|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Oct 4, 2013 2:21:24 GMT
During each discussion at the tables, I was constantly being nagged by one thought. Does enlightenment have to be contained and isolated within the individual, or can people be associated with anyone who is enlightened? For instance, Vasudeva was considered by Siddhartha to be enlightened. But it is not until Siddhartha himself becomes enlightened that Vasudeva leaves the river for the woods. The question of enlightenment then becomes ambiguous. Knowing that Vasudeva is enlightened, Siddhartha places him on a higher level than his own, initially making Vasudeva an exalted character. This view of Vasudeva draws a parallel between him and Gotama, suggesting that the transfer of enlightenment is really a facade. However, upon confirming that Siddhartha undersands "om", Vasudeva presumably dies, never to be heard from again. Considering the nature of unity that is "om", it would be plausible that death is the ultimate bridge between self and everything else. In a summarizing point, is enlightenment fully realized when those who are enlightened are still forced to be in contact with those who are not?
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Oct 4, 2013 2:38:25 GMT
Many of us might be feeling that we have already talked extensively about the the symbol of the river in "Siddhartha," but I feel like that symbol was pretty deep (no pun intended) and multifarious. My prompt would have asked about some perhaps less obvious interpretations of the river's function as a symbol.
Many of us have discussed the river as an overarching symbol for the concept of "Om" because it seems to give clarity to this pretty abstract idea. But there are several other possible interpretations of the river that give light to different themes in the book. For example, the river emphasizes the idea of duality. A river is, essentially, a divide; rivers often divide states and countries and separate opposing sides. When one is on the river, however, he or she is not on one side or the other. Thus, the river serves as an excellent representation of the idea of duality. Siddhartha spent much of his life figuratively on one side of the river or the other, embodying extreme attitudes. It was not until he appreciated the duality of those extremes and spent his life on the river rather than on one side of it that he was able to achieve enlightenment.
The river speaks to ideas of the self. While part of the river remains the same, it is also constantly changing and flowing forward with time. Our self, similarly, remains constant and always with us despite the fact that we are always changing with the passage of time.
I'm sure that if we were able to discuss the river more extensively in class we would have come up with even more interpretations of this layered and complex symbol.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Oct 4, 2013 3:03:09 GMT
I'm really not a fan of the enlightenment philosophy and was slightly irritated when multiple discussions turned to it. For my question, hopefully this doesn’t point right back to enlightenment, I would write on the slip "become part of om." A few students would assembly say, "you can’t become part of it, you already are in om." I am thinking, however, of the students who don't immediately agree with Buddhism philosophy. What does being part of om entail? A role in society? Being one with nature? Where does om appear in your life and how are you a part of it? You could easily argue that om is everywhere and everything, but think about when you are conscious of it.
Also, someone asked this question during one of the discussions (I'm sorry if you wanted to post it here too!) "Why did Hesse write this book?" Siddhartha is not Buddha, and the ideas of Buddhism already existed, so what purpose does this novel serve? If there even is one... Or is it just to express the ideas of Buddhism in a different way? This question really made me think.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Oct 4, 2013 3:27:46 GMT
Despite its simple plot, “Siddhartha” is a very complex and intricate novel. Yet Hesse chose to portray his characters in a minimalistic fashion. And because of this, I sometimes find that we don’t really feel that connection to Siddhartha and his life’s journey. In some ways it’s like we’re almost set at a distance because we can’t completely understand Siddhartha’s revelations about the sound of universal peace. So as an analysis on style, I think it would have been really worthwhile if we discussed the characteristics of Hesse’s novel and the reasoning for making his piece follow a minimalistic pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Oct 4, 2013 3:42:58 GMT
We discussed this at the extra-option table: What is the meaning of the cover artwork on the novel? Does Buddha really play enough of role in the story to take the cover, or is it just a clique picture to put on the front of a novel? I think there's some good arguments to either side of this question, because no matter how many times people say "Don't judge a book by it's cover" we all do it at some point or other. Covers can add or detract a lot form a novel and is this particular cover helpful or hurtful? There are other themes in the novel about nirvana, enlightenment, goals, life, love, etc that, in my opinion, deserved a spot on the cover over Buddha, but I wonder what other's thoughts are.
|
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Oct 4, 2013 3:55:02 GMT
Unfortunately, because I had to leave early for the Cross Country meet I was unable to experience all of the prompts/questions during the discussion. One thing about Siddhartha (the novel) that I thought was very interesting was the difference between Siddhartha and the Buddha. As I'd brought up in our previous class-wide discussion, I see their relationship as being similar to that of Emerson and Thoreau. I really like this comparison and think it's work exploring further. I don't think the comparison between the Buddha and Siddhartha is a fair one, however. Siddhartha is looking for his Self, for enlightenment while the Buddha has already found it. The only way to make a more appropriate comparison would be to look at the Buddha through his followers (Govinda for example), his interactions with them (through his teachings), and their paths to enlightenment (or and end to all suffering) as directed by the Buddha. I think this levels the playing field a bit while also still enabling a lot of debate over the differences between each of their approaches to both finding enlightenment and sharing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 4, 2013 3:56:52 GMT
In all the discussions my groups had, we never really touched on enlightenment. I'd like to know what it means to be enlightened, and whether or not Siddhartha and Govinda, and even Buddah went about the quest for enlightenment the best possible way.
|
|
|
|
Post by rileyhatfield on Oct 4, 2013 4:04:46 GMT
Another prompt that I would have put on the table would be: Reflect on the saying, "No pain no gain," regarding the path to enlightenment.
The reason I would choose this prompt is because the path to enlightenment in Siddhartha really intrigued me. What I find interesting is the quote at the end of the book after Siddhartha is finally enlightened by the river. "I learned through my body and soul that is was necessary for me to sin, that I needed lust, that I had to strive for property and experience nausea and the depths of despair in order to learn to love the world..." (Hesse 144). This quote doesn't talk about a lot suffering but talks more about desire. For example, the desire to sin and therefore the act of sinning. And in the Four Noble Truths, Samudaya states that desire causes suffering. Doesn't everyone desire? Doesn't everyone therefore suffer? And if you don't suffer, how do you grow and change as a person? So isn't suffering necessary for enlightenment since everyone must go through it to really know what life is?
|
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Oct 4, 2013 4:08:08 GMT
Something I wondered as I read Siddhartha was the fate of Siddhartha's father the Brahmin. The novel changes so much from beginning to end. Differently from many novels, some characters are simply dropped after their piece of the story is told, the main example being his father. In the beginning, Siddhartha's father seems like such an important character and contributor to the person Siddhartha was at the time. After Siddhartha leaves to become a Samana, he never makes any effort to reconnect with his family, and barely thinks of his father again until his own son has restarted the cycle. So my question is what happened to Siddhartha's father? Why didn't Siddhartha ever go back? Also, there is much talk of love and how Siddhartha never loved until he had a son of his own. Does that mean he did not love his own father? If he didn't, why didn't he?
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Oct 4, 2013 4:14:12 GMT
The effect of repetition
To clarify, I do not mean "repetition" as the repetition of words or phrases. Rather, I mean "repetition" in regards to events in the novel. For example, Siddhartha's son, like Siddhartha, chooses to abandon his father. And let's not forget the astounding similarities between Siddhartha the protagonist and Siddhartha the Buddha. Hesse illustrates, "[Siddhartha] smiled peacefully and gently, perhaps very graciously, perhaps very mockingly, exactly as the Illustrious One had smiled" (Hesse 151).
What effect does repetition have on the novel?
|
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Oct 4, 2013 4:19:23 GMT
We discussed time, death and life, the development of Om, and danced around the idea of how everything develops and flows, but we never had a straight forward conversation about change. I would have liked to hear what others had to say about the role of change in Siddartha. At the end of the book, Siddartha appears to have found enlightenment, or at least he has discovered Om. And then he stays by the river through the end of the book. That fact that he is so stationary at this time makes me wonder whether or not he continued his theme of constantly changing. It's curious to me because Siddartha is such a dynamic character, and he is constantly moving locations, which symbolizes his ever changing mentality. So, when he doesn't move from the river it made me wonder if he had stopped changing, or maybe he continued developing mentally but simply wasn't moving. What do you think about change in this novel? Do you believe Siddartha had stopped changing at the end of the book, or that he continued to change but the fact that he was locationally stationary was a symbolic statement?
|
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Oct 4, 2013 4:20:40 GMT
While I was glad that topics such as "Om", "time", and "nirvana and samsara" were covered, maybe there could have been a prompt that explored changes in character and ideals in regards to Siddhartha. I find him to be a fascinating character. How did his search and/or destruction (and perhaps even his own definition) of the Self change throughout the novel? At the beginning, Siddhartha seems to have a very pessimistic view of life: "...everything lied, stank of lies; they were all illusions of sense, happiness and beauty. All were doomed to decay. The world tasted bitter. Life was pain" (14). This is a dramatic change from the end, so it would be interesting to explore the contrast. Also, we covered this in one of the conversations, though it wasn't a specific prompt, but we talked about the role of teachers to Siddhartha, how anyone helped him in his journey though he insisted on isolation, ideologically and emotionally, most of the time. We talked about the change in his path of life as a result of Gotama's teachings and the almost god-like image of Vasudeva. There are just so many possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Oct 4, 2013 4:42:43 GMT
"Where are you in the journey to Om?"*
*if you feel like you are searching for enlightenment or meaning (it's okay if you are not), where are you in that journey and does your personal journey have distinct similarities and differences to Siddhartha's?
^^I think after reading Siddhartha this is what I thought about the most and what I would be most eager to hear about from others.
|
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Oct 4, 2013 5:13:26 GMT
It seemed as if the class automatically assumed that Nirvana, enlightenment, Om and Samsara existed. We discussed the different possibilities through which we could reach enlightenment, in class and during the test, and the different definitions of enlightenment that we all had. But talking with some of my groups during the discussion test, I felt that that enlightenment, Nirvana and the like could quite possibly not even exist.
My Question would be: Do any of the spiritual themes found in Siddartha actually exist?
In modern times, it seems that more and more people are resigned to the philosophy that we are simply a bunch of particles moving around and nothing more. Then perhaps enlightenment is not a soul transcending the boundary between the physical and the spiritual world, but a rush of endorphin in the pleasure-region of our brain. In that case, would those with clinical depression (brain is incapable of creating and recognizing these chemicals) ever feel enlightenment, or are they doomed to live in Samsara forever?
It is interesting to note that Siddartha openly admits to Govinda that wisdom cannot be taught. I would like to have to have talked about if Govinda and others could not be taught enlightenment because their brains were not wired to give them the sense of euphoria that Siddartha experienced. Maybe some people, not just those with depression, simply cannot reach the state of "enlightenment" due to how particles interact in the brain. This is one discussion I would have loved to have with my peers.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Oct 4, 2013 5:16:42 GMT
I really enjoyed the topics we discussed, but I feel there was an OM-shaped hole where enlightenment should have been. I found myself returning to the subject at almost every table. Enlightenment is what Siddhartha and Govinda seek as Samanas and seems to be the name they give to that which they seek. Eventually, Siddhartha tells Govinda that he believes that "amongst all the Samanas, probably not even one will attain Nirvana" (18). I wish I could have had a discussion about what exactly Siddhartha seeks. I am far from understanding what constitutes Nirvana or qualifies as enlightenment. I guess that just as Siddhartha changes his focus often in his journey but always has enlightenment and nirvana at the back of his mind, so too I never forgot the two mysteries. I am very curious about what others think of Nirvana. Can it be attained? If not, why do people seek it? Are they right in doing so? And of enlightenment, does Siddhartha attain it? Or is it only OM that he transfers through Govinda's kiss? I don't get much out I discussing that which I understand, I would rather throw my confused conceptions out into the discussion and receive them back splattered with views I had not considered. I would have enjoyed a chance to discuss the topic, What are Nirvana and Enlightenment?
|
|
