#206 - The chariot and the rider

Arjuna - in a roundabout in Bali

My favourite interpretations in art of the Hindu saga must be South East Asian. It has that sharp, feminine quality which is lacking in popular Indian art which I find garish and blockish. The delicacy and the strength cloaking that delicacy is something which I love. The pretence of effortlessness when great expertise is required.

The character of Arjuna has always fascinated me. It is the name - I have loved the name even before I knew the man. In the Mahabharata he is the consummate warrior - the poet-warrior king. He also is one of five brothers - and they all share one wife. 

Most of the Mahabharata, even though it is a fantastic story, is symbolic and it is about initiation. Listening to it, you receive the lessons without having to burden yourself with too much thinking or effort. In this sense, it is like a fairy tale. You understand the story on a subconscious level. This is how fairytales and folklore differ. In folklore, there is received wisdom. Fairytales work on a world archetype level. They are, I suppose the equivalent of myths, although myths have a religion and spiritual dimension to them. If you have a god doing stuff, you have a myth.

The struggle is real, is what the Mahabharata says. Just as looking at the Tang shipwreck, you realise that over the past 2,000 years or so, technology has not really been bettered in the making and designing of utensils and crockery. Vases and vases, plates and plates and bowls are bowls. And what's more they are as amazing and beautiful and functional as the day they went down. Which is saying something.

Similarly, the Mahabharata is supposed to be around 4th century BC. There are crazy bits to it, but by and large, the emotions which humans have a real. Also their Inhuman powers do make you think that there must be something to the idea which MARVEL Agents of Shield totes about - some people can be born with semi divine abilities.

What is also interesting about the Mahabhrata is how involved the gods are in the lives of people. In Norse mythology there is only ONE instance of Gods having sex with mortals, so this is closer to Greek and Celtic mythology. But Vyasa took the trouble of really colouring in the gods. Giving them many human attributes which makes you wonder, what came first - this humanity which gods have, borrowing our clothes, or perhaps it was the other way round - we have this from them. Being conceited assholes, we have always thought that since we wrote these stories, even though the people who actually wrote them cannot be traced, we then imbued the gods with human characteristics. What if it was the other way round? That this is hardwired into us because of the way the gods behave? 

Who is the chariot and who is the rider? In the Mahabharata there are many many stories of chariot drivers - the God is the chariot driver - as in the case of Krishna. So we know what side the ancient ones come down on.