|
Post by natalieskowlund on Oct 4, 2013 5:21:20 GMT
Question: How does the fundamental philosophy of Om and achieving enlightenment conflict with, or enhance, the American definition of finding meaning in life? What might this say about the roots of modern international relations? How much of an impact do long-held foundational values have in deciding our relations with other nations?
In discussing *Siddhartha* with my peers both inside and outside of my English class, I noticed a spectrum of different reactions to the novel. Some absolutely loved it, while others despised Siddhartha's story with a passion. For most, it was not Siddhartha himself that aggravated or attracted them most, but the overarching philosophical concepts of the novel. Due to this novel's foundations in Eastern thought, it seemed to spark more philosophical controversy than most other pieces of literature we have read in English over the years. The study of cultures fascinates me, and hence I couldn't help but wonder what about the American culture specifically contradicts the view of life's ultimate meaning and essence relayed in *Siddhartha*. Several people I talked to expressed dissatisfaction about the fact that achieving enlightenment (Nirvana) equates to being able to fully accept the transience of every occurrence in life, whether good or bad. They asserted that it does not seem right to simply watch bad events happen with serene passivity. Furthermore, I also heard complaints about Siddhartha's lack of action on the behalf of others in the novel; even when he finds enlightenment, he appears to be so focused on his own ability to hear Om that he neglects to reach out to others. Many who advocated for *Siddhartha*, however, insisted that the book's emphasis on the interconnectedness of everything is extremely profound.
So what is the deciding factor? What detracts or appeals to us, American high school students, about this story? Reading a book from a very different cultural background requires a significant amount of open mindedness, but also self-reflection. I think that before we condemn or praise any piece of literature, we must analyze what about our background and values makes us feel as we do. It is easy to blindly judge something, but to truly appreciate a piece of art--whether our opinion of it is positive or negative--we need to break out of the confines of our own mind and look objectively at the similarities and differences between our own perspective and that portrayed in the piece.
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Oct 4, 2013 5:49:51 GMT
Alone With Everybody
the flesh covers the bone and they put a mind in there and sometimes a soul, and the women break vases against the walls and the men drink too much and nobody finds the one but keep looking crawling in and out of beds. flesh covers the bone and the flesh searches for more than flesh.
there's no chance at all: we are all trapped by a singular fate.
nobody ever finds the one.
the city dumps fill the junkyards fill the madhouses fill the hospitals fill the graveyards fill
nothing else fills.
-- Charles Bukowski
what would Siddartha say?
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Oct 4, 2013 6:10:17 GMT
What is the universe? Is it the tangible? Is it the intangible? Is it a mix of both? (That's four questions but if that's bad then I choose the first question as the one I would ask.)
When Siddhartha picks up a stone and shows it to Govinda he explains that he loves it because it is part of a whole, it is a part of everything. "Everything" is the universe. But I ask the question I do because I wonder if Siddhartha thinks the rock is physically everything else or if the rock is part of the Atman, which is not a physical thing at all. This book makes sense to me but also confuses me on so many levels. Because of this my explanation is lame, but I truly do think talking about what the universe consists of could be an interesting prompt because I think that our different ideas of The Universe may reveal how differently we understood Siddhartha's realization that everything in the universe is unified and the same.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Oct 4, 2013 6:19:49 GMT
Enlightenment: Variable or Constant?
While Siddartha's quest for enlightenment is the focus of the novel, the enlightenment of other characters (Vasudeva, Govinda) introduces the possibility that the concept may hold greater depth. Does enlightenment vary from person to person? Is the concept tied to the individual or to the whole of humanity? Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Oct 4, 2013 6:36:27 GMT
I wish we would have expanded on the ending (when Govinda kisses Siddhartha on the head), because I feel this aspect of the novel was somewhat ignored in discussion... Perhaps this occurrence holds greater meaning? I personally thought the ending was weak, but it would have been interesting to listen to other people's perspective and interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Oct 4, 2013 7:27:49 GMT
MOTIFS!
I wanted a discussion that explicitly had to do with analyzing some of the major recurring motifs in the novel. I was very interested in hearing what other members of the class had to say about Kamala's songbird, the content smile that is shared by Gotama and Siddhartha (at the end of the novel), and the river. Parris brought up an interesting question about whether or not the river was a continuous stream or a cycle. When our discussion group started getting into the heat of this question… Parris yelled TIME!
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Oct 4, 2013 7:49:11 GMT
Do the contradictions in "Siddhartha" detract from the meaning of the story?
For example: In the beginning of the novel, Siddhartha explains how he does not believe in the art of teaching. Enlightenment can only be achieved individually and without outside influences. However, at the end of the novel when Govinda is asking about how Siddhartha achieved Nirvana, he asks Govinda to his him on the forehead. Knowing that this would have some kind of effect on Govinda, Siddhartha basically guides his best friend to enlightenment, which contradicts his belief in self-teach. Maybe I was one of the few people who was bothered by the numerous contradictions presented by Hesse.
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Oct 4, 2013 13:08:49 GMT
How did this book affect you and your life? Did the ideas in “Siddhartha” inspire you or motivate you to look at your own life in a different way? What has your soul learned from reading this book?
I found that the most valuable conversations I had were those in which we, as the readers, contextualized ourselves within the discoveries of Siddhartha. I think that this topic as an explicit and specific question is an important one to talk about. I know that authorial intent is irrelevant, but I can’t help but feel that this book was not written to simply be beautiful literature—thought it is. I think that we as readers can learn so much from this novel, including expanding our English skills and our own personal stories and understanding. Sharing these understandings, or lack thereof, is an invaluable aspect of the experience of reading this novel that I thought could have had its own question (because it was implied in some of the others).
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Oct 4, 2013 13:19:06 GMT
One of Siddhartha's main tenets is that wisdom cannot be taught, only acquired by oneself. However, at each stage of his life, Siddhartha seems to take on a mentor (Gotama, Kamala, Vasudeva) who helps him move forward in life. Is this inconsistent? If so, what do you think of the idea that one can convey knowledge but not wisdom? I don't think we ever seriously challenged the idea that wisdom is unteachable in class, even though Siddhartha seems to draw most of his wisdom from a few different people over the course of his life. This question gets at the heart of the nature of other individuals in one's search for enlightenment. Are they necessary? Do they act as teachers? Burdens? Things we can observe and learn from? How does this affect Siddhartha's relationships with other people over the course of the book?
|
|
|
Post by travistoal on Oct 4, 2013 17:39:20 GMT
I would like to dance with what Patrick said. Siddhartha spends the novel preaching about how wisdom cannot be shared, and one cannot get information from what somebody else says. After reading this, we all blindly agreed with him, understood that we couldn't get knowledge from somebody else. However, if that were true then we got that wisdom from Herman Hesse himself, so it cannot be true. Bit of a Catch-22. So, my question would be: Is wisdom truly incommunicable?
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Oct 4, 2013 18:56:56 GMT
Is it possible to think the taste of honey is delicious without having had a taste of something bitter?
I personally struggle with the notion that suffering doesn't exist or that it is necessary. As humans, we have never gotten to taste a world that is completely void of evil, corruption and/or foul tasting food. Thus, perhaps I would instead ask the question, Do you think humans created the notion that all the bad in the world is necessary because it is impossible to achieve a world full of only goodness?
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Oct 8, 2013 1:59:21 GMT
The commonalities between all of the table's discussions were quite fascinating. I loved having everything tie together and I loved hearing everyone's different interpretations and musings. I, however, found something especially interesting. A lot of my fellow discussers talked about how they thought Siddhartha as a character was narcissistic, selfish, and hypocritical because of his journey to enlightenment. Because he brushed off the teachings of others and thought only of his own SELF he came across arrogant and we couldn't relate to his path. The class didn't seem to like that he brushed people off and ignored any "teachers". Overall Siddhartha was confused because he learned from Vesudeva yet he believed you couldn't have teachers.. yada yada. BUT What I found most interesting is that we say this about Siddhartha, the novel, yet we ourselves reject the teachings of the novel. We REJECT teachers. We are selfish and think we are smarter than them (sometimes, and I'm guilty). WE are SO much like Siddhartha- selfish beings, and us rejecting the novel proves it! (disclaimer: I LIKED SIDDHARTHA BTW, but everything has it's flaws)
Anyways, my question is Why can't we *learn* from teachers? Is it our pride?
|
|