In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is transforming Arjuna masculinity through persuading him to follow his dharmic duty, discovering the true meaning of his actions for the killing and displaying his divine supreme being. According to Arjuna, the war was pointless; due to his false dharmic belief, which is killing his family is not what a man does. Krishna confronts Arjuna by explaining his pure dharmic duty; a wise man is untouched by the misperception of ideas and is united merely to do the right thing without considering the consequences. Meaning a masculine character follows his dharmic duty without thinking about the odds, this in a way penetrates Arjuna masculinity because it means that he is not a man and is weak By saying this Krishna is not only showing Arjuna the path of dharma but is also shaping his masculinity. …show more content…
Krishna says “He who thinks that the Spirit kills, and he who thinks of it as killed, are both ignorant. The Spirit kills not, nor is it killed”(Shri Purohit Swami, pg. 5). Meaning one's atman is neither killed nor can it kill, a body dies simply to move on to another body. Krishna also gave an example to explain his point; a man discards old, worn-out clothes just to put on new ones. So by killing his family members, he is freeing them, and some can even go to heaven. By pointing this out, Krishna eliminates any thoughts in Arjuna’s mind about him killing his family. This builds up Arjuna's masculinity because how he is more prepared to go forth and
City of God is a movie that takes place in Rio De Janerio beginning in the 1960s. It is a story of a young Brazilian boy named Rocket who observes and experiences the shift in power and how that power is gained and maintained in the world of drugs. It can be said that unsavory choices are made in order for L’il Ze to get to the top, however it could be argued that he is just playing by the rules of the street. This is how macro-subcultural theories apply to the movie City of God, leaders take and maintain power through force as they have been taught and continue to teach others to do.
Arjuna is faced with an internal dilemma during the Second Discourse of the Bhagavad Gita, and although the God Krishna seeks to help guide him towards an understanding of the meaning of his life, Arjuna is still wary of making the wrong decision. This decision concerns itself with either fighting in a civil war against family relatives, having to kill those Arjuna cares most about, or abandoning his dharma as a warrior and jeopardizing fulfilling his duty the greater Self that plays such a pivotal role in his people’s culture and beliefs. While advocating for the battle and fulfilling one’s dharma, Krishna utilizes the point that the Self – an overarching force in life – is a formless, eternal entity that cannot die and is more than the mere vessels that encompass the human beings across the battlefield. It is more important to the greater vitality of one’s existence to complete a duty to the Self rather than live with the temporary benefits of living in what may appear to be a more pleasurable life, but one with no fulfillment.
One of the most important divergences between Buddhism and the Gita is how dharma is interpreted. In the Bhagavad Gītā Krishna is able to shed some light on the significance of dharma. On the subject of dharma Krishna says: “It is better to strive in one’s own dharma than to succeed in the dharma of another. Nothing is ever lost in following one’s own dharma. But competition in another’s dharma breeds fear and insecurity” (BG 3:35). Here Krishna is talking to Arjuna. Krishna is trying to get the point across that Arjuna is always better off following his svadharma rather than adhering to what others want him to do. It is important for Arjuna to follow his own path in order to reach moksha. Krishna is stressing that Arjuna must follow the path that has been carved out
The Bhagavad Gita uses the conversation between Pandava Prince Arjuna and his guide Lord Krishna to portray Hinduism world view and Krishna’s view on the different fundamental questions. When he’s facing a war, Arjuna is guided by Krishna to be a selfless leader, and dedication to the cause.
Arjuna does not want to kill his family, but Krishna tells him you cannot kill the spirit only the body, so his family is not being killed only set free, and that Arjuna is fulfilling his work that the G-ds have bestowed on
Society’s current structure of masculinity is unforgiving in form. It cuts out other forms of masculinity, it physically and mentally demanding, and its ill effects extend far beyond the men it infuses itself in. Yet what would we do if we were given other options for masculinity, ones that allowed for unique blends of attitudes and perceptions? Looking in to the lives of homeless men we can see the forced strategies which create new masculine codes created for the adaption against patriarchal pressures. They are made out of survival need to circumnavigate the painful mental and physical reality that is only made worse by harsh masculine standards. Yet these new masculinities hold out a form of hopefulness for society. They offer up new discussion to what it means to be a man, the potential for change, and what we can expect from changes in male identity over time. Using what we learn from the disadvantaged, we can hope to improve the lives of people, although the process will take time, effort, and careful mediation.
In the Bhagavad Gita, the fourth discourse which is composed of forty-two verses, Lord Krishna, the narrator guides Arjuna- a warrior who is finding himself pondering about the simple principles of life while he is fighting the war. In the fourth discourse Arjuna learns from Lord Krishna about faith, wisdom sacrifice, ignorance, doubts of the soul, action and inaction, selfless service, and self-realization which ultimately leads to the ultimate truth, which is the path for the spiritual soul to reach its maximum potential here on earth and the afterlife.
To read Babio without recognizing the gender politics at work in the play would disregard much of how the play itself creates meaning. So much of the play’s plot and character dynamics are related to the way gender functions in this play. One major theme of Babio is the idea of masculinity and how masculinity is defined. Through the portrayal of Babio as an effeminate character, Babio is able to define masculinity through absences in Babio’s Character. Consequently, Babio makes the additional point that lovesickness is not an intrinsic aspect of medieval masculinity, despite the fact that love sickness is often attributed to men.
According to the Bhagavad Gita, a truly wise person should seek to subdue his senses in order to achieve Brahman State. The Bhagavad Gita opens with a scene in which Arjuna, a warrior prince, is speaking to his chariot driver who is really the god Krishna. Arjuna is deeply troubled by the fact that he is fighting his relatives and wishes to abandon the fight. It is here that his dialogue with Krishna begins. Their conversation revolves around many issues and questions that Arjuna has, one of them being about emotion and desire. There seems to be a fairly straightforward answer to his question. Many times in the book, Arjuna is told that he should subdue his emotions. However, there are still more questions to be answered. Why should emotions and desires be supressed? How does one suppress these desires? Finally, what is the cultural effect of this teaching? It is through these first two questions that Arjuna is able to understand the role of his desires, and through the third that the cultural effects of this doctrine can be explored.
In Germinal, from the depiction of Bonnemort to the only survivor of mine incident Lantier, Émile Zola depicts mostly depressing feelings revealing the hard lives of mid-nineteenth-century French miners. Germinal is a novel full of abusive relationships between parent and child, man and woman, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Gender and class relation intertwine with each other, both powerfully exert substantial influence in shaping mid-nineteenth century of French life. The male dominance over female differentiates roles of men and women, and sets the basic structure of a patriarchal family.
In looking at the story there is an emphasis on Arjuna struggling with the outcome of death and destruction as a byproduct of war, and not on fighting the war itself or determining whether the war is justifiable. The god Krishna tells Arjuna he must perform his duty. This emphasis on Arjuna having a duty or job with a binding responsibility that must be executed provides a reason why Arjuna is justified in fighting. Sen stresses that with this responsibility to fight, Arjuna did not dismiss any consequences of war on own personal life or the lives of other. Sen presents three key points that can be taken from looking at the Bhagavad Gita (Sen 208-211).
With many Hindu texts professing on the eternal nature of the soul, atman is said to be trapped within a cycle of rebirth (Saraswathi, 46). Both reincarnation and Karma ideas are merged to stipulate that the thoughts and actions within an individual's present life will play an important role in determining the condition of soul's future existences. There is, therefore, a cause and effect of every action. The motivation of religious and moral activities in Hinduism is to accumulate good Karma so as to free oneself from baneful material thus liberating the soul from the cycle of rebirth (Fisher and Rinehart, 77). According to the idea of rebirth, death only relates to the physical body but the soul continues and is reborn into another body.
The Bhagavad Gita is Hinduism’s most important Text. The Bhagavad Gita is about a warrior or Price named Arjun. Arjun doesn’t want to fight Anymore. Krishna tells Arjun he must to his duties.
Hindu devotional has greatly influenced the understanding of the “just war” theory, and the message the Bhagavad Gita conveys through the ideal of “just war”. It is an idea beyond war and non-violence, but it symbolizes the struggle to live the teachings of devotionalism.
The Bhagavad Gita is a sacred Hindu text that serves to illustrate many of the morals and ethics of Hindu culture, by way of the exchange between Arjuna and Krishna. One of the things Krishna tells Arjuna is that the war he is fighting in is righteous. Is this to say that all wars are righteous, that those of the warrior caste will know if a war is righteous, or that they have to guess and then suffer the consequences if they’re wrong? The first two seem naïve and oversimplified from the modern perspective, and the third seems unjust because regardless of caste, Hindus are said to be capable of fulfilling their dharma. Krishna also assumes that people know their purpose in life, which may have been the case at the time the text was written, but is no longer true. While in Arjuna’s day people were born into certain castes, today people are descended from a combination of what would have been considered castes, and often switch between castes within a lifetime. Regardless, Krishna’s argument for why Arjuna should fight seems relatively sound in that specific situation, but can be twisted to condone what many consider to be evil actions in others. Nonetheless, Krishna seems confident in the fact that it is a universal truth for everyone to know his or her dharma, and that he or she needs to follow it to achieve moksha. Although Krishna makes a strong argument for Arjuna’s specific case, it can be seen to condone evil, raising the questions that if all wars are righteous, and