There are so many disorganized thoughts floating around in my head after class today that I don't know where to begin or how to piece them together. Ironically, the Mahabharata is the same way, with a convoluted beginning and end. I'll just start writing them as they come to me.
I learned today about the normative–that is prescriptive nature of gods–as opposed to being normal. It works in the whole you create X and are created by X paradox. In such a manner, we often think gods created us in their image. But what is their image? It is whatever we conceive it to be, and in such a way do we create the gods. It follows then that when a god should have to take human form, that form manifests as the purest, moral, and altogether perfect essense of a human. This occurs when Vishnu deigns to be reborn as Rama in order to slay a demon whom Brahma bestowed a boon preventing him from beng killed by gods. Rama's supreme attributes would easily lead others to believe him to be of divine origin, and rightly so. In this way, the literary character of Rama (normative by design) and others like him from other epics become paradigms of humanity. We are every character in the Mahabharata because it while on the surface it is a normal text, its authors made it to be normative. In this way one can relate to every character in some way, either by the sin one commits that one recognizes as something one might do, or in the righteous act one would like to do and can see oneself doing. It all depends on how one engages one's karma. One always has the right to act, and if one does so with disregard to the fruits of the act, then one will incur good karma.
I now have some insight into why people like Arjuna have 10+ names. What is at stake is the relationship between personal identity and a greater sense of self. For example, there are quite a few people named Krsna, but how we distinguish between them and the Lord Krsna? The answer is more names. A surplus of names expands one's identity, so Arjuna can be identified as the son of Drapudi, the son of Indra, the ambidextrous archer, etc. While only one of these names might confuse someone since there could be numerous possibilities, such as the son of Drapudi, multiple names solidifies the character's identity into something specific. Additionally, names are not just titles, which would tell what someone does, but tells who they are.
The corollary of names is that things have function, which tells what they do, and not who they are. One does not always lead to the other, however. Having a name tells what what one's function is, so the son of a brahman is going to do brahman things. Without a name one does not know one's proper function, such a Karna thinking he was the son of a charioteer. Function does not lead to name, however, as this would contradict the way things are. Arjuna's dancing was great, except he was having an identity crisis and such occupation is inappropriate for a royal warrior. In order to assume one's identity, one must align name and function. Only then will one walk the footsteps of one's destiny.
I think juxtaposing this with today's society is interesting because there is much more leeway for self-efficacy to explore one's option then there was in antiquity. If you were born to a warrior, you were to become a warrior. I think it would be interesting to inquire into the sociological circumstances that both societies–that of assigning names and allowing one to pick one's name–succumb to and investigate which method of upbringing yields the least problems and the most benefits. Which style is more advantageous? I may engage such a research project at a later time. What is at stake in all this is purely ontic, because without a name one cannot properly function.
I learned today about the normative–that is prescriptive nature of gods–as opposed to being normal. It works in the whole you create X and are created by X paradox. In such a manner, we often think gods created us in their image. But what is their image? It is whatever we conceive it to be, and in such a way do we create the gods. It follows then that when a god should have to take human form, that form manifests as the purest, moral, and altogether perfect essense of a human. This occurs when Vishnu deigns to be reborn as Rama in order to slay a demon whom Brahma bestowed a boon preventing him from beng killed by gods. Rama's supreme attributes would easily lead others to believe him to be of divine origin, and rightly so. In this way, the literary character of Rama (normative by design) and others like him from other epics become paradigms of humanity. We are every character in the Mahabharata because it while on the surface it is a normal text, its authors made it to be normative. In this way one can relate to every character in some way, either by the sin one commits that one recognizes as something one might do, or in the righteous act one would like to do and can see oneself doing. It all depends on how one engages one's karma. One always has the right to act, and if one does so with disregard to the fruits of the act, then one will incur good karma.
I now have some insight into why people like Arjuna have 10+ names. What is at stake is the relationship between personal identity and a greater sense of self. For example, there are quite a few people named Krsna, but how we distinguish between them and the Lord Krsna? The answer is more names. A surplus of names expands one's identity, so Arjuna can be identified as the son of Drapudi, the son of Indra, the ambidextrous archer, etc. While only one of these names might confuse someone since there could be numerous possibilities, such as the son of Drapudi, multiple names solidifies the character's identity into something specific. Additionally, names are not just titles, which would tell what someone does, but tells who they are.
The corollary of names is that things have function, which tells what they do, and not who they are. One does not always lead to the other, however. Having a name tells what what one's function is, so the son of a brahman is going to do brahman things. Without a name one does not know one's proper function, such a Karna thinking he was the son of a charioteer. Function does not lead to name, however, as this would contradict the way things are. Arjuna's dancing was great, except he was having an identity crisis and such occupation is inappropriate for a royal warrior. In order to assume one's identity, one must align name and function. Only then will one walk the footsteps of one's destiny.
I think juxtaposing this with today's society is interesting because there is much more leeway for self-efficacy to explore one's option then there was in antiquity. If you were born to a warrior, you were to become a warrior. I think it would be interesting to inquire into the sociological circumstances that both societies–that of assigning names and allowing one to pick one's name–succumb to and investigate which method of upbringing yields the least problems and the most benefits. Which style is more advantageous? I may engage such a research project at a later time. What is at stake in all this is purely ontic, because without a name one cannot properly function.
posted by Moonshynn at 10:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home