1. Every epic work defines heroism differently, and many heroes are great of stature without being moral paragons. As the headnote to the Ramayana points out, Rama is a virtually perfect man. Do you find him less interesting than other heroes on that account? What indications are there in this portion of the text that his perfection may not be totally innate, but a state of being that he must work to achieve? How would this mirror the efforts we see his mother, Kausalya, make to discipline her  feelings? How would that be consistent with the Hindu religious beliefs that imbue this work?

I do not find Rama less interesting than the other heros. The test was easier to read than past readings and it was more clear to see that he was more relaxed, worked very hard for what he achieved and had a solid head on his soilders. They say he was a perfect man, and its not that he was perfect, not one is perfect but that he worked very hard for what he had and gained. He was almost perfect in the way that he  acted in difficult situations that makes us. Like when he was exiled, he was calm and gave up the kingdom without a fight. Rama’s mother was not as dedicated to dharma as Rama was and she was reminded of that in the beginning of the story.

2. In The Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna speaks to Arjuna, a warrior afraid to fight: compare Arjuna’s dilemma with that of Achilles in the Iliad, or that of Medea as she struggles with her maternal emotions when she is about to kill her sons by Jason. Compare the code of behavior Krishna outlines to the view of violence in Homer’s poem or Euripides’ Medea. If appropriate, look for materials in other belief systems that reflect on these questions: consider “[The First Murder]’ (Genesis 4), the Beatitudes (Mathew 5), or “The Offering of Isaac,’ or the table (Sura 5 of the Koran).

Arjuna’s dilemma to fight was due to his devotion to the divine. He was also conflicted because the army he was going to fight included his own kind. Achilles when he realized that they were fighting a political war was willing to stop fighting, were Medea was the complete opposite and did not consider any other way of releasing her anger she choose to kill her children.

1. I do not find Rama to be a less interesting hero due to his “perfection.” His story was still interesting, because it was not about a journey of self discovery, but about a “discovered” person navigating through a world of problems and imperfections. Indications of this state not being innate are found in his reminders to his companions that they need to follow dharma and become what he has, showing  that he knows what it takes to get to where he is. Kausalya is reminded at the beginning of the story of her need for discipline. She is not as far  along in her dharma as Rama is.

2. Arjuna’s  dilemma is between two loyalties, his familial loyalty versus his caste loyalty.   His dilemma is whether he should follow through with what his warrior caste asks of him and fight his family, even though they are in the wrong. This is similar to Medea, because she struggles with the decision of exacting revenge on her ex-husband and go against her children in order  do that. It is different, however, in that her children did not do anything wrong. They were innocent and even did what she told them to in seeking the approval of the new wife. Krishna tells Arjuna that evil is committed because of desire and anger which comes from passion. This follows what Homer wrote, as Medea was fully controlled by her emotions. She acted recklessly and without much thought. Even though she did have some around her who wanted to help her, she could only focus on her hurt and acted from that.

Rama is virtually a perfect man in that he is a god reincarnate, the god Visnu who preserves dharma. This does not make him any less interesting. He undergoes his own trials and through his choices we gain a better picture of what his dharma is. I was surprised with how his response to his banishment, which was “promptly and without the least sign of the slightest displeasure’ (729), was so very different then what was seen in Greek literature, where this betrayal and injustice would be met with resistance and self-righteousness. Although at first frustrating to me as a reader (it was difficult for me to dissociate their meekness from weakness (752)), I was nonetheless fascinated with Rama’s persistence towards his dharma and how the culture perceives duty more important than justice.

There was a point where Rama struggled to continue following his dharma. When he could not find Sita, he broke down under the injustice that the powers that govern did not protect Sita from possible death. Rama proclaimed, “we adhere to dharma, but dharma could not protect Sita…we are full of self-control, compassion and devoted to the welfare of all beings: yet these virtues have become as good as vices in us now. I shall set aside these virtues and the universe shall witness my supreme glory which will bring about the destruction of all creatures including the demons’ (752). Laksmana beseeched him not to go against his nature, and that as king he could not punish all creatures for the actions of one.

It is this emotional breakdown into grief was mirrored by his mother, Queen Kausalya. As a mother, she wants to follow her son who is all she truly cares for. She declares that his leaving will be her death. Rama reminds her of her dharma (as Laksmana reminded him). As a woman, her duty is to serve her husband, and to abandon him would mean abandoning her dharma. Both Rama and Kausalya had to discipline their feelings in order to comply with their dharma. This is consistent with the Hindu religious belief that everyone has their own dharma that they must adhere to defined by their class. I found this interesting in that based on their role, their dharmas may conflict. Rama tried to convince Sita that she should stay back because it is his duty to make sure she is safe and cared for, but her duty tells her that she must follow and be with him.

1) If we were to compare Rama to someone like Achilles, Rama would probably lose to Achilles as far as appeal and glamour goes. If I had to take a crack at the reason why I think this might be, I would say it is due to the fact that people (at least in the U.S.) have an attraction to the type of person or personality that just does not take much maltreatment from others. Achilles is the equivalent of a “Type-A” personality in The Illiad. He was also selfish and emotional by comparison to Rama. Rama, to be considered perfect, had to essentially live his life as being “devoted to truth,” of dharma, and one who strove to “[earn] fame and heaven” by following the will of his father (730-31). Rama’s unquestioning faith however led him without question or disgust to turn down the crown and live in conditions unworthy of a king in the Dandaka forest for a period of fourteen years. In America, acceptance of this turn of events would not earn someone the prestige of heroics; rather, this might lend someone the title of “pushover.” This is especially true in my opinion because the words itself were not conveyed directly to Rama from his father, but rather from queen Kaikeyi and delivered on her whim. But as the story of Rama goes on, it is clear that his prowess in battle is no less than those of Achilles.

We then see in book 2 that Rama is resistant to the wishes of his mother, Kausalya, for him not to go to the forest and stay with her. Rama states that to do so would be inconsistent with dharma, as “[the] commands of the guru, the king, and one’s aged father, whether uttered in anger, cheerfully, or out of lust, should be obeyed by one who is not of despicable behavior, with a view to the promotion of dharma” (731). Rama further reminds his mother after making this declaration that it is his mothers duty to follow dharma in the only way a woman can, in the caring service of her husband. Therefore, we see that what makes Rama (as well as anyone aspiring to strive to the teachings of dharma and the implied order of Hinduism) perfect in his own right is possession of the wherewithal to remove all personal feelings and gratification in favor of embracing the prevailing greater good and the encompassing social order

2) In The Bhagavad-Gita, Arjuna tells the preserver god Krishna that the fighting which is about to take place on the battlefield is an abomination because all fighting seeks to do is kill another’s kinsmen. This in turn leads to a “disorder in society that undermines the constant laws of caste and family duty” (767). To this lament, Krishna responds that Arjuna’s thoughts emanate from a superficial, or flesh basis. Krishna proclaims that what instead would serve to undermine society is human inaction, whether that be from the warrior in battle or the lowliest of servants, because, “[he] who fails to keep turning the wheel here set in motion wastes his life in sin, addicted to the senses” (773). What Krishna tells Arjuna to fight instead is the enemy of desire in all its human sensory forms. This leads to a level of attained righteousness as well as recourse in following the willful dictate of one’s leaders. This leads man to become “free from sin,” and one who “easily achieves perfect joy in harmony with the infinite spirit” (776).

Achilles in The Illiad differs in his outlook to the teachings of The Bhagavad-Gita, specifically when he plans to leave with his ships and return to his home of Phthia rather than fight. Achilles plans to do so for the perceived slight inflicted upon him by the Greek warlord Agamemnon, because the fight was not worth dying for, and because he wished “to have and to hold” a wife to enjoy life’s riches with (209). By comparison to the Hindu teachings, Achilles as well as Madea demonstrate some very personal and contrary emotions toward the royal or established orders they are a part of. This leads to the conclusion that the will of the leaders appointed above these Greek characters does not represent some preordained justness that is without reproach. This stands in contrast to the caste driven message beholden by Krishna in The Bhagavad-Gita.

I find Rama just as, if not more, interesting than the other heroes we have reviewed. His calm attitudes and code are more aligned with what is familiar to me as being a good path, and so the study of those values within a hero are easier to digest than some of the other ancient text. There are indications in our readings that Rama’s perfection is not totally innate and that his way of being is a state that takes an ongoing practice to achieve. It is described quickly in our reading, in ayodhas’ 17 and 18 that Rama experiences significant anxiety as he approaches his father before being told what will soon happen. He worries about what he has done to anger his father, and seems to be not at all in a peaceful place but in a fearful one. Kausalya is also experiencing fear and anxiety I think, shortly after in ayodhya 21 when she tells Rama that he must not do as he has been ordered because of her own fear of not being able to survive without him. I don’t know if I understand the question, “How would that be consistent with the Hindu religious beliefs that imbue this work?”. There’s a forest dweller piece to the four stages of life.
Arjuna’s hesitancy to go into battle are seemingly more righteous than that of either Achilles or Medea. His hesitancy is based on his sense of morality and devotion to the divine, and it is not until the divine intervenes on his sense of right and wrong that his mind is able to change about going into battle. On the other hand, warriors such as Achilles had hesitancy that were based on things like strategy, glory, and self preservation. Codes of behavior according to Krishna are in terms of devotion, whereas it seems that codes of violence in the other examples mentioned might have more to do with things like honor or revenge.

1) Any story which does not require a “triumph” is usually a poor effective motivator for morality or other sorts of life models. The fact that Rama is “perfect,” I believe is pointing out the perfectness in us all, so it’s not his deeds which are entirety of the story, but more the the fact of him being, him. It was interesting being told that he was perfect at the beginning because I found myself searching for any imperfections of his character, but reached the conclusion that “perfection” is purely in light of the cultural standard being depicted. Achilles would have been deemed perfect by any war driven society, as he indeed was. I do wonder if him appeasing the people by banishing his wife could be considered imperfect, because after all why is the crown worth more than his wife (and children). His mother Kausalya
Decided to use her boons to have her younger son become king, thus Rama was banished for 14 years in the forest. His mother did not have the complete dedication to dharma as Rama did, she could not find value in it when nothing she wished for became real. The meditation required is present in today’s Hindu cultural practices, yet it seems like Rama’s mother, not all are dedicated and few if any reach the desired pinnacle of Rama perfection.

2) Arjuna is afraid to fight because the opposing army consisted of their own blood. Consideration of who they are fighting and what it is worth can be found in numerous epics from many cultures. Achilles reconsiders his choice of war and contemplates settling down because the battles are not his, but others political disputes. Honor and glory were Achilles motivators, yet he would not be disrespected no matter whose side assaulted his pride. Madea on the other hand, was Arjuna’s position, but instead of reconsidering she found more elegant ways of murdering her closest family members. All these characters have conflict, but only for the greater good or self fulfilling “good.” Hinduism is against violence towards people or animals, but war is inevitable and questions of why violence should not be the answer was shown by Arjuna’s questions. Although the same type of questioning can be found in other epics, usually directed at a god. Many other religions point out the immoral nature of murder, and especial touch on the topic of the immorality of killing ones own kin. The primary route of thinking I believe all of these characters find the selves tangled in is whether or not everything they are ding is worth it.

1.

Rama is considered a virtually perfect man but that word “virtually” is what keeps him from being a less interesting character. The points where he falls short and must struggle internally to retain his near-perfect moral composure are the most interesting, especially since much of it is in the subtext. His reaction to being exiled is an example of that. Though he retains his composure on the surface, the text and his brothers response to him heavily implies that retaining that careful composure is a great effort for him. The restraint of the text in not directly stating this turmoil is a parallel for his own hidden dilemma, and also a parallel for the Hindu value of human actions matching decency, despite any internal conflicts. I wish that more contemporary literature had such subtlety.

2.

In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna seems like a god with a more solid moral high-ground than any of the gods portrayed in the Iliad. In comparison to the internal dilemma that Arjuna undertakes with a wise supernatural figure to advise and challenge him, Achilles seems like a petulant child. Arjuna is weighing the lives and well-being of virtually all of the humans he could possibly effect, while Achilles is weighing his own Honor against his own Glory. And while his Honor and Glory do incidentally effect the people around him, his awareness of that is filtered through his own quest for personal achievements. Arjuna’s quest for success is directly dependent on the good his actions do others. Violence in the Bhagavad-Gita is a force that must be considered for it’s overall effect on the world and whether it’s a positive or negative force. Violence in the Iliad is a means to an end – Honor and Glory for the individual using it.

1.  I think that the fact that Rama is portrayed as a “virtually perfect man’ does not make his character less boring than other heroes. I think that the author does a good job at showing specific examples of Rama doing the right thing when faced with a hard decision of whether to do the right or wrong thing. For example in the headnote it says, “Faced with disinheritance, Rāma sees clearly that a son’s highest duty is to honor his father’s word, even if it means giving up his kingdom’ (725). This gives good depth to the character and I think that is what makes a good story. Shortly after this quote the author talks about how Rāma was not only doing what his father wanted but also doing it to honor Dharma. This is a way of showing that he wasn’t born perfect; he was constantly working on doing the right thing to stay on a righteous path. His mother shows this same attitude when Ramā is exiled. She is very sad and obviously does not want it to happen but she accepts that he must go and she puts her feelings out of sight, so to speak. This is an example of the Hindu belief that one should look to Dharma in every situation and do things that will lead them (or stay) on the path to Heaven.

2.  Arjuna is afraid to fight because he does not want to fight his own people, “his family’ ans he says in line 37 of the poem. He does not think that fighting them would give him a victory, or any sort of happiness. His dilemma is much different than that of Achilles because he was really selfish and did not care who he killed. He just didn’t want to be in war because he was afraid of losing. Krishna tells Arjuna that he needs to do be detached and do it for honor not for himself. Medea wasn’t following a code when she killed her children; she was just doing it for revenge.

1. Every epic work defines heroism differently, and many heroes are great of stature without being moral paragons. As the headnote to the Ramayana points out, Rama is a virtually perfect man. Do you find him less interesting than other heroes on that account? What indications are there in this portion of the text that his perfection may not be totally innate, but a state of being that he must work to achieve? How would this mirror the efforts we see his mother, Kausalya, make to discipline her feelings? How would that be consistent with the Hindu religious beliefs that imbue this work?

I find Rama to be far less interesting than other heroes. As the headnote to the Ramayana points out he is a virtually perfect man. Rama always does the right thing, which in my opinion made his character very predictable. There was no “Wow Factor’ to his character and I wasn’t left guessing what would happen next. His perfection was put to the test when he was exiled and he calmly accepted it and gave up the kingdom rather than enter into a state of anger. With that being said his perfection was definitely a state of being that he had to work to achieve. Kausalya was sad at first, but was able to file her feelings away and accept Rama’s fate and awaits his return.

2. In The Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna speaks to Arjuna, a warrior afraid to fight: compare Arjuna’s dilemma with that of Achilles in the Iliad, or that of Medea as she struggles with her maternal emotions when she is about to kill her sons by Jason. Compare the code of behavior Krishna outlines to the view of violence in Homer’s poem or Euripides’ Medea. If appropriate, look for materials in other belief systems that reflect on these questions: consider “[The First Murder]’ (Genesis 4), the Beatitudes (Mathew 5), or “The Offering of Isaac,’ or the table (Sura 5 of the Koran)

Arjuna and Achilles are completely separate from each other. Arjuna was against the idea of fighting against his family and friends, and only wanted to better himself, whereas Achilles fought because he was seeking glory and wanted revenge. Achilles wanted the “bragging rights.’ Arjuna fought by the code of behavior and Achilles fought for himself and didn’t really live by much of a code.

1.   In the context of the epic tale, Rama is perfect because he follows the “dharma’ or moral duty, which is strictly defined by a complete set of social laws that are dependent in his socioeconomic position within the society, as well as, his gender and marital status.  Although persuaded by different beloved ones through his dethroning, he still pursued his required moral responsibilities as the prince and husband.  In contrast, his mother, Kausaya did not wanted to follow her “dharma’, which was to serve her husband.  Instead, she wanted to leave with Rama to the forest, but after Rama reminded her of the required duties as a wife, she regained her sense of duty.  Despite that Rama was more faithful to his “dharma’ in this situation, you can see that his perfection was a work in progress through the abduction of Sita.  Rama’s grief was blinding him to the point that he wanted to die, and his brother persuaded and convinced him to do the right thing, which was to keep searching for his wife.  Also, even though he was a god reincarnated, he did not knew this fact until the end, when the other gods told him so.  For the Hindu religion, Rama is a hero because he conducted himself in the proper ways according to his social duty, disregarding his feelings, and at the end, he was honored for it.  Therefore, Ramayana is an epic tale that is an inspiration in the Hindu religion, as well as, a justification of why morality should be defined by social stratification.  In my opinion, I found Rama less interesting that other heroes, because this religion reminds me of Kant’s moral philosophy, in which actions are only considered good if they are done only for the sense of duty, obeying the moral law, not feelings attached.  A common problem encountered by doing this, are situations where you have to choose between two moral duties, or a social duty and a moral duty, at the same time.  For example, if the king knocks at a person’s door with the intentions of killing his son, is it his moral duty to not lie to the king or to save his son?  Which moral duty should precede the other one and who decides?

2.   This is exactly Arjuna’s dilemma, which was a conflict between his social duty as a warrior, of killing his family in a war, and his moral duty of not killing them.  Krishna explains to Arjuna that his actions should be based on his sense of duty, and not in the moral duty that affect his feelings.  It is only this way that he can save his soul.  Arjuna at the end, accepted Krishna’s philosophy.  The difference between Arjuna and Achilles is that the last one rejected his duty as a warrior.  Aquile’s motivation to fight was not based on his sense of duty, but in the honor he could get, for pride.  Later a sense of morality changed his mind, due to his feeling for the loss of his friend.  Still, he fought to avenge his friend, and not because it was his duty as a warrior.  In other religions, you can see this predicament.  In the Hebrew bible, Abraham was ordered to offered his son in sacrifice, to test his faith.  However, God himself stopped him.