In every story there is a symbol, noticeable or not. These symbols nearly always have a different meaning to each person. For example, take a bird that is not able to fly but does great things in a story after facing some struggles. One person could go to say that it symbolizes that you can do anything if you really set your mind to it. But another person could just analyze what kind of happened in the beginning and say that the bird not being able to fly symbolizes some sort of stolen freedom and that they can never escape from the hardships of life. That is what makes symbolism so great though, it can have so many different meanings just depending on the person. What I found the demon to symbolize in The Story of the Fisherman and the Demon is most likely different from others.

Right away in the beginning it gets off to telling about the fisherman and how he is having no luck catching any fish with his net. Each time before he puts the net out again he recites verses which are like prayers hoping that he will receive fish. The fourth time of him casting his net out he pulls in the jar in which the demon becomes unleashed from and ends up releasing the demon. From the events and conversations that come next I feel that the demon really kind of symbolizes the fisherman’s problems that he had been having in his life. By putting the demon back into the jar and having telling him stories that related to the situation he was able to overcome his problems. In the beginning the demon said that he was going to kill the fisherman and honestly that seemed like what the fisherman was heading towards because he wasn’t catching any fish. When the demon came into the story it was like the fisherman was confronting his problems. After all the stories and tales that were told the demon changed his mind and decided that he would actually help the fisherman by finding him colored fish and making him rich. The fisherman confronted his problems and was given a solution to better them. The fisherman was able to get money from the fish he caught and I’m not a hundred percent sure but I would imagine that 400 dirhams would be a lot, because the demon said that he would make the fisherman rich. So by receiving that money his problems, the demon, were then solved.

I think that this story in whole does have many allegories in it. The demon I think is an allegory to human existence. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the phrase that people sometimes say about life: “facing our demons’ or “dealing with the demons in our life’. I think that the fisherman had to deal with his demons in his life to go on living a good and better life. That is exactly we as human beings have to do as well. We need to deal with our demons so we can go on living a good and better life.

Discussion Question 1

In each story there always seems to be some sort of symbol that we may or may not notice while we are reading it. More often than not you can pick them out pretty easily, it may just take a couple tries. Symbols stand for something that the author doesn’t necessarily want to outright tell the reader. It adds a hint of mystery to the tale that the reader is being told. Silko’s “Yellow Woman’ overall was a rather mysterious story to me and the symbols just added to the mystery even more. While the stolen beef and Jell-O may not have seemed to have much significance to some, it told a wealth of knowledge to others I believe. It just depends on how difficult you choose to look.

The stolen beef and Jell-O didn’t have much of anything in common to me in the beginning of my thought process for this question. I had to think about it for a bit, but I think that they both represent feelings. The stolen beef really stood out to me as a symbol once I finished reading the entire story. The quote “I slapped my horse across the flank and the sacks of raw meat swing against my knees,’ (1210) is where I first noticed some sort of symbol to the beef. That quote sounds kind of like the beginning of this story where the Yellow Woman and the man are together by the river. She was explaining the way their thighs were against each other. While the beginning quotes and this one don’t mean the same thing I found it to be kind of reminiscent of the beginning. It could be taken as a sign that Yellow Woman is missing the man that she met on the river. The stolen beef I think can also represent how the Yellow Woman was stolen and taken up into the mountains. He steals beef just as he stole her and, in the end, her heart as well. The Jell-O is used as a symbol as well to kind of bring us back to reality. It seems to give off the feeling of home, which is warmth and happiness. The same sentence that the Jell-O is mentioned in it says that her husband is playing with their child. By putting those together in the same sentence I think that it helps amplify the feeling and togetherness that family creates. When I think of Jell-O I think of good memories not bad, as where the stolen meat would probably bring up some not as good memories and feelings.

These elements of the story do a great job of changing the mood between scenes. In the scene the beef is mentioned in the mood seems to be tense. Things are happening that are rather mysterious and scary when they are trying to take the meat to sell. This sort of mood is a really good one to go along the situation that they are in while being confronted by the man on the horse and a good mood overall with the whole story of the Yellow Woman pretty much being kidnapped. The Jell-O then does a good job at breaking the mood again and changing it to one of warmth and happiness which I didn’t really feel during any other part of the story.

Overall I found this story to be rather intriguing. It had a good storyline to it and it made me want to know if she was the woman or not. Even though she kept saying that she wasn’t I felt like she could have been. For being as short as it was it had a good amount of emotion in it and the symbols really helped create that emotion as I demonstrated above.

Discussion Question 1

In each and every family all over the world, everyone has a role or position within their own families. It doesn’t matter where you are from or what religion you may be everyone has something that they normally do for their family. In my family I did small little chores around the house when I was growing up and was kind of like a sidekick whenever we went somewhere. In my family that I am creating now that I am older I am a worker and homemaker. While it is clear and makes sense that there a positions like this within each family, what doesn’t make sense sometimes is what the position is for  the person in the family. Gregor’s relationship and position within his family in The Metamorphosis demonstrates this quite well.

After reading through the story it seems as though Gregor’s position in his family is the provider. He goes to work to make sure that his family has things and is supported. But this sort of position in his family really strains his relationship with his family members. Some of the clues that Gregor’s relationship with his family is rather unsatisfactory show up pretty much right in the beginning of the story. When Gregor is beginning to run late for work his mother comes and knocks on his door to see if he is awake and if he is going to be going to work soon. While this doesn’t have to necessarily be seen as an unsatisfactory relationship with his mother, because after all she is just caring that he makes it to work, it can also be seen as unsatisfactory. In families mothers seem to be the caregiver to the children and the fact that she is only waking him up for work and not offering him some sort of breakfast can make it seem like she isn’t upholding her position. Next his dad comes to get him up and shouts through the door at him trying to find out what is wrong in a low octave, which is normally meant to be intimidating, before going back to his breakfast. Lastly, his sister is trying to figure out what is wrong and help him but Gregor just ignores her. She just wants to help him get better and Gregor doesn’t really want anything to do with her which seems to make their relationship strained. While each family member’s relationship with Gregor is strained, none seem more so than that of Gregor and his father.

Gregor and his father’s relationship is the most strained of all. When the transformation happens his father seems to not have any sympathy for him. When his wife wants to see her son he gives her an argument of why that would not be a good idea. Then as time goes on with Gregor still being a cockroach his father attempts to beat him with a cane back into his room, later throwing fruit at him. He really doesn’t seem to care for his son much in the beginning of the story except for the fact that his son makes the money, but once that income is gone he cares for him even less and becomes abusive. It is a terrible relationship from the beginning that only gets worse. I have never known anyone to have this terrible of a relationship with their father, especially one that wouldn’t even care if something was wrong with their own child.

While I believe that it is a good thing to have specific positions within families, I don’t believe that it is good to have such strict positions within a family that strain relationships. Gregor seemed to have a strict position in which he had to be the breadwinner for the family and if he was not able to complete that task the barely there relationships that he had with his family became even more strained. We are all just human and I can almost guarantee that without some form of family in everyone’s life people are not going to have very satisfactory lives or relationships with other. So enjoy one another’s company and share the duties of breadwinner and everything else so no one has to always bear one position.

Discussion Question 1

Each and every human being on this Earth is a complex being. While people can seem saintly, simple-minded, or anything else that a person can be I think that everyone is complex in some way. Our perspective is what makes us think otherwise of people. We as humans are quick to judge one another without really putting any thought into what the person might actually be like or actually taking the time to see what they truly are like. I honestly think that everyone has that flaw of “judging a book by its cover’ before ever getting to know a person. I’m not afraid to admit that I have judged someone before getting to know them, it’s just human nature. That little blurb now brings me to my answer about what kind of person Felicite truly is.

I don’t really think that Felicite can clearly be defined as a saint or a simple-minded servant. After reading into this story I find that she’s a rather complex person. On the surface it seems like she is just a simple-minded servant because she doesn’t know very many educational things. Just because a person doesn’t know educational things though, doesn’t make them a simple-minded person; especially in the time that this story takes place. She is able to do many duties that I myself wouldn’t necessarily be able to do but I don’t think that that makes me a simple-minded person. I think that it is really just about the perspective that a person looks at another person in. In this day and age some people have street smarts and some people have common sense. A person that has more knowledge of one thing than what another person has and vice versa doesn’t make either of them better than the other. I also don’t think that knowing more of one thing than another, even if that thing isn’t as widely recognized as a form of knowledge, makes a person simple-minded. Felicite knows how to take care of a farm, children, and is interested in learning whatever she can. She knows quite a bit, just because it’s not all common knowledge doesn’t make her simple-minded. She could be somewhat a saint though because of all the things she has been through in her life and how good of a life she’s kind of created for herself. But like I said above she can’t clearly be defined as one or the other.

Comparing Felicite to Mme. Aubain really kind of solidifies my point about Felicite. Mme. Aubain doesn’t know all of the things the Felicite knows but I feel like she is probably just as smart as her just in a different sense. So she is also not simple-minded. I think that she probably doesn’t have the saint-like qualities that Felicite has. Mme. Aubain seems to be more harsh and selfish than Felicite is. While again, I don’t think that Felicite is 100% a saint, I definitely don’t think that Mme. Aubain is. She lacks the qualities that make a person a saint. When Felicite was trying to make Mme. Aubain feel better about her daughter not being there by telling Aubain about her nephew Mme. Aubain just brushed it off. She was quite rude about it. That is not saint like to me. I think part of being a saint requires being nice to others, even when you may not feel like it. I really just don’t think there is much of a comparison between Mme. Aubain and Felicite.

Overall, I think that everyone is a complex being. It’s really up to each and every person to make that call for themselves though, same with deciding if someone is a saint or not.   While I like to think that everyone has some sort of quality to them that makes them a saint I can probably never be sure of that but, I plan on continuing thinking so.

Everyone has different views on people within specific topics. Religion there are highly debated topics of which one is best and what each figure truly stands for. I think that it is pretty accurate to say that in all religions there is a God or God’s and some sort of Devil. Throughout history stories have been written that include the major figures of God(s) and the Devil or Satan. In this class we have read and written about Dante’s Inferno and we are now reading and writing about Victor Hugo’s poem Ex nox facta est. Between these two stories the view on Satan is quite different. But there are also some similarities as well. Starting out with Hugo’s poem and explaining kind of how Satan is seen in this story seems best since that is the main topic of this discussion question.

In Victor Hugo’s poem Ex nox facta es Satan can really be seen as somewhat of a heroic figure. The best way that I could really think to define the way in which he is a hero is by comparing what has happened to him in this poem to the Hero’s Journey chart. Some of things that happened to Him as he was falling from Heaven match to certain aspects of the Hero’s Journey. So from my perspective I feel like it can kind of make him a hero in a sense even though Satan is usually seen as a bad guy, not a hero. An easy link to make between the Hero’s Journey chart and Satan’s fall from Heaven is at the Threshold (beginning of transformation). At this point Satan/Lucifer has done something bad and is being cast from Heaven where as he is falling down to Hell he is losing his angelic wings and getting the bat like wings that look hideous. He faces some challenges such as being cast out and coming to terms with his punishment. After all of that though he comes to terms with it and is somewhat a rebirth for him when he states “He shall have the blue sky, the black sky is mine,’ (481). Shortly after he began flying and transformed into something quite terrible with hideous wings and claws and he realized towards the end that he was not going to be going back to Heaven, ever. But he was able to keep one feather from his angelic wings. By following some of the Hero’s Journey I think that it connects this poem and Satan with the characteristics of a hero to a point. Satan became the reigning person down in Hell making him somewhat a hero. One thing that I think of that kind of fits this situation and how he is a hero is by saying that he is the hero of all of the villains. He is the one who punishes the wrong doers and I feel like that is somewhat the makings of a hero, by stopping evil from doing more.

Dante’s account differs from Hugo’s in a noticeable way. This is seen by the entire way that Satan is described between these stories. In Dante’s he sees Satan in the depths of Hell and he does not speak if I remember correctly. In Hugo’s poem he paints the picture of Satan’s fall from Heaven for the reader. The reader can picture the fall happening and the changes that come to this once angel, where he is yelling at God for doing this to him. Once again in contrast, Dante’s story doesn’t really tell or paint the picture of Satan’s fall. Dante’s account kind of shows what happens and becomes of Satan once he has been down in Hell for so long. Thinking back on Dante’s tale now, I think that it has the same sort of aspects that can kind of make Satan a hero, even if it isn’t blatantly said. It’s about the perspective that these stories are read and viewed in. These two authors just wrote about different events that have to do with Satan, which is really the main difference between the two.

During this assignment it really made me think of what a hero truly is. I now think that a hero can be good or evil. While God is a hero for good reasons, I think that Satan is a hero for different and bad reasons, but just because there are differences it doesn’t mean that they can’t somehow be similar. Both of these figures have a hand in punishing people who do wrong, God casts them down to Hell and Satan hands out the punishment that they deserve. Many people think of Hero’s as a person who does good and is good. But now after reading this my perspective has changed. I think that a hero is anyone that has a good amount of qualities a hero is outlined to have, good or evil. Just because someone is known as being evil doesn’t mean that they can’t do heroic type things.

Discussion Question 1

With the political season finally ending around here in Alaska, what better way to give it a final send off than answer this question. By comparing and contrasting his ideals to the ideals of today’s politics we can see that there is quite a correlation between the two ages of politics. While in his stories he talks of princes we in contrast talk of senators, mayors, congressmen, and presidents. Even though they are so different there are definitely a few ideals of Machiavelli’s that line up just about perfect with the ideals of today’s politicians and I plan on highlighting two of them.

“How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and live with integrity rather than by craftiness, everyone understands; yet we see from recent experience that those prices have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily,’ (1612). I feel as though this quote describing the way of some princes perfectly describes the way of some politicians in this day and age. I feel that many politicians come in to the political “game’ and probably do have the goal to be honest and keep their promises. As time progresses it seems as though it gets more and more difficult to keep those promises so instead they manipulate people in such a way that it seems as though they will keep them, but down the road things happen and they don’t keep those promises. While I do understand that many things can happen and keep people from upholding their promises, I feel those possible things should be taken into account when promising something.

“As the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves, you have to be a fox in order to be wary of traps, and a lion to overawe the wolves,’ (1614). This quote kind of falls in line with the last one. When I read this quote what came to mind right away was the political ads and such that we had been seeing on television. Each ad was always attacking their opponent. That part of the campaign could be the part where the politician is the lion. He is trying to “overawe’ the wolves, which I guess the wolves could be us, the viewers. The politician is making his opponent look bad so we attack him too. The fox would seem to be where promises and such come into play with the campaigns. While the politician is attacking his opponent the opponent is being “wary of traps’ in a way by denying those allegations and he is also making his own attacking claims.

This story of The Prince was written in 1513 yet today, in 2014 it still has relevance. As of now it sure doesn’t seem like the way politicians work is ever going to change. I can’t even count the number of political pieces of junk mail I received during this whole election season. They will probably always send things in the mail, have signs, and ads on television. I think that whenever some other technology comes out they will always jump on that too by having ads on it in some way or another. By doing all of those things and more it will continue to uphold the quotes and descriptions in Machiavelli’s The Prince.

I believe that throughout everyone’s lifetime we have to endure tests of all sorts. Some of these tests are easy, while others are nearly impossible to make it through. These tests can range from just being stuck in traffic for a bit or behind a train, all the way to having your heart broken from something as miniscule in the long run as a boyfriend to having a family member die. While these are all trials that all people have to face throughout their lifetime, the good thing is that these tests aren’t usually all the worst thing that could happen all the time, though they may seem like it. In The Tenth Story of the Tenth Day, Griselda was tested and pushed to such an extreme that it is unbelievable that anyone would even be able to handle such terrible Fortune as that.

 While after reading the story and thinking about it over and over I find it difficult to think of why Griselda was being tested and even more difficult to think of a reason that it would be a good idea as Gualtieri seemed to think. The best answer reasoning that I could come up with was that Griselda was being tested in such a way because of the time period that this story was set in. The answer to the discussion question I think is that she is being tested because in this time period wives are supposed to obey what their husband says and wants them to do. This is part of the way to show honor and loyalty for your family. Also, going along with the story it says that Gualtieri didn’t want to take a wife but was kind of forced into it. So in order to make sure that he would be able to truly fall in love with someone and that he could trust her to be his wife he put her to extreme tests. While at the time these tests seemed incredibly extreme to everyone, the characters and the readers alike, once the true reasoning behind these tests was revealed the characters just kind of took it in stride and didn’t think anything of it really. But since Griselda passed these tests it proved that she was an acceptable wife.

Being raised in this day and age, I definitely cannot agree with the way that Griselda was tested. If those things happened to me, even in that day and age I feel like I wouldn’t be able to stand for such treatment and Fortune happening to me and then just take the guy, who is supposed to have been my loving husband this entire time, back. Even though this is a story I still commend Griselda for being able to be such a strong woman and dealing with all of those tests. It is pretty obvious that any one of us will never have to deal with such a predicament. But if we did I am almost positive that no of us could handle things like that with such grace. I could be wrong though, everyone has different ways of coping with things. So someone could actually have as much grace as Griselda did. The way we handle things is part of what makes each of us so unique.

Every day in life it seems as though we as humans learn at least one new thing. While we are growing kids we learn multiple new things each day. Even though not all of the things that each and every one of us learns are learned in the exact same way it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong. While Dante learned one thing on his journey through Hell and had his own sort of interpretation, I also learned something during reading about his journey. They don’t necessarily line up the exact same but it doesn’t mean that either Dante’s learnings or mine are wrong. It really just means that each and every one of us has a different perspective when learning about something new.

While I enjoyed reading this tale very much, I find it hard to really describe exactly what Dante learned on his journey. I feel that the main things that he learned were how terrible these sinners would suffer once they got to Hell. He learns how unfair life after death can really be too, according to his beliefs of what Hell is like. In the beginning of the story he seems to have lost his way and while he tries to move forward into the light, and kind of metaphorically repent, he is pushed back into the darkness by three beasts. That whole beginning seems to have an alternative meaning. The perspective that I see is that Dante is beginning by emerging from the dark, which could be seen as the sins he has committed in life. He is trying to reach the light and that could be seen as repenting. However, these sins seem to just pull him back which is where the beasts come in, driving him back into the darkness. So when he took that journey through Hell with Virgil that seems to have shown him what could happen to him if he didn’t escape the path he was on in life. It never said if or what Dante actually did that was bad and made him deserve this journey through Hell, but it must have been something quite bad.   But he was worth saving apparently because Beatrice came to help by sending Virgil to take him on this journey. That is so wonderful that Dante has an angel looking out for him. I think that most of what I perceive Dante learning lines up with what I learned. While there are some things about Hell that I find it difficult to fathom, such as how many levels there are and the order in which these levels go, that doesn’t mean that I couldn’t somehow be wrong though. But I think that from him seeing and learning about such terrible fates for these souls that it would help him and anyone else out of the bad path of their life. So I think that overall the message that I thought Dante learned was the same thing that I learned, just in a different perspective.

While I’m not truly sure what to expect when I die and I expect that plenty other people aren’t either, I can hope that I would not go to such a terrible place as described in this tale. I hope to never find out what Hell is truly like. I feel that if everyone lives their life to the fullest and does the best that they can, by doing good then it shouldn’t be a problem to get into Heaven. I’m glad that we had the chance to read this tale though, it was very interesting and really made me think about things in a different perspective. Just like the above quote states it’s all about perspective.

Through the course of this interesting tale many lessons are taught and a view of Hell is shown. While personally I don’t believe that Hell is exactly as Dante describes it I find this to be very intriguing. I believe that through the course of each of our lives everyone will sin, no matter how small it may be. We are just human and humans definitely aren’t perfect. Whether that sin be purposeful or accidental I feel that Dante’s Inferno classifies nearly every sinful person in the level they belong. So for this discussion I feel that they best way to say whether all the penalties suffered are appropriate would be to go through each level.

Right upon arriving to the gate of Hell Dante sees a sign that ends with saying “Abandon every hope, all you who enter,’ (1221). This seems rather appropriate for the entrance to this damned place because once a person enters there is a very slim chance they will ever get out. Limbo is the first level of this 9 level Hell. The people who are in this level are souls who didn’t worship God how they should have and are unbaptized pagans. While they have no sort of physical torment being thrust upon them they will never get to Heaven. I feel that this level of Hell is rather unfair. Many of the people that are here were born before God and if that is the case then how would they be able to correctly worship him? These people didn’t even get a chance to get right with God to be admitted into Heaven. So I would say that this first level of Hell isn’t appropriate for all people. The second level is for the lustful. Their punishment is that they will “forever whirled about in a dark, stormy wind,’ (1227). I feel like this punishment is rather appropriate. It isn’t too incredibly terrible but just bad enough to realize that they lived their life wrong. The third level is for the gluttonous. These people in this level “are eternally battered by cold and dirty hail, rain, and snow,’ (1230). Again, the punishment here seems rather appropriate. These people are ones who overindulged in worldly pleasures and were selfish and cold towards others. So having to live in the vile type of situation they probably created on Earth seems only fair. Next is the fourth level. This level is for the greedy. The people here are “angry, shouting souls who clash huge rolling weights against each other with their chests,’ (1233). These people are in constant argument against each other about why one group would hoard treasures and why another group would waste them all. This is definitely an appropriate punishment to me. They shall forever be in argument over their drive for lavish things. Level five is next and is the level of the wrathful. These people are forever condemned to fight each other. This is yet again an appropriate punishment because by being wrathful they hurt people around them and fighting for the rest of their lives is only fair. The sixth level of Hell is for the heretics or called heresy. These people are punished by having to spend eternity in flaming tombs. These people had a different belief to orthodox religious doctrine. While to people who are extremely religious this may seem just, I find it to be rather harsh just because these people had opposing beliefs. Level seven: the violent. This circle is separated into three rings. The first ring is for murderers and they are sank into a river of boiling blood because they have inflicted violence upon others. This seems quite fair to me. It is like they are condemned to be in the boiling blood of who they have harmed. The second ring is for suicides. These people are turned into trees and bushes and fed upon, while others are chased by dogs and torn into pieces. This seems like a bit of a harsh punishment when it comes to the dogs but if these people are going to harm themselves then they should kind of have to suffer. Killing yourself isn’t just an out. The last ring is blasphemers. These people reside in a desert of burning sand and burning rain. I guess again I would have to say these seem rather appropriate. Next is level eight and it is for the fraudulent. From my understanding these people are in raining flames. While I’m not sure how harsh punishments should be for fraud, I guess I feel as though this is fair. Fraud is a terrible thing to commit but I kind of feel like in a way murder is worse. Just depends on the perspective. Lastly is level nine, the level of the treacherous. The people of this level are frozen in a lake. The worse the sin the deeper they are within the ice. This seems like a fair punishment, I’m not 100% sure why but it seems to fit with the other levels.

With so many levels to Hell it seems as though each sort of sin is covered. While as above shows, I don’t necessarily agree with each of the punishments the people of each level suffer. But it does seem at least they are kind of judged fairly, for the most part. The most unfair part is really Limbo though. It just makes no sense that people who didn’t have God in their life because he wasn’t born yet should never even get the chance to be up in Heaven with him. They should be given the benefit of the doubt in my mind. I really enjoyed reading about this because last week I saw a crime show that involved Dante’s Inferno. So to see this used in a television show really grabbed my interest even more.

Discussion Question 1In each epic we have read thus far I have come to realize that even though each person that is named as the hero is different, it doesn’t mean that they are any less of a hero. Also, in each epic it seems as though every one of these heroes was described as the perfect man. Saying Rama is the perfect man doesn’t necessarily make him any less interesting, quite the contrary; it can make him just as interesting as the other heroes. While it says that he is the perfect man there are indications that he is only a perfect man by working to achieve that status. Compared to the other heroes Rama has a different sense of being and way of living. He lives by a totally different set of codes compared to the warriors and other people we have read about. Rama’s point of being on Earth is to follow the way of dharma, which is the religious and moral law and code of righteousness that will allow him to be accepted into Heaven. This sort of belief is reminiscent of Job working to do God’s will, Rama’s beliefs are just in a different place. One good example of Rama working to be a hero is right in the beginning of the story. When Rama is told that he must go into the forest and people object about this exile the story goes “Rama, devoted as he was to dharma, spoke: ‘Among our ancestors were renowned kings who earned fame and heaven by doing their father’s bidding. Mother, I am but following their noble example,’’ (731). While the odds are great that he would rather not live as a hermit in the forest for 14 years he accepted this exile as his duty because of intensely he follows dharma as his ancestors have for many years. He is working to earn his way into Heaven. He is the perfect man because of this work that he is doing to be accepted to Heaven, because it is the righteous thing to do.

The answer to the question about Kausalya mirroring her son’s efforts to discipline her feelings can clearly be seen in the same situation where the quote above comes from. In the beginning after hearing of her son’s fate she tries to guilt him into staying by saying “If, as you say, you are devoted to dharma, then it is your duty to stay here and serve me, your mother,’ (731). Then after listening to her son speak she eventually concedes and says “I shall eagerly await your return to Ayodhya, after your fourteen years in the forest,’ (732). By disciplining her feelings as her son has, by accepting his fate to go into the forest for those fourteen years to stay in the path of dharma, she also stays in the path of dharma by respecting her son’s wish and just waiting for him to return.  The Hindu religion basically revolves around the belief of dharma. By following this religious and moral law or code of righteousness, one can be accepted into Heaven for they have done God’s will and lived a righteous life by following orders and living life to the fullest.