I think for someone to be a hero there doesn’t always have to be a journey. I do agree with our first lesson about the hero’s journey, I think that a hard journey and overcoming something makes you ‘also’ a hero. However, I think that even though Rama was a “perfect man’ he can still be a hero. My reasoning is that in order for someone to be a hero they have do something that that helps someone else in the end. An example would be maybe the X-men (any of the good ones). The X-men did nothing to earn any of the mutant powers, they just so happen to be born with them. Now some of them used their powers for fun, some for good and some used them for evil, but it’s the ones that used them to fight against the evil ones, are heroes. They are heroes because they used their ‘gifts’ or ‘powers’ to help protect humans they don’t even know. In my opinion that’s heroic. There for Rama can be heroic even though he didn’t follow the classic heroes journey. He was perfect and noble. I don’t think he needed a journey of failures and success to make him heroic, he did what was right and important, someone who can always do the right thing, someone who can choose the harder path because it’s what is right, that person is a life hero.

Well this answer is quite simple. I think Arjunes wasn’t as much afraid to fight, but afraid of making the wrong choice, whether to fight or not. He faced a dilemma whether or not to follow his warriors code or to follow is moral conscious, to not fight against family. Whether choosing to fight was the ‘right’ thing, he a hard spot to be in. However, Achillies was a coward that only fought for pride and revenge, I feel they are very different.

1.  I see Rama as a hero to his people because of the way that he lived. Rama lived by the rules of Dharma. I feel that Rama was far more interesting because of the choices and paths that he chose to take. Generally they were the tougher paths, in it seemed as though he was always tempted by the evil ways but he took the high route and went the other way even though the other way may have been easier. Just like real life Rama had to make decisions based on his beliefs. There were a couple instances where Rama showed him working to achieve perfection, but one that stood out most to me was his love for Sita. He went on a wild goose chase to find her, when he finally does he questions her faith. This is comparable to his mother because she does not respect the decisions that his father makes and in the Hindu religion that is not to be accepted.

2. When comparing this story to that of Medea, these two stories are for from the same. To me they are in fact, the opposite of each other. In Medea, the so called “heroes’ wanted to kill people. That to me is not a hero. Arjuna is much more of a hero in my eyes because of his great ability to follow the rules of his leader. We find Arjuna, frantically making decisions to fight or not because he doesn’t want to let his people down, but he doesn’t want to kill his family members. We could also say that Arjuna is not afraid to fight rather, he doesn’t know which code to break, the family code or the warrior code. Ajuna I feel is much like Rama in regards to his decisions of right and wrong and following the right path rather than the evil one, putting him closer too God.

Rama’s perfect character is not a slight to his appeal in the least; instead he identifies a hero in a different light. So far we’ve looked at heroes and epics, and each hero was only human, even if they were half-gods. But Rama’s undeniable and daunting nobility and honor in all circumstances is admirable, because it shows us another kind of hero. When he is banished by the hesitant orders of Dasaratha on orders of blackmail from Queen Kaikeyı, he does so with no sorrow. Rama is a perfect example of the Indian belief of Dharma, the sacred law of the cosmos and the social order. In India, everyone in theory should strive to reach their own individual dharma, and Arjuna faced the beginning of this process as he weighed the pros and cons of battling against his kinsmen. On one hand, like Gilgamesh and Achilles, he wanted to be a warrior and kill the people he was fighting against with no mercy. But on the other hand, he couldn’t because they were his family and neighbors and kinsmen. When he refused, he exposed a trifle of the concept of dharma. Rama is simply acting consistent to the Hindu religious beliefs of good character and self control, and he does so by being righteous like his mother in her self-control.

Fear is not a trait that is contrasting to a heroes journey; in fact it is the opposite. Homer, a true hero, still circled the walls of Troy several times before he knew running away from Achilles would not solve anything. Standing up to his fear, he fought Achilles bravely. And Medea broke the social order as she fought her maternal instincts and killed her children to get back at her husband. It is a common theme that being righteous and noble and fair will get you into heaven, or nirvana, or enable you to live a life following dharma. Rama does this well, although in the process he still has to live in a forest for 14 years and his wife gets kidnapped. However, none of these actions are his fault, meaning he has been acting righteously all along. Fear is an important concept to the heroes journey, I have a feeling it will be developed even more in our discussions. After all, in Indian belief, it’s all about the individual finding their own dharma and acting accordingly to it, but before that can happen they must face their fears and find their way through it.

I found Rama more interesting than other characters because he was supposed to be so virtuous. It’s clear that Rama holds himself to a higher plane because he takes his dharma so seriously. When Rama is so accepting of his banishment it seems quite un-characteristic of a hero. Most people expect Rama to fight for what is his, or act fool heartedly like Achilles. But, Rama accepts his karma and begins his adventure in exile. It becomes clear that Rama is not infallible, as he is fooled by the demon Maricia and loses control of his emotions by the loss of Sita. It’s not till Rama is returned to his senses by Laksmana that he is able to focus again on his dharma and begin his pursuit of Sita. This return to his senses is much like Achilles when he realizes he needs to put his pride aside and fight for his people. Rama’s loss of senses is very similar to the reaction of Kausalya at the news of Rama’s departure. Much like Laksmana helps Rama return to his senses, Rama helps Kausalya return to her senses, by reminding her of her to duty to dharma. What’s important in all of these scenarios is that it’s the idea of dharma that returns all of these characters to their right state of mind Its dharma, or the hero’s sense of duty, that helps the hero prevail and do what they must. This would help the Hindu religions re-affirm the idea of karma and dharma to the people of Hinduism and motivate them to follow their own dharma.

Arjuna’s struggle and Achilles struggle are very different in nature. Arjuna struggles with the reality of killing kin and the evil that it invokes. Achilles acts foolishly over an insult and struggles with his own sense of pride. This does lead to a similar result as both heroes refuse to act. To Krishna this inaction is the worst possible outcome. Whenever you are left with inaction you are not pursuing your dharma, and therefore not achieving a higher existence. This holds true for both heroes. As Achilles is able to see past his pride and chooses to act he fulfils his heroes call. For Arjuna he is able to accept battle and moves to action knowing that by fulfilling his dharma he is fulfilling his own heroes call.

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 would say that at first, Rama seemed to be a bland character, because he was a heroic figure “without fault’.   However, I think that throughout the story there are instances where one can catch a glimpse of his human struggles.   Upon his victory over Ravana, he questions Sîtas chastity and faithfulness to him by harshly stating, “Your conduct is open to suspicion, hence even your sight is displeasing to me.   Your body was touched by Ravana: how then can I, claiming to belong to a noble family, accept you?’ (pg. 757)   I think this passage shows his inner turmoil on trying to achieve and be that symbol of perfectionism.   He loves Sita and went on a long and arduous quest to find her, and reaching his goal, questions her faithfulness and loses his trust in her.   Kausalya, additionally, has a difficult time as well.   Her actions compared to Hindu religion may be seen as somewhat unacceptable because she should respect and honor her husbands decision.

1. 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).

The Bhagavad-Gita interestingly enough reminded me of Job.   Krishna is there not necessarily questioning him, but trying to persuade him otherwise and dissuade his conscience, similarly to that of Jobs three friends who keep questioning him about his faith in God…   Anyway, back to the question,   I would say that I think Arjuna isn’t really scared to fight, it seems that he is more torn between familial code, and the warrior code.   In comparison to Achilles struggles,   Achilles refuses to fight because of his pride, however I would say his familial code overrides this struggle when his good friend is slain, if this didn’t happen he may have never have fought.   In comparison, Arjuna is struggling to fight because he thinks it isn’t right for brother to go against brother.   In line 31 he states, “I see omens of chaos, Krishna; I see no good in killing my kinsmen in battle.’   However, Krishna was able to persuade him otherwise.

In the story of the Offering of Isaac, I think that Abraham was faced with a hard choice.   His familial calling I think would be to spare his son, however he had complete trust is God and followed his orders, I guess that could be seen as the warrior  code.

I think this picture really captures Abrahams turmoil, yet his resolve to do Gods will.

1.  As human beings, we tend to look to point out the things that need fixing, rather than pointing out the things that are done right.  In the instance of Rama, I would have to say that it is a little boring reading about someone who never does the wrong things. Well almost.  I can appreciate however and envy the fact that he was nearly a perfect human in instances that sometimes meant choosing a harder road to do the right thing.  I think one of the instances of this, showing that he must strive to be a perfect human, is when he made his wife, Sitka, prove that she was pure before he would take her back.  Another instance of his innateness was when he shows extreme emotion and sorrow when Sitka is taken from him.  These extreme emotions were shown in Rama’s mother, Kaushalya, when Rama was dethroned as she wept for him. To follow Hindu beliefs, she should have removed herself from all emotion though.  All in all, I think the acts of trying to live a “perfect” life make this book exciting in its own way in that, we as humans should always be striving to become a better person.

2. In comparison to Medea, these stories are almost completely different.  In Medea’s case, she is acting out of revenge towards her ex husband in the instance of killing her children.  Throughout the whole story she is pretty selfish, thinking and acting only of herself.  In the story of Arjun, he is torn between fighting and risk having to kill his family or not fight and go against his code as a soldier.  This is a very hard decision as there is a win and a loss to each side. The code in this story is similar to Rama’s case in that doing the right thing will make one closer to God spiritually.  I am still torn as to whether or not Arjun made the right in choice in fighting but I think that he was a valiant soldier and in the end it worked out for everyone I believe.

Retrieved from:  https://hinduism.iskcon.org/tradition/1110.htm

1. I do not think that Rama being a virtually perfect man makes him less interesting than other heroes. Actually when reading this I found him more interesting, but not because of his perfection,   but because I had never heard of or read his story it was completely new to me. Rama’s perfection is shown not to be innate but an achievement by him almost losing it when Sita is taken from him and his brother Laksmana helps calm him. This shows his struggle with imperfection, and his ability to sensibly deal with situations even when he is completely overwhelmed by emotion. As with his mother Kausalya who is devastated at the exile of her son and is everything but excepting to the thought and then after talking with him calms herself and excepts it. It seems to me that there is bold and defined incurring theme throughout this writing and it says “DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD, REMEMBER YOUR PLACE AND BE HAPPY WITH IT, DO YOUR DUTY AND REMEMBER THE GODS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT”, I think that this sums up both of the literary pieces we have been assigned to read in week six.

Retrieved from:  https://www.bhagavad-gita.us/

2.  It seems to me that the major difference between Arjuna’s dilemma and with that of most of the other heroes we have read about is that Arjuna does not want to kill, which is the exact opposite of the others. The others we have read the stories of have killed with little regard to much of   anything and that was part of their blight  that they then had to cope with what they had done or the effects of their murder sprees . Arjuna gives thought not to the victory or glory, but to the act of killing one’s own kin, and the kin left after the killing is done. To me this point of view is really quite admirable and it is really too bad that Krishna ruined it by talking Arjuna into fighting because it was his duty. Not his duty to obey the gods, but the duty of his status or role if you will, unlike Achilles who only refused to fight out of spite for his king, and then returned to fight when he is angered at the death of a friend.

1. Rama was heroic to his people because he lived his whole life by the rules of Dharma, which promotes living a righteous life. I believe Rama was more interesting than other heroes because he was constituently tempted by evil and always chose the path that may not have been the easiest but in the end followed the rules of dharma. Throughout the story, he had to make decisions that were based on his beliefs and not take the easier rode. Two indications that showed Rama had to strive to perfection, were when he killed the crow that he thought harmed Sitka, his wife, and when he distrusted his wife when she was kidnapped by Ramana. Rama made her prove her purification to him before he would take her back. Kaushalya, Rama’s mother, also showed moments throughout the story that she had to strive to make the righteous decision in times of turmoil. When Rama was dethroned and had lost his right to be King, she fell down to the earth and sobbed. According to Hindu believe, she should have supported her husband and not question his decision. The story Ramayana is a perfect example of how to lead a spiritual life and how to fulfill one’s duty or dharma. Throughout the story with the intense drama, love story, and strategies to defeat evil, it gives lessons for humans on how to live a spiritual life.

2. Decisions, a strong theme here in both of these stories. Arjuna is faced with a choice in which he must fight and could possibly kill his family and relatives or to not fight and abandon his duty as a soldier. In the story of Medea, she has to make a decision in which what is her duty and what she believes that is necessary. Medea thinks that she must have revenge. Her self-seeking decisions are based on her ex husband and she must get back at him. Arjuna thought process is how to fight without killing anyone of his relatives and to keep the honor of being a soldier.  The code of behavior in the The Bhagavad-Gita is a code based on doing the right thing in order to become more spiritually whole. Arjuna would end up fighting, he had to fight because it was evil and that was his code. In the end the good would prevail anyways because death is the attainment of heaven.

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?

The Raja of Faridkot. A Nineteenth Century photograph. Photo public domain.

The perfect man, Rama, is not entirely without blemish.   He lusted after the colorful deer as well, I think.   “In fact, Rama was curious, too!”   The way this is written, assuming the use of the word “curious” is the same in both circumstances, suggests that Rama is as smitten with the deer as his wife Sita is, though he is less vocal about it.   Like Adam in the Garden of Eden, he goes for the incognito mode, supporting the woman in folly instead of stepping right out in the line of fire.   “And so, he took Sita’s side and said to Laksmana: ‘It is beautiful…” (Norton, 742)   I can almost here the manufactured offhand tone, (well, she has a point I guess.   I do suppose I could go after it…).

A Nineteenth Century Marathi woman in a traditional sari. Photo public domain.

The shape changing deer incident, Rama’s harsh words to Laksmana after Sita has gone missing, and the struggle Rama goes through to contain his grief over Sita’s disappearance all suggest that Rama must work at achieving his state of “perfection” and divine beingness (creation of word, mine).   Rama’s family all show restraint throughout the story, the women being forgiven this “weakness” and the enlightened warrior king, Rama expects Laksmana to not stoop to this.   The efforts Rama makes according to his devotion to dharma do mirror the teaching in the Bahgavad-Gita.   Although he does not appear to suffer much hunger or grief over his animal skin clothing, his attitude is exemplary throughout most of the tale.   Actually, he seems to treat it like an English country gentleman might.   He demonstrates a man who is of “disciplined action” and strives to be the highly controlled man described in the Gita, “When these cannot torment a man, when suffering and joy are equal for him and he has courage, he is fit for immortality.” (Norton, 768)

English and Indian Officers of the 9th Bengal Cav. in British service. A relationship of mutual admiration which for some regiments, continues to this day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/175147872979925569/

I found all of this both difficult to read, (its not really my thing) and yet, an interesting tale.   I was really irritated to find that we skipped a lot of the tale between the dead eagle and Rama’s battle with Ravana, who didn’t add up to much more than Goliath.   True to my own character, and all kidding aside, I liked Laksmana’s character best.   The whole thing reminded me of an Kipling adventurer with his Punjab sidekick, loyal to the last.   I wonder, did the people of India serve England so long, without too much complaint, because of these teachings?  In the time the British ruled India, there developed true affection between the men who served the British and the Englishmen who ruled over them.  (That is not to diminish or justify  the cruelty that took place in that era).  Or was it because the English gentlemen were similar in “good manners” to the ideal? Just thinking…

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).

“Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action” — Bhagavad-Gita

“When he sees identity in everything, whether joy or suffering, through analogy with self, he is deemed a man of pure discipline.”   Photo from an unknown source.   Known to be of bathers in Calcutta, during the days of the Raj.

Arjuna, the warrior, mindful of the dharma (spiritual duty) and also of the unpleasant conditions brought about by evil-based actions, (Kharma) is not so much afraid to go to battle as he is reluctant to engage kin in battle and have their blood on his hands. In other words, he is trying to reconcile having to make war upon his relatives and is asking, “how can this be?” How can a warrior, mindful of dharma, kill his relations in battle and not suffer bad kharma over it?  This is not the same dilemma that Achilles struggles with.  If anything, Madea and Achilles have more in common as both of them kill their relations, or allow their relations to suffer loss, based on their own vengeful pride and resultant anger.  Arjuna on the other hand is struggling only with what is right and wrong, in relation to his own destiny and as it applies to his heart.  At first reading, I felt that he was only concerned about his own future when it came to kharma.  But on re-reading the First Teaching, I realized he states quite clearly that he is loathe to cut down his kinsmen for all the normal reasons, he’d rather die himself.   “Krishna, I see no victory, or kingship or pleasures.  What use to us are kingship, delights, or life itself?  and “…I do not want to kill them even if I am killed, Krishna; not for kingship of all three worlds, much less for the earth!”   This too, is unlike Achilles and Madea, whose actions are entirely based on their own benefit, (except Achilles reaction to Priam).  Arjuna’s character is far more “heroic” in the classic sense than those of Achilles and Madea who arguably may or may not fit the hero context.

“Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action;   avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction!”   Photo by Marc Riboud, Gange, India.   1956

The description of the man whose insight and thought are “sure”, is an appeal to function in life free from the guilt or fear of our own actions, especially when it applies to the role we find ourselves in our society.   Sin appears here as the failure to use action, when action is a duty, “he who fails to keep turning the wheel here set in motion wastes his life in sin, addicted to the sense, Arjuna.” (Norton, 773).   Krishna is advocating “action” as a means to keep the three worlds whole.   “there is nothing I must do, nothing unattained to be attained, yet I engage in action”.   (Norton, 773).   On the surface, Jesus’ appears similar.   He is teaching that actions, or “Good works” as they are known in the New Testament and in the Koran, avail a man “nothing”.   Its what is in the heart that counts.   Concerning killing, as in Arjuna’s dilemma, Christ states, “You have heard that it was said to the ancients:   You shall not murder.   He who murders shall be liable to judgement.   I say to you that any man who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; …”   (Norton, 891).   Christ is saying that murder is not only an action, but the thought behind the action, and even the thought without the action itself.   The heart is what is sinning and therefore no man is without sin.

“Good men eating the remnants of sacrifice are free of any guilt, but evil men who cook for themselves eat the food of sin.”   Per Krishna or Christ, this man may continue to hunger all his earthly life.   According to Krishna’s teaching, if he succeeds in rising above his suffering through action and discipline, then he will be free from sin.   In Christ, he need only accept Christ as God and his sin is forgotten, his eternity will be free from want or suffering.   https://www.pinterest.com/pin/334181234821813571/

The difference here is that the heart is sinning, the law is impossible to keep.   That is why Christ must die, to atone.   In Krishna’s version of things, the sin is the lack of “action”.   The law or teaching can be kept by a man whose “insight is sure” and who is a man of “discipline”.   That is why actions are separated from desire or pleasure.   So if my “duty” is to make men suffer, for what ever reason, I am able to do so, without fear of bad karma in life.   But if I fail to “act” on my duty, I am inviting it.   What a dilemma.   Arjuna does not want to kill his kin, but it is his duty as a man, whose station in life is a warrior.   Likewise if it is your duty in life to sweep cow dung in the streets, because that is what you were born to, you best keep doing it.