered those questions especially 2nd and 3rd.

      2) It never talks about how the Ghunas are identified and at what stage a person gets the varna brand.

      3) It never talks about the mechanism/process through which how the brand name of a person ( Varna) can be changed when his/her Ghuna gets changed.

      If we don't get answer for these questions from Gita itself, then that itself proves that Varna is by birth.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      1) ஒரு குழந்தை பிறந்த பின், எப்போது இந்த வர்ணம் அந்த குழந்தைக்குச் சொந்தமாகிறது?

      2) இந்த வருணம் இவருக்கு என நிர்ணயிப்பது யாருடைய வேலை? நிர்ணயிப்பவருடைய வர்ணத்தை நிர்ணயிப்பது யார்?

      3) ஒருவருடைய குணம் மாறும் போது அவருடைய வர்ணத்தை மாற்ற வேண்டியது யார் பொறுப்பு? இதற்கான கட்டமைப்பு கீதையில் என்ன?

      இதற்கெல்லாம் கீதையில் பகவானின் பதில் என்ன? 

      குணத்தை பற்றியும், வருணத்தை பற்றியும் இவ்வளவு விளக்கிய பகவான், ஏன் இந்த கட்டமைப்பை உருவாக்கி விளக்க வில்லை?

      கீதையின் 'வருணத்தை' தாங்கி பிடிக்கும் தாங்கள், மேற்கண்ட கேள்விகளுக்கு கீதையிலிருந்தே பதிலளித்து தங்கள் கருத்தை நிறுவுமாறு அன்புடன் கேட்டுக்காள்கிறேன்.

      இதற்கு சரியான பதில் (கீதையிலிருந்தே) இல்லையென்றால், பிறப்பால்தான் வருணம் என்பதை எவறும் மறுக்கமுடியாது.

      Delete
    17. கணேஷ்வேல்18 March 2015 at 22:27

      கீதையில் ஜாதி இதோ :


      அத்தியாயம் 1, பதம் 42:
      -------------------------------------------
      தோஷைர் ஏதை: குல-க் நானாம் வர்ண-ஸங்கர-காரகை:

      உத்ஸாத் யந்தே ஜாதி-தர்மா: குல-தர்மாஷ் ச ஷாஷ்வதா:

      அத்தியாயம் 5, பதம் 18:
      -------------------------------------------
      "அடக்கமுள்ள பண்டிதர்கள் தங்களது உண்மை ஞானத்தின் வாயிலாக, கற்றறிந்த தன்னடக்கமுள்ள பிராமணன், பசு, யானை, நாய், நாயைத் தின்பவன் (கீழ் ஜாதி) என அனைவரையும் சம நோக்கில் காண்கின்றனர்"


      (பகவத் கீதை உண்மையுருவில் - தெய்வத்திரு அ.ச. பக்திவேதாந்த சுவாமி பிரபுபாதர் - அகில உலக கிருஷ்ண பக்தி இயக்கத்தின் ஸ்தாபக ஆச்சாரியா்)

      Delete
    18. I will reply only to your mention of Jaathi in chapter 1 verse 42 and chapter 5 verse 18, since the others are just repetitions. I will only mention here that I have replied to each and every one of your questions in my previous comments and I request you to go through my comments carefully, especially the one where I have talked about "Practical issues", since this has been an unusually long debate, cutting across two or three posts by Subavee.

      First, I will give the translation for verse 42, chapter 1 just for the sake of completion, since you have given the first verse without the translation.

      "By the evil deeds of those who destroy family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children(through adultery), all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated."

      Here, Jaathi translates, as expected, to community. This verse tells us that communities(Jaathi) existed in Indian society when the Gita was written. But it is not clear from this verse whether the graded inequality that we see in today's caste system existed even then. The verse also does not equate Varna with Jaathi. People all over the world tend to live in communities(groups), and it is not clear from this verse whether Jaathi only meant "groups" at that time, or whether it meant the caste system of today. But let us assume that it meant the caste system of today. Now look at the other verse(chapter 5 verse 18) that you have mentioned. I will comment separately on it below, but now, just look at the meaning of that verse. It is not promoting the graded inequality at all. It says people who see others as lower than themselves are ignorant. It says people with true knowledge will see all living beings(humans, animals etc) as equals. So it is promoting equality and trying to correct society from the evil practice of regarding some as higher caste and some as lower caste. And since it says in the verses we have already discussed, that Varna is decided by gunas, the Gita clearly separates Varna from Jaathi(community).

      Now, coming to verse 18 of chapter 5, there is some confusion as to whether the term "dog-eater" is referring to a lower caste (கீழ் ஜாதி) or an out-caste. In Prabupada's English translation, he says dog-eater is out-caste, but in the tamil translation, he says it is lower caste. Out-caste means the person is regarded as not belonging to the society itself(not in any caste, hence the name out-caste). Regarding a person as out-caste is even more evil than regarding a person as lower caste. Regardless of this confusion, the Gita, through this verse, is only trying to promote equality among people in a society. By saying that "Humble sages with true knowledge look upon brahmins and out-castes/lower castes as equals", it implies that those who look at some people as superior and others as inferior are proud and ignorant people themselves.

      Delete
    19. கணேஷ்வேல்23 March 2015 at 19:14

      I know you cannot answer those 3 questions for a simple reason that this was NOT ADDRESSED by Krishna or whoever wrote Gita.

      Having divided the human race into 4 Varnas, by not making any concrete structure/process by which these Varnas operate ONLY strengthens my argument that it is by BIRTH and THIS is the HIDDEN AGENDA by whoever wrote Gita.

      Regarding 'Jaathi', you said Gita never talked about 'Jaathi' but I showed 2 verses. You also agreed that Jaathi was existing by then and talking about 'Jaathi Dharma' in verse 1.42 ONLY strengthens my argument that there was a HIDDEN AGENDA in Gita itself. Means, there was Jaathi and 'Jaathi-Dharma' at that time and there was a necessity to enforce the same in the name God, So Varna came to the picture.

      தமிழாக்கம்:

      தங்களால் அந்த மூன்று கேள்விகளுக்கும் பதிலளிக்க முடியாது ஏனென்றால், இது எதற்குமே கிருஷ்ணரோ அல்லது கீதையை இயற்றியவரோ கீதையில் இதைப்பற்றி எதையுமே கூறவில்லை.

      மனித இனத்தை நான்காக பிளவு படுத்தும் மிகப்பெரிய காரியத்தைச் செய்துவிட்டு, அதற்குறிய கட்டமைப்பை வேண்டுமென்றே ஏற்படுத்தாமல் விட்டுவிடுவதன் மூலம், மனிதற்கிடையில் பிறப்பின் அடிப்படையில் ஏற்றத்தாழ்வைக் கற்பிப்பதுதான் கீதையின் மறைமுக நோக்கம்.

      'ஜாதி' யும், ஜாதிக்குறிய 'தருமமும்' கீதை எழுதப்பட்ட காலத்திலேயே இருந்துள்ளது என்பதை பதம் 1.42 மூலம் எளிதாக அறியலாம். அக்காலத்திலேயே, ஜாதி 'தருமம்' மீறப்பட்டுள்ளதையும் இந்த பதத்தின் மூலம் அறியலாம். மீண்டும் இந்த 'ஜாதி தருமத்தை' நிலைநிறுத்த கடவுளின் பெயரால் 'அருளப்பட்டதே' கீதையின் வருணம்.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------

      அக்காலத்தில் இருந்த ஜாதியில் ஏற்றத்தாழ்வு இருந்ததா, இல்லையா என்ற நண்பர் வினோத்தின் சந்தேகத்திற்கு விடை 'புத்தர்' தான். புத்தரின் 'புரட்சியே' அக்காலத்தில் இருந்த ஜாதிய ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகளுக்கு ஆதாரம்.

      Delete
    20. Please read my replies carefully before accusing me. I only said, "AS FAR AS I HAVE SEEN, only Varna is mentioned in the Gita, not Jaathi, AT LEAST IN THE VERSES THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THUS FAR". In the verses we were discussing about till then, there was no mention of Jaathi except in verse 1.42, which I genuinely missed seeing, so I asked you to mention the verse and chapter number for convenience sake. I just made a factual error, and nothing purposeful, which I corrected immediately after you mentioned the two verses. If you are not so prejudiced, you will see that truth. Otherwise, it's hopeless to expect you to see even such simple facts, leave alone the facts about Varna and Gita.

      And the verse 1.42 is not even explaining what "Jaathi dharma" is. You are giving your own interpretation to it, and you are linking Varna and Jaathi unnecessarily. That is why you are conveniently ignoring verse 5.18 even though it was you who first mentioned it. Look at what that verse is saying. That one verse alone should be sufficient to dispel all doubts about the true purpose of Gita, which is to correct the evils in society and promote equality and to clearly show that Varna is different from Jaathi(when seen along with the verses about Varna).

      Delete
    21. கணேஷ்வேல்24 March 2015 at 21:10

      I am NOT at all prejudiced and accept that it was just a miss from your side. No issues.

      Main Intention of the Verse 1.42 is VERY clear, that is to SAFEGUARD 'Jaathi-Dharma'.

      I did not ignore the verse 5.18 conveniently. My intention was to quote the verses which talks about 'Jaathi'. In fact this verse will ONLY strengthen my side if I use this :)

      The Verse 5.18 is the PROOF that there was inequality among the Jaathis at that time, that is why it talks about LOWER CASTE. If there is a mention of LOWER CASTE, obviously there should be HIGHER CASTE as well. If there were LOWER and HIGHER castes then obviously there should be inequalities.

      Another REVELATION from the verse 5.18 is - by mentioning 'கற்றறிந்த தன்னடக்கமுள்ள பிராமணன்', it clearly talks about a person instead if Ghuna. And also by excluding Shatriyas, Vysiyas and Shudras from the list, it is stamping the authority of Bhramins as HIGHER CASTE or GHUNA.

      That is why the verse 1.42 tries to safeguard Jaathi-Dharma.

      These 2 verses itself ENOUGH to prove that the HIDDEN AGENDA is the Gita itself, that is to reinforce Jaathi, Varna and authority in the society.

      தமிழாக்கம்:
      -----------------------

      கீதையின் பதம் 5.18, அக்காலத்தில் ஜாதி இருந்துள்ளதையும், சிலர் கீழ்-ஜாதியாகவும் நடத்தப்பட்டுள்ளனர் என்பதையும் எவ்வித ஐயமுமின்றி நிறுவுகிறது.

      "கீழ்-ஜாதி" என்று ஒன்று அக்காலத்தில் இருந்திருப்பதால் , "மேல்-ஜாதி" களும் அக்காலத்திலேயே இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும்.
      கீழ்-ஜாதியும், மேல்-ஜாதியும் இருந்திருப்பதால் , ஜாதிய ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகளும் இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும்.

      "கற்றறிந்த தன்னடக்கமுள்ள பிராமணன்" என்று இப்பதத்தில் குறிப்பிடப்படுவதே பிராமணன் உயா்ந்தவன் எனக் காட்டுவதற்கே, பிராமணன் எனும் சொல் ஒரு மனிதனைத்தான் குறிக்குமே தவிர குணத்தையல்ல.

      பிராமணனுடன் சேர்த்து பசு, யானை, நாய், கீழ் ஜாதி மனிதன் என அனைவரும் குறிப்பிடப்படுமிடத்தில்- சத்ரியன் எங்கே? சைியன் எங்கே? சூத்திரன் எங்கே?

      பிராமணன் உயர்ந்தவன் எனக் காட்ட எழுதப்பட்டதேயன்றி சமத்துவத்துக்காக எழுதப்பட்டதல்ல இப்பதம். சமமாகக் காட்டுவது போல் எழுதி, குட்டு வெளிப்படும் இடம்தான் இது.

      இவையனைத்தும் இருந்திருப்பதால்தான் கீதையின் மற்றொரு பதம் (1.42), ஜாதி தருமத்தை காப்பாற்றவும் முனைகிறது.

      இந்த இரண்டு பதங்களே கீதையின் மறைமுக நோக்கங்களை தெள்ளத்தெளிவாக வெளிப்படுத்த போதுமான ஆதாரங்கள்.

      Delete
    22. To add to my previous reply, note that Gita is a philosophical text. No philosophical text anywhere in the world talks about "PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION", which is what you are asking about in those 3 questions. So Gita not mentioning how to practically implement varna system is NO INDICATION of any hidden agenda in the Gita text itself. And as the verse 5.18 in the gita says, the Gita is only striving to eliminate inequality in the society and is explaining the true meaning of Varna by Guna.

      Delete
    23. Good to see that you are not as prejudiced as I thought.

      Now, coming to the verses, neither verse 1.42, nor any of the other verses we have seen so far, really explain what Jaathi dharma is. If you have seen another verse where the Gita explains what Jaathi dharma is, please mention the verse and chapter number. I am also going through the text to see if there is any clarity on this. And even if "Jaathi Dharma" means what you say it means, Verse 1.42 merely mentions it since it exists in society, and neither supports nor abandons it. But verse 5.18 clearly DOES NOT PROMOTE Jaathi dharma(in the sense you say). I will explain in detail in the next paragraph.

      If you see my previous comment, I have already agreed with you that Jaathi existed at the time the Gita was written. That is not the issue. The issue is what the Gita says about upper and lower castes. Like you say, verse 5.18 makes it clear that upper and lower castes existed in society when the Gita was written, and people may have even wrongly used the term "Brahmin" to refer to a caste(like we do today), instead of the Varna(by Guna) Brahmin . But my point is that the Gita DOES NOT PROMOTE all this evil that existed in society at that time. And verse 5.18 is an important verse in this regard. It clearly says that Brahmins(Both Brahmin Varna and brahmin caste, which are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT concepts) are NOT SUPERIOR TO ANY LOWER CASTE that exists in society, but that ALL ARE EQUALS in the eyes of the truly knowledgeable person. No profession(Varna) or caste is superior or inferior to another profession or caste, according to the Gita. If the Gita had any EVIL AGENDA(HIDDEN OR EXPLICIT), it should say brahmins are superior to lower castes, but verse 5.18 clearly does not say that. And through the verses about Varna, the Gita shows the difference between CASTE and VARNA. After looking at all these verses, it seems to me that, if at all the Gita had any agenda, it was only to REFORM SOCIETY, as far as the caste evil and Varna misinterpretation in society were concerned.

      Delete
    24. கணேஷ்வேல்30 March 2015 at 20:22


      Verse 1.42: It is incorrect to interpret that the verse 'merely mentions the Jaathi-Dharma and neither supports nor abondons it'. By concerning about 'ஜாதி தருமங்கள் அழிவுறுகின்றன', it is clearly supports Jaathi-Dharmam.

      Verse 5.18: You did not answer my question. Why this verse did not include Shatriyas, Vysiyas and Shudras in the list? It is because the intention was to brand the Bramin as the TOP-MOST category.

      I can quote one more verse that shows Bhramin as HIGHER caste/varna.

      Verse 17.14 clearly equates Brahmins and GOD :)- I think the AGENDA is NOT HIDDEN anymore.

      தமிழாக்கம்:
      ---------------------

      பதம் 1.42: ஜாதி தருமங்கள் அழிவுறுகின்றன' எனக் கவலைப்படுவதன் மூலம், ஜாதி தருமத்தை காக்கவே இப்பதம் முனைகிறது என்பதுதான் சரியான பொருள்.

      பதம் 5.18: பிராமணனுடன் சேர்த்து பசு, யானை, நாய், கீழ் ஜாதி மனிதன் என அனைவரும் குறிப்பிடப்படுமிடத்தில்- சத்ரியன் எங்கே? சைியன் எங்கே? சூத்திரன் எங்கே?

      பிராமணன் உயர்ந்தவன் எனவும், கடவுளுக்குச் சமம் எனவும் கூறும் பதம் இதோ:

      பதம் 17.14: "முழுமுதற் கடவுள், பிராமணர்கள், அன்மீக குரு, பெரியோர்களான தாய் தந்தையர் ஆகியோரை வழிபடுதல், மற்றும் தூய்மை, எளிமை பிரம்மச்சரியம், அகிம்சை முதலியவை உடலின் தவங்களாகும்"

      பிராமணர்களை கடவுளுக்கு இணையாக வைத்து, மக்களை பிரித்து, அதில் பலன் பெறும் திட்டம் வெளிப்படையாகவே தலைகாட்டும் இடம்தான் இப்பதம்.

      Delete
    25. Verse 1.42, and as far as I know, the Gita as a whole, does not explain the exact meaning of "Jathi Dharma". We are just assuming that it means the caste system of today. Also, the way the Gita is written is such that, initially, the character Arjuna says a lot of things to justify his non-fighting attitude. Then the character Krishna refutes whatever Arjuna says as false and meaningless, and goes on to explain a lot of philosophical concepts and the Varna system of classification. There are two viewpoints expressed in the Gita. The first viewpoint, which includes verse 1.42, is totally refuted by the second viewpoint. So it is only logical to conclude that the second viewpoint is the viewpoint that is upheld by the Gita as correct. If whatever Arjuna says is correct, then the whole point of the Gita is meaningless. So I think it is only right to conclude that the verses that Arjuna says should not be taken as what the Gita upholds as truth. So, what the verse 1.42 says is false, and so the Gita does not support "Jaathi Dharma". My wording in my previous comment was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out. As you say, Arjuna, through the verse 1.42, clearly supports "Jathi Dharma", but the Gita definitely does not, as Krishna's verses show.

      As I mentioned in my previous comment, the verse 5.18 clearly shows that some form of caste system existed at the time the Gita was written. But there may not have been so many castes at that time, as what exists today. As I mentioned in my previous comment, probably the terms "Brahmin", "Kshatriya", "Vaishya" and "Sudra" were wrongly used by the society at that time to refer to castes, instead of Varna. Brahmins must have been considered superior to all the other three castes(actually varna, but wrongly interpreted in society as caste). In that case, the verse 5.18, by mentioning "Lower castes", refers to all the three above mentioned names, instead of referring them each individually by name. Of course, as I mentioned in my previous comment, there is a confusion as to whether dog-eater refers to out-caste or to lower caste. I have given this interpretation assuming that dog-eater refers to "lower caste", since you have also assumed thus.

      In any case, the non-mentioning of the other three varnas/caste is not that much important here. What is important is that it equates brahmins with lower castes, and even animals. Surely no one in history has said that Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras were considered lower than animals, right? So not mentioning them definitely does not make brahmins, who are equated to animals, superior to those three varnas/castes. If anything, it only makes brahmins inferior to those three varnas/castes, that is if lower castes are not referring to those three. But I have argued above that lower castes do refer to those three(which seems to be the only sensible way to interpret), so the verse only means that "ALL LIVING BEINGS ARE EQUALS", and there is NO QUESTION OF TOP-MOST CATEGORY.

      Delete
    26. I give below the translation for verse 17.14 in English for the sake of convenience.

      "Austerity of the body consists in worship of the Supreme Lord, brahmanas, the spiritual master and superiors like the father and mother, and in cleanliness, simplicity, celibacy and non-violence"

      Here, brahmins, spiritual guru, father and mother are not equated to God. They are only mentioned to be respected along with God. As I have mentioned in some of my previous comments regarding Varnas, the brahmana Varna(by Guna) are people who take up teaching as their profession. So this verse only says that you should respect your teacher. This verse is similar to the often-said phrase, "Mata, Pita, Guru, Deivam". Only here, the order is reverse with one extra entity, namely spiritual guru. According to varna system, brahmins(by guna) are the gurus. So this verse definitely does not equate father, mother, spiritual guru and brahmins with each other or with God. It only says that all five entities play an important role in one's upbringing, and so one must respect them.

      Delete
    27. கணேஷ்வேல்1 April 2015 at 20:44

      Verse 1.42:
      we cannot ignore it because it was told by Arjuna. There was NO NEED for Arjuna to tell those (Verse 1.40 and 1.42) things if he was ONLY against the war with his relatives. His ( or whoever written Gita ) intention was to safeguard Jaathi Dharma not against the war in those verses. If you see Krishna refuted these verses (1.40 and 1.42) anywhere then please provide the chapter and verse number.

      My argument is within Gita. It says Bhramin varna as superior by excluding the lower varnas, why? (I am not referring to anything wrongly  interpreted in the society at that time)

      Verse 1.58:
      In my view non-mentioning of those 3 varna's is very significant because we can see the pattern in other verses also by projecting Brahmin as superior varna. Also not sure how you are assuming the other three Varna as lower ? What way other three varna's are lesser than first varna? THIS IS EXACTLY MY CLAIM that the hidden agenda is to project Bhramin as superior varna through Gita.

      Verse 17.14:
      This is NOT talking about one's upbringing, it talks about AUSTERITY OF BODY. Also there is a HUGE difference between RESPECT and WORSHIP. This verse clearly says one should WORSHIP Bhramin . Why not Shatriyas? Why not Vysiyas? Why not Shudras? In what way the other three varnas lesser than first varna? ALL are EQUAL as per your claim right? THIS IS EXACTLY SUPPORTS MY CLAIM that the hidden agenda is to project Bhramin as superior varna through Gita.

      தமிழாக்கம்:
      -----------------------

      பதம்:1.42

      ஜாதி தருமத்தை காப்பாற்றச் சொல்லியது அர்ஜுனன்தான், கிருஷ்ணனல்ல என அதை சாதாரனமாகத் தள்ளி விட முடியாது. உறவினர்களை எதிர்த்து போரிட முடியாது எனக் கூறும் அர்ஜுனனுக்கு, ஜாதியைக் காப்பாற்றும் தேவை ஏற்பட்டதன் நோக்கம் என்ன? அதுவும் போர்க்களத்தில்?  இதை எதிர்த்து கிருஷ்ணன் கூறிய இடம் கீதையில் எங்குள்ளது? அப்படி இருந்தால் அந்த இடத்தை குறிப்பிடவும். அர்ஜுனன் மூலமாக ஜாதியை காப்பாற்றுவதுதான் கீதையை இயற்றியவரின் நோக்கம் என்பது எனது குற்றச்சாட்டு.

      பதம்:1.58

      மற்ற மூன்று வருணத்தையும் குறிப்பிடாததுதான் மிக முக்கியம் நண்பரே ! கீதை சமத்துவத்தை கற்பிக்கிறது என வாதிடும் தாங்கள் எவ்வாறு, அந்த மூன்று வருணங்களையும் தாழ்ந்தவர்கள் என குறிப்பிட முடியும்? அதுவும் கீதையிலிருந்தே ?
      கீதை, பிராமணர்களை உயர்வாகக் காட்ட எழுதப்பட்ட ஒரு நூலே என்பதைத்தான் இப்பதம் காட்டுகிறது. அதனால் தான் கீதை நெடுகிலும் பிராமணன் உயர்ந்தவன் என பாடம் நடத்துகிறது.

      பதம்:17.14

      உடலின் தவமாக பிராமணனை வழிபடச் சொல்கிறது இப்பதம்.

      'மரியாதை' செய்வதற்கும் 'வழிபாடு' செய்வதற்கும் மிகப்பெரிய வேறுபாடு உள்ளது நண்பரே !

      ஏன் சத்ரியனை, சூத்திரனை, வைசியனை வழிபடக்கூடாது? அவனவன் அவன் தருமத்தில் சிறந்தவன்தானே, கீதையின் படி? அப்படியானால் மற்ற மூன்று வருணத்தவரையும வழிபடுமாறு ஏன் கீதை ஆணையிடவில்லை?

      இது போதாதா, கீதை பிராமணர்களை காக்கவும் உயர்வாக காட்டவும் எழுதப்பட்ட நூல் என்பதை நிறுவ.

      Delete
    28. Why is there no need to ignore? Arjuna is clearly linking war and jaathi dharma in his verse. He says by doing war against his relatives, jaathi dharma will be affected. Look at the translation: "By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition(meaning himself, if he goes to war and kills his relatives) and thus give rise to unwanted children, all kinds of community projects(Jaathi dharma) and family welfare activities are devastated". If we interpret Jaathi dharma as the present day caste system and its rules, then Arjuna says through this verse that intercaste marriages(which is against Jaathi dharma as per our interpretation) will happen without elders present to prevent it from happening and hence Jaathi dharma will be devastated. So he is clearly linking his act of doing war and Jaathi dharma quite naturally, and hence that is where his NEED TO MENTION Jaathi dharma arises. And to see where Krishna refutes this, you need not look any further than verse 5.18. By saying brahmins and lower castes and even animals are all equals, he is clearly going against Jaathi Dharma(where, if interpreted as today's caste system, they are not equals, but brahmins are superior to lower castes). And in the verses 41 to 47 of chapter 18 about which we have debated much, by saying that Varna is by Guna and not by birth, he is clearly overriding the entire notion of caste itself! So it is only Arjuna's viewpoint that is wrong, and not the purpose of the Gita, which is to showcase Krishna's viewpoint that there is no superiority or inferiority among humans.

      Even if your argument is within Gita, you cannot ignore the state of society at the time the Gita was written. Any text that talks about human practices and customs will always refer to the state of the society at the time of writing of the text. The verses 5.18 and 1.42 clearly show that some form of caste system must have existed in society at that time, since it talks about Jaathi dharma and lower castes without first defining caste and Jaathi dharma(and hence not a new concept introduced by Gita, but a concept that already existed in society in some form).

      Verse 5.18: What other verses are you talking about where you claim to see the pattern of projecting Brahmins as superior? If you are referring to verse 17.14 here, then see my reply in the next paragraph. If any other verse, please mention verse and chapter number. And I AM NOT ASSUMING ANYTHING!. I am only saying that the verse 5.18 implies that in society, at the time of Gita, the varnas were wrongly considered as castes, and the verse is saying that such an attitude is wrong. I interpret it like this because, throughout the Gita text, there is no other CASTE NAME MENTIONED as far as I know. The term "lower castes" must refer to some names, right? The only names available in the Gita are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras to the best of my knowledge. So I interpreted the verse to reflect the society's reference of the last three names as lower castes and brahmins as upper caste and to show that this notion is wrong and all are equals. Any evil agenda must have been in society and not in the Gita, since this verse says that all are equals.

      Delete
    29. Well, I said "upbringing" because the question of respecting one's father, mother and teachers is most frequently applied during one's childhood, adolescent and youth periods, right? Not that you don't need to respect them once you are an adult. Just that the need for that may be less frequent, that's all. For instance, you may no longer be studying under your teacher, or your parents may be dead etc. And why do you see such a HUGE difference between respect and worship? In Indian culture, both are more or less the same. How does one respect one's teacher in ancient times in India? One gives Guru Dakshana, falls at his feet to get Aasirvaatham etc. This is similar to what people do in temples(Padayal before God, falling in front of idol of God etc...) But when done before a teacher, it is RESPECT. So, in Indian culture, respect and worship are not so different. When you look at all the varnas by Guna, the brahmin varna(by guna, not birth) alone takes up the teaching profession, not the other varnas. So the other varnas are not mentioned here. Even today, in our society, we give a special place to our teachers along with our parents, right?(Mata, Pita, Guru, Deivam). But in that list, no politician or businessman or government clerks or any other professional is mentioned, right? Does that mean the other professionals are lower than teachers? Same is the case with verse 17.14.

      Delete
    30. கணேஷ்வேல்9 April 2015 at 18:58

      Am not sure how one can save Jaathi Dharma by avoiding war? After all the war was between the relatives. And how the war will result in producing unwanted children?

      You are saying that Krishna refuting the Jaathi by equating everyone in the verse 5.18. But the SAME Krishna says ‘தவமில்லானுக்கும். பக்தி இல்லாதவனுக்கும் தொண்டு புரியாதவனுக்கும், என்னை இகழ்பவருக்கும் இக்கோட்பாட்டை நீ இயம்பாதே’. (18-67).

      WHY THIS contradiction? Why Krishna HIMSELF failed to see everyone as same?

      And regarding 17.14, I still say there is a HUGE difference between respect and worship.

      We never say 'I worship my teacher' BUT
      We always say 'I respect my teacher'.

      We never say ' I respect the GOD' BUT
      we always say ' I worship the God'.

      We never say ' I worship my parents' when they are alive. we always say we respect, BUT once the parents are no more , the same parents will be worshiped by the family members ( that is what Kula Theivam) by using their photos at Pooja room.

      Have you ever seen any 'Teacher photo' in the pooja room after they are no more by the students ? Because we won't worship them but only respect them.

      So the bottom line is somehow they wanted to Project the Bhramins as GODs. So that no one will dare to question them. This is the reason why even today the Temple prieats are saying 'we are the agents of God and Gods can hear only our voice, that too in our language'.

      தமிழாக்கம்:
      --------------------

      போரை தவிர்ப்பதின் மூலமாக எப்படி ஜாதி தருமம் காக்கப்படும் எனப் புரியவில்லை! அதேபோல், போர் நடந்தால் 'தேவையற்ற குழந்தைகள்' எப்படிப் பிறப்பார்கள்?

      பகவான் கிருஷ்ணன் 'ஜாதி மறுப்பை' கீதையில் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார் எனக்கூறுவது ஒழிந்துகொள்ள இடம் தேடுவதேயாகும். ஜாதி ஒழிப்பு, ஜாதி மறுப்புதான் பகவானின் நோக்கமென்றால், அதை அவர் விரிவாக கீதை முழுவதும் விளக்கியிருக்கலாமே? ஜாதிக்கு மாற்று வருணம் என பறை சாற்றியிருக்கலாமே? வருணத்தை சமூகத்தில் எப்படி அமல்படுத்துவது என விளக்கியிருக்கலாமே? வருணம் மாறும் கட்டமைப்பை ஏற்படுத்தி விளக்கியிருக்கலாமே? எதையுமே செய்யவில்லையே தோழர் !

      மாறாக அவர் முதலில் கூறிய கருத்தை முடிவில் அவரே மறுக்கிறார்.

      பகவான் அருச்சுனனுக்கு கீதை முழுவதும் உபதேசித்து விட்டுக் கடைசியாகக் கூறுகிறார், ‘தவமில்லானுக்கும். பக்தி இல்லாதவனுக்கும் தொண்டு புரியாதவனுக்கும், என்னை இகழ்பவருக்கும் இக்கோட்பாட்டை நீ இயம்பாதே’. (18-67).

      கல்வியடக்கமுடைய பிராமணரையும், அருகில் வரத் தகுதியற்ற நாயையும் ஒன்றாகப் பார்ப்பவர்களே ஞானிகள் என்று கூறிய கிருஷ்ணன், பின் ஏன் ' கீதையைத் தவமில்லாதவனுக்கும், பக்தியில்லாதவனுக்கும் சொல்லக்கூடாது’ என்கிறார்.

      அப்படியென்றால் சமதிருஷ்டி இல்லாத கிருஷ்ணன் ஞானியில்லையா?

      பதம் 17.4ல் கடவுளோடு சேர்த்து பிராமணர்களையும் வழிபடக் கூறுவது, பிராணர்களைக் கடவுளின் அவதாரங்களாகக் காட்டி மக்களை அடிமைப்படுத்துவதுதான்.

      மரியாதைக்கும் வழிபாட்டுக்கும் உள்ள வேறுபாட்டை நான் கூறுகிறேன்-

      'ஆசிரியருக்கு மரியாதை கொடு' என்றுதான் கூறுவோமே தவிர, 'ஆசிரியரை வழிபடு' என எப்போதும் கூற மாட்டோம்.

      'கடவுளை வழிபடு' என்றுதான் கூறுவோமே தவிர, 'கடவுளுக்கு மரியாதை கொடு' என எப்போதும் கூற மாட்டோம்.

      உயிருடனிருக்கும் பெற்றோர்களுக்கு மரியாதைதான் செய்வோமே தவிர, அவர்களை வழிபட மாட்டோம். அதே நேரம், பெற்றோர் இறந்துவிட்டால் அவர்களை படமாக பூஜை அறையில் வைத்து வழிபடுவோம். எவராவது அவருடைய மறைந்த ஆசிரியர் படத்தை பூஜை அறையில் வைத்து வழிபடுவதை பார்த்துள்ளோமா?

      இப்பதம் மிகத் தெளிவாகச் சொல்கிறது, பிராமணர்களை 'வழிபடு' என்று.

      கடவுளுக்கு இனையாக பிராமணர்களை நிறுத்தி, மக்களை கேள்வி கேட்க விடாமல் செய்வதே கீதையின் நோக்கம். அதனால்தான் பிராமணர்களை வழிபடச் சொல்கிறது கீதை !

      Delete
    31. The verse about Jaathi Dharma is not some generic verse that talks about the link between Jaathi Dharma and War. It is a verse said by Arjuna(according to the gita) and I have already explained how Arjuna is trying to link the two things, that too, not war in general, but only his present act of doing war against his elders. I will repeat it once more in case it wasn't clear in my previous comment. According to Arjuna, if he takes active participation in the Kurukshetra war(not any other war), he will end up killing his elders. According to him, elders are the ones who decide on who should marry whom in the family. Without elders, the youth in the family will perform intercaste marriages(which is against Jaathi Dharma), and according to him, the children from such marriages are "unwanted children"(Children born against Jaathi Dharma). Hence, according to him, Jaathi Dharma should be saved and his not doing war will achieve that. That is how he links Jaathi dharma and war in that verse. And as I have already said, this is all Arjuna's viewpoint, which is wrong, and it is Krishna's viewpoint(which refutes Jaathi Dharma in verse 5.18) that should be taken as Gita's viewpoint.

      You have stated just verse 18.67 here, but to truly understand the meaning of this verse, we must start from verse 18.64, since there is a link between these verses as I have explained below. First, I will give each verse's translation:

      18.64: Because you are my very dear friend, I am speaking to you my supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from me, for it is for your benefit.

      18.65: Always think of me, become my devotee, worship me and offer your homage unto me. Thus you will come to me without fail. I promise you this because you are my very dear friend.(This is the confidential knowledge)

      18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

      18.67: This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of me.

      Here, "confidential knowledge" is nothing but the projection of Vishnu as God(and Krishna as an avatar). The verse 18.67 only says not to preach this religious concept to non-religious people simply because it is a waste of time both for the preacher and the listener. Also, one important point to be noted here is that this verse does not say that non-religious people are inferior to religious people. It only says not to impose a belief on those who do not believe. So it does not contradict verse 5.18 which clearly states that there is no superiority or inferiority among humans, and that all are equal.

      Regarding verse 17.14, I don't think the verse is talking about worshipping/respecting dead people. I say this because, in verse 17.4, it is clearly said that only those who are ignorant worship ghosts and spirits. Also, surely there were no photographs at the time of gita composition, so the current practice of worshipping photos has no relation to the gita verses. Only idols were there at that time, and, as far as I know, there was no general practice of making idols of one's parents after they are dead and worshipping the idols. Even if such a practice was there, it is against gita verse 17.4. So as far as verse 17.14 is concerned, it only deals with living people, and God. As I mentioned previously, though we never say "I worship my teacher/parents", THE ACTS OF RESPECTING teachers and parents are very similar to THE ACTS OF WORSHIPPING God, namely falling at their feet, giving Guru dakshana etc. So in ancient Indian tradition, worship and respect are so closely related that it is only from the context that the true meaning can be understood. So, when "worship" comes along with brahmins(teachers, by guna) and with parents, it means RESPECT, not WORSHIP as with God.

      Delete
  19. கணேஷ்வேல்13 March 2015 at 13:34

    எனது முந்தைய பின்னூட்டத்தில் நிறுவியது போல், வருணமும், வருணத்திற்கேற்ப தருமமும், வருணக் கலப்பும் 'கீதை' இயற்றப்படுவதற்கு முன்னதாகவே இருந்திருக்கிறது எனபது எளிதாகப் புரிந்து கொள்ளக்கூடிய ஒன்றே.

    அப்படியானால் கீதை இயற்றப்பட்டதின் நோக்கம் என்ன?

    ‘The role of Bhagavat Gita in Indian History’  என்னும் நூல் இதை ஆராய்ந்து ஆதாரத்துடன் நிறுவுகிறது.

    காஷ்மீரத்தில் ஓர் இந்துவாகப் பிறந்து, இந்துமதத்தத்துவங்களையும், வேத, உபநிடதங்களையும், பகவத் கீதையையும் மிக ஆழமாகக் கற்ற அறிஞர் பிரேம்நாத் பசாஸ் அவர்களால் எழதப்பட்ட ‘The role of Bhagavat Gita in Indian History’ என்னும் நூலில் பிரேம்நாத் பசாஸ் இவ்வாறு கூறுகிறார்.

    “உரிமைகள் பறிக்கப்பட்ட, தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட, சுரண்டலுக்கு உள்ளாக்கப்பட்ட கோடிக்கணக்கான மக்களிடம்,கிடைப்பதில் மனநிறைவு பெற்று,எதிர்த்துக் கேள்வி கேட்காது, அமைதியுடன் அனைத்தையும் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளும் மனப்பான்மையை வளர்த்துவிடவும், விரக்தியுற்றுப்போன சமூகத்தைக் கிளர்ந்தெழ விடாமல் அடக்கி வைத்துக்கொள்ளவும், உயர் வர்க்கத்தினரால் ஆயுதமாகப் பயன்படுத்தப்படுவதே கீதையின் தத்துவம் ”

    நூலாசிரியர் பிரேம்நாத் பசாஸ், கீதையின் சாரத்தை, ஒரு வரியில் கூறுகின்றார்.

    ‘அனாசக்தி யோகம்' என்பதை வலியுறுத்துவதும், அக்கருத்தை வெகுமக்களிடம் கொண்டு செல்வதும்தான் கீதையின் ஒரே நோக்கம் என்கிறார்.
    ‘கடமையைச் செய் பலனை எதிர்பாராதே’ என்பதுதான் அனாசக்தி யோகம். அதாவது பயன் கருதாத செயல்பாடு.

    பகவத் கீதையின் இரண்டாவது இயலின் 47ஆவது பாடல் அனாசக்தி யோகம் பற்றிப் பேசுகிறது. அப்பாடலின் பொருள்,

    “ வினையாற்றுவதே உனது கடமை.
    வினைப்பயன் உனக்கு உரிமையானதன்று.
    பயன்கருதி வினையாற்றாதே.
    வினையாற்றாது இருப்பதிலும் விருப்புக் கொள்ளாதே! ”

    என்பதாகும். கீதையின் இப்பாடல் இரண்டு அறிவுரைகளைச் சொல்கிறது.

    உழைத்துக் கொண்டே இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது முதல் அறிவுரை. உழைத்தபின் அதற்கு ஊதியம் கேட்கக்கூடாது என்பது இரண்டாவது அறிவுரை.

    ‘ஊதியத்தை எதிர்பார்க்காமல், உழைப்பவன்தான் சொர்க்கத்திற்குச் செல்வான்’ என்று ஆசை காட்டுகிறது கீதை.

    "உழைப்பை எனக்கு அர்ப்பணித்து விட்டு என்னிடம் விருப்பங்கொண்டு, முழு இதயத்தோடும்,பக்தியோடும் என்னைத் தியானித்து, என்னை யார் வழிபடுகின்றானோ, அவனை வாழ்வு, மரணம் என்ற பெருங்கடலிலிருந்து கரையேற்றுவேன் ”

    என்கிறார் கீதையில் கண்ணன் (இயல் 12, பாடல் 6 - 7).

    எனவே, ஊதியம் பெறாமல் உழைக்க ஒரு கூட்டமும், உழைப்பில்லாமல் ஊதியம் பெற இன்னொரு கூட்டமும் உலகில் பெருக வழிவகுத்த தத்துவம்தான் ‘அனாசக்தி யோகம்'.

    வருணாசிரம ‘ஒழுங்கு’ கெட்டுக்கொண்டிருந்த நேரத்தில், அதனை மீண்டும் நடைமுறைப்படுத்த எழுந்த ‘புனிதநூல்’ தான் கீதை என்பதை இந்நூல் தெளிவாக விளக்குகின்றது.

    அனைவரும் படிக்க வேண்டிய நூல்.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What Ganeshvel has said above amounts to a wrong interpretation by some selfish people of the concept of Karma Yoga that comes in the Bhagavad Gita, to achieve their own materialistic desires. Karma yoga, when it talks about results(பயன்) and one's attachment to it, it is not talking about results(பயன்) that is decided by other human beings such as employers. It talks about the results(பயன்) of actions that happen as a natural course of events(not under the control of humans), and that one should do one's duty without worrying about them(for negative results), or getting too attached to them(for positive results). The Karma yoga concept definitely does not say that one should not expect salary(ஊதியம்) for one's work. That is a gross misinterpretation, and a laughable one at that too! It's highly ridiculous to even think of such an interpretation. Like the Varna concept, the Karma yoga concept was also misinterpreted later on. The correct interpretation is what is and will be adapted by people with good intentions. For instance, the wikipedia entry for Karma yoga(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_yoga#Schools_of_thought) says that Karma yoga is taught by teachers of zen who promote tranquility.

    Any philosophical concept is open to a wide range of interpretations, which may involve evil interpretations too! One should adopt an interpretation that is not harmful to humanity in general, and should abandon all evil interpretations, instead of abandoning the concept itself just because it has been misinterpreted. The Karma yoga, as a philosophical concept, is no exception.

    Please note here that I am not promoting Karma yoga, or any of the philosophies of the gita. I am just saying that one should first remove all wrong interpretations and then discuss or debate about any philosophical concept, including Karma yoga.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. கணேஷ்வேல்16 March 2015 at 16:45

      Those CONCEPTS are the root cause of all the present day evilness. We cannot just ignore by saying all these are wrong interpretations.

      There are reasons to claim that these concepts are harmful. All these concepts are carrying the conspiracy of dividing the people as a common agenda.

      We can see the same pattern or trend across all the Vedic text. One way or other they want to divide people and enforce the authority, be it Rig Veda, be it Bagavad Gita, be it Manusmrithi.

      1) During Vedic period, they would not have faced the resistance so it just explains the Varna system through Purusha Shuktha without any fuss.

      2) During Bagavath Gita, they USED the God's name to enforce the same Varna system. That is why it talks about the division not only for the human being but also for aathmas. ( Paramathma, Jeevathma, Pavathma, etc.,)

      They have to use this nonexistent Aathmaas to scarify the people to accept the Varna system. This was much required to counter the raise of Bhudism.

      3) Then Manusmriti - Direct way of enforcing the Varna in the name of POWER. They used all the rulers of the land and implemented the rules of Manusmriti.

      4) Latest is the Constitution, by the way of Hindu law which suggest the Courts to use Manusmiriti for any religious doubt's.

      Throughout our history in last 2500 years, we witnessed the battle between Pro-Varna people and the rest. One can easily understand that the CONCEPTS are the ones responsible for all these issues. If the concepts are genuine then it should have the framework by which these concepts cannot be misinterpreted and misused. This is the responsibility of the concept itself.

      All the Vedas, Gita and Smriti are just creation of the same group of people who wanted to rule the people in the name of 'God' or 'Agent of God'.

      That is why all these texts are defending the 'division of people' with one way or other.

      Truth is always bitter !!!

      Delete
  21. Dear all,

    Please pardon me. I'm yet to read many comments here in this post. Will read and then write my comments.

    Anbudan,
    Viru

    ReplyDelete
  22. கீதை திருக்குறளின் கருத்துக்களை ஏற்று அதை ஆரிய வேத மரபுக்கு ஏற்ப திரிபு செய் எழதப் பட்ட நூல். திருக்குறள் கீதைக்குக் காலத்தால் முந்திய நூல். இமமை என்பது இன்னை ( அதாவது இன்னைக்கு ) என்பதுதன் திரிபு. இன்று என்று பொருள். மறுமை என்பது மறநாள் என்ற சொல்லின் அடிப்படையில் தோன்றியது. மறுமை என்றால் எதிர்காலம்( மறு நாட்கள், வரும் நாட்கள்) பழமை இறந்த காலம் இன்றும் புழக்கத்தில் உள்ள சொல்
    கீழ்க்கண்ட என் வலைப்பதிவில் வரிவான விளக்கம் காணலாம்
    படித்து கருத்துச் சொன்னால் உதவியாக இருக்கும்
    பணி ஓய்வுக்கூப்பின் 13 ஆண்டு உழைப்பு.
    நன்றி
    H.V.VISWESWARAN
    Retired prof. of Maths.,
    D.B.JAIN COLLEGE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir,
      I do not see how you can say for sure that Thirukkural was written before the Gita, since Gita scholars differ considerably on the date of composition of the Gita. Kashi Nath Upadyay, a Gita scholar, on the basis of the estimated dates of Mahabharata, Brahma sutras, and other independent sources, concludes that the Bhagavad Gita was composed between fifth and fourth centuries BCE. Whereas Professor Jeaneane Fowler, another scholar, in her commentary of the Gita, suggests 2nd century BCE as a likely date, and in the same book, she concludes that the actual date of composition of the Gita remains unresolved. Whereas, Thirukkural is dated sometime between the 3rd and 1st century BC. So, it is equally possible for the Gita to have been written before or after Thirukkural, depending on whether Kashi Nath's dating or Fowler's dating is more accurate, which no one knows for sure. The general consensus is that the Gita's actual date of composition is unresolved, so we cannot say with certainty whether Thirukkural was written before or after Gita.

      Delete
    2. For th date of Gita I have given in my blog elaborately.
      Summarizing, Gita talks of Sankhya yoga in ch.2 in detail. Sankya, though attributed to Kapila, an incrnation Vishnu(!) his work is not avaialble except his name attributed to Sankhya philosophy. The eariest available sankhya text is dated later tahn 6th century A.D. So Kural is earlier.
      Not only that the whole edifice of Gita is fully based on Thirukkural, with some twists to suit Aryan Vedic concpts. See a full discussion in my Blog.

      Delete
    3. As I have mentioned above, the date range of the Kural (between 3rd and 1st century BC) and the generally accepted date range of the Gita(between 5th and 2nd century BC) are both earlier than 6th century AD. And according to the following reference, the earliest known references to the Sankya philosophy are also within the same date range as the Gita. So your claim that the Gita is based on the Thirukkural is without any solid proof since both these texts have overlapping date ranges and either one is equally likely to have been written before the other.

      Reference: Burley, Mikel (2006), Classical Samkhya And Yoga: The Metaphysics Of Experience, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-0-415-39448-2

      Delete
  23. www.philosophyofkuralta.blogspot.in

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read your blog, and I have a few comments to make:

      First, though it is a sad fact that speculative reasoning is sometimes misused by people with wrong intentions, that does not mean that speculative reasoning should be avoided. Speculative reason is theoretical thought, as opposed to practical thought. Both are very essential to quench mankind's thirst for knowledge. Speculative reasoning has been used even by great thinkers like Aristotle and Plato. Speculation stems from imagination, and I quote here Albert Einstein's words:

      "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

      You have used a mathematical analogy for Kural's treatment of Oozh(fate), but I think the analogy can be extended to Gita's attempt to explain it by means of sin, past birth etc. I will explain below.

      In your analogy, you have said that the use of an ideal number(infinity) is made without including it with the rest of the pack of numbers. But you may be knowing that mathematicians have indeed included infinity with the rest of the real number system(which includes, of course, the natural numbers) to form what is known as the affinely extended real number system which includes positive and negative infinity along with the other real numbers. The motivation is to define limits and, in measure theory, to allow sets which have infinite measure, and integrals whose values are infinite. And the arithmetic operations of real numbers can be partially extended to the extended real number system. And then we have the cardinal numbers which are an extension of the natural numbers to denote the cardinality of sets. Arithmetic operations on cardinal numbers generalise the ordinary operations for natural numbers, and they share many properties with ordinary arithmetic.

      I hope you see the analogy here. Just as mathematicians extend the ordinary natural/real number system to an abstract concept called infinity to explain limits, integrals, cardinality etc, the Gita extends normal practical human life to abstract concepts like soul, past birth etc to explain Oozh(fate). But of course the analogy ends here, since the gita's concepts are philosophical and not mathematical.

      Delete
    2. What you say is heuristics. It is the basis of scientific development. It is based on the big picture of an existing theory. It is not a wild imagination like soul metempsychosis,moksha....Einstein wanted to break away from Newton and we got Relativity. But Newton was there to “imagine beyond”


      My analogy fits in fully with the concept of Uzh. Infinity does not obey the rule of arithmetic ( infinity + infinity is again the same infinity). Uzh does not obey the ordinary events which one can escape or remedy.
      Extending normal human life to the society where the individual lives and attain eternity (pukazh) is what Thirukkural does. Everything real useful and concrete. Extendin the human life into the soul is wild deceptive speculation, it is neither intution nor a heuristics

      Delete
    3. No, I am not talking heuristics here. Heuristics are employed both in philosophy and science. For instance, psychology uses a lot of heuristics. And in other branches of science, when an optimal solution is not possible, heuristics are used to give a satisfactory solution. What I have done here is I have taken a philosophical concept(soul, rebirth etc) and a mathematical concept(infinity) and I have extended your analogy for Thirukkural and infiinity to Gita and infinity.

      And since Gita is a philosophical/religious concept, the scientific proofs that apply to Einstein's relativity or infinity do not apply to the Gita's philosophies. The analogy ends with the theory part alone. As I have mentioned in the analogy itself, the analogy stops here. And all imagination is "WILD" until scientifically proved. Even Einstein's theory would have been considered "WILD" if it had not been proven scientifically in the immediate future. The Gita is a philosophical/religious theory and the analogy should not be extended to compare the scientific aspects of Relativity or infinity with the philosophical concepts of Gita.

      The "infinity" you are talking about is old math, the math that was before Cantor. With the advent of cardinals and ordinals, there are now different grades of infinity and there is not just one infinity for us to say "infinity + infinity = infinity". And ordinary arithmetic operations for natural numbers(the finite cardinals) are very effectively generalised to infinite cardinals. Though there are some differences, cardinal arithmetic operations share a lot of properties with ordinary arithmetic. So we cannot say outright that infinity does not obey ANY rules of ordinary arithmetic.

      Extending human life into soul is thus, in a philosophical sense alone, like extending natural number arithmetic to cardinal arithmetic. It is a philosophical theory that tries to explain Oozh better. I am not claiming that the Gita has succeeded in answering all questions surrounding Oozh through this theory. Actually, it raises even more intriguing questions. So, though it is not a complete theory, it still gives us a starting point to enhance our knowledge about Oozh. In other words, the Gita theory is just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe in future, Science can shed more light into these concepts, starting with whether these concepts have any truth value or not.

      Delete
    4. We are talking about Uzh. My analogy can be fully juxtaposed with Uzh, as seen in my discussion.
      ஊழிற்பெருவலி what is the word பெருவலி refers to . That is what made me to look for logical infinity which is a 'big' number.
      About Infinities and the continuum ; is not called for in this discussion.
      Having said that Uzh is inescapable, 'undergo it' is what is available. But Kural gives
      ஊழையும் உட்பக்கம் காண்பர் உலைவின்றித் தாழாது உஞற்றபவர்.
      A remedy is suggested. In rel life:
      Ther is popular actor, a great dancer who lost her legs (Uzh). But she persisite with an rtificial leg to mak a come back and she is still active (Ms.Sudha Chandran)
      Had she taken the advice of Gita she hs to wait or her next birth. Going to temples propitiating Gods to wash away her sins which has taken her legs.

      Delete
    5. Yes, we are talking about Oozh(fate), and that is what makes me to look at continuum and beyond(the cardinals) to find an analogy to Gita's quest to explain Oozh. So it is very much called for in this discussion. If your analogy can use infinity, my analogy can use the continuum and cardinals. So it is highly relevant to this discussion.

      And you are very much misinterpreting karma yoga and bhakti yoga while talking about real life incidentsm, just as Ganeshvel misinterpreted the Karma yoga to mean that one should not expect salary for one's work from his employer. That is obviously not what Karma yoga says, as I have mentioned before. Though the Gita does talk about worshipping in bhakti yoga, it also talks about doing what you are talented in when talking about Varna in chapter 18, and how to do it when talking about Karma yoga in chapter 2. What Sudha Chandran did is very much in accordance with the Varna and Karma yoga concept in Gita. So, she would have done the same thing that she has done now, had she listened to the advice of Gita in the correct sense. She was talented in dancing(Varna by guna) and the Gita says "Do what you are talented in(Varna by guna) at all costs!" in chapter 18, verse 47. If Sudha Chandran had chosen some other work that did not require the use of her legs just because she lost her legs and not because she was talented in it, only then she would have gone against the advice of the Gita.

      Delete

  24. This is in reply to sri Vinod:
    The following will explain that caste system was stressed , as is known today.Gunas decide cast is to make BG innocent. But when people start reinterpreting Gita ,saying varna has no place in Gita is a partial victory for reformists. The full victory is not far off when one understands Thirukkural with its true emaning.

    Vinod7 March 2015 at 14:23 has said

    “All I am claiming is that the verses in the bhagavad gita DO NOT say that varnas are by birth, “

    I give below the translations of verse I.43

    1.43 Sankara:43. By these evil deeds of the destroyers of I
    families which cause the intermingling of castes,
    the eternal dharmas of castes and families are
    subverted.

    1.43. GitaPress: Through these evils bringing about an admixture of castes , the age-long caste-traditions and family customs of the killers of kinsmen gat extinct

    ௧.௪௩ இராசாசி இத்தகைய பாபங்களினால் தர்மமே அழிந்து போகும். சமூக சனாதன தர்மமும் குல ஆசாரங்களும் அழிந்து போகும்..

    What is a caste? It comes by Guna or birth.
    Sankara is known to be an authority and his tradition is followed in understandin Baghavadgita. Sri.Prabhupadhs accomodated the liberal outlook to wean away the critiques.
    இராசாசி சமயோசிதமாக "சமூக சனாதன தர்மமும்" என்று குழப்பி மக்களுக்கு விளங்க வைக்கிறார்.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The translations you have given seem to be that of verse 1.42 and not verse 1.43. Verse 1.43 talks only about kula(family) dharma and not jaati(caste) dharma. Please verify. And I have already given detailed explanations for verse 1.42, so I think I need not repeat them here. Please refer back to my earlier comments.

      Delete
    2. 42. Confusion of castes leads the family of these
      destroyers of families also to hell ; for, their forefathers
      fall (down to hell), deprived of the offerings
      of p\)idsi (rice-ball) and water. I
      43. By these evil deeds of the destroyers of I
      families which cause the intermingling of castes,
      the eternal dharmas of castes and families are
      subverted.

      Delete
    3. 1.43: utsanna-kula-dharmanam manusyanam janardana narake niyatam vaso bhavatity anususruma

      Word by word meaning: utsanna - spoiled; kula-dharmanam - of those who have the family traditions; manusyanam - of such men; janardana - O Krishna; narake - in hell; niyatam - always; vasah - residence; bhavati - it so becomes; iti - thus; anususruma - I have heard by disciplic succession

      Full Translation: O Krishna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those whose family traditions are destroyed, dwell always in hell.

      Where does caste come in this? Only 1.42 has the term "jati-dharmah", which means caste/community projects.

      Delete
    4. http://www.google.co.in/url?q=http://www.gitapress.org/books/gita/455/455_Gita_Roman.pdf&sa=U&ei=kgBYVZbCCJSduQTXg4G4Cw&ved=0CB8QFjAA&sig2=dFt6ONINOTJmChLJJfjaww&usg=AFQjCNHz0kLOayCMUjqQjEKMIO7C9KAiNw

      See the above link . This is an authentic version of Gita, I was told and I follow. What you have exxplained above is verse 1.44 in that edition. You might have yourself rectified the difference in numbering, instead of quoting a verse I never meant. So you agree 1.42 (your numbering) contains a mention of Jati. So far so good.What is the traditional interpretations like that of samkara. It was what was practiced in the then socity. You can reinterpret Gita. That is a success of the rationalist movement.
      What is a kula.? Having talked about inter mixture of castes , Arjuna is worried about kula, that of the Brahmins. Read both the verses and interpret. Jati refers to varna and kula refers to Brahmins.

      Delete
    5. I saw the link you gave, and, though it is an authentic translation, its numbering in chapter 1(I only checked chapter 1 since that is where your numbering and mine differs) is different from some of the standard translation texts that I referred to both on the internet and in hard copies. The error starts in verses 28-29. See the numbering in your link carefully from verse 26. It says "26 and first half of 27". Then "second half of 27 and first half of 28". So far so good. Now comes the error. The next numbering says "second half of 28 and 29." But now look at the content of these verses. The verse starts with a heading(even in your link) which says "Arjuna uvaca" meaning "Arjuna said:" So, what follows this heading must be the starting of a new verse, not the second half of any verse. But your link says its the second half of verse 28 and that is where the numbering becomes wrong. As a result, only in your link the total number of verses of chapter 1 comes to 47, instead of the number 46 in standard texts. Not only me, but also Ganeshvel and Subavee follow this standard numbering. So I would suggest that you use this standard verse numbering simply to avoid confusion while debating about these verses. But if you find it difficult to follow the standard numbering, then just let me know. While discussing with you, I will follow your numbering.

      Coming to the verse 1.42(1.43 according to your numbering), I have already explained in my previous comments how the mention of jati in that verse is not an issue. I will state it briefly here. For more details, please refer back.

      Verse 1.42 is said by Arjuna according to the gita, and as the chapter heading itself says, Arjuna says all this in a state of high dejection and distress. Arjuna is saying all these things to somehow create an excuse to avoid warring with his relatives, so nothing that he says is true. But, as I have mentioned previously, his words reflect the state of society at the time the Gita was written. And this is where Krishna's verse 5.18 is important. It refutes all that Arjuna says about jati dharma, kula dharma etc and says all are equal. The gita itself gives more importance to Krishna's words than Arjuna's words, so only Krishna's words matter when it comes to analysing what the Gita actually tries to say about Varna. According to Krishna's words, jati and kula are totally different from Varna since Varna is based on guna and jati/kula are based on birth.

      Delete
  25. As Varna is a topic of discussion a look at the Tamil concept of equality among humans. This may enhance the discussion by introducing the Tamil view:
    The four Varnas

    4.13. The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma; though I am the author thereof, know Me as the non-doer and immutable.[2,2a]

    The four-fold division of society is based on birth .If a person is of a particular caste
    under the system all his descendents will be of the same caste. Brahmins are treated way superior to others. For the same crime the punishment for the Brahmins is very light while it will attract a severe punishment for a Sudra. These are enunciated by Manu in his book popularly known as Manu-Dharma .

    Such a situation was not prevailing in the then Tamil-society. That is recorded by the Poet in the following verses.

    பிறப்புஒக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்புஒவ்வா
    செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். 972

    All persons are born equal. The unwanted merit and superiority arises out of the differences in their professions.

    As every profession is necessary for the welfare of the society, each of the work must be discharged by somebody. Hence the work done by a person does not give any special status for that person. This is further ascertained in the following verse:

    அறத்தாறு இதுஎன வேண்டா சிவிகை
    பொறுத்தானொடு ஊர்ந்தான் இடை. 37

    The practice of aRam for the one in the palanquin is this way; and among the four bearers it is in another way is not acceptable.

    (The tenets of aRam is the same for both) .

    The verse says that there is no difference between the rich and the poor or from the powerful and the weak when it comes to the application of the tenets of aRam. All are qual before aRam.

    The tenets of aRam is common to all; the rich, the poor, thr powerful and the powerless commoner This is in contrast to Manu-dharma which has different sets of code, for the same situation, for different castes.

    KuRaL is conscious of the proper interpretation of the above verses. Simply because all are born equal one cannot disobey's superior at work. That will create indiscipline and chaos in the society. So he conditions the above statements with the following.

    வாணிகம் செய்வார்க்கு வாணிகம் பேணிப்
    பிறவும் தமபோல் செயின். 120

    In business relationship be business like. Otherwise treat people as your kin.

    In work place respect heirarchy and obey the rules , Outside of your work place treat and behave as equals, as kin, with others.

    பிறப்புஎன்னும் பேதைமை நீங்கச் சிறப்புஎன்னும்
    செம்பொருள் காண்பது அறிவு. 358

    To overcome the delusion of superiority based on birth; one must understand the real meaning of relative merit, among individuals. It is real knowledge.

    Having said that he mentions the persons who are really meritorious in the society:

    உழுதுஉண்டு வாழ்வாரே வாழ்வார் மற்றுஎல்லாம்
    தொழுதுஉண்டு பின்செல் பவர் . 1033

    The farmers growing food grains are the ones who live a real life and the rest are following them from behind praying their (farmer's) favour.

    ---The above post is part of my blog
    www.philosophyofkuralta.blogspot.in

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your translation of the verse 4.13 itself says that the varna division is by guna, not birth. I don't know why you interpret guna as birth.

      The Gita verse 5.18 says the same thing that Kural verses 972, 37,120 and 358 say, namely that all are equal in the eyes of the truly knowledgeable person. I have given detailed explanations for verse 5.18 in my previous comments. Please refer back for more details.

      I don't think Valluvar is trying to say that farmers are the really meritorious people in society. I think that through the kural, valluvar is only saying that each and everything has its own merit, and nothing is less or more meritorious than another. Since the verse 1033 comes under the chapter "Farming"(Uzhavu), valluvar is praising farmers. But now, look at verse 420. It says:

      செவியால் நுகரப்படும் சுவைகளை உணராமல், வாயால் அறியப்படும் சுவைகளை மட்டுமே அறியும் மனிதர் இருந்தால் என்ன? இறந்தால்தான் என்ன?.

      In other words, this verse says that food for thought(obtained through listening to knowledgeable words) is as important as food for the stomach(obtained through farmers). So, everything is equally meritorious, according to the Thirukkural.

      Delete
  26. சுபவிக்கு
    கீதையை பலரும் பலவிதங்களில் அணுகுகின்றனர். சமிபத்தில் மாபெரும் கீதா வியாபாரியின் பேச்சினை கேட்டேன். மாறுபட்ட கோண்ங்கள். அது தான் ஜெயாமோகன். ஆழமான் கவ்ரும் சிந்தனைகள். அவரது கீதை அவரது இணைய தளத்தில் உள்ளன. கீதையை படித்து பொருள் கொண்டவர்கள் அனைவரையும் முட்டாளாக்கி விடுகிறது.ஆரியசமாஜ் நிருவனர் தயானந்த சரஸ்வதி கருத்துப்படி வேதங்கள் மட்டுமே உண்மை. மற்றவைகள் பொய்கள் என்பதை வெளிபடுத்த முடியாதபடி அவர் திணறுவது தெரிகிறது.ஜெமோ மிகவும் ஆழ்ந்த படிப்பாளி.திறமையாக வாதங்களை முன் வைக்கிறார்.கீதையை தவறாக கணித்து படிப்பது தவறு.அது பக்தி,நெறி, சமூக நூல் அல்ல. அது முற்றிலும் தத்துவநூல். மறை பொருள் உள்ளது.நேரிடையாக விளக்கம் காண கூடாது.ஒவ்வொரு அதிகாரமும் முரண்பட்டது.ஒன்றோடு ஒன்றினை இணக்க கூடாது. என புதிய விளக்கம் தருகிறார். அரவிந்தரின் உரை ,சித்பவனந்தா உரை மட்டுமே படிக்க தகுந்தது. மற்றவைகள் குப்பை என்கிறார்.என்வே இதைப்ப்ற்றி விவாதம் செய்வதே விரயம். ஏனெனில், அவரவர் விருப்படி கருத்து கொள்ளலாம். எதுமே தப்பில்லை; சரியில்லை. அது தான் கீதை. ஜெமோ வை படியுங்கள் அல்லது பேச்சினை இணையதளத்திலே கேட்கலாம்.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,
      From my reading of the verses in the gita, i don't see any ambiguity in the interpretation of the verses that deal with the Varna concept, which is what this debate is all about. What Jemo says may apply to the other philosophical concepts that are discussed in the Gita. But the Varna concept in the Gita has only one interpretation. Hence this debate is meaningful.

      Delete
  27. அய்யா சுபவீக்கு
    மேலே ஒருவர் தொடுத்த வினாவுடன் மிகவும் உடன்படுகிறேன்.
    1. குழந்தை பிறந்ததிலிருந்து எந்த வயதில் குணங்கள் கண்டறியப்படுகின்றன?
    2.இவற்றை கண்டறிந்து உலகோருக்கு எடுத்துரைப்பது யார்?
    3.இக்குழந்தை இவ்வருணத்தை சார்ந்தது என கண்டறிந்தபின் அக்குழந்தைக்கு அவ்வருணத்துக்குரிய “கடமைகளை(duties)” கற்றுக்கொடுத்து,வருண கடமையை ஆற்றவைப்பது யார்?
    3.வருணம்,குணம்,கடமை,ஆகியன ஆண்களுக்கு மட்டும் தானா பெண்களுக்கும் தானா?
    5.எல்லாம் குணங்களின் அடிப்படையில் எனில் பிறப்பிலெ பாவ பிறப்பு(sinful birth) என குறிப்பிவதென்?
    கீதையில் பல இடங்களில் திரித்து கூறப்பட்டுள்ள உரைகள்(as it as).as it as and lifco old version many differens and interpeditions.
    4.இந்தியாவில் பஞ்சமர் என்பவரை எந்த குணத்தில் எந்த வருணத்தில் வைப்பர்?
    5.அம்பேத்கர் நல்ல படித்த அறிவாளி(knowledge person) அவரை பிராமணர்கள் கொண்டாட வேண்டும் அல்லவ?
    6.(Bharamins : knowledge person) one famous swami said: why didnot follow japen bharamn,arabic bramin,finland bramin,tukruki bharamin,peru bharamin,africa bramin,egpt bramin "VEDAS".
    7.Knowledge person thomas edison,meriy qury,sakradies,salamon(in bible) are follows Bharama vedas,indian bharamin duties?

    ReplyDelete