The Sermon At Benares
Q.1: When her son dies, Kisa Gotami goes from house to house. What does she ask for? Does she get it? Why not?
Ans : When Kisa Gotami’s son died, she went from house to house, asking if she could get some medicine that would cure her child. No, she did not get it because her child was dead and no medicine could have brought him back to life.
Q.2: Kisa Gotami again goes from house to house after she speaks with the Buddha. What does she ask for, the second time around? Does she get it? Why not?
Ans : When she met the Buddha, he asked her to get a handful of mustard seeds from a house where no one had lost a child, husband, parent, or friend. She went from house to house, but could not get the mustard seeds because there was not a single house where no one had died in the family.
Q.3: What does Kisa Gotami understand the second time that she failed to understand the first time? Was this what the Buddha wanted her to understand?
Ans : Kisa Gotami understood the second time that death is common to all and that she was being selfish in her grief. There was no house where some beloved had not died. Yes, this was what the Buddha wanted her to understand.
Q.4: Why do you think Kisa Gotami understood this only the second time? In what way did the Buddha change her understanding?
Ans : Kisa Gotami understood that death is common to all and that she was being selfish in her grief. She understood this only the second time because it was then that she found that there was not a single house where some beloved had not died. First time round, she was only thinking about her grief and was therefore asking for a medicine that would cure her son. When she met the Buddha, he asked her to get a handful of mustard seeds from a house where no one had died. He did this purposely to make her realize that there was not a single house where no beloved had died, and that death is natural. When she went to all the houses the second time, she felt dejected that she could not gather the mustard seeds. Then, when she sat and thought about it, she realized that the fate of men is such that they live and die. Death is common to all. This was what the Buddha had intended her to understand.
Q.5: How do you usually understand the idea of ‘selfishness’? Do you agree with Kisa Gotami that she was being ‘selfish in her grief ’?
Ans : DIY
Q.1: This text is written in an old-fashioned style, for it reports an incident more than two millennia old. Look for the following words and phrases in the text, and try to rephrase them in more current language, based on how you understand them. • give thee medicine for thy child • Pray tell me • Kisa repaired to the Buddha • there was no house but someone had died in it • kinsmen • Mark!
Ans : 1. Give you medicine for your child 2. Please tell me 3. Kisa went to the Buddha 4. There was no house where no one had died 5. Relatives 6. Listen
Q.2: You know that we can combine sentences using words like and, or, but, yet and then. But sometimes no such word seems appropriate. In such a case was can use a semicolon (;) or a dash (—) to combine two clauses. She has no interest in music; I doubt she will become a singer like her mother. The second clause here gives the speaker's opinion on the first clause. Here is a sentence from the text that uses semicolons to combine clauses. Break up the sentence into three simple sentences. Can you then say Which has a better rhythm when you read it, the single sentence using semicolons, or the three simple sentences? For there is not any means by which those who have been born can avoid dying; after reaching old age there is death; of such a nature are living beings.
Ans : The single sentence using semicolons has a better rhythm. This is because the three parts of the sentence are connected to each other in their meanings. The second clause gives further information on the first clause. The third clause is directly related to both the first and the second. Their meanings are better conveyed when they are joined by semicolons.
Q.1: What does the young man mean by “great honey-coloured /Ramparts at your ear?” Why does he say that young men are “thrown into despair” by them?
Ans : The young man in the poem praises the great honey-colored hair of Anne. Anne’s hair have been called rampart, meaning a wall. It is called so because they act as a wall, as they prevent young men from looking beyond those yellow hair and into her soul. Her hair are so attractive that young men cannot look at anything else. Anne’s yellow hair are so pretty that young men hopelessly fall in love with her. She is so pretty that everyone wants her, which cannot happen; hence, they are thrown into despair.
Q.2: What colour is the young woman’s hair? What does she say she can change it to? Why would she want to do so?
Ans : Anne s hair are yellow, like the colour of honey. She says that she can change it to black, brown or carrot; she means that she can change it to any colour she wants. Anne says so to show that outer beauty is changeable and not permanent or real. She wants young men to look in her soul and love her for her inner beauty. In order to do so, she needs to show them the superficiality of her external beauty.
Q.3: Objects have qualities which make them desirable to others. Can you think of some objects (a car, a phone, a dress…) and say what qualities make one object more desirable than another? Imagine you were trying to sell an object: what qualities would you emphasise?
Ans : People desire objects because of their qualities that suit their need. The things we consume, goods we use such as a car, a phone, a dress etc. physical qualities matter the most. Before buying anything, it is always considered that the object is durable and looks pretty. If I were to sell a dress, I would select the one that is very appealing to the eye and comfortable for the body. Then I would emphasise on the durability of the dress so that the customer feels that he/she is spending his/her money at the right place and in the right thing.
Q.4: What about people? Do we love others because we like their qualities, whether physical or mental? Or is it possible to love someone “for themselves alone”? Are some people ‘more lovable’ than others? Discuss this question in pairs or in groups, considering points like the following. (i) a parent or caregiver’s love for a newborn baby, for a mentally or physically challenged child, for a clever child or a prodigy (ii) the public’s love for a film star, a sportsperson, a politician, or a social worker (iii) your love for a friend, or brother or sister (iv) your love for a pet, and the pet’s love for you.
Ans : DIY
Q.5: You have perhaps concluded that people are not objects to be valued for their qualities or riches rather than for themselves. But elsewhere Yeats asks the question: How can we separate the dancer from the dance? Is it possible to separate ‘the person himself or herself’ from how the person looks, sounds, walks, and so on? Think of how you or a friend or member of your family has changed over the years. Has your relationship also changed? In what way?
Ans : DIY
No comments:
Post a Comment