3/5/12

Last week in class, we just finished the Ramayana and started to read about Daoism. At the end of Ramayana, Rama defeats Ravana with a great arrow and gets Sita back. But in getting her back, he tells Sita that he can't be with her because he suspects her of being with Ravana. Sita is so upset trying to explain to Rama that she is faithful, she stands on top of a pyre while it's on fire. All of a sudden a god saves her from the flames and tells Rama that she is pure and has done no such thing. Sita is saved and Rama said "I knew you were always faithful, but I needed the God's approval first". They all live happily ever after.

Now with that happening, its like watching Star Wars Episode I. You like the story, but there's some things you want to pretend that never happened. For example in the original trilogy of Star Wars, Jedi's believed that the Force was might power around us that jedi's can harness. In Star Wars Episode I they said in order to tell if someone can harness the force, then they would have a high midi-chlorian count. To me that sounded like one of the dumbest things Lucas put in the Star Wars universe next to Jar Jar Binks.

Besides the ending, I believe Rama is the ideal model a man. But according to a discussion we had, the whole class had an idea of a model for the ideal man and the ideal woman. Guys said that the ideal guys are Clint Eastwood, Michael Jordan, John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, and others. Girls said that the ideal woman would be Hilary Clinton, Oprah, and I wasn't paying attention to the rest. But when it came time for guys to choose the ideal woman and girls to choose the ideal man, it was a little hectic. I remember guys choosing Beyonce and some random model while girls chose Channing Tatum, Kobe Bryant, and some other guys. To me it seems that when you get someone to come up with the ideal of the opposite sex, they start to think about the most attractive rather than the model of hero. It goes to show you we all have an idea of role-model and hero.

I also read Daoism and I can say that this was one of the most difficult readings I've ever had in my educational life time. I always thought Fyodor Dostoevsky was difficult, but this was like something out of an old 70's
kung-fu movie. It talked about lots of thins like how the people alive are limber while the dead are stiff. Moral of the passage is to always be limber. I try to understand it, but for the most part some of it is a little confusing. Reading it, I feel like I'm being lectured by Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid.

WC: 488