I find the Bhagavad-Gita spell-binding yet I do not know how to reconcile it with my atheism.

This is from Drona-Parva (see notation on top left of leaf), and the text above says: Sanjaya Uvacha (Thus spake Sanjaya): After the death of Hidimba's son (Ghatotkacha), who fell like a broken mountain, the Pandavas were stricken by grief. Yet Krishna roared like a lion (sinha-nada) in joy and embraced Partha (Arjuna). Arjuna reproaches him and asks why this unseemly joy. That's about all this panel text contains, I think. But after this, in the story, Krishna says "O Dhananjaya! By using his Suryaastra against Ghatotkacha, and by giving up his kavach (armour) kundal (earrings) to Shukra (?), Karna is now no longer invincible. Although he can never be defeated while he stands with a weapon in his hand, a day will come when his chariot will be stuck in the mud. Then, Arjuna, I will signal you to destroy Karna" It is hard to convey the incredibly rich, powerfully descriptive Sanskrit text in English.

See translation here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07177.htm Where Ghatotkacha fell, he crushed many of the Kaurava army under him, which is also depicted in the scroll.

Actually I think in the story, Ghatotkacha slays Karna's four horses and charioteer. It is only after this, that Karna uses the Suryastra. In the scroll these 4 horses are depicted alive :) but we must allow the artist that much freedom :) The battle between Karna and Ghatotkacha is also very interesting. After killing Karna's horses, and then his charioteer, Ghatotkacha he makes himself invisible. The Kaurava army thinks "Oh now this demon will surely kill Karna since we cannot even see where he is." Then Karna shoots a rain of arrows which covers the sun, and in that darkness, the demons become even more powerful. Ghatotkacha uses his powers to conjure up a rain of deathly weapons, and elephants and horses of the Kauravas die, and the whole army is in disarray. They implore Karna to kill this demon. Then Karna having no choice, uses the terrible Suryastra. Interestingly, Krishna says to Arjuna "If Karna had not killed Ghatotkacha I would have had to do it" since Ghatotkacha is "a destroyer of sacrifices and of a sinful soul".

By the way, whoever here has posted this image, you've got the book all wrong, this is NOT the Bhagvad Gita, ok? This is the Drona-Parva of the Mahabharata. Not anything to do with Gita. This is a war-scene depiction and associated text from Drona-Parva. The Gita is in the Bhishma-Parva, which is a different part of the Mahabharata.

Ranajit Pal, You may like to read BG Tilak's Geeta. If you wish to disregard the shlokas on Parmeshwar it still gives you a blueprint of a way of life in which you believe in yourself ; and live an ethical and meaningful life. I am not an atheist but my husband is and we have often had this discussion. Of course, you have to use your own understanding and discretion about which of the shlokas to follow which may not be appreciated by purists.

Deepa Krishnan: Karna used the Surya-astra? I thought he used the amogh-astra also know as Vasavi-shakti or vajra given to him by Lord Indra when he was overwhelmed with his danveer nature.

You could be right, Satyakam. My knowledge of Sanskrit leaves a lot to be desired :) it is very basic.

I wish I could claim that I have strong knowledge of Sanskrit and thus could translate it better. I think its just that I have read the Mahabharata in other languages too often. :-)

Dr.Pal, you could just stick to the Chapter on Sankhya Philosophy which does not posit a Brahman(The Vedantic Equivalent of God).The BG is recognized as the Primer of Vedanta Philosophy, but then Krishna is the first Acharya who harmonized the various systems of Philosophy current in his time, viz., Sankhya, Yoga- for which he gives some ingenuous variations like Karma, Jnana and Bhakti.

Deepa Krishnan: Thank you for enlightening us about the picture. Ignorance admitted and point taken!

Thanks Mahadeva S Sarma and Sumedha Verma Ojha !

My wife is a believer and she also tells me that my extreme skepticism burns something called bliss.

It has been a constant refrain of the 'rationalist' opposition to the Geeta that it is all things to all people, that it does not have a single focus or argument ( specially a man for whom I have a deep admiration and who was as brilliant a Sanskrit scholar as historian, DD Kosambi ). That it is an exercise in obfuscation and can be interpreted by any and everyone in their own favor. I have always felt , as a simple reader ( not a learned scholar ) that complexity in argument or understanding reflects the complexity of real life and real issues. Although I must say that my personal understanding is of a way of life that encompasses gyan-bhakti yukt karma yog.

I came to history after reading D.D. Kosambi but I do not agree with him on Krishna. On a personal level I recently met Prof. A. K. Narain at Varanasi. Prof. Narain told me that D.D.'s father was a close friend of his uncle J.J. Kashyap who were both important Buddhist scholars. He told me how he used to play cards with D. D. Kosambi at London and then almost confided to me that at times he himself played some tricks. We both laughed and he told me about many other scholars who were almost legendary for me. He learnt Greek from the editor of the Loeb series. It was an experience of a lifetime. He noted that I had crticised Prof. A. L. Basham for his work on Rama and I told him that knew that Prof. Basham was a very decent gentleman but I could feel how deeply he still respects Prof. Basham, his Ph. D. adviser. Prof. Basham had problems with the SOAS authorities and had to leave London after the conference on the date of Kanishka of which Prof. Narain was the convener. He gave all the papers to Basham but as the latter went to India, the publication of the conference report got delayed by some ten years. Prof. Narain said that everyone criticized him for giving the papers to Basham but he could not do otherwise.

I have to put on record that Prof. Romila Thapar's date of the Bhagavad Gita is too late. As Sir Charles Eliot and J. L. Brockington write, the Gita was composed around 1st - 2nd century B.C.

SVO and Dr.Pal, The BG means all things to all people because of the vast compass of human predicaments it addresses. On the one side Sri Krishna works as a samanvayaacharya = harmonizer of apparent contradictions(or resolver of paradoxes) - this incidentally happens to be role that any acharya has to play when interpreting "religious texts". During Krishna's time it was the transition from Vedic to Upanishadic to may a bit of Puranic form of Sanatana Dharma. In the BG on the surface Krishna's mission was to put "emotion-struck" Arjuna back on track to stand up and fight like a Kshariya. He gives reason after reason for him to pick up arms and fight for Dharma. He opens the dialogue with Sankhya which he also equates with Sanyasa. Then he talks of performing Karma without the expectation of results- the Karma-Yoga.[Contd..]

>"If Karna had not killed Ghatotkacha I would have had to do it" since Ghatotkacha is "a destroyer of sacrifices and of a sinful soul".< Vedic sacrifices? If so I would class this as a later interpolation.

I do not claim to have understood Krishna. There seem to be two distinct Krishnas. Are the infant-god Krishna and the warrior-philosopher Krishna two aspects of the same human being? I do not know. For me the most important aspect of Krishna is that he does not claim to be a divine king. He is almost one of the masses. This may be the crux of his great popularity.

The Six Systems of Indian philosophy based on The Vedas are <1> Sankhya <2> Yoga <3> Nyaya <4> VaisheShika <5> Purva-Mimamsa <6> Uttra-Mimamsa(Vedanta). Of these 1,3,4 are "atheistic" i.e they do not presuppose a "God" figure but look to "Principles of Creation". 2,5and 6 are theistic though there is one school of PurvaMimasakas called the Prabhaakaras who do not again posit a Brahman. The new experiment of Krishna is in the merger of Yoga-school with Sankhya, Purvamimamsa(Karma) and the founding of the new and simpler concepts of Bhakti[Single-pointed Devotion] and Prapatti[Unquestioning self-surrender].Principles from nyAya-vaisheShika are used to build the reasoning that goes with the Sankhya, Karma and Bhakti schools. Bhakti is hence the revolutionary idea in the BG. The progressive simplification of Paths to God beginning with the purely intellectual Sankhya to the purely emotional prapatti in the last chapter and giving ritualism(karma) a twist through niShkAma-karma concept is an excellent synthesis achieved. So much so that today the only shool that endures is Vedanta in its many forms. We learn that Shankaracharya was influenced by Sankhya for his formulation of the Advaita System of Vedanta; Ramanujacharya by the Purvamimaamsa for the initial logics wile emphasizing prapatti for all and bhakti for the initiated; while Madhvaacharya used the logic of nyAya/vaisheShika, again culminating in Bhakti with God's Grace alone for redemption(mukti). Thus the basic systems of philosophy of The Vedas had metamorphosed seamlessly into their current avatars.

>the basic systems of philosophy of The Vedas had metamorphosed seamlessly into their current avatars.< seamlessly? I beg to differ.

MSS, Brilliant. I have conducted a 'dialogue' with myself ( in all my ignorance) about the Geeta these few years and it is great to have your inputs. I look forward to more, specially the connections with Advaita. Since I do not have scriptural sanskrit knowledge I have to rely on common sense and my own understanding and so it would be good to get some formal inputs. Funnily enough I have never read the Mahabharata in its entirety as I find it a tragedy of mammoth proportions. Maybe I will , one of these days.

Ranajit Pal, In my comment above on the Geeta I have kind of paraphrased DDK's comments on Krishna. I am a Krishna bhakt but paradoxically, am quite fascinated by DDK's acerbic comments on him . I quote- " The multi faceted God is likewise inconsistent, though all things to all men and everything to most women: divine and lovable infant, mischievous shepherd boy, lover of all the milkmaids...yet devoted to Radha alone in a mystic union and an exponent of ascetic renunciation...the ultimate manifestation of eternal peace but the roughest of bullies in killing his own uncle Kamsa..the very fountainhead of all morality..whose advice at crucial moments of the great battle nevertheless ran counter to every rule of decency,fair play or chivalry.." ( The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline page 114) Isnt inconsistency the very essence of humans and humanity?! And also divinity?

Fascinating discussion! Let me post this article which I had saved for a Gita discussion like this one. Just as SVO and MSS have quite eloquently explained here regarding the abundancy of interpretations on Gita...this article delves into that often quoted/misquoted 'exclamation' of Robert J Oppenheimer when he witnessed the explosion of the first atomic bomb... The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer by JAMES A. HIJIYA ONE OF THE MOST-CITED and least-interpreted quotations from the history of the atomic age is what J. Robert Oppen- heimer claimed to have thought when he witnessed the world’s first nuclear explosion: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”2 Shortly after Oppenheimer, director of the laboratory that developed the atomic bomb, saw the fireball glowing over the New Mexico desert at the Trinity test site on 16 July 1945, those words derived from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad-Gita came to his mind. Read more: http://bit.ly/wBwRVB

:( RBSI the above is a misquote if I ever heard/saw one. No context ,little meaning. What was Oppenheimer thinking of?

Although the despair and futility of war are described to perfection in the Mahabharata and a parallel could be drawn with the destruction unleashed by an atomic bomb.

SVO: The Oppenheimer quote is quite well-known and rather confusing to most Hindus when they first read it. It would be interesting therefore to read your critique of this article.

I read half the article and then lost interest :( I can try reading all of it but it seems so contrived and pointless. Swimming in a sea of dough. :) Or shadow boxing? Will give it a serious shot, though.

Like Arjuna, in the Iliad Achilles also refuses to fight at first. This is a striking similarity. Kosambi pointed out that Krishna's death had a Greek element in it. Yes, Sumedha Verma Ojha I was also greatly impressed by Kosambi. But it is absurd to believe that Ghatotkacha was born of a Rakshasi. This is clearly interpolated. One can instead think of the Amazons. Personally I was greatly moved by the Achilles-Pentesheila episode.

Generations and lifetimes have been spent on "interpreting Gita". I personally prefer to uphold Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi's interpretation about Gita (not of Gita) and of Krishna. Gita is said to be a later addition to the Mahabharata and is an outsatnding example of a piece of writing designed to weave the fissiparous and multifarious Hindu body of thought into one single, concise mixed bag of goodies. The work has fascinated many including Annie besant and the group of theosophists around her (Hume, Blavatsky, Landleater and Arundale). The political fallout of their fascination with the "divine wisdom" of Gita was the formation of the Home Rule League which inspired many Indians; BG Tilak being one of them. I consider Gita to be more political than philosophical as it seeks to urge Arjuna to action whatever the many margas (paths) of Moksha (salvation) were possibly available to him. He could have adopted any of those. But Krishna's astuteness urged him to a fight which was one that was fought to the finish.

I must admit to being fascinated by DDK's entire exposition on the Geeta as well as Krishna which is not to say that it is accepted or upheld by most historians today. There are analytical and factual fallacies in DDK's analysis most probably due to his own biases. ( A good place to read about this is in the special edition of the EPW on DDK's work). Romila Thapar's critique is a good one to start with. Of course anyone can hold any opinion but the one stating that the Geeta is an interpolation is not really held in great esteem. And I do not know if it really does weave the multifarious strands of thought into one. There is too much still outside it I would think.( Maybe MSS can comment on this?)

Gita an interpolation, yeah, I first read about it in the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda where he says "...there are some who believe Shankaracharya had interpolated it into the MB..."; that is really difficult to take. If that were the case why not the Gita take an Advaita-only interpretation? I would not like to buy this idea. It is rue that the language of the Gita is very simple, by that I mean conversational unlike some of the other passages of the MB...

I have written that the Yadus who vanished from Indian history went westward and are the early Yahdus. Their religion changed as they tried to adapt to different lands. As Sumedha Verma Ojha says BG 11.32 is indeed queer but to me it is reminiscent of Yahweh (Yava) and Reseph.

BG 4.13 has been criticized by many as being an attempt to perpetuate casteism. S. Radhakrishnan says that its emphasis is on aptitude and function and not birth-right, but it was perhaps interpreted differently in the ancient ages. In post Asokan India, casteism, which is the bane of Hinduism, played a major role. Queen Balashri Gautami's inscriptions are illustrative of the deep casteist basis of traditional Hinduism. Shri Chaitanya led a revolt against it as did many others including Vivekananda but can the Hindus ever leave casteism behind?

The great S. N. Dasgupta says that religious dialogues were in vogue in India from a very early era (~ 4th cent. B.C.) which may be true. Shekhar Sathe describes the Bhagavad Gita as >a piece of writing designed to weave the fissiparous and multifarious Hindu body of thought into one single, concise mixed bag of goodies< which is irreverent but largely true. But it may be a blessing that it is multifarious.

The idea of caste had also evolved over centuries. In the Vedas it was based on proclivities and work division but later slowly with the introduction of the Theory of Karma in the Upanishads the "proclivities" in the form of Samskaras were "pushed" to "past lives" and that is the interpretation the orthodoxy would give for the (in)famous shloka of The Gita- the chAturvarNyaM mayaa sR^iShTaM- once Sh.Manian of Ananda Vikatan asked the Sringeri Shankaracharya about the guNa-karma -vibhAgashaH part. Pat came the reply that these were of previous lifetmes'... Yes! Undoubtedly the caste system s the bane of Hinduism. Try as one may it would be difficult to explain it away...

I have deep admiration for Kosambi and agree with him that rationality should be the sole yardstick with which the Bhagavad-Gita has to be measured yet I still feel Krishna is larger. Barring obvious interpolations, there are distinct traits of Gnosticism and Skepticism in the Bhagavad-Gita which Kosambi perhaps underestimated. If one takes 400-100 B.C. as the era of the Bhagavad-Gita, this roughly coincides with the period of the Hellenistic reformation which was largely moulded by Stoic thought. As my friend Thomas McEvilley stresses, in his book ‘The Shape of Ancient Thought’, Stoicism is very close to the spirit of the Bhagavad-Gita.

I am fascinated by Julius Caesar whose history has been ruined by the lies of Shakespeare. He was an Epicurean who put pleasure, or more precisely absence of pain, as the goal of men and women yet it is certainly untrue that he indulged only in pleasure, profit and power as Shakespeare seems to imply. He was perhaps the only Roman writer who had respect for the religion of the Druids. Julius Caesar, whom I see as a precursor of Jesus, was also a great writer and like Alexander the great, cherished a life of withdrawal in contemplation and escape from worldly affairs as the Bhagavad-Gita counsels. Shakespeare’s Caesar was Augustus’ creation.

There is something for everyone in Gita. That is the beauty of that priceless opiate. Other than this work there is no other which can be said to be The Scripture for Hindus. There can be no doubt that it stands independent but adjunct to the Mahabharata and is a later addition. Its tone and tenor is totally alien to the main story and its tributaries of MB. It is one long lecture given on a battle field which is so unlike the main narrative. The device of a reportage is also unique. Its meter is simple and amenable for a recitation. The rest of Mahabharata cannot be so recited. DDK's main point however is that whether it is the Gita or any other lore from the past it can be interpreted only in the social dynamics.

Caste is an instrument of exploitation of the weak by the strong, also, in early societies, an instrument of making available a pool of labour for use by the elites. It is just the way in which the original idea evolved ( as MSS writes above) that has made it morally reprehensible and untenable. Much as we would abhor it exploitation has been ( and is) a reality across time and societies not excepting the present. Only the parameters and mechanics have changed. To give a maybe far fetched parallel ( expecting brickbats here!) what about corporate exploitation ? Is the control of cotton seeds by Monsanto which is a factor in farmer suicides in the Vidarbha area not exploitation? Brahmins/upper castes had divine or ideological capital Monsanto has money.

Ranajit Pal, While giving Shakespeare the right to his literary imagination ( lets not call it lies?!) I completely agree with you about Julius Caesar. Or about so many of his other characters, Lady Macbeth , for instance. She has been made into a travesty of the historical Lady Macbeth. Anyway we should not take Shakespeare too seriously as he was writing in a particlular milieu and had to please his royal or semi royal patrons so what if a few facts had to be twisted!

Exploitation on the basis of money is understandable. But claiming religious sanction, depriving some members of society education... these are really reprehensible.

MSS, I do not accept exploitation on the basis of money at all. On what grounds do you defend it? Money is not even an organic necessity for human existence but has been made so over the centuries.

I am not defending it SVO. I was only trying to say that at least there something seen like hard cash, wealth creation at someone else's expense-- may be the exploiter throws something at the fellow exploited too. But in religious exploitation it is sad as it is done with a holier than thou attitude which is the first thing that religion asks one to eschew..!

Two systems at different historical stages cannot be said to be equally exploitative. Unfortunately for us we in India have the worst of both the worlds, the feudal and the capitalist. We do not have capitalism in our country because we do not have the rule of law which is the basic tenet of capitalism. Laws are there only to be broken and nobody cares.

Shekhar Sathe I yield to no one in my devotion to the Geeta but cannot agree with your statement that it is the Scripture for the Hindus. You have transposed a Christian idea into the Sanatan Dharma way of life where there is no concept of a common Scripture. There is a smorgasbord from where you can choose what you like.

Perhaps SS, you could tell me which country has a good rule of law and we can debate whether there is any capitalistic exploitation there or not?

I dont understand because it is irrelevant whether it is a single course meal or there are mant to choose from a plate! A delicacy is a delicacy whether it is one or one of many.

My point being, SS, that there is no concept of A delicacy or A scripture for Sanatan Dharma. MSS You are right to the extent that to use religion , which I believe is a higher force to inspire the individual to a more meaningful and ethical life, for exploitation does appear to be a very low trick. Of course the very intangibilty of religious ideas makes religion extremely potent.

Caste is fundamental to Hinduism. It is clearly contained in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, and without it, neither the Aryan religion nor Hinduism as we know it today would be the same. Discussions trying to justify or explain caste I therefore find futile. Caste is part and parcel of Hinduism, embedded within it.

By the way SS do not get carried away by the linear concept of history and historical stages. That is just one formulation and often limited in its application. Time can be thought of in many ways.

Rohini Chaudhury, because caste is fundamental to Brahmanical Hinduism it is not necessary to understand it? How does not understanding/discussing anything help?

Sumedha - There isn't much to understand! I find the discussions trying to justify.explain and condone caste a bit pointless. They go round and round in circles. It would be more useful if we could put it away - genuinely put it away.

>> It is clearly contained in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, Firstly there are many intrepretations of Purush Sukta Secondly caste is not a part of Purush Sukta, Varna is. Varna in terms of society. A particularly popular understanding of the Purush Sukta is to look at all men as part of the whole cosmic man. In itself, always limited, together everything.

Nothing wrong with circles , there is a circular way of understanding as opposed to the linear. What do you mean by Aryan religion? As far as Sanatan Dharma is concerned it has gone through many processes of change and assimilation therefore 'Hinduism as we know it today ' is a bit of a poser. You seem to be talking of a particular ritualistic brahmanical religion which came into its own around the 5th century CE. There is much more before that. On reading the Upanishads and the Aranyaks one is not really engaged with the question of caste barring a few shlokas here and there. It depends on how much importance you give to it. If the Rigveda is nothing but the Purusha Sukta for someone it is their own choice. I also wonder how we have digressed into this from the original topic of discussion!

RBSI - thanks for the Oppenheimer article. Oppenheimer was a tortured man - which is completely understandable in the circumstances! Who wouldn't be, knowing that he had succeeded in unleashing a force so destructive that even the gods feared to handle it! As for his quote from the Gita etc - the article puts it well: Like any other scripture, the Gita is subject to interpretation. Among scholars and practitioners of Hinduism there has always been argument over what the sacred texts mean, and the interpretations have changed over time. Oppenheimer’s “Hinduism” was bound to be different from someone else’s. Moreover, as someone not raised in the Hindu tradition, Oppenheimer might have misunderstood some of its principles or might at least have understood them in novel ways—the words of a dead man are sometimes transmogrified in the guts of the living. We all need our crutches. If Oppenheimer found some peace, or some explanation or justification in the Gita, or even in Shakespeare or Eliot, why grudge that to him? However, I would stop short of over-analysing the 'influences' on him, as the article seems to be doing. Nothing is ever so linear or so straightforward. Sometimes I don't even know why I choose toast over porridge for breakfast some mornings - so how much more complex, and unanalysable would decisions like Oppenheimer's be?

Satyakam - varna vs caste? are they really different? please elaborate? Also, whatever interpretation one chooses to take of Purush Sukta, fact remains that it does divide society into groups, higher or lower. the head is NOT the same as the feet. Both may be necessary, both may be part of the whole - but they are not equal. One can't get away from caste. varna, or whatever name one wishes to give it as long as one calls oneself Hindu. A casteless Hindu is an oxymoron.

Satyakam, it is fashionable to decry the Purusha Sukta. Thank you for pointing out the positive message of assimilation also contained in it.

Sumedha Verma Ojha You wrote, >Anyway we should not take Shakespeare too seriously as he was writing in a particlular milieu and had to please his royal or semi royal patrons..< This is true but I am greatly disgusted by the fact that many historians such as Robin Lane Fox do not bother to look at historical records but what they offer as history is Shakespearean rubbish. Plutarch was not a Roman but Shakespeare probably relied on other Roman historians most of whom are liars. Cleopatra who has also been similarly vilified was a very different person. We now know from independent sources about her vast knowledge of languages, about her great knowledge of medicine, and her fondness for books. Her books on Medicine were famous. And more importantly her son, Caesarion was a true son of Julius Caesar and thus a true 'son of god'. This is why he was killed by Augustus who coveted the title. He also ruined Amyntas of Galatia who was another true 'son of god'. I see Jesus Amen in Amyntas. That Cleopatra wanted to spend her last years in India may be due to great texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita.

I wonder Rohini, which society you would be able to point out to me where there is no division into higher and lower groups. I think the problem with caste lies in the later rigidity which crept into the framework as well as the disadvantages attached to particular castes which were posited as immutable and due to birth. The period I write on is an interesting one since traditional caste roles are not applicable. Chandragupta Maurya as well as his predecessors, the Nandas, were Shudras, the Senapatis ( the Sungas who later overthrew the Mauryas) were Brahmins and not Kshatriyas and there was a general fluidity in the framework. Some of Chandragupta's ministers were Vaishyas ( such as Pushyagupta mentioned in Rudradaman's inscription). Ossification happened later. There is appreciable difference between varna and caste. Will collect my thoughts and post on it ( if Satyakam does not do it before me).

>> Satyakam - varna vs caste? are they really different? please elaborate? Very much, in fact I would ask the other question. Why is varna supposed to be caste anyway. In fact anyway why even Jaati? Because some Portuguese couldn't figure out a difference?

>> whatever interpretation one chooses to take of Purush Sukta, fact remains that it does divide society into groups, higher or lower. I am sorry the Purusha Sukta does not say that. Why blame the Sukta for your intrepretation? All it says that there are "different" groupings by action and nature. To turn that "they are not same" to "they are higher or lower" is certainly not a part of Rik Veda. In fact, the Rik Vedic authors, were at the time, not living in a society which had too much task specialization. The seers were Kings, authors, tillers and what not as well as being "brahmins" For sure they also herded cows. :-D The structural separation happens long after wards, with the society getting more complicated as it grew and expanded.

It is probably not fair to say that Hellenistic religion was moulded only by Stoic thought. As Asoka was Diodotus-I Buddhism also played an important role. But Buddhism is an Indo-Greek religion. I was surprised by the fact Prof. Narain was not aware of my paper (Scholia, vol. 15) but and was greatly surprised but then said 'you have said Diodotus-I was Asoka - very interesting'.

Sanatana means unchanging therefore everlasting. I don't understand how sanatana dharma could have undergone many (at that circular!) changes. Mere play with words and self-hypnotic. Contradiction terms therefore contradiction in thought. Religion is based on a given social order and they reinforce each other to perpetuate an exploitative order. I cannot but mention here the seminal work by Dr. BR Ambedkar called "Who Were the Shudras" for a down to earth discussion on the purusha-sukta. We cannot physically live in a modern world but mentally regress to 500 BC.

Satyakam - i am not 'blaming' the Pursuh Sukta for anything. After all, it is nothing but the outpourings of a rather primitive people, is it not? BUT interpretation does matter, mine or anyone else's. In fact, interperation is what gives words their power. And like it or not, the Purusha Sukta has served to justify caste in many a social setting. Sumedha - I am not reducing the Rig Veda to 'just the Purusha Sukta.' But there is no denying the fact that caste is what it is - a fundamental feature and defining feature of Hinduism. Yes of course, all societies have high and low - how can they not? That is the essential nature of mankind. But few societies if any, have made of this division as fine a art as has Hindu society, and few societies defend its class/caste/group divisions as hotly and as guiltily and as emotionally as do Hindus. Nor has any society used this tool as exploitatively as Hinduism has, or for so many centuries! We do need to move on - not spend hours glorifying what doesn't deserve any glory.

Shekhar - thank you for the Dr Ambedkar reference. I haven't read that particular work, but I shall now. And for anyone else who is interested, here's the link: http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/38A.%20Who%20were%20the%20Shudras%20Preface.htm

Purusha Sukta (Rig Veda, Book 10, Hymn 90) Ralph Griffith's translation: 1. A THOUSAND heads hath Puruṣa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide. 2 This Puruṣa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food. 3 So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Puruṣa. All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven. 4 With three-fourths Puruṣa went up: one-fourth of him again was here. Thence he strode out to every side over what cats not and what cats. 5 From him Virāj was born; again Puruṣa from Virāj was born. As soon as he was born he spread eastward and westward o’er the earth. 6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Puruṣa as their offering, Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn; summer was the wood. 7 They balmed as victim on the grass Puruṣa born in earliest time. With him the Deities and all Sādhyas and Ṛṣis sacrificed. 8 From that great general sacrifice the dripping fat was gathered up. He formed the creatures of-the air, and animals both wild and tame. 9 From that great general sacrifice Ṛcas and Sāma-hymns were born: Therefrom were spells and charms produced; the Yajus had its birth from it. 10 From it were horses born, from it all cattle with two rows of teeth: From it were generated kine, from it the goats and sheep were born. 11 When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? 12 The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made. His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced. 13 The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth; Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vāyu from his breath. 14 Forth from his navel came mid-air the sky was fashioned from his head Earth from his feet, and from his car the regions. Thus they formed the worlds. 15 Seven fencing-sticks had he, thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared, When the Gods, offering sacrifice, bound, as their victim, Puruṣa. 16 Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim these were the earliest holy ordinances. The Mighty Ones attained the height of heaven, there where the Sādhyas, Gods of old, are dwelling. Please note Line 12. What could be clearer than that? Where is the scope to misinterpret anything? Call it varna, call it caste...

Dr Ambedkar explains this far better than I ever could. Satyakam, on the matter of interpretation: Cosmogonies have never been more than matters of academic interest and have served no other purpose than to satisfy the curiosity of the student and to help to amuse children. This may be true of some parts of the Purusha Sukta. But it certainly cannot be true of the whole of it. That is because all verse of the Purusha Sukta are not of the same importance and do not have the same significance. Verses 11 and 12 fall in one category and the rest of the verses fall in another category. Verses other than II and 12 may be regarded as of academic interest. Nobody relies upon them. No Hindu even remembers them. But it is quite different with regard to verses 11 and 12. Primafacie these verses do no more than explain how the four classes, namely. (1) Brahmins or priests, (2) Kshatriyas or soldiers, (3) Vaishyas or traders, and (4) Shudras or menials, arose from the body of the Creator. But the fact is that these verses are not understood as being merely explanatory of a cosmic phenomenon. It would be a grave mistake to suppose that they were regarded by the Indo-Aryans as an innocent piece of a poet's idle imagination. They are treated as containing a mandatory injunction from the Creator to the effect that Society must be constituted on the basis of four classes mentioned in the Sukta.Such a construction of the verses in question may not be warranted by their language. But there is no doubt that according to tradition this is how the verses are construed, and it would indeed be difficult to say that this traditional construction is not in consonance with the intendon of the author of the Sukta. Verses II and 12 of the Purusha Sukta are, therefore, not a mere cosmogony. They contain a divine injunction prescribing a particular form of the constitution of society.

Let me just write a sentence on varna and jaati ( as the thread seems to have wandered to other issues). Varna would correspond to social rank and jaati to the group an individual is born into which determined his work, marriage and other social relations. Varna has nothing to do with colour but a good deal to dp with the 'gunas' that a person has.

>> Satyakam - i am not 'blaming' the Pursuh Sukta for anything. After all, it is nothing but the outpourings of a rather primitive people, is it not? Actually, fundamental disconnect here. I would say it is still one of the most sophisticated pieces of literature, philosophy and cosmogony. A simpler life in material sense and sophistication of thought are quite unrelated. It is a Hegelian linear thinking trap that they must go together. On the issue of interpretations -- sure we are allowed to interpret, but then rather than make a statement of closure "ABC says XYZ" which is often made, the only thing that can be said is that. "IMVHO the ABC seems to suggest XYZ" In case of Purush Sukta of many interpretations, none of the interpretations talk of hierarchy, so any attempt to retroactively fit hierarchy is broken, despite the freedom to interpret and has to be rejected. I am sorry for Dr Ambedakar's thoughts. Today free from the burdens that intellectuals of his period suffered under, I am sure he would have thought differently. For example he is clearly laboring under the fiction of Aryans as imposed by English rulers. Today a man of his intellect would be talking of placing his genes next to the course of Swarasawati.

My object here, Rohini, is not to glorify caste but point out an inveterate habit of apologetic Hindus or Indians to draw a line from the Vedas or the Geeta to some or the other shloka about caste and then say, caste is 'bad' therefore the Vedas or the Geeta or the Upanishads are 'bad' and valueless. It seems a self limiting exercise to me.Often they have themselves not read the original at all and base themselves on English translations which may or may not have conveyed the meaning of the original. Add to this pathetic mixture the Christian bias against all other religions ( given that most of the 18thto 20th century translators were Christians) and meaning becomes a casualty. I myself belong to the same category but have been trying of late to read the originals in Sanskrit ( or Hindi!) and understand them for myself. I cannot say that I agree with everything I read but the overall impression is very different from that conveyed only by English translations. When you have asked above where is the scope for misinterpretation I would say , everywhere. First, English or German or Portuguese as different languages do not have the same categories as Sanskrit and translators tried to understand them through their own categories. Leading to confusion confounded. Sanskrit is a language where an anusvar or halant can change the meaning drastically. Here, however, given the practical presence and relevance of caste amongst Hindus it is not a question that can be resolved by a small change in interpretation here and there. Yes, Hindu religious books ( not so much the Vedic ones as the Brahmanical ones) have sanctioned caste. Where I disagree with you is that this makes them liable to be rejected wholesale. I also disagree with you about caste being an unequalled evil across history. Really? What about slavery? All castes were given the status of human beings, slaves were not. Not even in the much vaunted Greek society and polity. Dr Ambedkar's exposition above is not a religious explanation, it is a political statement which he was making to gather and awaken his own constituency. To that extent it is biased. Again a problem is that Vedic or Brahmanical literature is often taken as describing what was and not what a certain section of Brahmans wanted it to be. Was the ground reality as described in the Shastras or Puranas? If we try to apply the principles of subaltern studies and expand our sources perhaps to other literary works ( plays, poetry, prose in sanskrit and prakrit) the picture of ancient society that emerges is not so rigid. Read Bhasa, for example , as the earliest Sanskrit playwright who also wrote on non religious subjects and the picture of the 2nd century BCE is very different. Shekhar Sathe Sanatan does not , in my opinion, mean unchanging but that the beginning of which is unknown. You seem to have a peculiar view of religion or religious precepts being static which I do not share.

Shekhar Sathe, a thought which came to me after re reading your comment above: Why are you afraid of contradictions, multiplicity, confusion? Embrace them. They symbolise the prolixity of life and growth.

Sumedha - i am not rejecting any book or piece of scripture because it propogates caste! I am rejecting caste!

Fair enough, Rohini. Although your comments seemed to me to carry a certain pejorative sense. Unfortunately the tendency to think in hierarchies runs in the Indian blood. New forms of 'casteism' have come up. A student of one of the IITs is an academic 'brahmin' with a descending hierarchy which becomes confused at the bottom level! Again you can be and are categorised on the basis of where you live, where you work, who you know...The list of standards against which you are judged is endless. I doubt if it is restricted to Hindus. Muslims, Christians, Sikhs have also carried caste with them. Political movements against caste unfortunately use the same power structures and idioms, there is no rejection of principles: they only want to turn them upside down. It may not change drastically anytime soon. ( Intercaste marriages may help in the change?)

"Caste" exists amongst Muslims, Xians and Buddhists in equal measure (worse in case of Muslims) in greater India. How can it be related to Hindu religion? Simply it is not -- it is a cultural structure of Indian subcontinent. And in any case its not caste, its Jaati. A very different thing. Till caste was defined as caste and Indians pigeonholed into that caste definition by the British, there was not caste in India. It does not take too much effort to reject caste. Just throw out the first stupid censcus which is less than 100 years old. :D

Txs Rohini :-)

Satyakam - thank you. I like your approach to ending caste. Practical and quick. :) I also appreciate your 'alternative' interpretation of the Purusha Sukta. I shall bear it in mind. :) Also - one point in my defence, the point of 'fundamental disconnect'. I completely agree with you in that the Rig Veda, and the Purusha Sukta, is one of the most sophisticated pieces of philosophy, literature and cosmogony. My issue is different. Let me try and explain it - though I may be taking this discussion in a completely different direction again: The Vedas, the Rig Veda in particular, is looked upon as 'revealed' wisdom from the Divine. This is where the trouble begins, and where interpretation begins to matter in a very real way. The moment we say that this is given to us, we accept that all it says is not only true, but also relevant for us today. If we could only look at the Rig Veda for what it is - the record of an ancient people and their civilisation, both of which have gone. If we could look upon it as literature, as revealed history rather than revealed religion, we would appreciate it more. The poetry is staggering in its power, the stories are compelling, the imagery so vivid it haunts me in my dreams. We need to step back a bit - only then will we appreciate the true strength and sophistication of its philosophy. Most of us can't achieve this objectivity - I know that I often fail to do so. Another recent discovery that I have made is that while any number of people exist who can recite stanzas and stanzas from the Rig Veda, very few can actually explain the meaning of what they are chanting. This bothers me. Don't we want to know what the words mean? Why are they being said? Are they relevant? Meaningful? I would want to know. I am afraid that this attitude of unquestioning acceptance is at the root of many social issues in India. Again, interperation becomes important - unless someone ventures an opinion, and someone else debates it, how does one move towards understanding? RBSI - thank u for making such debate possible. :)

Sumedha - pejorative? My apologies if you thought so! You may accuse me of being opinionated and pig-headed - I will accept that. :) But pejorative? No! I have absolutely no desire to run down anything in this discussion! I learn a lot from the discussions in this forum. I am not running down either teh Vedas or the Gita or any other piece of scripture or poetry. In fact I agree with you that it is pretty limiting to reject an entire work only because it contains a reference to, or even a justification of caste or something equally unacceptable today. I don't even reject the Purush Sukta, whatever impression you may have taken from my words. So apologies.

This discussion has highlighted the existence of two groups of people; one which may love to quote the Vedas or other sanskrit scriptures as divine and immutable and the other which loves to quote mostly translations to prove that whatever is written there is mostly rubbish. Do I flatter all of us who debate on this forum if I say that we belong to neither of these? That the questioning that you talk about, Rohini , is part and parcel of our understanding? :) Definitely thanks to RBSI for a very satisfying discussion.

Meaning! That is a totally new aspect altogether. My Sanskrit is shaky , no question of understanding Vedic Sanskrit but I persevere none the less. An interesting current personal experience has been reading the Upanishads n an English translation by the Sahitya Akademi and parallely a Hindi translation by the Sanskriti Sansthan Bareli which I bought in Banaras. Some of the stuff in the English translation which seems senseless flowers into meaning in Hindi. ( Although some graphic shlokas describing the act of sex have been completely glossed over by the Hindi translation:). From the Chandogyopnishad if my memory serves me!)

Sumedha Verma Ojha I like your advise about staying muddled and confused. I have been a reluctant and a small time follower. You, however seem to follow it piously yourself. For me the prolixity in religion is like metastasis, it just spreads and spreads. For me, religion is an anachronism and I firmly believe that the world will be a better place without it. I like the discussion though, which tells me helps me understand the past and the political positions of the discussants. As is to be expected, many times the positions will be irreconcilable. That is fun and fine. By the way, what is opposite of sanatana? I think all religion is just that. Moribund.

I must also say that I love the Ghatotkacha story. It was one of the early examples of inter-caste marriages. The Bhagwat Gita, by one stroke put to nought all that was positive in the Mahabharata.

Shekhar Sathe wrote, >For me, religion is an anachronism and I firmly believe that the world will be a better place without it.< This may be so. I hope and I pray.

Shekhar Sathe Nothing irreconcilable about me believing in Sanatana Dharma and you believing in atheism; we can live in mutual pity for each other! The opposite of Sanatana would be that for which the beginning is known? ( MSS would be the perfect interjector here but I think he and I do not really agree on this issue?) Ranajit Pal I loved the I hope and I pray ! :) For the end of religion?!

Ranajit - Strike the 'pray'! Though I understand your sentiments completely. :)

Shekhar Sathe, your problems are easy to solve. Dharma != Religion. Santana Dharma even more so. What is Dharma? == Literally, that which upholds. Dhr +ma. Sanatana Dharma == Laws which eternally uphold the world. Therefore Sanatna Dharma == physics (or metaphysics) Even physical laws are contextual, changing and different at various levels. Just like Dharma. Now Oppenheimer's views will also suddenly make a lot of sense. Just like Heisberegs. Voltair's and others. :-D

Rohini Chowdhury In the olden days no one branded himself or herself as an atheist but were usually accused to be so. It was a pejorative term. Christians of the first century Rome (Pompeians) had their god but were atheists because they disowned the gods of the larger society. But even 'hard' atheists or reluctant atheists (like myself) can 'pray' in law courts.

Like Shekhar Sathe I also resent the use of term 'Sanatana Dharma'. Hinduism is a disparate mix of diverse doctrines, cults and social traits, yet we do not probably know what it was like in the Indus-Saraswati age. Was Vedic religion egalitarian? I think not. The Dasas who spoilt the sacrifices were probably proto-Buddhists, not tribals or aboroginals as Keith wrote. And Pipru - who was Pipru? The boy-king Tutankhamon's name was Pipphuru and his father was in favour a new religion that was strongly hated by the priests. Tut reminds us of Thoth and Tathagata. Writers such as Romila Thapar and Shereen Ratnagar avow that there was no Hinduism in the Indus-Saraswati era and I violently disagree. We can call it Mitraism but a sensible history of world religions cannot be written without the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata speaks of a 2nd millennium B.C. holocaust of Jadus and this holocaust is the backdrop of BG 11.32. Oppenheimer was a Jew who was brought up on the cult of Yahweh (Yava) and Reseph (Rsabha) and it is natural that he had such a fancy for this. He knew 14 languages including Sanskrit.

When I first read about Kosambi's idea that Dasa Chumuri could be a Cimmerian I was greatly perplexed for this widens the hinterland of the RgVeda dangerously. I have written in a paper that the RgVeda has to be understood against the backdrop of the Susa-Sardis Royal road that is very very ancient. The Uttarapatha may ultimately have been connected to this road. Incidentally Tavium where Amyntas' father had his palace was on this road.

And the first Christian churches where St. Paul first preached were on this road and all these were centers of Amyntas or Amen.

Satyakam Sudershan you write >Dharma != Religion. Santana Dharma even more so.< What is Yavugasa Dharma then?

>> Yavugasa Dharma I lost you Sir, can you please explain?

Rohini >> The Vedas, the Rig Veda in particular, is looked upon as 'revealed' wisdom from the Divine. Rohini; both the Veda's and Upanshida's themselves warn the reader and student against unthinking, unquestioning acceptance, and urges them to constantly seek. They even say that even the Gods (if they exist) dont know the answers :-) Bhagawatam Gita, in the second chapter itself is very harsh on those who think Knowledge is all encapsulated in Veda's and does not go beyond. It is harsh on those who are doing good conduct because of desire of "heaven" or fear of "hell" even though they be learned, as inferior minds. In this context; the root of "clutching to Veda's without understanding them" is to me a sign of great social trauma in India. A deracination, a loss from roots.

One of the great puzzles of numismatics is this term 'Yavugasa Dharma' found on a joint issue of Hermaeus Soter and Kujula Kadphises. This is dated a few years before the presently accepted date of birth of Jesus Christ which is, in my opinion wrong. I am saying that he was born about ~ 58 B.C. and 'crucified' in 25 B.C. and also that he belonged to Galatia not Galilee. But in my scheme Yavugasa Dharma is the Dharma of Yeho which is known to be the same as the name Jesus. Yavugasa Dharma is Chrisianity. This immediately implies that Hermaeus Soter was St. Thomas.

Yes, Satyakam Sudershan. This is why I am so greatly impressed by the Bhagavad Gita.

It is fashionable nowadays to deride Plato. Karl Popper said something that became popular but as my friend T. McEvilley writes, there is a strong Indian substratum in his thoughts. Take BG VI.10, for example. This is great and should be seen from a wider perspective as Radhakrishan has so wonderfully explained.

Oh Radhakrishnan not Radhakrishan!

Rohini Chowdharyji.. please dont equate the term Varna with Caste.. none of the Hindu scripts speak about 'caste' system.. they speak about 'Varnashram' that means societal positions based on the works they indulge into.. there are too many distortions from what the real is...

Frankly after reading Shakespeare on Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, like Plato I also feel that poets and playwrights should be banished from the city.

Satyakam Sudershan wrote; >In this context; the root of "clutching to Veda's without understanding them" is to me a sign of great social trauma in India. A deracination, a loss from roots.< I agree wholeheartedly. G. Possehl has written that the fall of the Indus cities may have been linked to a popular uprising. This may have been led by Krishna. This is just a possibility.