Questioning the Ramayana with Feminism

Yesterday, while my dad was driving my sister and I back to Emory after Fall Break, we randomly broke into a conversation about the Ramayana. My sister, who is also taking a Hindu Traditions class, mentioned that she never knew about Sita's exile while pregnant, and we all talked about how appalled we were that Rama, someone of great moral character and supposedly an ideal husband, would just abandon his wife. My dad even said "I'm surprised your mom never told you that when you were young, seeing how she always jumps at the chance to put down a respected male figure." The unfortunate, yet obvious truth is that during the time of the Ramayana, the status of women was very low. I don't think India has made much progress compared to the west since then. My speculation is that until recently, people didn't feel like they could question Rama's actions, especially since he is the reincarnation of one of the most powerful and respected gods in the Hindu pantheon. That's probably why my mom never mentioned the last half of the story. Since the rise of the feminist movement, that attitude has changed, and now more people feel like they can ask questions about Rama's treatment of Sita and defend her. Sita Sings the Blues and "Bhavabhūti on Cruelty and Compassion" depict and break down the Ramayana through a feminist lens (I think it's important to note here that both were done by westerners, as opposed to Indian Hindus).

It's interesting to see how people's ideas of what someone's righteous duty can change through time, and in "Bhavabhūti on Cruelty and Compassion," David Shulman raises the question of what Rama's duty was. He says that "It is all to easy to say that Rāma, in so far as he is committed to his royal dharmic duty, is cruel--or that dharma itself, in this public context, belongs to the hardened, surface crust of existence." This could reflect the thoughts of Rama's defenders--Rama was doing the right thing by sacrificing his marriage and happiness for the good of the kingdom. The more modern attitude of people who sympathize with Sita, like in Sita Sings the Blues, might be that Rama's righteous duty was to stay with his family and help raise his boys. He could have easily abdicated the throne when he heard that he was losing respect among his subjects. Bharata was a righteous king while Rama and Sita were in exile, and he could have ruled again. 

Speech among different religions

While reading the chapters from Shulman's More than Real, when I wasn't trying to comprehend the complex systems of origination through (what Shulman translates as) imagination, I was thinking about how differently Indian religions view language, as opposed to Western views of language. Before I start, I just want to point out that my knowledge of Western religion is pretty much only based on what I've observed around me growing up, and the purpose of this blog post is to simply write out a few (most likely misguided) thoughts. Also, If I'm completely wrong about something I'd definitely love to learn more about it!

As we've talked about in class and as Shulman mentions as well, language in the Vedas plays a huge role in shaping the reality that we perceive. Whether that reality is constructed during a Vedic ritual or during a performance, such as the one Shulman describes on page 13, speech remains an extremely powerful tool and works closely with the mind in each of these examples. In the passage on page 12 describing the step-by-step formation of the cosmos, the distinction formed between the Speech that Death unites with, and the Speech that the child (of the union of Death and Speech) creates, is another instance of how certain forms of language hold power in the Vedas.

In Western religions, there doesn't seem to be nearly as much of an emphasis on any supernatural abilities of speech at all. Certainly the writings of the Bible are considered holy by Christians, but I'm not sure that the language of the Bible holds the same transformative power that the language of the Vedas holds. Of course these are two very different religions, and language is not at all the only point in which they differ. But I do find it interesting that Western religions don't seem to focus on speech even nearly as much as the Vedic traditions do.

(I feel it's necessary to reiterate that I really don't have much of a background in religion, Western or otherwise, if that's not already painfully obvious. I am always interested in learning more though!)

Imagination and Reality

In the second chapter of More Than Real, David Shulman suggests that an imagined concept, in this context concepts and meanings stemming from a set of painted images, gains real consequence because it is imagined, not because it is physically produced:

                       

A particular range of meaning is evoked by the painted images for each of the character, those who have produced them as well as those who merely study them. These meanings derive their power, indeed their reality, not from the marks and colors on the board but from the fantasies invested in those marks. They are, in short, real and rich in consequence because they are imagined (37).

I think this concept is really fascinating, and honestly a little confusing, so I am trying to relate the idea to a common, real-life scenario. We grow up believing imagination, rather the things we imagine, are not real. For example, an imaginary friend is not a real person. But to the imaginer, the process of imagining, and the results of that imagining, is very real. Continuing with the example of an imaginary friend, even though the “friend” does not exist in physical form, the child who imagines scenarios with her “friend” gains real experiences, events, or memories in her lifetime that she can always remember. Playing with the “friend” is real for that child. I think, but am not positive, that this is what Shulman is referring to. The paintings or images were imagined, but the ideas and thoughts they produce in the minds of viewers are real to the viewers. 

The Job of the Performer in Aesthetic Productions

I spent ten years of my life learning a popular form of Indian classical dance called "Bharatanatyam." The word itself is made up of four Sanskrit words: Bhava (expression), Raaga (music), Taala (rhythm), and Natyam (dance). Dances in this form can be in praise of gods, and they mostly tell stories through expression, music, rhythm, and dance. There is one dance in particular that I learned with my sister that told a great story. The gist of it was this:

A poet named Kanakadasa was told by the Swami he followed to go to Udupi to see the famous "Udupi Krishna," but when he got there it turned out only Brahmins were allowed in and Kanakadasa was of a lower caste. He camped out in front of the temple for days composing songs and writing poems in reverence of Krishna. One day there was an earthquake, and a crack formed in the wall. The Krishna idol mysteriously turned around to face west instead of east, and Kanakadasa could see Krishna's face through the crack. Today, there is a window where the crack was as a tribute to Kanakadasa, and now people of any caste can see the Krishna idol which still faces west. (This story comes mostly from memory but also from here.)

I really connected with this dance because for one, I had been to this temple many times before because my whole family is from Udupi. Second, I had been taught that to nail the expression aspect of Bharatanatyam, I had to somehow empathize with the character. For me, this wasn't that difficult because in this duet, as the least experienced dancer, I was Krishna and all I had to do was stand to the side and turn around slowly when the music intensified. However,  I was pretty moved when I saw my sister's expressions as Kanakadasa, and it was clear that she was empathizing with him.

In today's lecture, we learned that the audience should experience the emotions of the characters without really identifying with them, otherwise, like in the Romeo and Juliet example, the production would lose it's aesthetic aspect. I can't help but wonder what the performers themselves are supposed to do. I know that expression is an important part of Indian theater and dance because I've seen my share of it. In order to make the expression meaningful and the performance easy for the audience to engage with it, the performers themselves must "get into character." That leads me to my question (which I have a feeling is based on a misunderstanding of the concept): Does the same rule of not engaging fully with the characters apply for the performers as well? How should the performers convey the intensity of the emotions in a universalized way?

Creating vs. Destroying the World: Comparisons between Mimamsa and Mahayana Traditions

(I am a trifle busy, so I am skipping my usual practice of careful citation. The concepts discussed within are from the first two chapters of More than Imagination and the sutras devoted to Valmakirti). 



This week I wish to draw attention to what I have observed as a significant difference between our discussion of Mahayana traditions and Dr. Shulman's arguments about Mimamsa concepts of creative imagination. Mahayana traditions carry on the idea of the Buddhist concept of the ultimate nothinglessness of the world--the world is real and not real, the mind is real and not real, all life and experiences are ultimately illusion. The primary way to divest oneself of the parasitic attachment to insubstantial life is through intense mental experiences, such as meditation after extreme austerities, memorization, and teaching. Realization of nonreality is a mental experience.

However, despite the focus on noncreation, the element of the Buddhafields persists. These are paradises that exist in real ways, as opposed to the world, beautiful and created from the nature of the Buddha. The concept of the Buddhafield resonates with the examples in the book, More Than Imagination, where Dr. Shulman discusses multiple mental constructs that are viewed with validity compared to earthy objects. A mental temple is more worthy than one of wood and stone, an imaged face on a painting is more lifelike that the real drawing, and an imagined paramour is more faithful than a real one. In all of these examples, unless I miss my interpretation, the mental objects are valid without ever being physically manifested.

This reveals a commonality between Mimamsa thought and, at least, the thought in the Mahayana sutras devoted to Valmakirti. Pure mental effort can create something more perfect than physical objects, and is worthy of great dedication and effort. Despite the Mimamsa concepts of using rituals to make current and future worlds more pleasant, and their general increased focus on matters of the world as opposed to the Buddhist objective of using teaching and thought to escape them, they share a common appreciation of the significance of intense thought.

 

Overwhelmed

I'm a little overwhelmed this week and can't post! 

--Claire B 

Analysis of the Teachings of Vimalakirti

"All these things arise dependently, from causes,
Yet they are neither existent nor nonexistent.
Therein is neither ego, nor experiencer, nor doer,
Yet no action, good or evil, loses its effects.
Such is your teaching." (Chapter 1)

This passage from the Teachings of Vimalakirti, to me, encompasses beliefs crucial to Buddhism. It touches on concepts such as karma, samsara, causation, and "no self." It explains that everything that happens has to come from somewhere. Something causes other things to occur. For example, actions in a current life determine rebirth (karma and samsara). The idea of "no self" is shown through the terms nonexistent and existent. There is a physical body that exists but the "self" is nonexistent. One may aim to find oneself but ideally will not find it. Even though, the quote continues, there is no self to be an "experiencer" of the things arising dependently from causes or a "doer", actions (good or evil) are still very important and do not lose their affects. Actions still act as determinants for the future whether in the same life or the next. This is a fundamental understand of karma and subsequently samsara.