Rashmun wrote:from the Mahabharata, where a tribal boy Eklavya, brought up in an isolated forest far from the capital where the art of archery was taught by the great teacher Drona, set up a bust of Drona and practiced his art with such talent and avidity that he soon outshone the best of Drona’s pupils.

Egged on by his envious students Drona asked for Eklavya’s thumb as his `fee’ for the instruction in archery.  

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:from the Mahabharata, where a tribal boy Eklavya, brought up in an isolated forest far from the capital where the art of archery was taught by the great teacher Drona, set up a bust of Drona and practiced his art with such talent and avidity that he soon outshone the best of Drona’s pupils.

Egged on by his envious students Drona asked for Eklavya’s thumb as his `fee’ for the instruction in archery.  

That "fee" (getting Eklavya's archer's thumb removed) in reality was the punishment given to Eklavya for using Dronacharya's image and name in learning archery without permission from Dronacharya, even after having been refused once before by Dronacharya, and thus also interfere in the exclusive contract between Dronacharya and the Hastinapur Royals according to which Dronacharya could / would be solely responsible for the education and welfare of Hastinapur's princes (Kauravas and Pandavas) only. By having Eklavya's thumb removed, the exclusive nature of Dronacharya's contract was restored, because any advantage acquired by Eklavya in "learning" archery from Dronacharya in name / image would be lost.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:from the Mahabharata, where a tribal boy Eklavya, brought up in an isolated forest far from the capital where the art of archery was taught by the great teacher Drona, set up a bust of Drona and practiced his art with such talent and avidity that he soon outshone the best of Drona’s pupils.

Egged on by his envious students Drona asked for Eklavya’s thumb as his `fee’ for the instruction in archery.  

That "fee" (getting Eklavya's archer's thumb removed) in reality was the punishment given to Eklavya for using Dronacharya's image and name in learning archery without permission from Dronacharya, even after having been refused once before by Dronacharya, and thus also interfere in the exclusive contract between Dronacharya and the Hastinapur Royals according to which Dronacharya could / would be solely responsible for the education and welfare of Hastinapur's princes (Kauravas and Pandavas) only. By having Eklavya's thumb removed, the exclusive nature of Dronacharya's contract was restored, because any advantage acquired by Eklavya in "learning" archery from Dronacharya in name / image would be lost.

this is a very harsh and unfair analysis. many people doing scientific work keep pictures or posters of inspirational scientific figure(s) at home or at work.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:from the Mahabharata, where a tribal boy Eklavya, brought up in an isolated forest far from the capital where the art of archery was taught by the great teacher Drona, set up a bust of Drona and practiced his art with such talent and avidity that he soon outshone the best of Drona’s pupils.

Egged on by his envious students Drona asked for Eklavya’s thumb as his `fee’ for the instruction in archery.  

That "fee" (getting Eklavya's archer's thumb removed) in reality was the punishment given to Eklavya for using Dronacharya's image and name in learning archery without permission from Dronacharya, even after having been refused once before by Dronacharya, and thus also interfere in the exclusive contract between Dronacharya and the Hastinapur Royals according to which Dronacharya could / would be solely responsible for the education and welfare of Hastinapur's princes (Kauravas and Pandavas) only. By having Eklavya's thumb removed, the exclusive nature of Dronacharya's contract was restored, because any advantage acquired by Eklavya in "learning" archery from Dronacharya in name / image would be lost.

this is a very harsh and unfair analysis. many people doing scientific work keep pictures or posters of inspirational scientific figure(s) at home or at work.

Eklavya was lucky that he lost only his thumb, and not his life, for interfering and violating the exclusive contract Dronacharya had with Hastinapur's Royals. Moreover, Dronacharya could have lost his own hard-earned job, and perhaps even worse, at the hands of his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) if he would not neutralize Eklavya's training / advantage acquired using him (Dronacharya, in name / image). (Section 'B' --  http://creative.sulekha.com/caste-through-the-sands-of-time_465740_blog)

Rashmun wrote:It was only the genius of Ramanujan that could transmute the handicaps of colonialism into a triumph. Perhaps an equivalent story is one from the Mahabharata, where a tribal boy Eklavya, brought up in an isolated forest far from the capital where the art of archery was taught by the great teacher Drona, set up a bust of Drona and practiced his art with such talent and avidity that he soon outshone the best of Drona’s pupils.

Egged on by his envious students Drona asked for Eklavya’s thumb as his `fee’ for the instruction in archery.  The parallel may not be precise but even so it is not difficult to think of the lack of rigor in Ramanujan’s work as a price extracted for allowing him a glimpse into the world of modern mathematics. It can only be a surmise that born a hundred years later in India Ramanujan may well have been the greatest mathematician of the modern era. But the claim rests not on his being a Tamil Brahmin or an Indian but on his being Ramanujan.  

Hardy himself had once noted, `` He would probably have been a greater mathematician if he could have been caught and tamed a little in his youth. On the other hand he would have been less of a Ramanujan, and more of a European professor, and the loss might have been greater than the gain….’’

The qualifier is in keeping with the romanticism that surrounds Ramanujan. It fits in far too comfortably with notions of the mystic East and the rational West, a comparison that has always worked to the advantage of one side. Ramanujan himself would have not chosen the course of life that was inflicted on him, as his attempts to find recognition show. It is no wonder that more than a decade later Hardy was to term his own observation `ridiculous sentimentalism’.

Left to fend for himself at sixteen by Carr, Ramanujan turned his compulsion into a virtue, arriving at mathematical truth through a process of heuristic reasoning all his own. Imagine what he could have done if Gauss, Euler and Jacobi had been his guides.

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/01/the-use-and-misuse-of-srinivasa-ramanujan.html

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:from the Mahabharata, where a tribal boy Eklavya, brought up in an isolated forest far from the capital where the art of archery was taught by the great teacher Drona, set up a bust of Drona and practiced his art with such talent and avidity that he soon outshone the best of Drona’s pupils.

Egged on by his envious students Drona asked for Eklavya’s thumb as his `fee’ for the instruction in archery.  

That "fee" (getting Eklavya's archer's thumb removed) in reality was the punishment given to Eklavya for using Dronacharya's image and name in learning archery without permission from Dronacharya, even after having been refused once before by Dronacharya, and thus also interfere in the exclusive contract between Dronacharya and the Hastinapur Royals according to which Dronacharya could / would be solely responsible for the education and welfare of Hastinapur's princes (Kauravas and Pandavas) only. By having Eklavya's thumb removed, the exclusive nature of Dronacharya's contract was restored, because any advantage acquired by Eklavya in "learning" archery from Dronacharya in name / image would be lost.

this is a very harsh and unfair analysis. many people doing scientific work keep pictures or posters of inspirational scientific figure(s) at home or at work.

Eklavya was lucky that he lost only his thumb, and not his life, for interfering and violating the exclusive contract Dronacharya had with Hastinapur's Royals. Moreover, Dronacharya could have lost his own hard-earned job, and perhaps even worse, at the hands of his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) if he would not neutralize Eklavya's training / advantage acquired using him (Dronacharya, in name / image). (Section 'B' --  http://creative.sulekha.com/caste-through-the-sands-of-time_465740_blog)

Ekalavya could have become a great archer without keeping the image of Drona as inspiration. We know that Karna was also a  great archer and there is no evidence of Karna keeping such an image (of Drona).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
That "fee" (getting Eklavya's archer's thumb removed) in reality was the punishment given to Eklavya for using Dronacharya's image and name in learning archery without permission from Dronacharya, even after having been refused once before by Dronacharya, and thus also interfere in the exclusive contract between Dronacharya and the Hastinapur Royals according to which Dronacharya could / would be solely responsible for the education and welfare of Hastinapur's princes (Kauravas and Pandavas) only. By having Eklavya's thumb removed, the exclusive nature of Dronacharya's contract was restored, because any advantage acquired by Eklavya in "learning" archery from Dronacharya in name / image would be lost.

this is a very harsh and unfair analysis. many people doing scientific work keep pictures or posters of inspirational scientific figure(s) at home or at work.

Eklavya was lucky that he lost only his thumb, and not his life, for interfering and violating the exclusive contract Dronacharya had with Hastinapur's Royals. Moreover, Dronacharya could have lost his own hard-earned job, and perhaps even worse, at the hands of his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) if he would not neutralize Eklavya's training / advantage acquired using him (Dronacharya, in name / image). (Section 'B' --  http://creative.sulekha.com/caste-through-the-sands-of-time_465740_blog)

Ekalavya could have become a great archer without keeping the image of Drona as inspiration. We know that Karna was also a  great archer and there is no evidence of Karna keeping such an image (of Drona).

So the mistake was Eklavya's, in naming Dronacharya as his teacher and thus create a conflict between Dronacharya and his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) with respect to his contractual obligations, for which Dronachrya could have lost his hard-earned job or perhaps even faced exile, imprisonment or death. Needless to say, Eklavya paid for his mistake (by losing his archer's thumb).

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

this is a very harsh and unfair analysis. many people doing scientific work keep pictures or posters of inspirational scientific figure(s) at home or at work.

Eklavya was lucky that he lost only his thumb, and not his life, for interfering and violating the exclusive contract Dronacharya had with Hastinapur's Royals. Moreover, Dronacharya could have lost his own hard-earned job, and perhaps even worse, at the hands of his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) if he would not neutralize Eklavya's training / advantage acquired using him (Dronacharya, in name / image). (Section 'B' --  http://creative.sulekha.com/caste-through-the-sands-of-time_465740_blog)

Ekalavya could have become a great archer without keeping the image of Drona as inspiration. We know that Karna was also a  great archer and there is no evidence of Karna keeping such an image (of Drona).

So the mistake was Eklavya's, in naming Dronacharya as his teacher and thus create a conflict between Dronacharya and his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) with respect to his contractual obligations, for which Dronachrya could have lost his hard-earned job or perhaps even faced exile, imprisonment or death. Needless to say, Eklavya paid for his mistake (by losing his archer's thumb).

Your interpretation makes no sense. Anyone can keep an image of someone else for inspiration.