For Wednesday: Akutagawa, Stories: “Rashomon,” “In a Bamboo Grove,” and “The Nose”

Answer two of the following for Wednesday’s class:

Q1: “Rashomon” is the basis for the frame story in Kurosawa’s film, but he changed it significantly by adding two characters from “In a Bamboo Grove,” and removing the old woman. However, what aspect of the story remains the same and helps us see his overall theme in the film? In other words, why might this story have given him the idea for the entire movie?

Q2: Why do you think both “Rashomon” and “The Nose” focus so much on grotesque facial features—a pus-filled pimple and a dangling nose? What do they tempt the world to see/feel about such people that we associate them with a physical imperfection? And why do they make a convenient literary device?

Q3: On page 13, Tajomaru says to the judges, “When I kill a man, I do it with my sword, but people like you don’t use swords. You gentlemen kill with your power, with your money, and sometimes just with your words: you tell people you’re doing them a favor.” Why might this comment say a lot about how we read the morality of this story: who else ‘kills’ people with words?

Q4: Though the character of Zenchi Naigu in “The Nose” is a Buddhist priest, how might we read his character through the lessons of The Bhagavad Gita? Why might this entire story almost be a cautionary tale included in the Gita itself? What is his ‘sin’ or crime in this story?

For This Week: Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950)

Remember we're going to finish Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon for Wednedsay's class, and then we'll discuss it on Friday. The questions that are due on Friday (not Wednesday) are below. Don't forget the Paper #1 assignment which is due on Monday (no class that day)! The post below this one has that assignment in case you misplaced it. 

Answer TWO of the following for Friday's class:

Q1: Why does the film include a 'frame' story with the characters huddling under the city gates (the "Rashomon" is a great gate in the city of Kyoto), telling us about the story of the samurai, his wife, and the thief? Why not simply have those characters tell their story themselves? What does bouncing back and forth from one layer to the other allows us to see or think about?

Q2: The story of the murder is told from several different narrators: the witness (who tells his story twice), the priest, the thief, the wife, and the samurai (who is dead and tells is through a medium). Though the essential story is the same, what aspect changes the most from story to story? Why do you think this is?

Q3: Related to Q2, is there someone's story we're meant to believe more than the others? Is someone more reliable or trustworthy? Or does someone have less to lose than the others? Consider that they each tell things about themselves that are unfavorable, and few of them come off looking good in any version.

Q4: One of three men hiding under the Rashomon tells the others, "unless you're selfish, you can't survive." Do you think that's the true moral of the story: that in the end, you have to look out for yourself? Does that explain the actions of most of the characters in the film? 

Q5: One extra question to consider: why might this story be more effective in black and white than in color? In other words, why might a modern-day version of Rashomon lose something in the translation? What makes the old-fashioned style of the 1950's ideal for telling this type of story? 

Creative Paper #1 due February 27

REMEMBER: Reading Exam #2 is scheduled for today (Friday). If you miss class it's your responsibility to reschedule it next week. You must take it next week to get credit for it (you can't take it 2-3 weeks later, for example).

Below is the Creative Paper #1, which is basically like your mid-term assignment for the class. Start thinking about it, since you still have over a week before it's due. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. 

Creative Paper #1: Seeing the Way

INTRO: For your first paper, I want you to think about how we describe or discuss something that really transcends language, and that we almost have to see, or experience, to truly understand. The Tao te Ching and The Bhagavad Gita are so many things—both everything and nothing—which is too vast for our limited minds to contemplate. But like poetry itself, a metaphor can bridge the gap between the seen and unseen, the known and unknown. So what VISUAL metaphor could help us ‘see’ some of the meanings and ideas in either book, and lead us close to ‘meditation’ from ‘practice’?

PROMPT: I want you to find a work of ART somewhere out in the world that you think provides a useful metaphor for seeing or discussing a pair of passages from the Tao te Ching and The Bhagavad Gita. By “work of art” I mean one of the following:

• A painting (famous or not)
• A drawing or illustration (famous or not)
• A poster or album cover
• Comic book illustration (a cover or an individual frame)
• A photograph
• A sculpture
• A building/structure

In other words, the work of art should be something we can see and contemplate/interpret. For your paper, I want you to do two things: (a) introduce the work in question by describing it and helping us ‘see’ it without the use of an image, and (b) use it to ‘read’ or interpret two related passages (one passage from each book). Don’t choose two random passages: make sure each passage seems to express similar ideas or concepts. Be specific, and use the artwork as a visual metaphor; try to imagine that the work of art is literally based on the poems. What would it show us? What would it explain? What would it clarify?

REQUIREMENTS

• This should be about 3 pages long double spaced, but you can do more (that’s a minimum).
• You must describe the work of art to someone who has never seen it, and feel free to tell us why it moves you, or interests you—but make sure we can ‘see’ it (don’t rely on a picture, and you don’t have to include an image).
• You must quote from the poem and show us how individual lines can be seen in the work of art itself.
• As you write, try to go beyond practice and really concentrate, meditate, and even surrender. In other words, communicate and think—don’t just write for a grade.  
• DUE  MONDAY, FEBUARY 27 by 5pm (no class that day) 

Revised Schedule

NOTE: The questions for Wednesday's class are in the post BELOW this one.

Below is the revised schedule from this week until Spring Break. Because of all the snow/ice days, we keep getting slightly off track. I've only changed a few dates, and pushed back your paper assignment by one class day (now on Monday, the 27th instead of Friday, the 24th). After Spring Break, the schedule will resume normally as outlined on the syllabus. 

REVISED SCHEDULE 

M 13                The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 11-14

W 15               The Bhagavad Gita, 15-18

F 17                Reading Exam #2 

 

M 20               Film: TBA

W 22               Film Continued 

F 24                Film Discussion/In-Class Writing 

M 27                Creative Paper #1 due [no class] 

MARCH 

W 1                 Akutagawa, Stories TBA

 

MARCH

F 3                   Akutagawa, Stories TBA

 

M 6                  Akutagawa, Stories TBA

W 8                  Akutagawa, Stories TBA

F 10                 Reading Exam #3 

 

13-17                Spring Break

For Wednesday: Finish the Bhagavad Gita! (sorry--for some reason this didn't post; you can have extra time to respond)

This is our final reading and questions for The Bhagavad Gita, so read these passages with an eye towards the Reading Exam on Friday. It will be similar to the last one, but not obviously the same questions about people needing advice. But the same basic format. Answering these questions will help you think on your feet with these exam, since the more you write about these works, the easier it is to "meditate" or "surrender" to them later. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What do you make of the curious contradictions that seem to creep into the work, especially around Part 16? Though Krishna says that through love all men will be saved, and even the worst sinners can be saved through a single act of selflessness, here it also says that "[sinful men] come not to me, Arjuna; but they go down the path of hell" (75). What do you think he means by "hell" (since that's an English word) and do you read this as a contradiction? 

Q2: In Book 18, Krishna says that "if one merely sees the diversity of things, with their divisions and limitations, then one has impure knowledge" (81). What do you think he means by the "diversity of things"? What might this say about modern society, which values diversity, choice, and endless combinations? 

Q3: One of the more controversial passages for the modern reader is also in Book 18, where it explains the roles/duties of the various castes. The Western world typically reads these as social hierarchies that bestow status and rewards on the 'upper castes'. But is this how the Gita explains them? Is one caste inherently better than another, despite the nature of the work? 

Q4: Krishna calls all life "puppets in a play of shadows" (85). Why might this be a fitting title for the entire work? And how might this phrase work almost equally well for the Tao te Ching, too? 

For Monday: The Bhagavad GIta, Parts 11-14 (in-class response on Monday)

Remember, no questions for Monday's class, since we're going to have an in-class response instead. Here are some ideas you might consider as you read, however, at least ONE of which will make an appearance in class (hint, hint):

* Arjuna asks to see Krishna in his god form, so he can truly believe/understand. In general, why are we not allowed to glimpse the divine directly? Does Arjuna agree with the censorship of the divine form?

* Many people simply can't devote their entire life to meditation and/or concentration on the divine. So how do we do good works? Is Yoga the only way? What if one is too sick or poor to do it properly?

* Krishna tells Arjuna that “concentration is better than mere practice, and meditation is better than concentration; but higher than meditation is surrender in love of the fruit of one’s actions, for on surrender follows peace” (60). What did you make of these 4 steps to enlightenment? While all of them are 'good,' why is meditation better than concentration, and concentration better than practice? 

* If you followed the Tao te Ching as closely as possible, and really practiced its teachings, do you think you would reach Brahman? Is the Tao basically "Yoga"? 

* In part 13, it says that someone must be free of the selfish attachment even to one's children and family. Do you think this means that everyone must be ultimately without any kind of emotional attachments? Will loving your children excessively lead you away from Brahman?

* What do you think Krishna means when he says, "when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others: then he goes indeed to the highest Path" (64)? Is Krishna is Visnhu, one of the supreme gods, how can Arjuna also be God? Or Me? Or You?

For Friday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 6-10

 

Answer TWO of the following for Friday's class...

Q1: In Part 7, Krishna says that “Among thousands of men perhaps one strives for perfection; and among thousands of those who strive perhaps one knows me in truth” (36). If we replaced “perfection” with “Tao,” how might this make more sense (and relate to a similar idea in the Tao te Ching)?

Q2: Krishna is very critical of those who merely follow the laws (Vedas) or who worship expecting an eternal paradise at the end. Strangely, he seems more tolerant of people of others faiths, or even of people with little faith at all, but who exhibit a “pure heart.” Why would someone ignorant of the laws often have a better chance at salvation than those who know and study them religiously, according to the text?

Q3: These chapters talk a little more explicitly about concepts that we’ve embraced here in the West, such as Karma and Yoga. Which of these concepts changes the most for you in the reading? Why have we slightly (or completely) misunderstood the concept based on how it’s used in the Gita?

Q4: In many religions, the world is seen as a constant struggle between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil. While this does play a role in The Bhagavad Gita, why is the idea of good vs. evil not entirely correct, according to Krishna? Why is this, too, a mark of delusion which leads men to suffering? 

For Wednesday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 1-5

 If you missed class on Friday, or simply forgot what we talked about, I introduced The Mahabharata, the epic from which our next book, The Bhagavad Gita comes from. Here are some quick reference points about the epic:

“No Indian ever hears the Mahabharata for the first time.” according to Wendy Doniger, Prof. U of Chicago. Why? Because it's as much a part of their culture as fairy tales, the Bible, and Star Wars/Harry Potter are to our culture. Everyone simply grows up knowing and hearing about it. This is true for most of Southeastern Asia, since the story has spread far and wide and has been re-told in hundreds of languages throughout India and beyond.

The name: The Maha (Great) Bharata (legendary king, name for India itself)

The date: c.1500 BCE, though there are many versions of the story, and they don't all agree with one another

The story: an epic story of poetry and prose which is a combination of The Lord of the Rings, the Tao te Ching, The Iliad, and Marvel Comics. Basically, it's the story of how 5 semi-divine brothers are at odds with their 100 cousins, and how the cousins are continually plotting to kill them off. This eventually leads to a gigantic civil war which will threaten to kill almost everyone in the kingdom, and people on both sides are worried about the consequences of this. 

The author: Apparently written by the sage Vyasa, who appears in the work as a character

Its Relevance: One small chapter of the work is our next book, The Bhagavad Gita, which is one of the foundational texts of Hinduism. The Mahabharata is a gigantic story with hundreds of characters and events, but the story often breaks off for philosophical and religious discussions, and The Bhagavad Gita is one of those. 

THE OPENING: 

The Bhagavad Gita opens with two people talking: DHRITA-RASHTA, who is the blind king and the father of the 100 cousins, one of whom, Duryodhaha, is said to be the embodiment of evil. The other person is SANJAYA, who is his friend and counselor. SANJAYA is narrating these events to DHRITA-RASTHA, partly because he's blind, but partly for our benefit. 

The story is about ARJUNA, one of the 5 semi-divine brothers, who is leading part of the army into battle. His chariot is being driven by KRISHNA, who is a king and also the 'avatar' of Vishnu. ARJUNA is reluctant to march into battle and kill so many of his friends and relatives and wants a peaceful solution. He would rather lose than have their blood on his hands. KRISHNA begins to debate with him about the nature of good and evil, just and unjust, and what it means to do one's duty. Which leads to the questions below...

Answer TWO of the following for Wednesday:

 

Q1: Despite all the strange and exotic names used in this book, what makes Krishna’s dilemma a completely universal (and relatable) one? Why might anyone who has to go to war (or even to contemplate war) ask many of the same questions, or come to many of the same conclusions? 

Q2: What does Krishna mean when he says, “And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another’s, even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death” (20)? Does this statement justify murder and bloodshed? Isn’t he suggesting that since Arjuna was born a prince he has to fight and kill like a prince? Do you find this a convenient statement, or does it have another meaning?

Q3: In a passage that sounds like the Tao te ching, Krishna says, “The unreal never is: the Real never is not” (11). How might this connect to an important idea in the Tao te ching and does it mean the same thing here?  Isn’t this a complicated way to say “real things are real, unreal things are unreal”? Or is it trickier than that?

Q4: One of the central teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism is right action—or as Krishna says, “Set thy heart upon work, but never on its reward” (13). Why is this important? If the job gets done, and the work is good, does it matter in what spirit the work is done? Can anyone really tell if a building is constructed by someone who doesn’t want money?