|
Post by allegra on Oct 3, 2013 22:22:30 GMT
The best conversation by far that I had was one that was held at the table with the Emily Dickens poem in which we discussed Nirvana and what it meant for Siddhartha. Mr Parris accompanied us in this discussion, and, using his cup of water (actually it was vodka) we formed some concrete realizations of Siddhartha. We talked about the water being nourishing: Nirvana, but that it is bad in large quantities. One of my favourite points that was made was one made by Hannah Lewman who hypothesized that Siddhartha wanted to remove the cup in order to have only the water, but that the cup, though not part of the water, was essential in order for a person to experience the water. I also made a comment about the container of the water saying that the container can change but the contents will not; the cup is like Vasudeva, not a teacher but a guide.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Oct 3, 2013 23:46:36 GMT
The best conversation I had was centered around the same topic that Gary enjoyed ("What blurt is this about vice and virtue?"). The question itself was thought-provoking, but what made the conversation even better was Keely's efforts at driving the conversation deeper. After anyone else made a point, she would ask another question that would either prompt another view of the subject matter or spur the conversation to move to a different (but intertwined) subject matter.
Our conversation at first focused on how Hesse blends seemingly opposite things into a singular idea, and because of that Whitman's statement, "What blurt is this about vice and virtue?", is relevant because vice and virtue can be the same thing under the philosophy found in Siddhartha. This led to the subject of why vice and virtue can be the same thing---which was mostly due to the individuality of perception, taking on a kind of "one man's trash is another man's treasure" route. My favorite part of the conversation, however, was our discussion on fate and free will that followed it. Avinash and I cha-cha-ed about how these ideas fit into Siddartha, Avinash focusing on how Govinda's path was fate-driven while Siddartha's path was the result of free-will (in other words, that by following the Gotama Buddha, Govinda was being led by fate), which sparked a mini-epiphany in me: that in the world of Siddartha fate and free-will seem to coincide because although Siddartha seems to act with his own free will, his eventual idea that past, present, and future coexist is very much a fate-based way of looking at the world. I then concluded that in Siddartha, it almost appears that the characters create their own fate. Keely then led us into the subject of the nature of fate, and th-SWITCH!
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Oct 4, 2013 0:03:57 GMT
The greatest conversation I had was at the table in which we discussed "om" mainly because the idea of finding om or having om baffles my mind. My group extended this topic outward to include not only om, but also nirvana and enlightenment because they all seem to be intertwined. I do not remember exactly who was in my group, but I do remember that Shannon pointed out that maybe Siddhartha found his "om" or "nirvana" because he realized that there was no such thing as nirvana. This idea that nirvana does not exist got me to question whether one can ever really reach enlightenment. I asked almost all of my groups whether they thought one could ever reach nirvana since like the river, we are in a perpetual state of growing and learning, which ultimately affect our perceptions and beliefs. I also really enjoyed the bull-ordering table because of one phrase that caught my attention: "I think that the concept of "enlightenment" is a really selfish thing". This was stated by the wonderful Haley who also brought up the question, "How can we be perfectly content with everything when there is so much going on in the world?". This also allowed me to expand my thoughts because it further made me question the idea of "om" or "nirvana". I began to wonder how one person could find harmony and unity with the world when there is still so much cruelty present. The most powerful conversations for me were the ones that made me question the beliefs of Siddhartha.
|
|
|
Post by samwerner on Oct 4, 2013 0:26:19 GMT
The greatest conversation I had was at the math equation table with Matt, David, and (I apologize) two others whose names I don't remember. The math related prompt really interested me because I was the only person at my table not in calc, so it was interesting to hear how math can actually relate to a philosophical preposition. Although part of the brilliant ideas created at that table may have resulted from the fact that it was the last station of the day, (all of us had come up with theories about many aspects pertaining to the novel by then) the ideas brought to the table during the discussion flat out made me excited about education. Moreover, my education has been more focused on taking whatever steps necessary to get good grades, and not much else. FINALLY, learning went beyond percentage points, and I forgot about everything but the deeply philosophical clash of intellectuals. Yesterday marked the first time in ages that I have walked out of a classroom and, for the next several hours, still deliberated over topics discussed in class.
The specifics of the conversation brought out my analytical nature. Because I'm not in calc, I don't remember the exact equation the other geniuses at my table came up with, but I do remember what it represented. We hypothesized that the relationship between samsara and nirvana is actually complementary. Just by seeing the two words, "nirvana" and "samsara," many including myself would consider them polar opposites. The proposed equation pointed out that in considering life, (maybe even Life) the accumulation of samsara and nirvana go hand-in-hand. By the end of the discussion, I developed a theory that, without the help of my compatriots, I never would have considered. We all spoke of how samsara was necessary in order to realize nirvana, and vice-versa. My conclusion was that, perhaps, samsara and nirvana are within reach from the time we develop a conscious state of mind at a young age. However, we always seem to learn the bad before the good, make laws and set boundaries before awarding and enlightening. Because of that sequence of events, I believe nirvana is only so difficult to reach because we approach its counterpart far earlier. If it is assumed that we are all born as "tabla rasa," or blank slates, then how much easier might it be for nirvana to be achieved if we are exposed to enlightenment and goodness before rules or boundaries? I would like to think it would be a completely different mode of thought if nirvana was seen as a simple complement of samsara that is just as easily accessible.
Along with easy access to nirvana, it's important to note that nirvana and samsara aren't shared. In other words, everyone discovers the two on a purely individual level, even if others have described them or attempted to expose them on a broad scale. Assuming this is true, as our group did, I loved the conclusion we all came to: nirvana isn't something a person can almost achieve, for the most enlightened we ever find ourselves is point at which we discover our own form of nirvana. There is no nirvana for the masses, or a broad-scale nirvana with a handbook that anyone can read and then achieve. Tying it back in with math, I don't think a single table group came up with the same equation, which simply goes to prove that we only associate with samsara and nirvana on an individual level. If we lack one, as our equation showed, the other is without meaning. I loved this prompt and the whole activity, and I hope we have many other opportunities to think freely again.
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Oct 4, 2013 0:30:24 GMT
I had so many insightful and amazing conversations it is hard to pick a single conversation. One that stood out to me was the poem by Emily Dickens. This sticks out in my mind because when I read the prompt I thought I knew understood the connection and immediately starting ranting my opinion and how I felt it connected with the book. But after listening to my peers and Mr.Parris, I had a completely different outlook on the meaning of the poem. I was really challenged to push my understanding and think about ideas that hadn't even occurred to me. Mr.Parris gave us a representation/ something to think about; he drank water out of a red plastic cup and we then had to discuss the significance of the gesture. My first instinct was to think that the water was what was the key, but Mr.Parris and other members of my group brought up the idea that it was the cup that influenced the water. It determined not only the taste but the form it takes. I am still thinking about what are the elements in my life that shape me and influence who I am. But I don't want to condemn the other conversation I had, each one was unique and I really enjoyed them all. I got to talk to people who I had never met before and hear a lot of different opinions.
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Oct 4, 2013 1:33:48 GMT
My favorite conversation revolved around the prompt: "What should we be talking about right now?" (or something of similar formulation). I enjoyed a rather active conversation with Travis, Naomi, and Sam. We discussed such matters as whether we should talk about anything at all and whether discussion could bring about enlightenment. We played with an idea addressed in Siddhartha that wisdom cannot be transferred between individuals, only discovered by the individual. We agreed that, although wisdom cannot be transferred through words and conversation, knowledge can, and it is by the use of knowledge that the individual formulates his or her own ideas and is able to seek enlightenment. Wisdom can only be found within, but we can use the knowledge we obtain from others to accelerate our journey on the path to enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Oct 4, 2013 1:40:48 GMT
This is a hard question because so many of the prompts in class yesterday led me and my discussion mates to depths of Siddhartha that I had never even thought about. Among the rotations to random tables attempting to find an open seat, one specific conversation stands out in my mind as eye-opening. Upon first sitting down at the table we all read the single word written on the strip of paper, “OM”. I was immediately frustrated as I relayed to my peers, Fiona, Lacey, and Yong, how I felt like the whole concept of Om in the novel was tackily presented and how I felt the river metaphor to be cheesy. After I let out this exasperated rant and we all shared how we initially felt about the idea of Om and slowly but surely began to discuss and change our perspectives on how we view this concept. Fiona left me in complete awe when she questioned how our opinions of Om would be different if we didn’t already have preconceived notions of the word. If the word om hadn’t become an overused tattoo or a motto for Yoga Clothes Stores, if we didn’t joke about Buddhism and meditation through this sound would our opinion of it be different after reading Siddhartha? I was mind blown as this new perspective that she posed opened up my mind to the possibility that Hesse wasn’t necessarily a cliché guy and that he genuinely believe in the power of om, but in modern day the word has been undermined by the commercialist proportions it has been blown up to that it loses its’ meaning and power to a reader in 2013. In 1951 when this book was published the idea of om was a novel idea, something fresh that Hesse felt the modern reader needed to understand. Unfortunately, as times changed so did the associations that are subconsciously connected to the word. This discussion made me realize how often I go into books without an open mind. It forced me to take a hard look at how subconsciously judgmental I am of a book before I even read it or how many ideas I overlook because I did not previously find them valid. I understand now how hard it is to go into a book completely open-minded, but how necessary this is for me to truly understand what the author wants me to take away from the writing.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by alice on Oct 4, 2013 1:43:09 GMT
The best discussion I had was the one about what time was. In this discussion I had one of those moments where I got really overwhelmed by everything is everything and concepts aren't real but what if they aaaaaaare and what if this and what if that. We discussed how this concept of time has gotten more modernized to meet our societal "needs" when in the good ole days we used to just use moon and sun cycles and whatnot. I mostly rambled about how crazy it is that time is a thing that we can measure because that seems so insane to me.
Someone in our group (maybe Natalie or Julia) brought up the differences in when the book was written and when the book was set, which I thought was really interesting. I wonder how the book would have been different if it was written now instead of in the '50s and how such a change in time can affect things.
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Oct 4, 2013 1:44:16 GMT
David, Sam, Rachel, and Sheridan know what's up. Bring on the math. Envision Dodson discussing an error he's just seen on a test. He's amped. He's heated. He's sarcastic: "I told you last year that you only had to memorize TWO trigonometric functions! TWO! And you let me down like this!" Well, Dodson, not this time. (Sinx)^2 + (Cosx)^2 =1 is a fundamental equation in understanding the relationship between the main trigonometric functions, sine and cosine. David and I knew almost immediately that this was the perfect connection to Siddhartha.Sine and Cosine (depicted above) are nearly identical-- they have the same period, domain and range. Yet, Sine is shifted pi/2 units to the right of Cosine, giving it its own unique and defining properties. The graphs are perfect complements of one another, as opposed to identical or opposite forms. Combined, they form a beautiful graph-- where one is lacking, the other fills in. As trigonometry is the study and relationships within triangles, sine and cosine are used to define the hypotenuse of a right triangle. That is where the equation, (Sinx)^2 + (Cosx)^2 =1, is derived from. In other words, the two complementing functions can combine to form a whole. The same can be said for samsara and nirvana: (Samsara)^2 + (Nirvana)^2 = Om. The two are not mutually exclusive, just as a triangle cannot be understood without both trigonometric functions. Om is not achieved through Nirvana itself, but through the combination of the complementing forces, Samsara and Nirvana-- through the necessity of imperfection to achieve perfection. The finite nature of this mathematical representation also perfectly models Siddhartha's journey. We eliminated the possibility of any asymptotic behavior, since Siddhartha did, in the end, discover Om. There is a clear convergence. My brain functions in a very concrete and procedural manner. These correlations we discussed were not only mind blowing, but also unbelievably helpful in deciphering the abstract relationship between Samsara and Nirvana in a way my brain could firmly grasp. I think this process of analysis is very useful for people whose brains work like mine and David's. Additionally, it was fascinating to witness two polar opposites experience something equally meaningful. I was able to cement my understanding of a concept in Siddhartha that I had struggled with through a mathematical representation. Sam, on the other hand, was able to take his clear relationship from Siddhartha and give it shape through our mathematical model (that he had never before seen). We both left the classroom pondering, deep in thought, but about two completely different ideas. This is why our conversation was uniquely fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Oct 4, 2013 1:47:11 GMT
The best conversation that I had during the discussion test was the one about "Between the form of Life and Life" by Emily Dickinson. Not only did I greatly enjoy the poem itself, but I also enjoyed the collaborative effort that it took to analyze the poem. Sam directed our attention to the lines "The difference is as big/ As Liquor at the Lip between/ And the Liquor in the Jug" (Dickinson 2-4). Our came to the conclusion that Dickinson was pointing out the difference between experiencing things and simply observing them. Our group drew a connection to Siddhartha because he refuses to accept second hand knowledge, but rather has to "experience" aspects of life to truly appreciate them. The Buddha, the Samanas, and Brahmins all have distinct hierarchies. Individuals simply follow the leader and try to reach enlightenment or nirvana by observing and learning from people in positions of power. This model of learning is analogous to the "liquor in the jug" because the jug, like the very structured curriculums of organized worship, confine and diminish the value of learning and enlightenment. Siddhartha prefers the "uncorked" method of knowledge-seeking because he continually abandons forms of organized religion to find meaning on his own. As a result, Siddhartha becomes very intellectually flexible, as shown by his lack of a doctrine and his acceptance of people from all walks of life. I drew a connection between the poem, Siddhartha, and the Night Thoreau Spent in Jail. In the latter, Thoreau preaches to Ellen that education should not be confined to a classroom or a textbook, but it should be outdoors and intuitive by nature. Thoreau, like Siddhartha prefers to experience things firsthand because he believes in intellectual and spiritual freedom. Lastly, Amy made a very insightful point that offered a different perspective on the poem. She argued that Siddhartha would not necessarily like the poem because it tries to draw a distinction between different ways of living. Siddhartha's revelation at the end of the novel is that there is value in every type of way of living due to the unified nature of life. Our group agreed with her point, acknowledging that simply because two theories contradict each other does not mean they are mutually exclusive. Overall, I really enjoyed the discussion on "Between the form of Life and Life" because it exposed me to a new poem and perspective on Siddhartha, both of which were enhanced by our group's collaborative efforts.
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Oct 4, 2013 2:29:06 GMT
My favorite discussion actually took place in the "cop out" table. It was interesting to experience how slow the discussion began without a direction given to us by a "higher being." Just like Govinda, we found comfort in structure. Our group, after the minute of "soooo...." began to look at other tables (maybe in hopes that the slowness of pace at our table could be erased through detachment.)We discussed how wonderful it was that we were allowed the opportunity to discuss with our classmates to the extent given. We did not discuss Siddhartha as we did at the other tables. And as much as I adore the book, it was nice to have 7 minutes of what we created at that table last class.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by Kasey on Oct 4, 2013 2:31:14 GMT
My favorite discussion was the one about time. I spend a buttload of time thinking about time, because it's such a driving force in human life. Wake up at a certain time, school starts at a certain time, periods within school start at a certain time, my bus leaves at a certain time and God forbid I'm late for any of that. Still, I've assigned that time doesn't actually exists and, like numbers and words and money and other things that drive human life, it was a unit of measurement made up by humans... though I think the natural change in the world exists. So I agreed with the quote. Other people at my table didn't agree though, and it was interesting to hear their points because of how much time I spend thinking about time, and after taking more time to think about time, I've refined my opinion about the existence of time. Time time time time time.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Oct 4, 2013 2:32:12 GMT
The best conversation I had took place at the table where "om" was discussed. "Om" is easily where I made the most connections between the text and my thoughts, aided by my peers of course. There was a hot debate whether or not "om" is truly universal, if it can actually be reached by someone much less adept than Siddhartha. The point was raised that the most exclusive epiphany in life, "om", is granted by the most common thing in life, the river. The river, which everybody relies on to bathe and drink from, winds itself all throughout India, offering its wisdom to all who are willing to listen. In a sense, "om" is not exclusive at all, but readily available to those who wish to seek it. What is exclusive is the desire to find "om", which can be obscured by false teachings and the willingness to live life through others. Those who truly desire enlightenment will find "om", because they see it, hear it, and depend on it every day of their lives. At the end of the conversation, there was a basic consensus that "om" is not rare, but instead misplaced.
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Oct 4, 2013 2:35:23 GMT
My favorite discussion came at the table with the Walt Whitman quote “What blurt is this about virtue and about vice?” We started out talking about the relationship between Walt’s quote and Siddhartha’s enlightened view of Nirvana and Samsara. That was the boring part. We ended up exploring whether it was in fact true that everyone was good and evil at the same time and how the fate vs free will argument played a role in this question. When you dig deeper into the book, remnants of the fate vs free will argument can be found throughout the story. One such instance is the relationship between Govinda and Siddhartha. Govinda represents fate because of his nature as a follower. Of course, there is a sign that this changes at the end of the book after he talks to Siddhartha. Siddhartha, on the other hand, is the antithesis of Govinda and represent free will. Siddhartha’s almost spontaneous decisions (like leaving his father’s home) led me to this conclusion.
Fate plays a huge role in Siddhartha’s life even if Siddhartha follows the doctrine of free will more closely. If you think about, the likelihood of certain events happening in Siddhartha’s life is very small. Meeting the ferryman, his son, Kamala, and Govinda again are all instances of low probability. Maybe it is fate that controls these occurrences. Let’s take a closer look at Siddhartha and “little” Siddhartha. It seems “fated” from the very first time the two meet that Siddhartha’s son is bound to leave Siddhartha. Their differences seem irreconcilable. This is not very different from when Siddhartha himself choose to leave his father’s household against his father’s wishes. I perceived the passage between Siddhartha and his son to be controlled by the fate of previous happenings (with Siddhartha and his father). In our table group, we all defined fate in a different way. It was interesting to stop and realize how nebulous the idea fate really is. The way I thought of fate, in the context of Siddhartha, is that fate is the process of allowing free will to others. This is one of the themes I was able to extract from the book. I guess this is a confusing idea, but it is easier when you look at Siddhartha and his son. Siddhartha allowed fate to play its role by ultimately giving his son the free will to choose his own path.
This discussion helped me formulate ideas that I never could have come up with if I was thinking alone. I saw the book through a different lens and this helped improve my personal understanding of the text and come to terms with some of the more complex ideas that are presented.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Oct 4, 2013 3:04:15 GMT
The greatest conversation I had was at the table that simply said, "There is no time". David, Jeff, and I had an incredibly in depth talk about the fact that time is something created by us humans to help us come to terms with our mortality. We really can't comprehend a world without time. Time essentially holds our lives together. And the thing is, the closer we get to the speed of light, the slower "time" passes. If you watch a clock as you get closer to the speed of light, the hand slows to a halting stop. At this point we become one with time. This conversation was really eye opening and made me realize how much of my life is invested in time.
|
|