For Wednesday: Akutagawa, "Hell Screen," "Dragon: The Old Potter's Tale," & "The Spider Thread"

There are three stories for Wednesday's class, but the first two are very short. Try to read "Hell Screen" first, because it's the longer and more important story. Get to the last two afterwards, and worse case scenario, focus on "Hell Screen." That said, I think you'll enjoy the other two stories, which share a lot of themes with "Hell Screen," but are a little more silly/humorous.

Answer two of the following:   

Q1: How does “Hell Screen” share with stories like “Rashomon” and “In a Bamboo Grove” a very cynical view of human nature? According to these stories, why is there no fundamental difference between a thief, a painter, and a lord? Why might the moral of “Rashomon,” that “All I can do is become a thief” be the moral for this story as well? 

Q2: The painter, Yoshihide, claims that he can only paint what he has personally observed with his own eyes—and nothing else. This often leads him to observe rather gruesome spectacles, such as rotting corpses and chained prisoners (and at the end of the story, something even worse). Responding to criticisms of this practice, he responds, “Other painters are such mediocrities, they cannot appreciate the beauty of ugliness” (48). Does this strike you as a very Tao-like sentiment, that true beauty is also to be found in ugliness? Or is this a misinterpretation of the Tao te Ching? 

 Q3: In “Dragon: The Old Potter’s Tale,” the monk, E’in, hopes to prove that people are foolish and gullible in creating a story about an ascending dragon. By the end of the story, however, even he claims to have seen the dragon rise himself. Is his own credulity further proof that humans can be convinced that white is black, or the moon is the sun, under the right circumstances? Or is the story/narrator actually offering us a different moral? How do you read the end of this strange story?

Q4: Each of these stories is told by a Narrator, who, like the characters from “In a Bamboo Grove” doesn’t have complete knowledge of the story. For most of them, this is a story they have only heard second-hand, that happened long ago, and might never have happened at all. How does the storyteller in one of these stories color the narrative and influence what we see and how we read it? How might we also read it against their interpretation?  

For Monday: Akutagawa, Stories: “Rashomon,” “In a Bamboo Grove,” and “The Nose”

Answer two of the following for Monday’s class:

Q1: “Rashomon” is the basis for the frame story in Kurosawa’s film, but he changed it significantly by adding two characters from “In a Bamboo Grove,” and removing the old woman. However, what aspect of the story remains the same and helps us see his overall theme in the film? In other words, why might this story have given him the idea for the entire movie?

Q2: Why do you think both “Rashomon” and “The Nose” focus so much on grotesque facial features—a pus-filled pimple and a dangling nose? What do they tempt the world to see/feel about such people that we associate them with a physical imperfection? And why do they make a convenient literary device?

Q3: On page 13, Tajomaru says to the judges, “When I kill a man, I do it with my sword, but people like you don’t use swords. You gentlemen kill with your power, with your money, and sometimes just with your words: you tell people you’re doing them a favor.” Why might this comment say a lot about how we read the morality of this story: who else ‘kills’ people with words?

Q4: Though the character of Zenchi Naigu in “The Nose” is a Buddhist priest, how might we read his character through the lessons of The Bhagavad Gita? Why might this entire story almost be a cautionary tale included in the Gita itself? What is his ‘sin’ or crime in this story?

For Monday: Questions for Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950) due on Monday

Before you forget about the film entirely, answer TWO of these questions for Monday's class (though you can turn in these questions at ANY TIME on Monday).

Q1: Why might this story be more effective in an old black and white film than in a modern-day, color production? What does the lack of color and other stylistic effects lend to the unique nature of the story being told here?

Q2: There are five versions of the story of "what happened" in this film: the Witness' first version (which he told the court), his second version (which he told his companions), Tajomaru (the thief)'s story, the wife's story, and the dead husband's story. Though several things remain the same in each story, what is the biggest detail that seems to change from story to story? Why might this be significant?

Q3: Why does the wife come off so badly in every version of the story except her own? Does this suggest she is lying, or as one of them says, "women use their tears to fool everyone"? Related to this, why does the husband blame her in most versions of the story, including his own?  

Q4: One of the 'frame story' characters, the one who is robbing the baby of its blanket, tells his comrades that "unless you're selfish, you can't survive." Though the other two men refuse to believe this, is that the true message of the film? Is that what the story of the murder is trying to teach us? 

Q5: The movie was made in 1950, and Akutagawa was writing in the very early 20th century about characters and events hundreds of years earlier. However, they are both basically writing about the times of chivalry and King Arthur in Japan--the days that the Japanese even today celebrate as heroic and honorable. What might the film be saying about such times, and about the idealized visions of men and women? 

Oral Presentation Sign-Up Schedule

I meant to distribute this in class on Friday, but I'll do so on Monday with as many names as I get this weekend filled in. If you can, let me know which time below you would like to come in next week and do your brief Oral Presentation. You can sign up on Monday's class as well, but I wanted to give you time to think about it (and maybe, go as late as possible!) :) I'll do my best to give you your first choice of time, but if everyone wants to go at 2:40 on Friday, I might have to ask for second choices! 

NOTE: the presentation probably won't take 20 minutes, but I want to give plenty of time to hear your ideas and throw in a few questions of my own. 

TUESDAY

1:30

1:50

2:10

2:30

2:50 

WEDNESDAY (some of these are during our normal class time)

10:40

11:00

11:20

11:40  ALYSSA

1:00   ABIGAIL 

:20    CARLY 

:40    BYRON 

2:00  HAILEY 

:20   HUNTER 

:40  CHARLIE 

THURSDAY

1:30    JAKE

1:50    REESE

2:10

2:30   AUGUST 

2:50

FRIDAY (some of these are during our normal class time) 

10:40

11:00

11:20  ALDAN 

11:40

1:00   CATHERINE 

1:20   MADDOX

1:40  ALEXUS

2:00  GWENDOLYN 

:20  LIZZIE 

:40 

For Monday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 15-18 (last questions!)

NOTE: The Oral Presentation assignment is in the post below this one, and contains the 5 passages to choose from the Tao te Ching (which I didn't have room for on your handout). 

This is our final reading and questions for The Bhagavad Gita, so read these passages with an eye towards the Oral Presentation due the week after next. Look and listen for 'echoes' of the Tao te Ching, since the more you find, the easier it will be to respond to the assignment. Here are a few questions to help you along...

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What do you make of the curious contradictions that seem to creep into the work, especially around Part 16? Though Krishna says that through love all men will be saved, and even the worst sinners can be saved through a single act of selflessness, here it also says that "[sinful men] come not to me, Arjuna; but they go down the path of hell" (75). What do you think he means by "hell" (since that's an English word) and do you read this as a contradiction? 

Q2: In Book 18, Krishna says that "if one merely sees the diversity of things, with their divisions and limitations, then one has impure knowledge" (81). What do you think he means by the "diversity of things"? What might this say about modern society, which values diversity, choice, and endless combinations? 

Q3: One of the more controversial passages for the modern reader is also in Book 18, where it explains the roles/duties of the various castes. The Western world typically reads these as social hierarchies that bestow status and rewards on the 'upper castes'. But is this how the Gita explains them? Is one caste inherently better than another, despite the nature of the work? 

Q4: Krishna calls all life "puppets in a play of shadows" (85). Why might this be a fitting title for the entire work? And how might this phrase work almost equally well for the Tao te Ching, too? 

Oral Presentation Assignment (Mid-Term): The Yoga of Response

 

This is a pretty easy assignment, and is more or less a ‘mid-term exam’ without writing—just plenty of thinking. Think of it as practicing the ‘yoga’ of response and conversation. You can prepare as much as you want before hand, make notes, etc., but during the presentation in my office, I don’t want you to bring any notes or papers or even your book. It’s just you and what you know.

PART ONE: (preparation) Choose ONE of the following passages from the Tao te Ching to respond to using a similar passage (your choice) from The Bhagavad Gita: 

P1: "My teachings are very easy to understand/and very easy to practice/Yet so few in this world understand/and so few are able to practice" (Verse 70)

P2: "The pieces of a chariot are useless/unless they work in accordance with the whole/A man's life brings nothing/unless he lives in accordance with the whole universe/Playing one's part/in accordance with the universe/is true humility" (Verse 39)

P3: "So the Sages say,/fulfill even the lowest position/love even the weakest creature/Then you will be called/"Lord of every offering"/"King of all below Heaven" (Verse 78)

P4: "Without going outside/one can know the world world/Without looking out the window/one can see the ways of Heaven/The farther one goes/the less one knows" (Verse 47)

P5: "He walks about without making footprints in this world/Going about, he does not fear the rhinoceros or the tiger/Entering a battlefield, he does not fear sharp weapons/For in him the rhino can find no place to pitch its horn/The tiger no place to fix its claw/The soldier no place to thrust his blade" (Verse 50)

Your passage could either confirm that the two share the same basic idea about God, Faith, Truth, Desire, Love, etc., or you could use your passage to refute it, and show that the Gita has a different idea or notion about the same thing. Just make sure you use a passage that can respond to the Tao te Ching passage in a way that you can explain and articulate.

PART TWO: (execution) You will schedule a time to come to my office and explain the passage and its connection to the Tao te Ching. However, you MUST memorize the short passage you plan to use from the Bhagavad Gita. This passage should be at least 3 lines long, because that will give you enough to use in your response. I’ll ask you to briefly recite your passage to me before you begin, and then let you explain it however you like. You DO NOT have to memorize the passage from the Tao te Ching, since I’ll have it with me in the office.

After your explanation, I’ll ask you a few follow-up questions to test how well you know the passage and have considered the implications of both texts. I won’t grade you on whether I think you’re right or wrong, just how well you can respond to the ideas. Also, by memorizing the passage, you will ‘see’ it much clearer than if you merely read it once and start writing about it. The more you know it, the easier it will be to talk about.

NOTE: You can use anything we discuss in class or that you write about in your responses for this presentation. Even connections we make in class are valid.

DUE: Anytime the Week of the 20^th, either during class time (I’ll cancel our Wednesday and Friday classes) or during my office hours. I’ll send around a sign-up sheet next Friday.

For Friday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 11-14

Remember, no questions for Friday's class. Instead, we'll have an in-class response based on some of the ideas from Parts 11-14 (some ideas are below). I'll also reveal your next assignment which will be due the week after next, but won't have a single due date. More on that Friday...

Here are some ideas to consider:

* Arjuna asks to see Krishna in his god form, so he can truly believe/understand. What does Krishna/Visnhu reveal to him? Why is he terrified?

* Related to this, why are we not allowed to glimpse the divine directly? Does Arjuna agree with the censorship of the divine form?

* Many people simply can't devote their entire life to meditation and/or concentration on the divine. So how do we do good works? Is Yoga the only way? What if one is too sick or poor to do it properly? 

* If you followed the Tao te Ching as closely as possible, and really practiced its teachings, do you think you would reach Brahman? Is the Tao basically "Yoga"? 

* In part 13, it says that someone must be free of the selfish attachment even to one's children and family. Do you think this means that everyone must be ultimately without any kind of emotional attachments? Will loving your children excessively lead you away from Brahman?

* What do you think Krishna means when he says, "when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others: then he goes indeed to the highest Path" (64)? Is Krishna is Visnhu, one of the supreme gods, how can Arjuna also be God? Or Me? Or You?

* What do the terms "Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas" mean? Why is everything we do under the sway of one of these terms? How can they make even the noblest work go astray? 

For Wednesday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 5-10

Answer TWO of the following for Wednesday's class... 

Q1: In Part 7, Krishna says that “Among thousands of men perhaps one strives for perfection; and among thousands of those who strive perhaps one knows me in truth” (36). If we replaced “perfection” with “Tao,” how might this make more sense (and relate to a similar idea in the Tao te Ching)?

Q2: Krishna is very critical of those who merely follow the laws (Vedas) or who worship expecting an eternal paradise at the end. Strangely, he seems more tolerant of people of others faiths, or even of people with little faith at all, but who exhibit a “pure heart.” Why would someone ignorant of the laws often have a better chance at salvation than those who know and study them religiously, according to the text?

Q3: These chapters talk a little more explicitly about concepts that we’ve embraced here in the West, such as Karma and Yoga. Which of these concepts changes the most for you in the reading? Why have we slightly (or completely) misunderstood the concept based on how it’s used in the Gita?

Q4: In many religions, the world is seen as a constant struggle between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil. While this does play a role in The Bhagavad Gita, why is the idea of good vs. evil not entirely correct, according to Krishna? Why is this, too, a mark of delusion which leads men to suffering? 

Important Terms in the Gita (handout)

The handout of terms I gave you in class is below, in case you missed class or simply misplaced it. Might come in handy on a future exam or paper! :) 

IMPORTANT TERMS FOR THE BHAGAVAD GITA

Atman: the “self,” or the innermost soul in every creature, which is divine—not an individual self, but the Self.

Avatara: the earthly form of a god, or rather, when a god is reborn as a human being for a larger purpose.  Most heroes and even villains in the Mahabharata are avatars of one god or demon or another.

Brahman: the supreme reality of life, the one great truth, the ‘God’ beyond all gods. As opposed to “Brahma,” God in the form of Creator, united with God as destroyer (Shiva) and God as Preserver (Vishnu).

Dharma: law or duty, a universal law which keeps life in balance, based on the duties of one’s caste and humanity. Arjuna is a kshatriya, or the warrior/prince class, whose dharma is to rule and fight when necessary.

Karma: literally, action (from the Sanskrit word for “to do”); former actions will lead to inevitable results in this life or the ones to come.

Krishna: in the world of the Gita, he is the charioteer of Arjuna and a great king; but in reality, he is an avatar of Vishnu, here to protect and guide Arjuna to truth.

Maya: the concept of illusion, or appearance vs. reality. Not reality as we see it, but reality as it truly is; what we see is Maya, what we strive to know is reality, or Brahman.

Yoga: From “yuj” which is Sanskrit for “to unite,” Yoga literally means a union with God, or the understanding of the ‘oneness’ of all life. It is also one of the six branches of Hindu philosophy. (Thus, taking a yoga class is a way to achieve “Yoga” with the right effort and discipline).

Yogi: A person who performs Yoga and spiritual discipline, like the Taoist sage.

The Vedas: from “vid,” which is Sanskrit for “to know,” the Vedas represent true knowledge, and are the oldest Scripture of Hinduism. They were delivered by God through meditation (Yoga) to the mystics.

For Monday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 1-4

NOTE: see the revised schedule in the post below this one, which reflects the changes necessitated by having to miss Monday and Wednesday this week.

If you missed class on Friday, or simply forgot what we talked about, I introduced The Mahabharata, the epic from which our next book, The Bhagavad Gita comes from. Here are some quick reference points about the epic:

“No Indian ever hears the Mahabharata for the first time.” according to Wendy Doniger, Prof. U of Chicago. Why? Because it's as much a part of their culture as fairy tales, the Bible, and Star Wars/Harry Potter are to our culture. Everyone simply grows up knowing and hearing about it. This is true for most of Southeastern Asia, since the story has spread far and wide and has been re-told in hundreds of languages throughout India and beyond.

The name: The Maha (Great) Bharata (legendary king, name for India itself)

The date: c.1500 BCE, though there are many versions of the story, and they don't all agree with one another

The story: an epic story of poetry and prose which is a combination of The Lord of the Rings, the Tao te Ching, The Iliad, and Marvel Comics. Basically, it's the story of how 5 semi-divine brothers are at odds with their 100 cousins, and how the cousins are continually plotting to kill them off. This eventually leads to a gigantic civil war which will threaten to kill almost everyone in the kingdom, and people on both sides are worried about the consequences of this. 

The author: Apparently written by the sage Vyasa, who appears in the work as a character

Its Relevance: One small chapter of the work is our next book, The Bhagavad Gita, which is one of the foundational texts of Hinduism. The Mahabharata is a gigantic story with hundreds of characters and events, but the story often breaks off for philosophical and religious discussions, and The Bhagavad Gita is one of those. 

THE OPENING: 

The Bhagavad Gita opens with two people talking: DHRITA-RASHTA, who is the blind king and the father of the 100 cousins, one of whom, Duryodhaha, is said to be the embodiment of evil. The other person is SANJAYA, who is his friend and counselor. SANJAYA is narrating these events to DHRITA-RASTHA, partly because he's blind, but partly for our benefit. 

The story is about ARJUNA, one of the 5 semi-divine brothers, who is leading part of the army into battle. His chariot is being driven by KRISHNA, who is a king and also the 'avatar' of Vishnu. ARJUNA is reluctant to march into battle and kill so many of his friends and relatives and wants a peaceful solution. He would rather lose than have their blood on his hands. KRISHNA begins to debate with him about the nature of good and evil, just and unjust, and what it means to do one's duty. Which leads to the questions below...

Answer TWO of the following for Monday:

Q1: Despite all the strange and exotic names used in this book, what makes Krishna’s dilemma a completely universal (and relatable) one? Why might anyone who has to go to war (or even to contemplate war) ask many of the same questions, or come to many of the same conclusions? 

Q2: What does Krishna mean when he says, “And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another’s, even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death” (20)? Does this statement justify murder and bloodshed? Isn’t he suggesting that since Arjuna was born a prince he has to fight and kill like a prince? Do you find this a convenient statement, or does it have another meaning?

Q3: In a passage that sounds like the Tao te ching, Krishna says, “The unreal never is: the Real never is not” (11). How might this connect to an important idea in the Tao te ching and does it mean the same thing here?  Isn’t this a complicated way to say “real things are real, unreal things are unreal”? Or is it trickier than that?

Q4: One of the central teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism is right action—or as Krishna says, “Set thy heart upon work, but never on its reward” (13). Why is this important? If the job gets done, and the work is good, does it matter in what spirit the work is done? Can anyone really tell if a building is constructed by someone who doesn’t want money?