Divinity of Rama in Ramayana

Divinity of Rama in Ramayana Divinity of Rama in Ramayana The Ramayana is as old and mysterious a poem just as the controversial divinity of Rama, the protagonist. The question of whether Rama is a divine being or just a ‘written-about here has been lingering in the minds of many scholars, especially Western Scholars, for so long a time and still remains satisfactorily answered. Many attempts have gone into critically examining the Ramayana, the first and without any doubt most important Indian poem. Many scholars have marshaled a host of interpretation on interpolations that to some extent explain the doubts that Ramas divinity was not part of the original poem but rather later additions. Using Homeric analysis some scholars posit that a given passage can be dropped or added to an original piece of art in this case the Ramayana.Therefore the sections of the Ramayana presenting Rama as a divine here were later interpolations. They support the view that Rama is a divine incarnation was not an original part of the poem but a later addition. It is argued that the deification of Rama is was a slow process of euhumerisation whereby a â€Å"Semi-hero† of past historic and heroic scene reincarnates through and local divinity into a demigod status, only later on to achieve deity[1]. On the contrary, however, Rama is presented as a ‘thorough human. This is the opinion held by Western scholars. The reason is that about a quarter of vulgate did not form the original â€Å"valmiki† poem from which all our versions come[2]. The divinity of Rama is to be addressed from the higher ‘criticism because even so, arguments that challenge his divinity have been fronted party because of the enormity of doubt. For example books II VI according to Ruben, a Western scholar, were all later insertions to the original work. On the contrary Rama is assumed to be reincarnation of Vishnu, through a heroic epic. However, some scholars argue that Ramas divinity is not to be judged with accordance to the later additions to the Ramayana but be judged from the entire perspective of Ramayana[3]. Ramas interview with his dead father ‘Dasaratha is a divine capacity. Rama, ‘the heart of the gods, and their deepest secret is presented as divine being or so. Because, how then can he talk to his dead father as if the dead father was still alive, and wishes him well and ‘a long life. This is more than just human. Its the logic of divinity meaning the human embodiment of divinity. Rama was a great ruler, with the features expected of a husband. Indian traditions and culture view the easy accommodation of a ‘divine being into an ‘ideal human. If Rama was an ideal man as postulated, it was only possible he became the ‘divine savior.[4] From books II VI, Rama is presented as a hero who challenges evil. A human figure to defeat superhuman adversity probably, Rama has the divine power to be able to do just that[5]. From such happenings the Ramayana is laden with the mystery of Ramas nature. It makes no logic that Rama; a human being can destroy Ravana supers natural being because indeed the two cannot be linked, not unless there is a divine force to bond the two diversities.There are some explicit statements from Ramayana that present Ramas as a King with more than human powers. Surpanakha for example presents Rama to her brother Khara as â€Å"the image of the king of gandharras[6]. Sita refers to Rama as having divine powers. It becomes evidently clear that Rama indeed has divine powers and is not only a human King figure but rather a godly one too. There are direct statements from Ramayana that express the superhuman nature of Rama. He receives those words from Laksmana in the third book when Rama was getting re ady to destroy the Worlds in a fit of rage over the demise of site[7]. The Ramayana narrative excludes gods and categorically so, similarly, it debars men implicitly just like the Greek epic of Achilles. In both, we encounter the ‘heroic paradox. Just as Achilles superhuman character in the epithelia cited above, Rama qualifies to the same caliber of socio-religious stature of divine beings. And reaching the Ramayana, it enables us to transform it to the mythic level of struggle between divinity and humanity, evil and good. So then, transforming the character of the antagonist to envision the ability of the hero to engage formidable and vast unearthly powers of the foe is true of Rama.[8] In the Indian cultural history, evil is not presented a psychosocial problem of human life but is rather presented as a mythic problem. Note that the demonic issue does not constitute itself as plainly a human issue and cannot be devised in human terms because the human expresses itself only as in opposition to demonic. And the struggle against demonic evil is a s such lying wholly beyond the sphere of human participation[9]. Evil is terrestrial, and in this universe, the extermination of evil is only divine. Rama was banished and excluded from taking kingship. However, according to Ayodhyakanda, Bharadvaja, a prophet tells Bharata that he should not fault Kaikayi because Ramas banishment will turn out to be a great blessing (Pollock 512). Previously Bharata had refused to consent to Ramas wishes to become king. The destructions following the death of the king of Ayodhya forced all seers into a committee that spoke to Bharata about the destruction of Ravana. The Ramayana clearly spells out the rather superhuman nature of Rama; both in its original form and even with the added chapters to it. The entire narration is bent on giving Rama a divine appearance. Rama is documented to have seen the wise lad himself, the lord of gods, his body luminous of fire or the sun. Rama witnessed this apparition on his way to the ashram of the sage of Sarabhanga[10]. This passage where Rama sees the lord of the gods can be adequately defended from the conventional interpretation. At the defeat of Ravana, Ramas father appears and the conversation that ensued proves further that Rama was supreme among men. The excerpt vividly portrays Rama as a human -semi-god with the ability to combat evil even for the other gods. In the Ramayana, the boons particulars were that Ravana would not be destroyed or slain by anything be it gods, danavas, gandharvas pisacas birds or even serpents. Ravana though is greedy and wanted the ultimate power of immortality, Ravanas destruction by Rama as such was a work of the gods to avenge the abusive character of Ravana. The connection between the gods and Rama is imminent enough to account for Ramas divinity[11]. Looking back at the birth of Rama, in the Balakanda, it comes near to explaining and declaring Ramas birth plus that of his three brothers as borne by divine intervention; their births as incarnations of Vishnu. This part of the Balakanda is nearer to the older pattern than the second part of Uttarakanda, where the prevailing attitude is that Rama is divine. However later on, the attitude of dedication and complete self-surrender to Rama re-establishes Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu. However, the lack of the term Avatara is less surprising in the general sense of which it can be used to describe the four brothers as ‘embodied Avataras as it were of dharma, Artha and Kama together with Moksa. Probably the growth of the storys popularly influenced religious convictions to all because, as early as the Uttarakanda Ramas story was widespread, wide enough to evoke a religious following[12]. Maybe to point out a little behind the mind thought could Ramas following have a cultish aspect? Maybe later on one can cite the incident where the crow that tormented Sita takes refuge in Rama, himself, from his arrow. This incident though later on accommodated as usual points at the inclinations towards divinity of Rama. The Ramayana does not give evidence of the existence cult before the 12th century. However, there should be no denying that one could have been there. The question of why the crow rested with Rama poses a question of whether righteous inclination is an all time right or a compromised right. But rather emphasizing Ramas righteousness, one would follow the network of Ramas following and its amazing how divine Rama is conceived to have been. Rama is readily tolerable in the Buddhist tradition, as a Bodhisattva. In Jainism Rama is accepted as one of the greatest figures[13]. It is true that the popularity of Ramayana precipitates the widespread controversy on the divinity of Rama in the story and the controversy on whether his divinity is an inclusion in the poem. Despite the opposing western perspectives Rama is understood widely as one who is righteous, dharmajua, and grateful, truthful and resolute. There are indications from his virtues, which point to the fact that Rama was more than human. The attributes of Rama to challenge evil complete the Ramayana story so that it points at the essence of the divinity of Rama from the onset. Therefore Rama is divine and his divinity is not an inclusion in the Ramayana. Work cited Brockington, Joseph. Righteous Rama: the evolution of an epic, London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1985 Datta, Amaresh. The Encyclopedia of Indian Literature (Volume One (A To Devo), New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2006 Pollock, Sheldon. The divine king in the Indian epic. Journal of the American oriental society. Vol.104 (3) 1984; 505-528 Sharma, Ramashraya. Socio-Political Study of the Valmiki Ramayana, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi: Banarsidass Publishers, 1986 [1] Brockington 214 [2] Pollock 516 [3] Datta 83 [4] Pollock 519 [5] Datta 80 [6] Brockington 198 [7] Brockington 317 [8] Pollock 509 [9] Brockington 200 [10] Brockington 310 [11] Sharma 185 [12] Sharma 190 [13] Sharma 192

Obsession of Perfection Essay

The relentless pursuit of human perfection has always been an intrinsic trait of human nature and science has been a mean to achieve it. This statement brings us to the main idea of Hawthorne’s short story â€Å"The Birth-mark.† It shows the story of a scientist who is obsessed with the removal of his wife’s birthmark, considering it a symbol of her human imperfection. â€Å"The Birth-mark† is possibly influenced by Hawthorne’s times where science began to gain knowledge about our world and was considerably glorified, through scientific experiment, humankind can discover, know, and do just about anything. As the narrator explains, â€Å"In those days when the comparatively recent discovery of electricity and other kindred mysteries of Nature seemed to open paths into the region of miracle, [†¦] in its depth and absorbing energy† (Hawthorne 209). The author’s story presents some critical issues about what it signifies to be human, how much science can tell us about the world, what happens when human beings attempt to subvert nature through science, and possibly more significantly, should we try to â€Å"play God† in this manner. â€Å"The Birth-mark† like other stories by Nathaniel Hawthorne provides us with moral allegories and much of the meaning is through Hawthorne’s use of symbolism that addresses the themes such as manipulation of science, humanity’s flaws, and obsession with perfection. Hawthorne uses an intriguing plot and unique characterization in order to teach lessons about the imperfectability of humans by examining at the misuse of science. Since Hawthorne is involved in the telling of a moral tale, it is appropriate to consider in this essay the ways â€Å"The Birth-mark† takes the moral to warn its readers about the dangers of science and obsession with perfection. Therefore, this essay will discuss the meaning of the more obvious lessons that Hawthorne’s short story â€Å"The Birth-mark† suggests, the imperfect nature of humankind, the limitations that science has, and the contentment that humans should have on what they already possess. The main character Aylmer, â€Å"a man of science ÃŒ ¶ an eminent proficient in every branch of natural philosophy† (Hawthorne 209), suffers from a blind obsession about a tiny red birthmark resembling the shape of a hand that his gorgeous wife Georgiana has on her cheek. As Aylmer declares: â€Å"Ah, upon another face perhaps it might,† replied her husband; â€Å"but never on yours. No, dearest Georgiana, you came so nearly perfect from the hand of Nature, that this slightest possible defect ÃŒ ¶ which we hesitate whether to term a defect or a beauty ÃŒ ¶ shocks me, as being the visible mark of earthly imperfection† (Hawthorne 209). He seeks to remove his wife’s birthmark, the symbol of necessarily flawed humanity, and make her perfect. Georgiana’s birthmark represents man’s imperfections, the very imperfections that make her human. The birthmark is deeply ingrained in her face. â€Å"It was the fatal flaw of humanity which Nature, in one shape or another, stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain† (Hawthorne 211). We can assume that, symbolically, this passage implies that man’s imperfections are deeply embedded in his nature. â€Å"The Birthmark† illustrates the flaws of mankind, but its most significant declaration is that to be human is inevitably to be flawed. To struggle for perfection is to deny human’s own nature, to deny what makes us human, and to achieve such perfection is essentially impossible. It becomes clear when the narrator of the story describes Georgiana’s death â€Å"The fatal hand had grappled with the mystery of life, and was the bond by which an angelic spirit kept itself in union with a mortal frame. As the last crimson tint of the birthmark–that sole token of human imperfection–faded from her cheek, the parting breath of the now perfect woman passed into the atmosphere, and her soul, lingering a moment near her husband, took its heavenward flight† (Hawthorne 222), by eliminating Georgiana’s imperfection, Aylmer also liberates her of her humanity. Once she is perfect, once she is no longer flawed, Georgiana can no longer live. Hawthorne’s message is that being imperfect is just part of being human. If you are not flawed, you are not human anymore. It seems then; that the central lesson and underlying moral message behind this passage is that trying to put a small mistake way up out of proportion, in attempt to create something perfect, only destroys a good thing and leave us  with the fatal consequences that come with senseless obsession of pursuing perfection. Another example of a moral lesson that Hawthorne’s short story â€Å"The Birth-mark† suggests is that science really does have its limitations. There are certain things that humans are not privileged to know or capable of doing. It is not only arrogant, the story seems to implies, but absolutely dangerous to try to play God. â€Å"Much as he had accomplished, she could not but observe that his most splendid successes were almost invariably failures [†¦] His brightest diamonds were the merest pebbles, and felt to be so by himself, in comparison with the inestimable gems which lay hidden beyond his reach† (Hawthorne 217). Aylmer cannot discover everything about Nature; he has failed in his past experiments and he will fail again with Georgiana. One of the many morals of the story is that Nature carefully protects her secrets and cannot be overcome or even matched by man. As we discuss in the introduction of this essay, Hawthorne wrote â€Å"The Birthmark† at a time when the scientific method was being glorified and people were starting to think science really could take us anywhere we wanted to go. â€Å"The Birthmark† is presenting Nature as the personified creator of all things, as a god. There are implications in the story about moral ethical issues as science tests new drugs in human beings for instance, or scientists playing to be god like in the case of human cloning. Finally, it delivers the moral about what happens when human beings attempt to challenge and alter nature that can and often will end in tragic consequences. Aylmer’s gorgeous wife, Georgiana is highly desirable because of her beauty. The narrator describes her, declaring: â€Å"Georgiana’s lovers were wont to say that some fairy at her birth hour had laid her tiny hand upon the infant’s cheek, [†¦] to give her such sway over all hearts† (Hawthorne 210). She is perfect in every way, except for one tiny flaw that Aylmer can’t accept. â€Å"At all the seasons which should have been their happiest, he invariably [†¦] opened his eyes upon his wife’s face and recognized the symbol of imperfection† (Hawthorne 211). Aylmer is more and more bothered by his  wife’s birthmark. He grows to find it utterly intolerable, and even describes it â€Å"as the symbol of his wife’s liability to sin, sorrow, decay, and death† (Hawthorne 211). The obsession with perfection blinds Aylmer to the true beauty and humanity of his wife, showing the struggle between accepting her true n atural beauty and man’s inability to perceive it and appreciate what nature has bestowed upon him. As the story revels through this important quote â€Å"Do not repent [†¦] you have rejected the best the earth could offer† (Hawthorne 222). Hawthorne’s critical lesson is that Aylmer didn’t recognize how lucky he was to have Georgiana. At the end of the story Aylmer is punished for being dissatisfied with a woman who pledged her love and entrusted her life to him, a woman whose inner and outer beauty he could not see and his discontentment snatch away the most perfect thing in his life, Georgiana. Contentment on what we have is the central lesson of this passage when sometimes; it is enough to just finish a task, even if it is not perfect because striving to make it perfect could end up spoiling many things in the process. At the end of â€Å"The Birthmark,† Aylmer both succeeds and fails. He succeeds in that he finally rid his wife of her birthmark. He fails in that†¦she is dead. Finally, this story involve man’s desire to prefect what is already perfect and the use of science as a flawed tool to attain this perfection. Sure, Georgiana dies right afterwards, but the fact remains that Aylmer does indeed succeed in removing the birthmark from Georgiana’s cheek. What does this say about man’s ability to conquer nature? â€Å"The end justifies the means.† You can use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something â€Å"good† by using them. It is acceptable to do something bad in order to obtain something good? Works Cited Hawthorne, Nathaniel. †The Birth-mark†. Pearson Custom Library Introduction to Literature. Eds. Cain, Kathleen Shine, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, JN, et. al. Boston: Pearson Learning Solution, 2013. 209-222. Print.

Canadian Shield Case Essay

Using the Accenture document on governance presented with the Alcan case, place Canadian Shield in the appropriate quadrant. According to the Accenture document, I would place Canadian Shield within the efficient, predictable operator category. The slow rate of change and need to compete on operational efficiencies characterized by most companies in this quadrant is detailed by the following quote from the case authors. â€Å"Sustainability for Canadian insurance companies greatly depended on investments in projects that increased customer service and improved operational efficiency.† This comment is aligned with the predictable operator company practices and is evidence that in order to gain a competitive advantage in the Canadian insurance industry it is vital that operational efficiencies are realized through better IT solutions at Canadian Shield and its parent company, Assurance Centrale Inc. (AC). In the key decision going forward, is this Seamus’ call? If not, whose decision is it? Who should make the decision? Under what decision area(s) in the Weill & Ross governance model does this decision fall? As the leader of Information Systems at Canadian Shield, one of many subsidiaries of Assurance Centrale, Seamus Reynolds was tasked with piloting a new information system that could potentially replace the IS’s at all of Assurance Centrale’s regional offices. Five years after starting this project he was feeling the weight of the responsibility for a project that could eventually transform the entire enterprise. The executives at Canadian Shield and AC should have put together a team of knowledgeable IT professionals, business unit heads, and executives to make sure that the new IS would be selected, budgeted, and implemented properly. Instead they allowed one IT leader in a Calgary-based subsidiary to essentially determine the course of the entire enterpriseà ¢â‚¬â„¢s information systems. This type of decision making identifies with the IT Monarchy type of governance styles displayed in the Weill & Ross governance model. According to the model the IT Monarchy style allows IT executives to hold the right to make important IT decisions. A more affective mechanism could be put in place by AC in the form of an IT leadership council that includes corporate and business unit CIOs. What do questions 1 & 2 tell us about IT governance at CS? Is it appropriately structured for this kind of decision? As mentioned above, AC  and Canadian Shield both reflect signs of the IT Monarchy style of IT governance. It appears that by letting the same IT manager that helped create the existing problematic information system called ALPHA spearhead the project of finding its replacement was a conflict of interest. In an industry that is heavily dependent on gaining a competitive advantage through operational efficiencies and consistently delivering value added projects to the customer, it is essential for AC and CS to rethink the current corporate governance model. Across almost all of the major IT governance categories, it seems that CS and AC are either lacking elements completely or lagging behind current IT standards significantly. IT principles or high-level statements about how to use technology to create business value is non-existent in the Canadian Shield philosophy statement and hard to identify within the case write-up by the authors. Furthermore, the corporate IT infrastructure and architecture has become so archaic that the functionality of basic business applications is troublesome for end users such as insurance underwriters. Based on the previous analysis I would say that the IT governance in place at both AC and CS are not structured properly to make a potentially enterprise-wide solution decision. Both economic and gaming theories tell us how CS should approach the issue of sunk costs with respect to the â€Å"current† situation with ISS. Does the traditional view of sunk costs apply here? Sunk costs are costs that a company cannot recover no matter what happens financially in the future. In this case it is hard to the think of the million dollars and five years of time and resources as a sunk cost. However, to AC and Seamus that unfortunately is the truth. Since the proximity of the new ISS system being implemented is close and it has taken so long to arrive at this point, taking a traditional view of sunk costs will not be easy for the employees at CS. Despite this sentiment, it is important that executives remain objective when determining the future direction of the company. This project should be treated the same as if were any other business project such as a building and if it no longer viable it should be seen as a sunk cost and a new project should be selected for implantation. A sunk cost is not necessarily considered a loss however, if CS decides to abandon the ISS project that is exactly what it could and in my opinion should be. Here’s your obvious final question- what would you recommend and why†¦ As tough as it will be for Seamus, I believe that he should consider his IS project a failure and consult with the executive council in order to prepare the company for Request for Proposals (RFPs) from outside software vendors like AIS. The current ISS project is now five years old and almost 5 times  over budget and from initial testing end users find it complicated and not user friendly. This could lead to extensive training, ineffective and inefficient workflows, and further extensive development projects. Despite the previously mentioned hurdles to get the ISS off the ground, it is only given a 50 to 70 percent long-term success rate while the AIS was given better odds. In addition, the AIS solution is already proven to be a sustainable IS platform for insurance companies with the promise of successful Canadian market capabilities. It is unfortunate that Seamus will inevitably develop dissention between the IS professionals he works with as well as the potential lay off of many of his team members. However, business is business and if Canadian Shield and the rest of Assurance Centrale’s subsidiaries wish to capture a competitive advantage in the 21st century, an off-the-shelf solution such as AIS should be considered immediately.

Scintefic Management - 2594 Words

Principles Practices of Management Amity Centre for eLearning ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM: SEMESTER-I Subject Name Permanent Enrollment Number (PEN) Roll Number (SEN) Student Name : Principles Practices of Management : : : INSTRUCTIONS a) Students are required to submit all three assignment sets. ASSIGNMENT Assignment A Assignment B Assignment C b) c) d) e) DETAILS Five Subjective Questions Three Subjective Questions + Case Study 40 Objective Questions MARKS 10 10 10 Total weightage given to these assignments is 30%. OR 30 Marks All assignments are to be completed as typed in word/pdf. All questions are required to be attempted. All the three assignments are to be completed by due dates (specified from time to time) and need to be submitted†¦show more content†¦The foreman narrated the total situation right since the visits of outside engineers and notice of conserving power. He also told about the rumour of cancellation of big order and consequent retrenchment of some of the workers. The production manager was taken aback and could not believe what the foreman was saying. He asked the foreman, â€Å"But all this is not true; did you not tell the workers?† The foreman kept quiet. Later in the day, the production manager called a meeting of union office bearers along with some workers. He also invited the foreman to attend the meeting. In the meeting, the production manager informed about the objectives of the visits of outside eng ineers. He told that the engineers were invited to observe the existing machine layout and to draw plan for installing a new equipment. He explained that notice for putting off motors and lights during the lunch break was meant to save power as there was shortage of power and this had nothing to do with the visits of the engineers. Regarding the cancellation of order, he agreed that one big order was likely to be cancelled because of some troubles at the buyer’s plant but the company had secured a much bigger order and that instead of layoff, there would in fact be more recruitment. But all these could not convince the workers and after two days, the union gave a notice to the production manager for a one day protest strike. Questions 1. Discuss the reasons for the problems that arose