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?
No comments:
Post a Comment