Daoism or How to Live in a World Without Consequence

After reading the Daoism part of our book it is easy for me to see why Eastern writings are not as often studdied as the more familiar Western texts we were all exposed to in high school.  This is just a completely different animal than anything I had read before.  I'm not sure I can even compare it to the similar literature being produced in the West during the same time frames.  I really feel that it just didn't respect me as a reader.  I truly wish I had those two hours of my life back.

Was it a success for me?  No, it was an unsuccess or a nonsuccess, I'm not really sure which.  I would say it was a failure, but Daoism won't let me.  I take that back.  I guess I can call it a failure, but then if it truly were successful, then it could only be a nonfailure.  It either is or isn't.  It is never opposite because apparently opposites don't really exist.  Everything I thought I knew about the world, I don't.  Do I know nothing or non-nothing?  I can't be an optimist or a pessimist, I can only be an optimist or a non-optimist. 

It might be a great thing to live in a world without labels and opposites, but does that even really exist in the Eastern school of thought.  I have a feeling these things exist, Daoists just choose to ignore them.  To Daoists, do smart people even exist?  Or are they merely not stupid?  If I break a law, am I a lawbreaker, or a non rule follower?  How can I face consequences for my actions when what I am doing isn't wrong?  It is merely not right and the right things are merely not wrong.  But, just because I am doing non rights doesn't mean I am doing wrongs, and just because I am doing non wrongs doesn't mean I am doing right.  It sure is easy to follow, isn't it?

This appears to be a great way of life to embrace if you don't like consequences.  There is always a way to excuse your shortcomings.  Nothing in your life will be a weakness, it will merely be a non strength.  In today's United States where everybody plays the blame game (as in blaming everybody else for your problems), I can't believe that this philosophy is not the dominant one in North America.  Things are the way are because that is the way it is.  We are not responsible for our own actions, we are merely responsible for our own non action or some kind of combination like that.  In all of the double speak, it is pretty easy to get lost.

The way to Oz isn't a path paved with yellow bricks, it is merely covered with non red bricks.  The Boston Red Sox don't have the Green Monster at Fenway Park, they just have the Non Brown Non Human at Fenway Park.  I would have loved to have embraced this in high school, but I don't think my parents would have allowed it.  I am truly not a Daoist because I just don't get it.  My path to heaven will just have to be paved with good intentions, or at least non-bad intentions, and if I end up in Hell, I can just take pride in the fact that it is just non Heaven.

Who is the Real Hero of the Story?

I am going to go against the grain once again to point out that I think the Green Knight is the hero of the story.  I know that Gawain gets top billing and fits all of the stereotypes of the hero, but ponder a few things.  Gawain is somewhat flawed as a hero.  Near as I can tell from sifting through the language of the story, it is quite possible he violated all five of his knightly virtures.  This is not to say that Gawain isn't trying, he just isn't succeeding.  For those of you that are keeping score at home, the five knightly virtues are courtesy, chastity, piety, generosity and friendship.  If you examine Sir Gawain's actions in the story, you can question whether any of the virtues come through unscathed.

Let's contrast Gawain's actions with those of the Green Knight.  The Green Knight, though not a member of King Arthur's round table, adheres to the knightly virtues much better than Sir Gawain.  Now maybe it is because he is supernatural and knows exactly what is going to take place in the future; but I like to believe that it is because he holds the same type of values that the knights of Camelot aspire to hold.  For the Green Knight it comes naturally and he is able to succeed where Gawain fails. 

The great examples of knightly virtues in the story are the two covenants negotiated by the Green Knight and Sir Gawain.  Both of these seem to give Sir Gawain the upper hand.  It is obvious to the casual observer that Gawain is in the superior position in both deals.  In the first, he can kill the Green Knight (or so he thinks) without ever having to face the prospect of losing his head in return.  I just don't see anything noble about beheading a defenseless man.  The Green Knight exposes his neck willingly and Sir Gawain swings hard and takes his head right off.  In the second covenant, Gawain feels like he makes a great deal.  He will be rewarded with the proceeds of the Green Knight's hunts in exchange for perhaps nothing.  All Gawain is doing is lounging around the castle all day.  There is very little way he can not be the beneficiary of this covenant (or so he thinks).

By the end of the story, we can see that despite Sir Gawain's efforts, he has failed in his knightly virtues in both covenants.  I may be stretching a little bit, but it would seem that the generous thing for Gawain to do in the first covenant is to do exactly what the Green Knight did at the end --- swing and nick his opponent rather than taking off his head.  While this would certainly have been a risky play, it does seem appropriate given the situation.  In terms of the second covenant, Sir Gawain had a really easy part to play.  The only thing he needed to do was exchange gifts with his host.  He wasn't able to do this is an honorable way.  He withheld the girdle for personal gain.  After the Green Knight had lavished so much on him, Gawain still chose dishonesty instead of doing the right thing.

At the end of the tale, it is the Green Knight who has represented knightly virtues the best.  He has never violated his word, or behaved in an improper way.  Even after he gave Sir Gawain a chance to show his mettle through a second covenant, Gawain proved to not be up to the task of keeping his word.  Despite that outcome, the Green Knights still sprares Gawain's life.  If that is not heroic behavior, I don't know what is.  The Green Knight continues to shine as a hero because he does not behead Gawain like he could have and maybe should have due to Gawain's failures. 

The Modern World and Love and Forgiveness

This is really a two parter today for my blog.  First, while I didn't enjoy the work much, I would really like to point out how special it is to get to read Kalidasa's story about Sakuntala.  Apparently this play was written sometime between 350-500 C.E. (or A.D. for Mr. Bahlmann).  While it was certainly a celebrated work in India and for practitioners of Hindu everywhere, it wasn't until 1789 that it was translated into English for the first time.  That means that for nearly 1500 years it was impossible for someone who spoke only English to read this story.  It is just amazing to think about someone that was writing his version of a well known story in his area for a performance on stage.  We don't even know how grand a production this was supposed to be.  But, he wrote this play, performed it in front of a group of people over 1500 years ago, and probably never even considered that people from far in the future would still be discussing his work today in a language he never knew existed.  It really is pretty amazing.

On to the second part.  I found it interesting that Sakuntala forgives King Dusyanta as quickly as he shows up.  This is a girl (maybe a woman by the end of the story) who gave up everything important in her life for love.  What was her reward?  She was rejected and denied by her one true love.  Now who hasn't had their heart broken at some point in their life?  When it happens, I think everybody wishes that it was just a bad dream or a mistake which will soon be fixed.  But usually, it just doesn't work out like that.

It is hard for me to understand why Sakuntala allows herself to be taken in by Dusyanta so quickly again.  I know that eventually she learns that King Dusyanta had been cursed, but that comes way after she has already forgive him.  Maybe that really does make her the ideal girl (at least for sadists).  It is lucky that King Dusyanta really does love her, because apparently he can just inflict as much pain and humiliation on her as he wants.  She will keep willingly coming back for more.  Does love mean that you always have to forgive?  Is there no wrong that is too wrong?  I guess in Sakuntala's world the answer is yes to both questions.

I don't know if a version of a story similar to this could be written in the modern world today.  Who would ever believe in a heroine portrayed in such a way?  We have all seen couples in disfunctional relationships where one partner is continually walked over by the other.  However, we don't celebrate it.  The story is what the story is, and Kalidasa probably didn't want to make too many changes to the original plot.  But, I wish that one of the gods would have explained to Sakuntala that she had been cursed by Durvasas.  Maybe then she could have forgiven him and it would have seemed like an outcome that was even possible.  She still couldn't have gone after him without possessing the ring to reveal the truth, but her immediate forgiveness upon seeing him would have held more truth for me.

Sakuntala - Ideal Girl or Homewrecker?

Does beauty trump everything else?  I couldn't help but ask that question while reading Kalidasa's story.  Sure Sakuntala is kind to animals, but other than beauty what else does she really have going for her?  She lives at a hermitage in the forest where she spends her days focussed on the things that are important to her.  She has a few friends, but has never really ventured far enough to see what the world outside her hermitage is like.  We, as readers, never get to know the real Sakuntala.  We don't get to see the things that make her King Dusyanta's ideal girl.

Now the great King Dusyanta who is not only a man of the world, but also its leader, has seen many great things and he has done many great things.  But the minute he sees the young Sakuntala, he immediately falls in love.  Now this must mean that beauty is the single most important factor in judging people.  What else could he possibly be using to judge her?  He has had no interaction with her.  He doesn't know anything else about her, except for the fact that she likes animals.

I must admit that I am not someone who believes in love at first sight.  But even if you take my personal bias out of the equation, it is very hard to see what King Dusyanta must see in Sakuntala other than her beauty.  I certainly believe in attraction at first sight, but I think that is quite a different thing than falling head over heels in love with a person.  Within seconds of first seeing her, King Dusyanta is willing to give up almost everything he holds dear to love her.  He no longer worries about his responsabilities back in the capitol including his current wives. 

Now clearly this story still has relevance in modern times.  King Dusyanta is not the first man, nor will he be the last, to forget all about his current family when he sees a pretty face.  But doesn't the King get to see a lot of pretty faces?  What makes Sakuntala so special?  Unfortunately readers will never know the answer.  We don't know whether or not he has an unhappy life with his other wives.  We don't know if he just has a thing for young girls.  What we do know is that after just one look, nothing in his world is as important to him as Sakuntala.

It is a good thing that King Dusyanta lived in a time before the Indian tabloids really got going.  Can you imagine the field day that tabloid reporters would have with a married King seducing one of the underage daughters of one of the country's religious leaders?  I'm sure the Indian version of Inside Edition would have nightly coverage of the story.  People would be demanding that the government have the King arrested.  Luckily for Dusyanta, he lived in different times.

Gilgamesh as Revisionist History

Like many works of classic literature, Gilgamesh is said to be based on a real person with a real history.  After all, he is named as one of the kings on the historical rolls and served his kingdom for 126 years according to the Sumerian king list.  Now I think we can all agree that there is no way that Gilgamesh was a god, or even part god and it is highly unlikely his reign spanned that kind of timeframe.  People of ancient times liked to think that their rulers were gods because they hoped that it gave their people favor over competing entities in the ancient world.  But let's just take a moment to examine all of the things that supposedly made Gilgamesh great, and a king worth remembering.

1)  Gilgamesh built a wall around the city (or rather he supervised the building of a wall around the city).
2)  Enkidu and Gilgamesh travel to the Cedar Mountain where Gilgamesh slays the monstrous Humbaba.
3)  Gilgamesh, with Enkidu's help, slayed the Bull of Heaven who had been ordered by Ishtar to kill Gilgamesh.
4)  Gilgamesh slays an entire pride of lions all by himself.
5)  Gilgamesh kills the stone giants and single handedly chops down 120 trees in order to cross the Waters of Death.
6)  He finds a legendary plant on the bottom of the sea which will give him immortality.

Now on the surface, these seem like great accomplishments and certainly would make Gilgamesh a king worth remembering.  But let's look at it from the realistic view from the modern world.  Except for the very first thing on the list, there are no witnesses to any of the other events.  Sure Enkidu supposedly saw some take place, but his role as servant or friend (lover?) can certainly put his motivations to tell the truth in question.  At the end of the day, what you really have is a man who supervised the building of a wall and spent some time outside of the city.

An alternate story could be told of a prominant contractor who got tired of his life in the city building fences.  He knows that the people of the city would never approve of his homosexual relationship and he leaves with his lover for a life on the road where they make ends meet doing odd jobs and living off of love.  When his lover gets the AIDS virus, they return to their home city where his lover dies.  Now they both know that Gilgamesh will never be able to find another man that he loves as well as Enkidu, so they concoct this fabulous story to explain where they had been which will allow Gilgamesh to return to his previous life.

Now I don't really believe my alternate story, nor do I believe that Gilgamesh and Enkidu were secret lovers.  But, this story is certainly every bit as plausible as the one told in our text.  The bottom line is that at the end of the day, you have a man who supervised the building of a wall, and there is nothing that is even remotely heroic about that.