Rashmun wrote:this is a terrible analysis by Seva. anyone can keep an image of someone else for inspiration without having to cut off their thumb for any reason. besides being a terrible analysis this kind of thinking also infuriates the dalits and deepens the caste divide.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:this is a terrible analysis by Seva. anyone can keep an image of someone else for inspiration without having to cut off their thumb for any reason. besides being a terrible analysis this kind of thinking also infuriates the dalits and deepens the caste divide.

Why terrible, and it's not a caste issue. 

Look at Dronacharya's dilemma and anxiety after finding out that people (Eklavya for example) were able to learn archery just by using his name / image and nobody therefore needed to hire him as a teacher and pay him for tutoring. Would that have made him proud and financially secure? Of course, not. 

Moreover, wouldn't the Hastinapur Royals (his then employer) take a clue from Eklavya (mastering archery by just using Dronacharya's image / name), get rid of Dronacharya as a teacher for the princes  and just use a Dronacharya's picture to have princes (Pandavas and Kauravas) learn and master archery, if Dronacharya had not discouraged the abuse / misuse / freeloading of his name / image  as he did by having cut off Eklavya's archer's thumb?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The "fee" (Dronacharya getting Eklavya's archer's thumb removed) in reality probably 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's Royals which required that Dronacharya would be responsible for the education and welfare of Hastinapur's princes (Kauravas and Pandavas) only; Eklavya was not one of the Pandava or Kaurava princes and therefore did not qualify for the education and welfare consideration on the part of Dronacharya as per Dronacharya's exclusive contractual obligations with his employer (Hastinapur's Royals), as indicated earlier.

Needless to say, by having Eklavya's thumb removed, the exclusive nature of Dronacharya's contract with his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) was restored, because any advantage acquired by Eklavya in "learning" archery from Dronacharya (even by using Dronacharya's name / image without permission) would be lost with the removal of Eklavya's archer's thumb.

In a way, Eklavya turned out be lucky that he lost only his thumb, and not his life, for interfering and violating the exclusive contract between Dronacharya and Hastinapur's Royals. Moreover, Dronacharya could have lost his own hard-earned job, and perhaps even worse (e.g. face exile, imprisonment or death), at the hands of his employer (Hastinapur's Royals) if he had not this way (by having gotten rid of Eklavya's thumb) neutralized Eklavya's training / advantage acquired using him (his name / image). (Section 'B' --http://creative.sulekha.com/caste-through-the-sands-of-time_465740_blog)

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:this is a terrible analysis by Seva. anyone can keep an image of someone else for inspiration without having to cut off their thumb for any reason. besides being a terrible analysis this kind of thinking also infuriates the dalits and deepens the caste divide.

Why terrible, and it's not a caste issue. 

Look at Dronacharya's dilemma and anxiety after finding out that people (Eklavya for example) were able to learn archery just by using his name / image and nobody therefore needed to hire him as a teacher and pay him for tutoring. Would that have made him proud and financially secure? Of course, not. 

Moreover, wouldn't the Hastinapur Royals (his then employer) take a clue from Eklavya (mastering archery by just using Dronacharya's image / name), get rid of Dronacharya as a teacher for the princes  and just use a Dronacharya's picture to have princes (Pandavas and Kauravas) learn and master archery, if Dronacharya had not discouraged the abuse / misuse / freeloading of his name / image  as he did by having cut off Eklavya's archer's thumb?

Appalamma wrote:I heard some one make an argument that Ekalavya was a cruel person, so he does not deserve to be great. Which seems somewhat justifiable, no?

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:this is a terrible analysis by Seva. anyone can keep an image of someone else for inspiration without having to cut off their thumb for any reason. besides being a terrible analysis this kind of thinking also infuriates the dalits and deepens the caste divide.

Why terrible, and it's not a caste issue. 

Look at Dronacharya's dilemma and anxiety after finding out that people (Eklavya for example) were able to learn archery just by using his name / image and nobody therefore needed to hire him as a teacher and pay him for tutoring. Would that have made him proud and financially secure? Of course, not. 

Moreover, wouldn't the Hastinapur Royals (his then employer) take a clue from Eklavya (mastering archery by just using Dronacharya's image / name), get rid of Dronacharya as a teacher for the princes  and just use a Dronacharya's picture to have princes (Pandavas and Kauravas) learn and master archery, if Dronacharya had not discouraged the abuse / misuse / freeloading of his name / image  as he did by having cut off Eklavya's archer's thumb?

>>>Seva,

I have to agree with Seven on this. Ekalavya was not a party to any contract. In essence, it can be argued that he used the power of auto-suggestion to motivate himself and excel. The only case that can be made here is that he used an image of Drona without his permission. The collecting of the thumb was in essence a ploy to maintain the princes' privilege. Honestly, it really seems like a slap in the face of the likes of Arjuna by eliminating the competition from this able archer through trickery.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like everyone is looking at the issue through Sikular lenses. Remember that it was a different era.

In Ramayana, if Rama played CONgames, his subjects would have lynched him and in Sick-ayana, if Soonya and her mantries don't swindle money and start talking about Rama raajya, they will be sent to mental institutions.

seven wrote:If dronaC was as brilliant as he was thought to be, it shouldn't have been so hard to find jobs. Royals won't just hire anybody. Only best of the best. So Dronacharya didn't have a job insecurity problem. 
The only believable, most human thing is he looked out for *his* pupils. He got rid of competition either because he was unsure about his product (Arjun) or the copyright violation equivalent of those days.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

seven wrote:If dronaC was as brilliant as he was thought to be, it shouldn't have been so hard to find jobs. Royals won't just hire anybody. Only best of the best. So Dronacharya didn't have a job insecurity problem. 
The only believable, most human thing is he looked out for *his* pupils. He got rid of competition either because he was unsure about his product (Arjun) or the copyright violation equivalent of those days.

You don't really seem to know much about copyright infringements and intellectual property protections even during the present times.  If you work for a company these days, whatever you discover as new in your job belongs to the company and not you. Moreover, when you switch jobs you can't start producing in your new job the item discovered by you in the previous place, lest you and your new employer are charged legally for copyright infringement and piracy etc.  The exclusive clause in Dronacharya's contract with Hastinapur Royals was in their own interest and not for the sake of Dronacharya, so he needed to respect and uphold it if he wanted to keep his job and ensure his well-being financially and otherwise.

seven wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

seven wrote:If dronaC was as brilliant as he was thought to be, it shouldn't have been so hard to find jobs. Royals won't just hire anybody. Only best of the best. So Dronacharya didn't have a job insecurity problem. 
The only believable, most human thing is he looked out for *his* pupils. He got rid of competition either because he was unsure about his product (Arjun) or the copyright violation equivalent of those days.

You don't really seem to know much about copyright infringements and intellectual property protections even during the present times.  If you work for a company these days, whatever you discover as new in your job belongs to the company and not you. Moreover, when you switch jobs you can't start producing in your new job the item discovered by you in the previous place, lest you and your new employer are charged legally for copyright infringement and piracy etc.  The exclusive clause in Dronacharya's contract with Hastinapur Royals was in their own interest and not for the sake of Dronacharya, so he needed to respect and uphold it if he wanted to keep his job and ensure his well-being financially and otherwise.

The exclusivity contract is not what I'm calling the brand. I said Dronacharya was the brand. So using his name is copyright infringement. 
Exclusivity contract is another point I made. We cannot say eklavya broke the contract therefore punished. The contract was between teacher n royals. Only they are responsible for it. 
I understand how IP works in today's world. What I am calling a brand is guru Dronacharya himself. Not the royal employers. Breaking the contract with employers equals teaching other kids...this is on DronaC. IP infringement equals using DronaC's brand to your benefit...this is on Eklavya. Two different possibilities of why the thumb was taken.

seven wrote:Understand it like this. If maybelline hires Taylor swift to do a job (sell mascara), they're using her name to sell something. But her name doesn't belong to them. She's a brand. They don't own her. 

this example should help you understand my copyright conspiracy theory.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

seven wrote:Understand it like this. If maybelline hires Taylor swift to do a job (sell mascara), they're using her name to sell something. But her name doesn't belong to them. She's a brand. They don't own her. 

this example should help you understand my copyright conspiracy theory.

Your copyright theory (famous people / persons hired to sell mascara to everyone on the street and in stores) does not apply in this case (Dronacharya hired to teach / train only Kaurava and Pandava princes). Read my earlier posts carefully.

seven wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

seven wrote:Understand it like this. If maybelline hires Taylor swift to do a job (sell mascara), they're using her name to sell something. But her name doesn't belong to them. She's a brand. They don't own her. 

this example should help you understand my copyright conspiracy theory.

Your copyright theory (famous people / persons hired to sell mascara to everyone on the street and in stores) does not apply in this case (Dronacharya hired to teach / train only Kaurava and Pandava princes). Read my earlier posts carefully.

Ok so he was hired. He signed the contract to teach only royal kids. If he indirectly taught another kid, the kid didn't break the contract. Teacher did. No copyright element in this equation.

garam_kuta wrote:post facto justification:
but for the forced disability, Ekalavyan would have been inducted in the war and died -- like all warriors of Hastinapuram. his disability spared his life and he survived the war to end Krishna, as the story goes.