1 – 4 of 4
Anonymous Joanna said...

When Odysseus finally ended his journey trials and got home, he didn't spread any joy around, but in true Greek peasant fashion he took revenge on the various males who kept trying to lure his wife away. A symbolic sacrifice, perhaps as atonement for what his wife had been obliged to go through. His gift, however, was indeed his faithful wife, whom he left behind for years to fend off various greedy suitors.
The hero's journey is clearly a social construction belonging to patriarchal cultures, since we don't usually hear about women going off on similar adventures.
However, some of the bhikkhuni tales in the Therigatha might reveal similar experiences.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Blogger Jayarava said...

Hi Joanna

On the one hand I'm glad you were (finally) able to comment, and on the other disappointed by the content of this comment. You take us from the glittering world of imagination into the realm of grey ideology with a resounding thump that I found quite painful.

I re-read the the last few pages of the Odyssey last night and can only say that it must be some time since you read it. It does not end how you say it does. Odysseus does indeed have to clear the suitors out of his house before he can take possession of it again - it is his last major task. But it is not the final action of the book.

But in reading the book as somehow historical you make a category error. I present the story as being about one's inner heroic journey - each of the characters represents something within the individual, not as allegories for social relationships. This is why it is a model for spiritual discipline!!! Perhaps it speaks to the masculine psyche more than the feminine? Women's myth are sometimes different - Mills and Boon endless recycling of the Beauty and the Beast myth is testament to this - though the interpretation that all men are beasts is a popular one, it is a similar category error. Little Red Riding hood is not an attack on wolves... any more than Eros and Psyche is about sex.

Odysseus's gift, far from being Penelope (who is already his wife and has been faithful to him through several years of painful uncertainty), but arises out of the subtle and complex association between him and Athena - perhaps the blessing is that she begins increasingly to intervene on his behalf. Most importantly Athena frees him from the captivity of Circe (representing his own emotions I think), but also takes the role of Mentor to his son. These are far more relevant than Penelope as far as the blessing of the Goddess is concerned. Odysseus is not a man - he is an archetype.

As for it being a social construction this is clearly bunk. The story structure is attested in cultures as far flung as Ploynesia, Siberia, China, Semitic and Indo-European. The last time they all shared a culture was about 70,000 years ago. No. The ubiquity of the story suggests that it emerges spontaneously across the globe out of a deeper layer of the psyche. Jung proposed to call this the collective unconscious, though this is more of a description of the phenomena rather than a definition of some entity.

I don't find this kind of ideological hermeneutic a very appealing approach to myth. Certainly nothing very inspiring seems to emerge from it.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Blogger Cesar Camba said...

Dear Jayarava,

In this essay you say "The Dalai Lama, in his enthusiasm to not be seen as a proselytiser, has suggested that we pursue the religion we were born into. I disagree wholeheartedly with this view. "

If my memory serves me well, you argue elsewhere that the Buddha didn't challenge people's beliefs unless they were inimical to the practice of the important things for the cultivation of insight.

Wouldn't you say that the Dalai Lama's approach is in keeping with that same spirit?

Monday, January 26, 2015

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

No, I don't think the DL's approach is in the same spirit. The DL was speaking as a refugee living in an India where right-wing Hindu Nationalists are hostile to religious conversion (conversions to Buddhism have caused riots and murders in the past). And now the PM of India is a right-wing Hindu Nationalist. Upset such people and they might either murder you or agitate to have you deported back to Tibet.

One of my Indian friends who lives in Bodhgaya is the only Buddhist teaching Buddhism to the local people of the area. Others run classes for foreign tourists and visiting monks, but no one else is going out to the villages. Foreign Buddhists in India very often have no interest in Indians.

The Buddha doesn't always accept people's views. He's quite capable of calling people idiots (moghapurisa) for believing wrong views. My blog on friday 30th will be a case in point. The Buddha talks an idiot out of his idiot view.

Monday, January 26, 2015

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL
Please prove you're not a robot