Good afternoon (or evening)! I hope you all are enjoying your weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed the past week with you all and our consideration of major issues in Classical China. This week we will be switching gears in order to understand a nearby, yet very different society (and in order to prepare for our first major essay coming on Friday), India. As I mentioned Friday, understanding India is a bit more complicated than understanding China, so this makes reading original primary source documents of the time period absolutely essential. As with the other societies of the ancient and classical worlds, the topic of religion is a valuable area for discussion when analyzing India. It is especially necessary to have this discussion regarding India because of how intertwined religion is with the social system there historically. In fact, very early on, religion is used to explain the origins of a four-part division of social classes called varnas (a Sanskrit word meaning "color." In the 1500s, when the Portuguese arrived in India, they referred to this system as "caste"). This is explained in the Rig Veda's "Hymn to Purusha." In it, the Brahmins (or priestly class), who composed and recited the hymn, claimed a position of supremacy over the other three classses: the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaisyas (merchants, artisans, and peasants), and Sudras (slaves and servants). Although both the Kshatriyas and Brahmins jockeyed for leadership over many centuries, in large part due to this text, the Brahmins won out. If you have not read this text yet, it is very important to do so. You can find it on page 98 of your textbook or by simply clicking here. How was this religious text used to justify the caste system? Over time, a fifth category was added, made up of all those who were engaged in occupations defined as "unclean." This class actually stood outside the system of varnas, and therefore these people were known as "untouchables."
The Brahmins taught that each varna had its own sacred or moral duty (dharma) to perform. An example of this would be that the dharma, or sacred duty, of the warriors was to fight. A vivid illustration of the dharma of the warriors can be found in the most famous literary text from early India, the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord). The Bhagavad Gita is a portion of a much longer India classic, the Mahabharata, the epic tale of a war between two branches of the same family in the distant past. In its present form the Bhagavad Gita dates from the second century B.C.E. The central theme of the Bhagavad Gita is the dialogue between the warrior Arjuna, who is on the eve of a great battle, and his chariot driver Krishna, who is actually the Hindu god Vishnu. Because the Bhagavad Gita gives us unparalleled insight into the mindset of what will later become Hindu culture, and because Indian history and culture is a bit complicated if you're learning it for the first time, it is absolutely essential that you all take the time to read and discuss a couple of short passages from this text that capture the essence of the conversation between Arjuna and Krishna. Please click on the following link (The Bhagavad Gita) in order to read a couple of short passages from the most readable translation I could find online of the Bhagavad Gita. YOU ONLY HAVE TO READ CHAPTER 1, VERSES 21-47, AND CHAPTER 2, VERSES 1-37. After reading those passages, I would like for you all to discuss any or all of the following discussion points: Why is Arjuna reluctant to fight? What reasons does Krishna give for urging Arjuna into battle? What clues regarding gender relations (THIS IS SO IMPORTANT) in India do you see in these passages? Do you see evidence of how masculinity and femininity were defined? How does this compare to China? How did the Bhagavad Gita REINFORCE the system of varnas (this is a key question here)? What hope, if any, do the words of Krishna hold out to the lowest elements of Hindu society? After reading quite a bit from your text regarding Buddhism this weekend, how do you think a Buddhist would respond to Arjuna's ethical dilemma? Finally, how does the advice from Krishna compare with the thinking of Confucius? What does this comparison suggest about how concepts of male "virtue" differed in classical India and China? This is especially important to think about considering we have a major essay to write comparing India and China on Friday. Also, it may be good to begin considering how the beliefs put forth in the Bhagavad Gita are similar and different to the beliefs in other religions more well known to westerners like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What do you think? Your thoughts then...
The Brahmins taught that each varna had its own sacred or moral duty (dharma) to perform. An example of this would be that the dharma, or sacred duty, of the warriors was to fight. A vivid illustration of the dharma of the warriors can be found in the most famous literary text from early India, the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord). The Bhagavad Gita is a portion of a much longer India classic, the Mahabharata, the epic tale of a war between two branches of the same family in the distant past. In its present form the Bhagavad Gita dates from the second century B.C.E. The central theme of the Bhagavad Gita is the dialogue between the warrior Arjuna, who is on the eve of a great battle, and his chariot driver Krishna, who is actually the Hindu god Vishnu. Because the Bhagavad Gita gives us unparalleled insight into the mindset of what will later become Hindu culture, and because Indian history and culture is a bit complicated if you're learning it for the first time, it is absolutely essential that you all take the time to read and discuss a couple of short passages from this text that capture the essence of the conversation between Arjuna and Krishna. Please click on the following link (The Bhagavad Gita) in order to read a couple of short passages from the most readable translation I could find online of the Bhagavad Gita. YOU ONLY HAVE TO READ CHAPTER 1, VERSES 21-47, AND CHAPTER 2, VERSES 1-37. After reading those passages, I would like for you all to discuss any or all of the following discussion points: Why is Arjuna reluctant to fight? What reasons does Krishna give for urging Arjuna into battle? What clues regarding gender relations (THIS IS SO IMPORTANT) in India do you see in these passages? Do you see evidence of how masculinity and femininity were defined? How does this compare to China? How did the Bhagavad Gita REINFORCE the system of varnas (this is a key question here)? What hope, if any, do the words of Krishna hold out to the lowest elements of Hindu society? After reading quite a bit from your text regarding Buddhism this weekend, how do you think a Buddhist would respond to Arjuna's ethical dilemma? Finally, how does the advice from Krishna compare with the thinking of Confucius? What does this comparison suggest about how concepts of male "virtue" differed in classical India and China? This is especially important to think about considering we have a major essay to write comparing India and China on Friday. Also, it may be good to begin considering how the beliefs put forth in the Bhagavad Gita are similar and different to the beliefs in other religions more well known to westerners like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What do you think? Your thoughts then...
13 comments:
Arjuna is reluctant to fight because he sees his kinsmen or family on the other side of the battlefield. Krishna tells him that he is not really killing his kinsmen, as the soul is eternal and will be reincarnated in a different body. He also tells him that because he is a Kshatriya it is his duty to fight. He explains that if he does not fight he will incur sin and be disgraced, and that to be dishonored is worse than death.
One thing I noticed as far as gender relations, was that there were no female warriors. Perhaps the Kshatriyas varna is primarily male. This would mean that mostly men would rule. I think a Buddhist would tell Arjuna not to fight because it does not follow the Noble Eightfold Path to Enlightenment. Fighting against his kinsmen would go aginst Right Actions, as he would be killing and being violent. Confucius, I think, would also tell him not to fight as Confucius is totally against violence. Arjuna fighting his kinsmen would go aginst the 5 relationships Confucius taught. (the ones I see here are Friend and Friend, Brother and Brother, Father and Son) I think Confucius thought that war is not needed or will not arise if people follow the 5 relationships.
As far as virtue in Classsical India vs. virtue in Classical China, I have some thoughts. I think this article reveals that virtue in Classical India largely relied on the duty required by one's varna. That the duty to fight is greater than the duty to one's family is the exact opposite of Classical Chinese beliefs of virtue. In Classical China family was very important, and they honored their ancestors and elders; so fighting their elders and ancestors would be very dishonorable I think.
Arjuna is unsure about fighting because if he fought it would be killing his kinsmen. Krishna told him though that because of reincarnation it wouldnt really be killing them because they would just come back as someone else and get to live again. As far as the gender roles, whenever Arujan listed off people he said, "Teachers, uncles, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law, and other relatives. (1.34)" His list of the people did not consist of women, just the men. So with him not referring to women he is implying that they arent as important.Confucianism is differs from this way in that vishnu is supporting violence and fighting but confucianism's do unto others as you would want others to do unto you tells you that Confucius supported nonviolence.
All good comments, but let's make sure that we really focus on how the Bhagavad Gita seriously managed to reinforce the system of varnas (caste).
when it comes to the reinforcement of the caste system, especially focus on chapter 2, verses 31-37. what is really being taught here to all of society? how could this perhaps reduce the possibility of social rebellion?
It rienforces the idea of the caste because if he fulfills is moral duty and kills his kinsmen than he will be honored and enjoy life on this Earth, and if he dies at their hand he will go to heaven, but if he does not fulfill his duties then is name will be disgraced and he will have no honor because "To the honored, dishonor is worse than death" so he should just die any ways.
This helps the rienforcement of the system by if a warrior, a very high social class, does not honor his caste he will be disgraced and not attain the splendor of heaven. So if a high class as the warrior has such great consequences a lower varna would not dare tempt the gods and thus stayed within in their bounds in order to get to heaven
what about the place of a woman in this society? nothing is directly spoken, but there are some things that can certainly be implied. we should especially focus on chapter 1, verses 41-42 on this.
The identity of a women is through her husband. In those lines they are talking about how women get corrupt, and that leads to social problems. I guess social problems occur because they begin to go above their husbands. And they talk about how the whole family goes to hell so that implies the fact that no matter what a women does in her dharma, she gets punished for something her husband says? It's not being clear so, that's what I thought. About the Bhagwat Gita and how it effects the caste system..well from what Krishna said about the dishonoring of Arujana if he backs down and that his soul will be stuck in the cycle. So it implies that he would reincarnate into the lower caste if he doesn't fulfill his dharma of a warrior, and doesn't fight in the war. I agree with alec about how Confucius and Buddha would think. Buddha would think that he shouldn't fight because he would be fighting for desire. Which is the cause to suffering and so completly against Buddha's ways.
This text reinforces the caste system because it says that as long as the people do what their caste is supposed to do, in the next life they will get "promoted" to the next caste. This holds off rebellions because fighting back is not what lower castes are supposed to do, and they will get punished for it in later lives. Also, the people believed that the caste you were in was determined by the deeds you did in former lives, so you deserved how well of, or not well off, you were.
The text Bhagavad Gita had a war general ready for battle but he holds back and does not want to kill them. Its because there on the other side there are some of his teachers, grandfathers, uncles and all. They were ready to kill his side with no regrets. Arjuna had different thoughts and fell to the ground seeing this unsightly picture. The god Krishna told him about the wrong he's doing because he is doing what he desires. The god Krishna wants him to do Krishna's holy works and want him to stay in order and live for god Krishna even if it means losing your family. This helps other lower classes and all to know their place and helps keep order in the caste system.
In the story Bhagavad Gita, you can see the warrior having a hard time trying to find the courage to fight. Krishna convinces him that the soul will be incarnated again so he must fight.
Another thing one can see the role of the woman in the society of India. You can sort of imply when they say family traditions,that they are talking about the man controlling the family and everything else. It says that if that is destroyed then everything with it will suffer as well. And when it says that when women become "corrupt" i wonder what they mean. I think their definition of corrupt women is sort of like if women become more independent and don't need there husbands as much. So basically it's saying that women must be subordinate in order for society to function.
Also some of the things that were being taught about society in India was that the warrior must fight in order to not have sin and to not bring dishonor upon themselves. And that the caste you are in means you have a specific job to perform and you must do it or you are "disobeying" your god and only bringing yourself back into the cycle. This versus the Chinese way of thinking is completely different. The way they think would be fighting only brings harm and dishonor upon yourself because war means a corrupt government.
It is interesting how similar and different these beliefs are to Christianty and other religions. They both refer to a heaven, what each person must do or follow to get there.
In Christianity, it matters only what is done in this life to account for where you end up after, but the early Indian beliefs just take more time. (reincarnation) Also, they both believe people have souls and the bodies stay and decompose after you have left them. I think they are both afraid of death, to their own degree, Christianity more-so because of having only one life. They are immediately concerned, whereas the early Indians' are not afraid to die or kill others because their soul moves on again and again. Wouldn't Christians not think killing was bad if their souls are moving on? But you cannot take away a person's only life. But, people must follow their Dharma, and warriors must kill. So, killing a family member would be an issue...
That is a really hard decision to make. But Krishna makes it sound simple enough. My friends and my family mean more to me then honor... but are they higher than my religion? Even if they were going to come back into another body, wouldn't you be upset that you had killed nearly everyone that meant so much to you. Well, these are not my beliefs, so I dbout I would have made the same desision he did.
Christians also go to war and fight when they believe it is their duty.(Holy War) This would be similar to doing your duty as a warrior to fight.
Arjuna does not want to fight because his people are on the opposing side. Krishna tells him he has no other choice but to fight because he is sinning by not fighting and their souls will live on even if you kill them.
In the most important gender roles in classical
India were mainly only roles of men. For example when Arujan listed the people he used uncle, son, and grandfathers. Which I think is hinting that women were less important in society.
Krishnas advice differs from confucianism in that his advice was very violent, but cunfucians would solve the problems without fighting.
The Bhagavad Gita reinforced the truths by telling the soldier that he had to fight since that was his dharma even though he had family on both sides of the fight. At first he didn't want to fight because he didn't want to kill his family, but was re-ensured that he wouldn't kill them, but just their body. That their spirit would live on. I thought this was a sneaky way of convincing people to fight by telling them that they weren't doing the other person any real harm because you cannot hurt their spirit but it works well since it kind of takes the thought of knowing you killed your friend or family member off your shoulders.
Post a Comment