Self Sacrifice from Mythology to Modern Times

Part 2

Yesterday, we read about self-sacrifice and some examples from Indian Mythology. Today, we will read about the same in other mythologies –

Christian Mythology

According to the Christian mythology, god became incarnate in Jesus Christ and his death is considered to be the ultimate sacrifice. According to a view that has featured prominently in Western theology since early in the 2nd millennium, God's justice required atonement for sin from humanity if human beings were to be restored to their place in creation and saved from damnation. However, God knew limited human beings could not make sufficient atonement, for humanity's offense to God was infinite, so God sent his only Son to become the sacrifice of the everlasting covenant.

The concept of self-sacrifice is central to Christianity. Often found in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity is the idea of joining one's own sufferings to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Greek Mythology

The Greek mythology includes several stories of persons greatly honoured because they offered themselves as sacrifice for principles of altruistic love, for conscience's sake or for the country's honour and freedom. Deaths as a heroic ideal, can be traced back to Greek mythology whose moral principles influenced Greek history and culture. The demi-god Prometheus was condemned to a form of crucifixion because his great philanthropy for humanity led him to disobey Zeus and bring fire and the arts to humanity.

Alkestis, for example, the wife of Admetos, the King of Thessaly, became legendary because of her self-sacrifice in order to save her husband's life. Her offer to die in her husband's place became a symbol or an ideal that can be realized when one offers oneself for sacrifice so that others may live. Alkestis was fully aware of the nobility of her sacrifice, which saved not only her husband but also her family and country.

There are many examples in classical Greek literature of persons who sacrificed themselves on behalf of honour and freedom of their homeland. The altruistic devotion to patriotic principles that led them to self-sacrifice became the subject of several dramas by Aeschylos, Sophocles and Euripides. Iphigeneia surrendered herself to be sacrificed for the unity of Hellenes and the successful expedition against Troy. Makaria, Hercules's daughter, sacrificed herself to save Athens; Menoikeus, the father of Creon, sacrificed himself to save Thebes; and Antigone preferred to die rather than violate the divine law and obey the rule of men.

Nordic Mythology

There isn’t any major reference of self-sacrifice in the Nordic Mythology, except for the self-sacrifice that Odin made to gain Knowledge. I will recount that in brief below.

The most impressive of the myths concerning Odin is that he hung for nine days and nights on the World Tree, even as his own victims used to hang, while he was pierced with a spear. He hung there as a sacrifice, ‘myself given to myself’ and fasted as he endured in agony, until at the end of the time he was able to bend down and lift up the magical runes which brought secret knowledge to men. This experience is described as if by Odin himself in the poem Havamal (Words of the High One). Thus Odin underwent something which closely resembles the visionary experience of death and resurrection endured by the shamans of Siberia and elsewhere as part of their initiation, and as a necessary preliminary to achieving powers of prophesy.

Tomorrow – we will see how the meaning of self-sacrifice has changed in the Modern times.

Self Sacrifice from Mythology to Modern Times

 Part 1

A modern and secular interpretation of sacrifice is the giving up of something valuable or important for somebody or something else considered to be of more value or importance. The need for a modern definition is important as we will see how the concepts have changed over time across the world.

Self-sacrifice can be defined as an act of deliberately following a course of action that has a high risk or certainty of suffering, personal loss or death (which could otherwise be avoided), in order to achieve a perceived benefit for self or others. Over a period of time Self-sacrifice has become a concept for broader meaning such as selflessness, or the readiness to inflict pain upon oneself to save others.

However, for our understanding we will not limit the phrase to just what can be referred to as ‘killing one self’. We will also encompass such aspects as ‘giving up’ an aspect of one’s self, or giving up something precious to one’s self and so on.

Let us examine cases of Self-sacrifice in Indian Mythology –

Indian Mythology

Before we list out the references of self-sacrifice in Indian mythology, it is important to understand that it has always been considered as one of the great virtues of mankind to be of help to the people around who were more needy. Many a person is considered brave for their virtue of giving away their wealth, knowledge, life, etc. all valuable possessions relevant for man’s existence. Indian mythology gives many extraordinary instances of people giving away their body parts and wealth in order to give preference to “daan” and “tyaag”. Let us take a few examples of such cases of self-sacrifice.

Sacrifice of Maharishi Dadhichi –

During a war between the gods and demons, the demons had dominated the battle and deprived the gods of all their weapons by using some magical powers. The gods were left with only a few but important ones and if they lost them too then the gods would definitely lose the battle. So the gods gave the weapons to Maharishi Dadhichi to keep them with him safe till they returned for the war. The demons tried to get the weapons from Maharishi, but could not. A lot of time passed but the gods did not return to collect them, thus depriving him of his regular penance. So with his magical powers he dissolved the weapons in water and drank them. This way the weapons were both safe within him and he could also carry on with his penance undisturbed.

Soon after, the gods returned asking for the weapons. To this Maharishi explained that the only way to take the weapons from him, which were now in the forms of his bones and even more powerful than before, was now to kill him, to which the gods refused to commit the sacrilege of killing a rishi. It was then that the Maharishi created a huge fire, entered into it and submitted himself to the fire. Then Lord Brahma appeared and converted the bones into various powerful weapons with the help of which the demons were defeated. This is till date considered to one of the greatest examples of self-sacrifice.

Puru's sacrifice of his youth to Yayati .

When Yayati’s wife Devyani came to know about Yayati’s illicit relationship she informed her father Sukra, who in turn cursed Yayati that he would suffer the infirmities of old age. When Yayati went and pleaded with him, Sukra lifted the curse by assuring him that one of Yayati's sons could accept his old age in exchange for the youth and the son would be crowned king after Yayati.

Yayati approached all his sons one by one, but all of them refused to barter old age with Yayati, except Puru who was out of the illicit relationship of Yayati with Sarmishta, and thus an illegitimate child too. This giving up of youth for his cursed father is considered an act of self-sacrifice.

Like above, there are many more references of such sacrifices made by many a hero in Indian mythology, some of which are:

·         Bhishma's vow of remaining celibate

·         The voluntary sacrifice of sight by Gandhari

·         Abhimanyu’s death within the chakravyahu

·         Self-immolation by Sati in King Daksha’s court

There are many more such examples, but we will stop here for the Indian Mythology.

Tomorrow, we will read about self-sacrifice in other mythologies.

The Menace of Wife-beating

A recent event of a diplomat beating his wife black-blue raising international eye-brows is the talk of town, or rather, talk of the world. Thanks to this incident, people are raising lots of questions. Is this an Indian-thing? Is domestic violence in India as common as common cold? Are Indian males prone to wife-beating?

I don’t know how much importance to give to this incident, except that it has proven one thing. Wife-beating is not just a slum-thing or amongst the illiterate or rural folks. It exists, even where we never thought it did, amongst the hoity-toity of the society.

I am taken back to my school-days, when my Hindi teacher, who was very strict and autocratic in the class, and who hated debates, once introduced us to a doha by Tulsidas – dhol gawar shudra pashu nari – sab hai tadan ke adhikari. Loosely translated this would mean – drums, illiterates, untouchables, animals and women, all work when struck or beaten! There was a hush in the class with the girls in the class visibly angry and the boys chuckling away to glory. The teacher’s work was over by just translating it, no explanation given. We boys didn’t need it – it was fodder for all of us for quite a few days.

Later when maturity visited me (though people close to me might chuckle on this statement, but I’ll ignore it the way the girls of my class had done in school), I read a supposed explanation of this one. With the rest of the words remaining the same, woman ‘meant’ vices like sex, desires, etc. Needless to say that the supposed explanation again denigrates the woman, by comparing her with vices!

Men, O Men, stop wording if we are not good at it!

I rummaged through my mythical knowledge, to see if there were any references of wives being beaten by mythical characters, but could fine not one. There have been instances of violation, but none of violence. I checked History, but nothing there too. I checked my family, but on the contrary, I ended up nursing my own bruises! Oops, sorry we are talking about wife-beating and not…..

So where did man get these ideas from? I can only think that this must have been during man’s development days! Man must have had the need to punch his way up, and he must have needed a lot of practice, since they say practice makes one perfect. So our Mr. Would-be-Perfect practiced at home! Unfortunately, his wife did not object, and in the process created a generation of violence-abetters and violence-acceptors. The support-system of man too joined in and we have just found the genesis of domestic physical violence. Congratulations!

Soon after, 'Emancipation' came and left many untouched. 'Feminism' and its movement left few highly touched. But the majority continued the silent toil and kept adding to the toll of being beaten. Domestic has now become international. We are now flaunting such violence in the international arena. Reasons can be anything from seeking divorce (whatever happened to marriages being made in heaven!) to drunken behaviour (hic!) to recession (an all purpose excuse) to Christmas trees (Jesus Christ!).

I am not sure what prompted an eminent writer like Tulsi-ji to pen these words, but whenever, he did, it was then. Things ought to change now, or rather today. I urge women to wake up from the prime-time-soaps-induced slumbers and face such apologies of men with all the might. Don’t fall for the epithets of Devi, Sati and Savitri; go for the kill, I mean go for Kali! Object, if not for yourself, for the sake of your daughters. Protest, if not for results, for the trend that it might set. Do all this, if for nothing, for self-respect.

Finally, can’t help but remember one Mrs. Bobbit! Hail to thee blithe spirit!!

Jim Carrey and Lord Ganesh

Hindus in Nevada, US, are up in arms against the portrayal of Lord Ganesh in a sex act on NBC’s Saturday Night Live (SNL), titled “The Wrath of Ganesh”, in which Jim Carrey (remember ‘The Mask’?) is part of the offensive skit. (Times of India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/news/Hindus-upset-with-Jim-Carrey-NBC/articleshow/7303312.cms)

The outcry is not unexpected just as it is not for the first time. Earlier, we have had Ram-Sita on underwear, other gods on slippers, etc. The Western world has a penchant to shock and titillate none but themselves. The desire to shock and court controversy is inherent in many, and if one can use the sacred in that, then eye-balls are guaranteed. Should we worry?

The Western world has always been obsessed with Ganesha and has forwarded numerous theories about the sexual connotations of the trunk. Ganesha, Shiva, Kali, etc. are some of the favourite with a group of Indologists who have worked very hard to give theories which display their own depravity and short-sightedness and their inability to see the inherent symbolism, which is so poetic.

Democracy, they say is a funny animal. Allow and you can go berserk, stop and you can be accused of stifling creativity. Ban, is a bad word and in the name of creativity and alternate studies, one can get away theorising whatever you want to. As if Democracy was not enough, you now have Internet, to transmit anything that you want to, to scores of unknown viewers and readers. That such media and ideology adds to ones sense of responsibility is lost out on majority of the people.

Should we object? Yes and No.

Yes, by objecting we make a statement that such acts cannot be tolerated as the matter is sacred. Yes, because, not objecting to it could be seen as an act of meekness and could lead to more trouble and further acts of such profanity. Yes, for lack of objection, we might allow the perpetrators of ‘intellectual terrorism’, to take us hostage. Yes, because, by such objections, we can try to educate them and help them see the light of the day. Yes, thru the objections, we can show them the true symbolism behind such gods and their mythical acts.

No, because such profanities do not lead to any major damage as our cultural foundations are stronger. No, because, Hinduism, is not a religion, it is a way of life and every facet is so ingrained in each and every practitioner of this ‘way of life’ that such comments are nothing more than a small speck of dust on an elephant’s back. No, because, prior to this many an Indologist, has tried to ‘re-interpret’ our pantheon, but have not managed to do much damage.  No, because it brings out the depravity in such comments of the speaker, and if s/he wants to bask in the glory of one’s stupidity, it should not be our problem. No, a pre-occupation with the Indian mystic, but inability to comprehend is understandable!

Whichever way one looks at it, such acts should not bother anyone beyond a point. However, it still does call for a vote of thanks to Rajan Zed who is leading the protest for a public apology. According to Zed – “Lord Ganesh was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples and not to be thrown around loosely in reimagined versions for dramatic effects on TV series for mercantile greed.” (as reported in Times of India dt. 18/01/11).

Lakshman Rekha

During the exile in the epic, Ramayan, Ram rushed away chasing a golden deer for Sita. When Ram seemed to be in trouble, Sita urged Lakshman to go and see if he was in trouble. Lakshman was not sure if it was right to leave Sita alone in the forest, but on Sita’s insistence decided to go and see. But before leaving he drew a line, with instructions that under any circumstances, she should not cross the line. This line came to be referred to as Lakshman Rekha (i.e. the line drawn by Lakshman). The story goes on that Ravan comes in the guise of an ascetic asking for alms, but is not able to cross the line, till Sita herself decided to cross it to give alms to Ravana, and in the process gets abducted.

So what was this line drawn by Lakshman? Was it some sort of a magical line which no outsider could cross or did it have some other implication? As I have always said, that nothing exists in Mythology for the sake of existence. It always has a meaning which needs to be explored and most important – in context, and that too in context of its times and milieu. In modern parlance, the phrase means that it is the limit (moral, ethical or even physical) which if breached could lead to dire consequences.

Lakshman Rekha is also sometimes referred to as Maryada rekha (limiting line). Many scholars refer this line to be a line which sets limits for women. It sets a boundary of the feminine existence and their influence. This is something akin to the threshold of the house. A woman’s influence and her limits were within the threshold and her stepping out of that zone was a strict no-no.

Many see the line as a cultural divide. Inside the line was the cultured household of a family, and outside was the zone of a jungle which had no rules and no civil norms of behaviour. To be within the confines of the line was to be safe under the umbrella of one’s husband or the patriarch, but once outside, one loses the comfort of respect and support. Outside the line, a woman could not command the same status and could thus be susceptible to the vagaries of the laws of the jungle, which was different from that of a civil society.

It was both the prerogative as well as the responsibility of the men-folk to save their women from this jungle-raaj and in this context the line could both be either a limiting-line or a safety-zone. The liberal would see this as a forceful curbing of feminine power and a chauvinistic expression of the male dominated society. The others would see this as a form of protecting the weaker sex and taking charge of their duties, albeit in a rigid fashion, which probable curbs more than aids the personality of the ones within the line.

For want of a better outlook and definitely in the absence of the modern western-influence and its impact, this was probably the best that people then could think of. In the process, there is a possibility of curbing a few flowers from blooming differently, but then was this a smaller price to be paid or was it a gargantuan error on the part of a society – again in the larger context of societal norms?

To conclude, nothing is out of context, and also from the angle of the eye-sight. You get to see the seven colours distinctly, only if you are in the right side of the prism, not otherwise!