 |
| Mahabharata: the game of dice |
How could
Yudhishtira have done what he did? How could noble King Dharmaputra have gambled
away his kingdom, his brothers, his wife? Was it really Yudhishtira playing that fateful
game of dice? Or, was it Yudhishtira’s Shadow?
The Shadow is a Jungian archetype. Having a Shadow is the inevitable consequence of having a Self. When the Self stands up in the light it naturally and inevitably casts a shadow, a distorted image of itself, that contains the less acknowledged, less developed, more vulnerable aspects of the personality.
I like to think Yudhishtira’s Shadow had taken over, uninvited, when the dice didn’t roll for him during that game. Yudhishtira still was a very young man then. He hadn’t yet found or tamed his Shadow. Yudhishtira finally harnessed his Shadow when he went into exile and became Kanka, teaching King Virata to play dice, thus finding the equilibrium needed to be a great king.
The Shadow is a Jungian archetype. Having a Shadow is the inevitable consequence of having a Self. When the Self stands up in the light it naturally and inevitably casts a shadow, a distorted image of itself, that contains the less acknowledged, less developed, more vulnerable aspects of the personality.
I like to think Yudhishtira’s Shadow had taken over, uninvited, when the dice didn’t roll for him during that game. Yudhishtira still was a very young man then. He hadn’t yet found or tamed his Shadow. Yudhishtira finally harnessed his Shadow when he went into exile and became Kanka, teaching King Virata to play dice, thus finding the equilibrium needed to be a great king.
 |
| Shadow-puppet of King Yudhishtira |
How did Rama,
the other great king of Indian mythology, find and harness his Shadow? Did he find and harness his Shadow?
Every Self has
a Shadow. But Rama’s Shadow is invisible, we don't know anything about it. Rama is flawless. He was born the perfect
man, the maryada purushottam. He didn’t have to
struggle to grow into the role, which, paradoxically, makes me less comfortable
with Rama; like there is a Shadow out there that might emerge at a crucial moment
and do something spectacularly daft.
2 comments:
Wasn't exiling Sita an act of Ram's shadow? That was spectacularly daft. But in general yes, Ramayana is more black and white while Mahabharata is more realistic.
Wasn't exiling Sita an act of the shadow of Ram's uprightness? That was spectacularly daft. But in general yes, Ramayana is more black and white and hence not credible, while the Mahabharata describes the whole person (with his shadow), and hence more realistic / credible.
Post a Comment