Friday, January 7, 2011
Siddhartha
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm really enojying Siddhartha. I love Hesse's diction and syntax, to a point where I'm constantly finding passages I want to memorize. For instances, "One must find the source within one's Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking- a detour, error."(pg.7). I also noted some atithesis sprinkled within the couple of chapters we have read. "In sunshine or in moonlight, in shadow or in rain..."(16). And, "The young men spoke of well and in ill,in praise and in scorn."(20). Anyways as Gotama said, "Be on your guard against too much cleverness,"(35), I hope that Siddhartha doesn't drive hiself mad with this journey of self- realization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you provided textual evidence for your comments. Great examples! And you might just be jesting, but is there such a thing as knowing one's Self too much?
ReplyDeleteApparently I need to start paying more attention to the literary aspects since I'm more drawn to Siddartha's overall journey and what he is going through for his own enlightenment. I to am enjoying the book but I do need to start focusing on the literary terms such as antithesis, anaphora, and the rest.
ReplyDeleteSiddhartha has been a book that I have really enjoyed as well. To what Ms. Hill asked, I believe one doesn't get to a point of knowing one's self too much. I believe that we go through life trying to know ourselves more and better. So, if we know ourselves too much, there's no point in searching for more? There's no point in trying different things? There's no point in going on mental/physical journey's? In these, we get to know one's self, we can never know too much. We might think we do... but there is ALWAYS so much more that can be learned. I believe we die and still not know one's self.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I'm making sense...?
I concur, Crystal. What would life be if we reached that finish line before our time, you know? As for knowing our "Selves" too much... I do not think, like Crystal, that we will ever fully understand what our Selves really are. Not even Siddhartha reached that point.. at least, that's what it seemed like to me. Siddhartha is only "enlightened" but not fully immersed in what his "Self" actually is. He had lost his "Self" but never fully understood it.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on what Ms. Hill said as there being such a thing as someone knowing themselves too much i would say there really isn't such a thing as knowing yourself too much. There are many things in life that just come to you, you cant go out and look for them all the time so in a sense one can't help but to continue growing and learning more about themselves because everyday it's both the good and bad things presented to you that shape you and sometimes that constantly changes.
ReplyDeleteCompletely off the current topic but still concerning Siddhartha: One of the prominant things i found distrubing about Siddhartha is found in the last chapter when Govinda kisses Siddhartha's forehead and "reaches enlightenment." "He no longer saw the face of his friend Siddhartha. Instead he saw other faces-hundreds, thousands, which all came a disapeared and yet all seem to be there at the same time, which all continually changed and renewed themselves and which were yet all Siddhartha . . . He saw the face of a newly born child, red and full of wrinkles, ready to cry. He saw the face of a murderer, saw him plunge a knife into the body of a man; at the same moment he saw this criminal kneeling down, bound, and his head cut off by an executioner." To me this idea that all things are "one" kinda creeps me out because i see a subtle merging of Light and Darkness, which makes beauty not as pure and evil not as hideous, and makes it look like just an innocent "cycle," and not the war of good and evil that life really is. I mean of course people live and people die, but that doesnt mean that COMBINED together they make perfect harmony. If you combine every aspect of our natural existence " . . . heads of animals-boars, crocodiles, elephants, oxen, birds," you dont get "god" or a rock or Siddhartha. If you combined every thing on earth you get: Our reality. I mean seriously, I can't believe that it said in the book that a rock is God.
ReplyDeleteId really love for people to give comments on what I thought and wrote. I can honestly say I didn't like this book, but I like other peoples opinions, and I like discussion.
Bernie, the book doesn't say the the rock was God. "Previously I should have said: This stone is just a stone; it has no value, it belongs to the world of Maya, but perhaps because within the cycle of change it can also become man and spirit." (Page 145) Here, Siddhartha is explaining what he would have thought of the stone BEFORE his journey. However, when he later explains how he sees the stone, it's mere appreciation. He has gone through a long tough journey to find spiritual enlightenment. "I love it just because it's a stone, because today and now it appears to me a stone. I see value and meaning in each one of its fine markings and cavities..." (page 145) He's showing Govinda how much he has learned, experienced, and grown from his journey to spiritual enlightenment. He's not necessarily saying the stone is God, no. He's using the stone as a sort of example.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Govinda's vision when he looked at Siddhartha is realization of his surroundings. He's seeing the beauty of life- baby being born- and the ugly part of it- the murderer. Which is what Govina too was searching for, searching for the reality of it and wanted to see it in it's raw stages. Which is what Siddhartha also experienced though his journey of enlightenment.
To Aileen's:
Of course not. I believe that Siddharhta past on and didn't fully know himself. There will not be a point in one's life where we know ourselves, fully.
I can relate to laura, because i also let myself get carried away with the journey instead of paying attention to the english aspect of it.
ReplyDeleteI also have enjoyed reading(sometimes to the point where i forget to stop and write notes, sorry Ms.Hill)
As for the comment on the rock, an idea far from good and evil could seem creepy to some, but so can the idea that the world revolves on good vs evil so that's just personal opinion. The book present amazing ideas about unity, I thought his comaprision to the rock just presented the beauty and importance that everything has on life and how its all interconnected.
I think knowing yourself can be challenged by thinking that you know yourself too well.If a person doesn't know how to control themselves and stay humble throught this self-acknowledgment, there will be a tendency to self-doubt. I think the indidvidual is the main key and any previous qualities they bring to the table also weigh into the route. Siddhartha did a good job of staying true to himself and what he stood for, for a majority of the novella.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Bernie, let's not get radical here. First of all, who are we to say which religion/relationship is weird or wrong? Christians believe a carpenter taught, died, then rose again (rough version) so who are we to say what's weird? Moreover, Siddartha did NOT say that the rock was god, he was giving an example to Govinda. Basically, God created the rock, is there not a piece of God in that rock? Personally, I can look at that particular quote through Christian eyes and see that God is in all of us, whether through spirit or creation. For humans, he created and lives within us, and for nature He created it thus it is connected as well.
ReplyDeleteI am really proud of you guys analyzing not just the text, but context and subtext, too! This is what we've been waiting for all year. I now really look forward to checking in more often.
ReplyDeleteGreat ideas from everyone.
"To me this idea that all things are "one" kinda creeps me out because i see a subtle merging of Light and Darkness, which makes beauty not as pure and evil not as hideous, and makes it look like just an innocent "cycle," and not the war of good and evil that life really is."
ReplyDeleteok burny i understand what your saying and like siddharthat said every ones opinian is its own truth. but anyways life might be considered a cycle of good vs. evil but in the end it is "one", becuse if there was no evil to fight and the world would be perfect then how would we know that there is good, and what true value would we realy place on the triumph of light over darkness if there was no non. in a way it reminds me of of Adam and Eve, because they in truth didnt realy value the plesures they had because of God, so Eve became restless and ended lisoning to the snake, they had no knowledge of evil so how could they have known. so when they were banished from the garden the only reason that they were said about leaving was because they had everything and know they had nothing, so no matter what darkness brought realization. and that brings me back through what siddhartha went through he had everything then lost it then found himself, because he experianced evil and realized that he preferd to live in the light.
so in the end evil and good do depend on each other, and there realy is no way to go without one or the other. in the end they do merge into one. it keeps order and balance in life.
First of all, the light cannot merge into the darkness, Sara. In John 1:5 it says "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Therefore it cannot be "One".
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree with you when you said that Adam and Eve gained realization when they "bit" into the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil. It was exactly that which brought sin, shame... etc, etc. Siddhartha did infuse a myriad of different views on life... and I understand that the yin and the yang represent good vs. evil... but, something was off for me in this book. Like Bernie, my initial reaction to that part of the book was that Siddhartha was basically calling the stone "God". In chapter 12 he says: "But today
I think: this stone is a stone, it is also animal, it is also god..." I understand that what he means is it is part of everything meshed together... however, I still find that a bit suspicious.
In dirt, there is a bit of "God", is there not? In you, there is a bit of "God", is there not? In the wind, sun, rain, trees, birds, fish, dogs, cats, plants... etc there is a bit of "God", right? People believe that there is a part of Him in everything because he is "the creator of all." So... why is what Siddhartha said about the stone "suspicious"? If there is "God" in everything because he is the creator, then that stone, too, has "God" in it.
ReplyDeleteAileen, you kind of contradict yourself in what you say. First you say: "my initial reaction to that part of the book was that Siddhartha was basically calling the stone "God"."
Then, you say: "understand that what he means is it is part of everything meshed together."
Can you clarify this for me?