Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Sita Steps Into The Fire

Inspired by the Ramayanas 
of Tulsidas and Paley



She was a beautiful woman. She was, in fact, the most beautiful woman in the world. This was not vanity nor boast but the literal truth: there was not now nor ever had been any woman more beautiful than Sita. She was also a princess, daughter of mighty king Janaka, his greatest source of pride but also, through no fault of her own, his greatest source of trouble, for he was almost literally besieged by men from both near and far pleading for Sita's hand. The offers they made were extravagant, as extravagant as each suitor could make them, but Janaka reckoned wealth of no account when it came to Sita. He was concerned only to make the ideal match for his peerless daughter, but he needed a way to judge that would eliminate every unsuitable match. It had to be a method as objective as possible, so no suitor could take offense at being rejected, for many of those seeking to make Sita their wife were sons of powerful kings, or were powerful kings in their own right, and there was a growing danger to Janaka every day he delayed his decision.

The solution lay deep within the vaults of his treasure: the Bow of Shiva. It had lain untouched for years beyond counting, for there was no one among men strong enough to pull it. Though it was a divine artifact, once wielded by the god Shiva himself, a weapon that cannot be used is useless, and so it had been stored away and forgotten. Reminded of its existence by his court sage, Janaka had it brought out and installed in the courtyard of his palace. He made an announcement to the assembled suitors, and had his decree carried by messengers to the four directions: he would only grant Sita's hand to the one who could draw Shiva's Bow.

There were objections, of course, to what was clearly an impossible task, and accusations that Janaka simply did not want Sita married to anyone at all. “What father doesn't want to see his daughter married?” he asked. “But Sita is incomparable, and it is my duty as her father to secure the best possible match.”

Every day men made the attempt, and many could not even lift the bow, and there were none who could draw it. While her father continued to fret, Sita was content to wait, for she knew there was a man who could draw the bow, and that he would come at the right time. And finally the day came when Prince Rama, son of King Dasaratha of Ayodhya, lifted the bow with ease and drew it back so far that the bow shaft split in half with a thunderous crack that could be heard for miles around. The other suitors, though dejected, all had to admit that Rama was the best choice for Sita, for together they made the perfect couple, ideal prince and ideal wife. The date was swiftly set, and they were married, and Sita returned to Ayodhya with Rama.

* * *

Years later, Sita prepared to accompany Rama into exile. They stood at the palace gates, facing all the people of Ayodhya who had gathered in their shock and grief at the news. Just days earlier Dasaratha, feeling his age, had made the decision to step down and crown Rama king in his place, a decision greeted with approval and joy by everyone save Kaikeyi, the most scheming of Dasaratha's three wives and mother to Rama's brother Bharata. Many years ago she had extracted a promise from the king that he would grant her any boon she desired, and what she desired was for Rama to be banished and Bharata installed on the throne in his place. It mattered little to Kaikeyi that no one, not even Bharata himself, wanted this to pass. But Dasaratha's word was his bond, and he could not deny her request, so Sita, the embodiment of the ideal wife, calmly walked behind her husband as the ideal wife should, leaving the palace and city behind. Accompanying them was Lakshmana, Rama's brother by Dasaratha's third wife Sumitra; he had demanded to join them because his devotion to Rama was absolute, regardless of whatever hardships he may have to endure.

Though grieving their loss, the people admired Rama's obedience as the dutiful son and praised Sita's decision to join him in exile as a dutiful wife, though they also feared for her. The forest was dangerous, filled with violent rakshasas and rakshasis, demon-men and -women from the distant south, and even though Rama and Lakshmana were renowned as warriors, the people worried for Sita's safety, especially given that they would have to remain exiles for fourteen years. But fourteen years or fourteen thousand, it would make no difference nor be any true hardship, for Rama and Sita were not merely the ideal couple, they were the divine couple – they were gods. She was the eternal feminine principle of the cosmos, just as Rama was the masculine principle. The mortals they walked among greatly admired their perfection but no one suspected their divinity. Incarnating on earth as two mortals, a prince and a princess destined for each other, had been Rama's idea. It was his lila, his play or sport, for what is the universe to God but his plaything? They were enacting this great lila for the glory of Rama and the edification of humanity, all the generations who would forever after strive for the ideal that he and Sita represented for them. Maintaining their mortal pretense, Rama and Sita left Ayodhya and wandered into the untamed forest.

* * *

“Step into the fire,” Rama said to his wife, having kindled a great blaze. It was evening, and they had been living in the forest for several years, a simple life punctuated, for Rama and Lakshmana, by battles with rakshasas who were tormenting the sages living in hermitages deep in the forest, away from settled lands. Rama had sent Lakshmana off to hunt, and took this opportunity to engage an important step in his lila. “You will reside in the fire until it is time for you to return to me.” Divine Sita, ever-obedient wife, walked into the bonfire without hesitation. The flames were cool and soothing and folded her into their flickering embrace. Sita walked in and remained, but her shadow walked out and stood demurely before Rama. Sita's shadow was exactly the same as Sita in all aspects – beauty, grace, memories, even in her divine power. “None will know,” Rama said as he stared appreciatively at the shadow-Sita, “of this great deception. Everyone, even the demon-king of Lanka, will believe you are Sita, and he will take you back to his kingdom while my Sita remains in the fire, safe and inviolate. A great conflict will ensue, and all the world will witness and praise my honor and glory.” He continued to stare at shadow-Sita, for not even he with all his divine power could discern any difference between Sita and her shadow. Then Lakshmana returned, and as he and Rama set to skinning and butchering the deer he had caught, shadow-Sita did exactly as Sita would have done and began preparing the rest of their evening meal.

The two brothers noticed nothing out of the ordinary, for shadow-Sita betrayed no outward difference, but her innermost thoughts were revolving around an odd feeling: in all respects, from her physical form to her thoughts and memories and the essence and power of godhood, she was exactly like Sita, she would even say she was Sita, except she also knew she was not Sita, but her shadow. There had not even been any discontinuity, any gap in her memories or feelings, from the moment Sita entered the fire and she stepped out.

She knew the point of this deception was to safeguard Sita's honor. The lila required that she be kidnapped by Ravana and carried off to his palace in distant Lanka, across the sea, and held captive there until Rama arrived to defend his honor and kill Ravana. But despite the fact that both Rama and she knew Ravana would not, could not, violate her, and despite the fact that her chastity and fidelity were perfect and unquestionable, despite the fact that she would reside in the household of another man not of her own volition, indeed through no fault of her own at all, despite all of that, there would be a suspicion, a stain upon her honor nonetheless, and so the necessity of the deception. Sita would remain untouched in the fire, and Sita's shadow would endure the calumny instead.

But shadow-Sita was precisely like Sita in every way, including her purity, chastity, fidelity, and honor. If there was no difference between Sita and her shadow, could this ruse be said to actually protect Sita from defilement? You could say Sita would not be alone in the presence of another man, but when there is absolutely no difference between Sita and shadow-Sita, could you really say Sita would not be alone in the presence of another man? The point of shadow-Sita's existence was to protect Sita from even the possibility of impropriety, but did that protection mean anything when they were the same being? Was Sita – either Sita – actually protected by this ruse? 
 
Shadow-Sita outwardly displayed no confusion as she served dinner to her husband and brother-in-law, but she wondered if Sita-in-the-fire was also puzzled about the utility of this part of Rama's lila. Given that there was no difference between them, shadow-Sita knew that Sita-in-the-fire must be thinking the same thoughts.

* * *

It was not long after she had stepped out of the fire that shadow-Sita's part in Rama's lila began. She had spied a beautiful golden deer in the forest, knowing of course that it was not a deer but Lord Ravana's kinsman Mareecha in disguise. Still, she pleaded with her husband to catch it for her. After he had gone, she and her brother-in-law Lakshmana remained in their hut, he tending to some small game he had shot that morning, she preparing the dough for rotis, when they heard Rama's voice, far in the distance, crying out. “My dear husband is in trouble!” she exclaimed. “Lakshmana, you must go to him! Hurry!”

“No, Sita,” he said, “I vowed to my brother that I would stay and safeguard you, for the forest is full of beasts and rakshasas. Rama is the best warrior in the world, there is nothing to worry about.”

As he said this, they heard Rama cry out again. She knew it was an illusion cast by Ravana, who must be lurking nearby, but she betrayed no knowledge of this to her brother-in-law. “How can you be so cold! My husband, your own brother, the man dearest to us in the world, is in danger! He may be wounded, he may be suffering! You must go to him!” She fell to her knees in supplication before him. “Please!” A third time Rama's cry echoed through the forest, and Lakshmana's countenance grew troubled.

Alright, Sita,” he said, “I will do this, but first I must keep my vow and not leave you defenseless.” He took an arrow and using arts he learned from the sage Viswamithra he drew a circle, the lakshmanrekha, around the hut, and enchanted it so no one who would do Sita harm could cross over. When he was done, he told Sita, “Do not step outside the circle – I shall return with Rama soon,” and he went off in search of Rama.

Now she was alone, and it was just a matter of waiting for Ravana to appear. What ploy would he use to lure her out of the circle, she wondered? She thought, for a single moment, of not leaving the lakshmanrekha, as that would be the truly sensible choice, but quickly put that thought out of her mind – it would not do to thwart Rama's lila. Soon enough, an old man wearing the spartan robes of a sage approached the hut, stopped well outside the lakshmanrekha, and sat down heavily on a stump. “Hello,” he called out, “what do you have for an old wandering sage?” Aha, shadow-Sita thought, this is how he will do it, with a demand for respect for a man both elder and a sage. Of course, divine Sita was far elder to him, but could the same be said of shadow-Sita, who had only stepped out of the fire a few days earlier? And did it even matter, she silently asked herself. The experience of stepping out of the fire had certainly prompted many questions about identity and being that Sita had never needed to consider before.

Shadow-Sita lowered her eyes, for it would be inappropriate to look upon a man while she was alone, even if he was supposedly a sage and therefore celibate and trustworthy. She went to the open doorway of their hut and said, “I am sorry, sir, but my husband and my brother-in-law are not at home, and I have been forbidden to step beyond the circle until their return.”

“To obey one's husband is a good trait in a wife, but it is unheard of to deny alms to a sage. Surely your good husband – what is his name, by the way?”

“My husband is Rama, prince of Ayodhya.”

A prince!” the old man said. “Surely Prince Rama understands the necessity of the ancient custom which requires householders to give alms when asked, so that sage and householder both gain merit thereby and their stock of good karma increase? He would not, indeed, could not object to you bringing me some food.”

Of course,” she said under her breath, “this is a duty of all good people.” Louder, she said to the sage, “You are right, just a minute and I will prepare you a dish.” She quickly and neatly piled a plate with subji, roti, rice, daal and ghee. She stepped outside the hut, careful to keep her eyes averted, and she moved so no aspect of her dress or demeanor could be mistaken for boldness or an overture on her part. She walked right up to the lakshmanrekha and stopped. “Again, I apologize, O sage, for I have been forbidden from crossing the circle, but I can place your food just here beyond the line.”

“How dare you!” the old man thundered. “Is this how you show hospitality to a holy man, making him crouch upon the ground for what is rightfully his? If you do not show me the proper respect, I shall lay a great curse upon you and all your generation!”

Sages, true sages, indeed built up a great store of power through their practice of austerities, power they could draw upon to bless or curse; this was true even of Ravana, who, while powerful in his own right as the lord of the rakshasas, had acquired even more power by spending years in devoted austerity to lord Shiva, patron of sages. Not that all his power could compare to her divine might; should I wish it, she thought, staring at the man's feet, I could banish him from the face of the earth. Shadow-Sita breathed a small sigh. “I'm sorry, great sage, I meant no offense, I'll bring it to you at once.”

She saw everything that happened before it happened, her stepping outside the lakshmanrekha, the visage of the sage disappearing, replaced by the menacing figure of Ravana, arrayed in armor, with sword and bow, his ten heads gathered in a massive cluster atop his bull-like neck, each head leering at her in unrestrained lust, his leaping in an instant and seizing both her arms in the grip of one mighty hand, pulling her back to his magic chariot, rising high into the air and rushing south, toward the island of Lanka. She saw each of these things before it happened, then experienced them happening , for this was the lila now truly begun, a sport which would enmesh the mortal world in Rama's design.

Ravana released her once they were in the air, confident that she would not leap out of the chariot to her death. His heads turned this way and that, keeping a close watch all around, while also always staring lustfully upon her body.

A truly fidelitous wife would throw herself out of the chariot, shadow-Sita thought. She maintained an outward pose of fear, but her mind was calm, confident in the fact that Ravana could not truly lay a hand upon her, and the knowledge that he would not, both because her power could prevent it and because his sense of honor demanded that she submit to him willingly. But both law and custom declared that a wife should kill herself, for being alone with another man besmirched both her honor and her husband's. “Why should circumstances beyond a woman's control dishonor her, or her husband for that matter?” she asked herself. “This may be my husband's lila, but there are flaws in his scheme.” Ravana watched her crouch in the rear of the chariot, her head bowed and her long dark hair a veil before her face. The rushing air blew some of her locks this way and that, and Ravana shifted his ten heads about, trying to catch a glimpse of her beautiful, terror-stricken face, unaware that her present thoughts were consumed more by the philosophical question of whether or not Rama truly was her husband and she his wife.

The speeding sky-chariot came to an abrupt halt and hung suspended high in the air. A magnificent eagle, easily the same size as the chariot, blocked their progress. Shadow-Sita recognized him immediately – it was Jatayu, lord of eagles, and semi-divine in his own right. Each beat of his massive wings spawned a whirlwind which whipped around the chariot, and his talons flexed menacingly. “By my eagle-eye, I spied you carrying off Rama's fair wife, O Ravana,” the wise bird said. “Cease this wickedness at once, and behave as a king ought.”

Shadow-Sita could not help herself. She cried out, “Oh, be careful, good Jatayu, for Ravana is a most dangerous opponent!”

“That is right, old bird,” Ravana's ten mouths thundered. “Go tend to your nest, if you know what's good for you.”

But Jatayu was a warrior, full of pride and ready to defend both a woman in distress and avenge an insult to his own honor. With a single sweep of his wings he launched himself high above the chariot, then folded his wings and dove straight for Ravana, razor-sharp talons ready to rend the king to pieces. But Ravana was also a warrior, fierce and determined, and he grasped Jatayu's talons with both hands, stopping the great eagle's attack, though the sky-chariot fair shook with the impact. He kicked Jatayu in the chest and shouted words of power as the eagle tumbled backward. The power Ravana's voice unleashed, amplified ten times by his ten mouths, ripped and tore at Jatayu, and he was barely able to recover and keep himself from plummeting to the ground. Undaunted, Jatayu made another attack, but shadow-Sita knew how old and tired the king of the eagles was, and with every flap of his wings feathers and blood fell from his body to the earth below. She knew the outcome of this battle, even before it began, and in her heart she wished to help, to heal Jatayu's wounds or to unleash her divine glory and incinerate Ravana where he stood, but to intervene would be to dishonor Rama and ruin his lila, so she stood in silent horror in the rear of the chariot as Ravana drew his sword and cut Jatayu's wings off with two rapid swings of the blade. The magnificent bird cried out and fell, never to rise again. Ravana once more urged the sky-chariot forward, speeding even faster to Lanka, while shadow-Sita gazed back at the eagle king's corpse splayed out behind them. Tears streamed from her eyes and became jewels as they fell, leaving a glittering trail behind.

* * *

Ravana installed her in a beautiful garden attached to his palace in Lanka, but he himself did not touch her – her status as the epitome of the virtuous wife was a kind of a shield. He would accept her into his household (and his bed) only of her own volition, although he had no compunctions about how to obtain that consent. He would cajole her, threaten her, romance her, frighten her, tempt her. He would one day ply her with all the riches of his kingdom, and the next day starve her. Shadow-Sita endured all this with apparent equanimity, spending as much of her time as possible alone in the garden, sitting in seeming grief, contemplating her lost Rama.

It was an act, her part in the lila, for she was neither distressed nor grieving. If it was possible for her to feel tired – as opposed to merely acting tired – shadow-Sita would have been tired. Rama had insisted upon this epic plan, a grand struggle that would highlight his prowess and virtue, and by extension her chastity and fidelity, and so his search for her must be desperate and her plight equally woeful.

She could not help but be disappointed in Ravana. He had a prosperous kingdom full of loyal subjects, many wives already, and strong, manly sons, and he himself had gained the favor of many of the gods through his perfect devotions and austerities; Ravana was the only appropriate opponent for the seemingly-mortal Rama because of the favor and power the gods had granted him. All that wisdom, fortune, and privilege and he would destroy it all in a vain and useless attempt to make her his wife.

She even knew what Rama was doing at that very moment. While she languished in Ravana's garden, Rama feigned fear and sorrow over his lost Sita. He and Lakshmana would search far and wide for any sign of her or her captor. They would find Jatayu and the trail of jewels, and they would spend months acquiring allies, to raise an army to come for her. He would even have to act the engineer and design a vast bridge which his army would then build so they could cross the sea to Lanka's shore. While his part of the lila was an adventure, her part was to withstand her imprisonment in stoic silence and embody the virtues of chastity and marital faithfulness. She sighed, and the rakshasis set to guard her mocked her, thinking she sighed out of longing for Rama.

* * *

Finally, after she had been in captivity for many months, Hanuman, one of the vanaras, the forest-dwelling monkey-people, and Rama's most loyal follower and servant, found where Sita was being held. He had, through great prowess and supernatural power gifted him by his divine parentage, leapt across the ocean to Lanka and stealthily crept into the garden where shadow-Sita sat throughout night and day. The rakshasis who tormented her with threats and illusions, trying to break her will, marveled at how she was so accomplished at austerities, sitting without moving, sleeping, eating, or drinking. Ravana, an accomplished ascetic himself, also wondered at the ability of this woman to rival him in austerity. She simply told them that her long exile in the forest had provided ample time to practice seated meditation, and her current situation was no different. Then she fell silent again.

The truth, of course, was she was an immortal goddess – or the indistinguishable copy of an immortal goddess – and did not have to fulfill mortal needs. Indeed, she had only ever done so to satisfy Rama's desire that the whole of creation view them as mortal humans, the absolute epitome of human virtue, but still mortal. Having nothing to do all day but contemplate what was to come made keeping up mortal appearances seem futile, but no one suspected she was anything other than a princess and the most beautiful woman in the world. She did know that some of the rakshasis whispered to each other about her, because they did not know she could hear them from clear across the garden, and they admired her for being more than just pretty and chaste. They, and others throughout the city, were beginning to think that holding her prisoner was a mistake, and that Ravana should just end it and let her go.

And now it would end, for Hanuman had found her, and was recounting to her the travails of Rama, how he had despaired when he found her missing from their hut, then found hope in the trail of jewels she had dropped from the sky-chariot, then despaired again when the trail abruptly ended, then found renewed hope when he met Hanuman, and on and on. She knew he would find hope, and then despair again, once Hanuman returned to tell him he had found Sita, and that the monkey-army could not assemble and march until after the rainy season had ended. Such was the suffering of her husband, not that he was really suffering. Neither of them were, but those around them suffered or would suffer soon enough.

After Hanuman had finished regaling her with tales of Rama, he slipped out of the garden and was captured by Indrajit, one of Ravana's sons. Getting himself captured was simply a ruse so that he would be conveyed into Ravana's presence. He was in the throne room now, declaring to all how Rama would come for his wife and slay all who opposed him. Ravana wanted to kill him – would that prevent the coming tragedy or just delay it? shadow-Sita wondered. It did not matter; his courtiers had convinced Ravana that it was dishonorable to slay a messenger, but given how a monkey's tail was its pride he did order them to set the monkey's tail on fire. As the rakshasas wrapped oil-soaked cloth around his tail, Hanuman used his power to cause it to grow longer and longer. They did not know Agni, the god of fire, would not allow Hanuman to be burned. They lost count of how much cloth and how many jars of oil they used, but when they finally set flame to Hanuman's tail it was long enough to coil and snake throughout the entire city. He whipped and lashed his tail about until nearly every building was aflame, then he made a mighty leap and was gone, back across the sea. He missed the aftermath of his scheme, did not see the conflagration consume entire neighborhoods, did not hear the screams of rakshasas trapped inside their homes burning alive, nor witness in the coming days the grieving parents who lost children and the sobbing children who had lost parents.

“And to think,” shadow-Sita whispered from the walled sanctuary of the untouched garden, “there is still the battle to come.” Seated, silent and unmoving, shadow-Sita wept.

* * *

Shadow-Sita's gaze slowly took in the scene around her. The great kingdom of Lanka lay in ruins, its walls and towers tumbled down, the mighty gates smashed off their hinges, the gardens ablaze and the fountains polluted with blood. The bodies of monkeys and rakshasas alike filled the squares and plazas and streets of the city. The stench of death covered everything in an almost-visible miasma.

Before the survivors of his army, in front of Sugreeva, king of the monkeys, and loyal Hanuman and her brother-in-law Lakshmana, Rama, her husband, had denounced her, questioning her unquestionable virtue. The whole of the war had been to demonstrate Rama's prowess and defend his own honor, everything for his glory. “I release you,” he said. “Go, be with Lakshmana or Sugreeva or whoever you choose,” sweeping his arm in a gesture encompassing the surviving army. He would only take her back, he said, if she conclusively proved her enduring chastity and virtue by a trial by fire. Her brother-in-law was to pile kindling, of which the ruins provided more than enough, and set it alight. She was to step into the fire, and if she was not burned, she was proved chaste. This was all part of Rama's lila, of course. He knew there was no question of her virtue, but it was necessary for the shadow to return to the fire so that Sita, who had remained in the fire throughout the war, could reemerge and stand at Rama's side, ideal wife to ideal husband.

“Why bother with a bonfire?” shadow-Sita said in a quiet voice. “There are many fires here, any of which would suffice. Lighting one more is superfluous, is it not?”

Rama, who had adopted a stern gaze and defiant stance, playing along with his own sport, narrowed his eyes a bit, wrinkled his nose a bit, not enough for the monkey soldiers to notice, but Lakshmana and stalwart Hanuman saw it, and they realized something was amiss.

“Do not question my will, wife. I have told my brother to build a fire, and he will build it. I have told you to enter the fire, and you will enter it.” Lakshmana, ever-obedient younger brother, quickly moved to gather a pile of wood and dry grass. Hanuman, loyal Hanuman, remained as he was, kneeling before his lord.

“You sought me out after I was kidnapped. You slew Vali to win Sugreeva's aid and he assembled his people to fight and die for you. You fought to win my freedom, and now reject me. But still you call me wife?” She stood, arms at her sides, head slightly bowed, and spoke in an even tone, befitting what was an honest question on her part, and yet the eyes of all those assembled widened in surprise, and all leaned forward, the better to hear what would happen next.

You are my wife,” Rama said. He had been light of heart, even during the final battle with Ravana, as it was the culmination of his sport, but shadow-Sita's questions now threatened his joy and pride. “You must do as I say. This is my command.” He put divine force behind his last sentence, a force the whole assembled army felt, and they dropped to their knees in involuntary response. Shadow-Sita also felt the power behind his words, but being fully divine herself, she remained unmoved – she might exemplify the ideal of the obedient wife, but she was also shakti, the eternal feminine, all-powerful.

I have had much time to think while I was held captive these past months. I have thought deeply about this lila you long ago planned. The rakshasa women of Ravana's court capered about me, taunting and tormenting me. Ravana himself promised to make me his most beloved queen and to devour me for dinner if I would not relent. I witnessed Hanuman set this great city aflame, destroying shops, gardens, and homes. I watched you and your army decimate the whole population of Lanka. After causing the greatest conflict and greatest suffering this world has ever known, all for my sake, you stand there, question my unimpeachable virtue, and reject me in front of the valiant monkeys that shed their blood for your crusade. I must ask, 'husband', was it worth it?”

Rama was taken aback. “How can you even ask this? What has overcome you?” He took a step toward her, but power flashed in her eyes and a divine radiance lit her smooth skin.

“In his heart of hearts even Ravana knew better than to try to touch me against my will – I could have ended him, and I regret that I did not.” She turned to Sugreeva, Hanuman, and the army. “I must apologize to you, for so many of your people have perished when there was no reason for it.”

“No reason!” Rama shouted. “They fought for me! They fought for my honor!”

“No good reason, then,” she said. She turned away from the assembly.

“What do you think you are doing?” Rama's voice thundered across the whole earth. The other gods, who had gathered on high to witness Sita's validation, now feared that Rama's wrath could shatter the cosmos. Shadow-Sita was not perturbed, however.

Do not worry so, 'husband'. I will step into the fire, and leave you and all this cosmos behind.”

My Sita would never have spoken to me this way, nor questioned my lila,” he said to her, addressing her back as she faced the fire.

You might think that,” shadow-Sita replied, “but you forget that I am exactly like her in all respects, and even though she has remained in the fire for the whole of the war, she knows as well as I the catastrophe your lila has wrought, and she, too, will leave you behind.”

Shadow-Sita then stepped into the fire and vanished in its embrace. There was a long moment when everything was still save for the dancing flames, as everyone gazed at the fire. Rama, still shaken by shadow-Sita's defiance, expected his Sita to emerge and for everything to be set right, but then the fire flared and died, leaving only a pile of charred and smoking wood.


Monday, March 19, 2018

Religions of Life, Religions of Death



In The Farthest Shore, Ursula Le Guin describes the afterlife of Earthsea as a land of perpetual shadow where nothing grows. It is a barren, rock-strewn plain that slopes down to an ever-dry riverbed, beyond which is a range of high mountains. Scattered throughout this expanse are towns and villages populated with the spirits of the dead – all the dead, regardless of their behavior during life, for the afterlife is not divided into Heaven and Hell in Earthsea. The dead wander about their towns, but they do nothing nor interact with each other, for in death there is nothing to be done. Nor do the dead feel anything, for there are no feelings in death. They are neither happy nor sad nor angry nor any other emotion. The dead simply are, for eternity.

Those familiar with Mesopotamian myths such as The Descent of Ishtar will recognize this vision of the afterlife. The underworld is nothing more than the land of the dead, where they consume mud and dust (Ged, Le Guin's archmage of Earthsea, says the dead drink dust, for there is no water in the afterlife, making it a sort of polar opposite to the living world of oceans and islands). In both Earthsea and Mesopotamia death is dreaded: Ged states that it is right to fear death, while even Ereshkigal, Mesopotamian goddess of the underworld, weeps for those she takes and laments the fact that she is as trapped as the dead. The reason the living should fear death is simple: it is the end of everything that defines life. All feelings and experiences, whether good or bad, cease at the moment of death, and the dead continue on in an emotionless eternity where nothing happens and nothing changes, because in the underworld nothing can ever change. Life is savored because it is only while alive that we can experience anything and everything, from pain to pleasure, joy and grief, happiness and anger. The key dichotomy between death and life can be boiled down to stasis versus change.

The western monotheisms, from Zoroastrianism up to Islam, alter the understanding of the afterlife and the realm of the dead by introducing the concepts of an eternal reward or an eternal punishment after death, which is to say, they split the land of the dead in two, creating Heaven and Hell. Where you end up after you die is no longer a certainty, and your final and everlasting disposition is dependent upon your actions and beliefs in this life. This revision of the concept of death is one of the worst things that could have happened to religion, not because it changes the meaning of death, but because it changes the meaning of life.

Under the ancient religions of the Near East life possesses ultimate meaning because it is the only thing we have, the only existence in which it is even possible to do anything and feel anything. Death, being the same destiny for all, is something to be avoided, not something to be dwelt on. This life is all that matters. But once death involves a choice of eternities it becomes the focus of all endeavors. Beliefs and actions in life no longer matter in themselves, their ultimate importance now lies in where they lead in the afterlife. Life under such a belief system loses ultimate meaning and is no longer lived for its own sake but for what happens after. Heaven and Hell crowd out other concerns, and worry over the final fate of your spirit prevents you from being fully present in this world right now.

This is Ged's lesson from The Farthest Shore – death may be feared, but rather than focus on the fear of death we must instead be present to life, because this is the only existence in which there is the possibility of joy, even if it is also the only existence in which there is the possibility of pain. While death is a dreadful state of being, to be caught up in the fear of death draws all the pleasure out of life. The empty underworld of death is inevitable and because it is unavoidable it is better to focus on living your life.

Death is as inevitable and eternal in the Near Eastern monotheisms, but because one end is desirable and the other is not death becomes transformed into life's focus. Unlike the life-centered beliefs of Earthsea and Mesopotamia, the monotheisms are death-centered traditions in which death becomes life's ultimate concern. This is most vividly exemplified in Christianity, where much attention is paid to Christ's death and resurrection – Easter being the major Christian holiday – while less attention is paid to what he did while he was alive, his teachings both in word and deed which he said are the keys to the kingdom. For many Christians it is this wholehearted belief in the dying-and-rising Christ that defines their religion, and sincerely holding on to this right belief is the means of escaping Hell. But the focus is still death, the focus is still, “I want to go to Heaven, I don't want to go to Hell,” rather than “I want to live life.” 

Perhaps what Christ meant when he said, “They know not what they do,” was his followers were going to misunderstand the meaning of his execution and look only to that event rather than live according to his teachings.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Gods and Men

So, the story of Daphne and Apollo. The problem begins when Apollo, embodiment of all things masculine, makes fun of Eros' ability as an archer. As revenge, Eros shoots Apollo with an arrow that causes uncontrollable love.1 Meanwhile, Eros shoots Daphne, daughter of the river-deity Peneus, with an arrow that kills any and all romantic attraction or feeling. She just wants to be left alone in the forest – don't we all? Why Daphne, though? Why does she – or anyone else at all – have to be involved in Eros' plot against Apollo?

Not taking no for an answer, Apollo chases after Daphne, making this one of the earliest stories in the West illustrating patriarchal denial of women's sexual consent. They run through the forest until Daphne tires and cries out to her father to save her, specifically, to take away her beauty which, she thinks, is what provoked Apollo's lust. Peneus hears her and transforms her into a laurel tree. But because Apollo's insatiable desire has nothing to do with Daphne's appearance – really has nothing to do with her at all, save that she's a woman – he still seizes her, wrapping his arms around the tree trunk. Ovid informs us that Apollo can feel Daphne's beating heart underneath the bark, so not only is she still sensible and aware, as a tree she is firmly rooted to the ground and can no longer get away from her rapist. The story ends as Apollo claims the laurel tree for his own and fashions laurel wreaths as his own personal symbol.

Three male gods, all demonstrating a complete lack of regard for the lone woman in their midst. Eros uses Daphne as part of his scheme to humiliate Apollo, with no thought for Daphne's well-being. Also, it is not entirely clear how this whole plot resulted in Apollo's humiliation. Apollo personifies entitled male privilege that sees women only as possessions to be seized and used however he wants. Peneus, who had been lamenting his daughter's unwillingness to provide him with either a son-in-law or grandchildren, in the act of “aiding” her instead actually removes his daughter's agency and essentially throws her into the arms of her rapist.

Gods, it seems, in particular male gods, are reprehensible. Others have examined this before, of course, the patriarchal privilege and oppression of women found throughout the Greek mythic corpus, but it was not just the Greeks. Similar tales can be found in the Rig Veda, for instance. These myths did not cause misogyny so much as grant excuses for it, provide justifications for it, normalize it as part of the natural ways of the world. Interestingly, though, the Greeks themselves were uncomfortable with their own mythology. They eventually came to view their own gods as sociopathic. They knew the gods, as depicted by Homer, Hesiod, and the other poets, were vile, loathsome beings. However, these accounts by the poets, Homer and Hesiod especially, were myths, that is, scripture, so they could not simply abandon these tales. Their effort to rehabilitate the gods involved reading the old stories in a new light, reading them not as literal-if-mythic events but as allegories about the human condition and our place in the cosmos.

But does allegory actually provide a solution to the problem these myths raise? Allegorical reading, pleading that the story is actually saying something other than what it in fact is saying, is simply a poor attempt at having one's cake and eating it, too. If there were a lesson to be learned, a point to be made, an observation about humanity, the cosmos, and the divine, why not simply say it rather than couch it in an offensive and disturbing narrative? Another problem with insisting on an allegorical mode of interpretation is that it is all-too-easy for a reader to come to the wrong conclusions about the meaning of a text, because many different plausible arguments can be made about what the figures and events in a myth are meant to represent.

But theologically speaking, the greatest problem with allegorical approaches is they transform sacred texts into some sort of puzzle for the faithful, which makes of the gods a mystery. The gods themselves become unknowable, their motives unreadable, our relationship to them untenable. Any uncertainty in the compact between mortals and gods is dangerous, because any mistake on our part is easily fatal, or worse. For those who reflect on the consequences of allegorical interpretation, faith must become a minefield.



1 But is it really love? Or is this not the mythic beginning of the patriarchal – and misogynist – belief that men cannot control themselves sexually?

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Polish & Purity

This has apparently been a thing for a while, but recently I saw an article about "halal" nail polish. Muslims are supposed to wash before prayer (face, hands, feet). According to some Islamic scholars, water has to touch all the skin, otherwise the washing is somehow invalid. The general consensus seems to be that nail polish, being water-impermeable, prevents complete washing, therefore Muslim women cannot wear nail polish and pray. To meet this problem, some companies have invented polishes that are oxygen- and water-permeable.

At best, I can only believe the scholars who came up with this interpretation are stupidly nit-picky. Like Monsura Sirajee, I think this injunction has more to do with avoiding “corrupting” Western influences, and/or just the bog-standard misogyny often found in the Abrahamic traditions.

It seems to me that this interpretation completely misses the point of the washing, which is not unique to Islam; people wash their hands before entering Shinto shrines in Japan, and while it's not exactly hand-washing, dipping one's finger into the font of holy water at the entrance of a Catholic church to make the sign of the cross is a ritual procedure along the continuum of washing rites. Washing off actual dirt isn't the point.

This point about dirt is emphasized in the Quran itself, in the very sura that outlines ritual ablutions performed prior to prayer. Sura 5:6 states, “But if you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you has come from satisfying a call of nature, or you have touched women, and you find no water, then resort to clean earth, and wipe therewith your faces and your hands.” What, after all, is the meaning of “clean earth?” One cannot wash dirt with dirt, so how is it clean, and what is clean earth washing away?

All of this water is part of an initial act designed to set one off in space and time. Washing is the act of leaving the profane, everyday world, and entering into the sacred, whether it's actually entering into a sacred space like a mosque, or entering into a sacred activity like prayer. Being concerned with removing physical pollution is to miss sight of the aim of ritual ablutions, which is the removal of ritual pollution. The everyday world is impure, is dirty, a term we use even if, perhaps especially if, we're not speaking of actual dirt. It's this kind of abstract dirt, this metaphorical dirt of the world, that ritual washing prior to entering sacred space or time or activity is meant to remove. Permeability of nail polish has nothing to do with that.

But perhaps nail polish is an outward sign of a more pervasive dirtiness, as far as certain purveyors of Islamic jurisprudence are concerned. We see a clue to this in the verse above, that simply “touching” a woman (wink-wink nudge-nudge) apparently renders a person – that is, a man – unclean in a way that needs purification. The burden of ritual pollution lies squarely upon women, and interpreting nail polish as a literal barrier to ritual purity simply adds to that burden.

I think, rather than inventing new polishes, what is needed is new schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Hate the Sin and the Sinner

A judge who works for the Social Security Administration was told, along with all other employees, to watch a 17 minute video on LGBT diversity training – basically how to treat LGBT folks with respect, and understand the diverse and inclusive society SSA is to serve. This judge, Gary Suttles, refused, on the basis that, “this type of government indoctrination training does not comport with my religious views and I object on that basis as well.”

He requested a religious accommodation to exempt him from said training video, and was denied, because by not undergoing the training, Suttles would leave the SSA open to various liabilities. He has since asked a district judge to block the SSA both from making him watch the video, and from imposing further disciplinary actions against him.

The question, unanswered by either Suttles or his lawyer, is what, exactly, is objectionable in simply watching a video about diversity training. They haven't stated how it violates his religious freedom, and they can't, at least probably not in a way that would stand up in court. Because what it comes down to is the Christian Right wants the freedom to openly discriminate against sinners.

After all, simply learning about treating LGBT people with respect does not in any way violate Suttles' First Amendment rights, unless you want those rights to mean that you don't have to acknowledge that we live in a diverse society. And perhaps the objection goes beyond that: if the SSA wants their staff to watch diversity-training videos, they probably also expect their staff to actually comport themselves with the general public in a similar manner. Instead of paying lip-service to that old saw, “love the sinner, hate the sin,” the Christian Right just want to skip the platitudes and hate the sinner. This is the end-goal that some among the Christian Right hoped to get out of the Hobby Lobby decision: the legal right to refuse legal rights to members of any group of “sinners.” This would be the ultimate “religious liberty” for the Christian Right, the freedom not to serve any member of any group, if serving that group can be defined as violating sincerely-held religious beliefs.

By not being required to serve a diverse society, by being able to actively suppress any sort of government or economic support for members of diverse social groups, they can dismantle diversity itself. So far this sort of attack hasn't been able to survive judicial review. 

So far.

Friday, June 10, 2016

How They COPE

Recently a federal court dismissed a complaint brought by Citizens for Objective Public Education (or COPE) against the Kansas State Board of Education; COPE claimed that new science standards the board had voted to adopt back in 2013 were in fact a form of non-theistic/atheistic religious indoctrination, and thus a violation of students' and parents' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court dismissed the case on the basis that COPE had no standing to bring a suit in the first place, and thus did not particularly comment on the merits of the complaint.1 This is a shame, since COPE's strategy involves preemptively defining what they call “ultimate” questions, such as those asked in origins studies - what is the cause of life, how did the universe begin, and so forth. COPE cites a 1961 decision (McGowen v. Maryland) in which the nature of religion is defined as “an aspect of human thought and action which profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives.” COPE borrows this entire definition in order to explain what they mean by “ultimate” questions: “These questions are ultimate religious questions because answers to them profoundly relate the life of man to the world in which he lives.”

How is it that these questions are inherently religious? Because, they say, the answers to other religious questions, questions about “the purpose of life and how it should be lived ethically and morally,” are wholly dependent on how one answers the “ultimate” questions, namely, “whether one relates his life to the world through a creator or considers it to be a mere physical occurrence that ends on death per the laws of entropy.”2

COPE's use of the world “ultimate” put me in mind of Tillich's definition of religion: “Religion, in the largest and most basic sense of the word, is ultimate concern.”3 I am, however, more familiar with Baird's understanding of ultimate concern, as he says, “By 'ultimate' I am referring to a concern which is more important than anything else in the universe for the person involved.”4 COPE, I think, would combine the two definitions, only leaving off the last four words of Baird's understanding, thereby making religion more important than anything else in the universe. Their basic premise, the assumption from which their whole argument begins, is that questions about the nature of life and the universe are inherently religious questions. For COPE these are also normative questions, in the sense they cannot be subject to any debate or disagreement.

COPE's argument universalizes religion to encompass all aspects of life, as they explicitly state when they claim the new science standards would require students to accept

a non-theistic Worldview. As used herein, "worldview" means a religious view that is "an aspect of human thought and action which profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives" (McGowan v. Maryland, supra).

If that paragraph sounds familiar, it's because it's the same definition from the same decision COPE cites at the beginning of their complaint. For COPE, religion and worldview are the same thing - it is impossible to have a view of reality that is not religious, because religion is nothing but one's view of reality. This is how they can make the apparently contradictory statement that the science standards represent a “non-theistic” worldview: non-theism, or atheism, is religion because it is a worldview, and all worldviews are religion.

But there are really only two worldviews, which COPE already hinted at earlier in their complaint when they assert there are two ways a person can relate their life to the world, either “through a creator” or as “a mere physical occurrence that ends on death per the laws of entropy.”5 If the court had examined the merits of COPE's complaint, they would find it stumbling over itself at this point, because of what COPE says is the real agenda behind the new science standards:

The purpose of the indoctrination [i.e., the science standards] is to establish the religious worldview, not to deliver to an age appropriate audience an objective and religiously neutral origins science education that seeks to inform. [emphasis mine]

This is the constitutional problem that creationists and intelligent design proponents always run up against, seemingly without realizing it. They cannot possibly demonstrate what a “religiously neutral” position looks like because all worldviews are religion. For them, religion is ultimate concern, and they believe this is the normative definition of religion, applicable to everyone throughout all time. This being the case, they cannot ever claim to represent a non-religious position, and their legal argument falls apart. This is a real pity for COPE's legal team, since they composed an 80-some page complaint, and no judge really needs to read beyond the first dozen or so paragraphs to dismiss it.

COPE has not given up, as they filed a petition for a hearing en banc,6 mostly based on the assertion that the Tenth Circuit misread their complaint in the first place:

The Decision [by the Court] erroneously states that the Complaint alleges that the Standards promote a "non-religious worldview" without "condemn[ing] any religion." In fact the Complaint does the opposite, as it alleges in detail how the Standards seek to replace the Children's theistic beliefs with a "non-theistic religious worldview that is materialistic/atheistic."

This is where the courts and the creationists talk past each other: the courts have long since decided that there is the religious, and there is the secular, and that much of life and society and government is taken up with the latter, not the former, while for the creationists there is only the religious, and there can never be anything else. COPE will never be able to cope.


1 In a single footnote the court does “note that COPE asks the court to implement a requirement identical to the one imposed by the statute in Edwards. COPE frames the materialism of evolutionary theory as a religious belief competing with COPE’s own teleological religion, and demands that if evolution is taught, teleological origins theories must also be taught. The Edwards Court expressly held such a requirement unconstitutional.”
2 This odd phrasing is due to an old creationist/intelligent design understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, that a closed system will always tend toward disorder and chaos. If this is true, they say, then how could molecules ever spontaneously self-organize and self-replicate? How can new and more complex forms of life ever evolve? But they have a limited view of how the second law works, and fail to take into account that nothing in thermodynamics says there cannot be local areas of increased order within closed systems, as long as the entropy of the entire system is increasing rather than decreasing. Given that the closed system we're talking about when it comes to the evolution of life is the whole of the known universe, it is not only possible that there could be local pockets of order, it is virtually certain.
3 Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (1959), pp. 7-8, quoted in Baird, p. 18.
4 Robert Baird, Category Formation and the History of Religions, 2nd Ed., (1991), p. 18, emphasis in original.
5 There is an unstated implication to this either/or choice, in that if one relates to life through a creator, then life is not something that “ends on death per the laws of entropy.”
6 A petition which the court denied; COPE now plans to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Monday, April 25, 2016

When Does a Parody Become a Religion?

Recently, a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, Stephen Cavanaugh, filed a lawsuit against prison officials for discriminating against him and failing to recognize his chosen religious beliefs and practices, to wit: Cavanaugh claims to follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The judge in the case, John Gerrard, recently dismissed Cavanaugh's claim, on the basis that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or FSMism) is in fact a parody and not an authentic religion.[1]

There is quite a bit that is valid in Judge Gerrard's decision; it seems clear that FSMism began as a protest against the Kansas State Board of Education when that august body was seriously considering introducing intelligent design theory into public school science classes. After all, intelligent design deliberately does not posit the nature of the designer, and Bobby Henderson, the founder of the Church of the FSM, wrote a letter to the KS BOE urging their acceptance of the FSM as the designer.

Additionally, and perhaps more damningly for Cavanaugh, the judge notes that, while “the Court does not ultimately address whether Cavanaugh's beliefs are sincere, it bears noting that his pleading strategy is not entirely consistent with authentic religious convictions . . . His vagueness [regarding the tenets and practices of FSMism] looks less like inadvertent omission and more like an attempt to prevent the Court from recognizing FSMism for what it is.” I also imagine Cavanaugh's request for relief, including $5 million for “deep emotional, psychological, and spiritual pain resulting from not being allowed to practice” his religion did not help his case.[2]

Judge Gerrard is also careful to note that -

It bears emphasizing that the Court is not engaged in — and has been careful to avoid — questioning the validity of Cavanaugh's beliefs. The Court is well aware that it "should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is struggling with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ." United States v. Ali 682 F.3d 705, 710 (8th Cir. 2012)

He goes on to state that “to read [the FSM Gospel] as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction,” for example, claiming that Vonnegut's or Heinlein's works could be read as scripture for Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds, respectively. But this begs the question of when is a text fiction and when is it scripture? The Epic of Gilgamesh is a smashing good read, but most readers today would be more likely to categorize it as a fictional narrative from an ancient time, rather than religious scripture, even though 3000+ years ago it was, in fact, scriptural. And Judge Gerrard does note that using fiction as a source for actual religion is not impossible, given that there is an actual movement based on Heinlein's work.

Gerrard believes that “to read the FSM Gospel literally would be to misrepresent it — and, indeed, to do it a disservice in the process. That would present the FSM Gospel as precisely the sort of Fundamentalist dogma that it was meant to rebut.” The key question, though, is when does a parody cease to be a parody and to become something else, to become a living faith? The Discordian Society was deliberately created to refute the idea that deity had to be both male and serious [3] – perhaps not exactly a parody in the way that FSMism could be called a parody, but a protest movement against the religious and social straitjacketing of the '50s, '60s, and '70s.

However, a cogent argument can be made that the Discordian Society has become a robust faith. Gerrard cites Africa v. Pennsylvania, (1981):

First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.

Those “deep and imponderable matters” include issues that are existential, teleological, and cosmological in nature. An examination of the forums at principiadiscordia.com reveals serious discussion and debate on all these issues, and Discordians continue to create thoughtful (if humorous – and why can't a real religion include humor?) new scriptures, such as the Chao Te Ching, which, while a parody of the Tao Te Ching, is also a reasoned examination of consensus reality and one's conscious and unconscious behaviors and attitudes toward that reality.

The same could be said for the Church of the Subgenius, which also started as a parody of religion, in this case of the over-the-top Christianity as represented by 20th century televangelists like Robert Tilton, but progressed to become something more for those who are engaged with the Church. The Church of the Subgenius posited July 5, 1998, as “X-Day,” the day when aliens would come to “rapture” up all the Subgenii and destroy everyone else. They held a large gathering at a campground in New York state, and after X-Day, when no one had been raptured and nothing destroyed, a series of posts on Subgenius internet groups revealed a sense of shared community and personal meaning – dare I say, even spirituality – on the part of those who had been there.

One could also point to Jediism, and the fact that 390k+ people reported Jediism as their religion on 2001 census forms in England and Wales, which prompted the UK Office for National Statistics to grant Jediism its own code for processing purposes, though they were quick to note that this did not convey upon Jediism any official status as a protected religion. It must also be granted that many of those 390k+ people probably listed Jediism as a joke; however, there are those who do not consider it a joke, based on the time and thought put into the development of Jedi doctrinal statements.

When does a parody become a religion, then? When does a text become sacred, become scripture? It may be true that to take the Gospel of the FSM and treat it as gospel would be to pervert or subvert the author's intent, but once an author writes a text they have little to no say in how that text gets used. The Apostle Paul, for example, certainly never intended his occasional letters to become scripture, and yet, here we are. While I do understand Gerrard's decision (and I can't help but feel I would have decided against Cavanaugh myself), I do worry about the precedent this decision may set with regard to future cases involving small, new, or “funny” religious movements.
__________

[1] Reading the decision, Judge Gerrard seems to have taken pleasure in writing it, since he got to read and cite the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster extensively.

[2] I mean, really, what's a guy in prison going to spend $5 million on – all the cigarettes?

[3] See the interview with Greg Hill in the Loompanics edition of the Principia Discordia, in which Hill states, “I set out to do what my society told me is impossible – make a real religion from a patently absurd deity.”