to fulfill my promises to @ananeiah and to expound on @seventh-fantasy's post, there are many conceptions of enlightenment. because buddhism is a massive and old religion with a very robust canon, enlightenment goes by many names, it's articulated and imagined in many different ways. let's play the game of how many of them are adopted by the show...
popular metaphors that embody enlightenment include a refuge, a flame going out, or a firm island - because this world is often described as an ocean. all human beings are floating in the 生死苦海 sea of rebirth and suffering. to escape it, one must make their way to the island or to get on a boat. mahayana buddhism (aka. chinese buddhism) is literally named 大乘 the great vehicle, the primary idea being that enlightenment = to board a vehicle of transport, it will take you away. however, buddhism doesn't just envision this as an ambiguous vehicle. 乘 the vehicle specifically refers to a 船 boat.
the mortal world and the cycle of suffering is a sea and the way out is enlightenment, envisioned as a boat.
an extension of this is the concept of 彼岸 the faraway shore (alt tl: the further shore, the distant shore, the other shore, or at times the opposing shore). it draws on the same notion of 苦海 the ocean of suffering. to achieve enlightenment is to swim to shore, where there is finally safety and stability, free from suffering. this is why the euphemism for enlightenment is to 度到彼岸 reach the faraway shore.
此岸 this shore, is this ever-changing world full of agonies. you wade across the 苦海 sea of suffering, and reach 彼岸 the faraway shore. this is enlightenment.
as @seventh-fantasy depicts in this post, the final shot of ep 40, and as seen in the bonus ep 40.5, this is where llh is. ep 40 ends with the camera moving further into the distance, moving further into the sea. and the bonus ep 40.5 makes it clear again that lxy/llh has found his way to a different beach. llh has crossed the sea to another beach. he is on another shore, the 彼岸 faraway shore, far from 东海 the east sea where everyone else is.
let's look even closer at this.
enlightenment is also conceived as a place: 淨土 the pure lands, 极乐世界 the realm of greatest bliss, and so on. one of the geographical markers of this idea is 西 the west. this "land" accessible only to the enlightened (佛 buddhas, 菩萨 bodhisattvas, and 阿罗汉 arhats) is also dubbed 西方淨土 the western pure lands and 西天 the western heavens, etc.
enlightenment is imagined to be westwards. the opposite direction and away from 东海 dong hai = the east sea. where the story began and lxy famously plunged into; he fell into the 苦海 sea of suffering located in the 东 east. from this starting point, llh makes a meandering journey to his final location in the show. he makes his way 西 west, towards enlightenment, and reaches a 彼岸 faraway shore, the enlightened "after" and what is beyond.
now that we're on the topic of the pure lands, it's worth mentioning that this concept is furnished with a lot of descriptions in buddhist sutras. it is a beautiful, glorious land brimming with lotuses. because, of course, the lotus is yet another ubiquitous image that represents enlightenment.
the lotus position is crucial to the buddhist practice of prayer cultivation, especially in 禅宗 zen buddhism that is built around the central practice of prayer. lotuses are motifs in buddhist art, and buddhist myths (the legend goes that lotus flowers bloomed under the buddha's feet when he took his first steps as a child). people practicing buddhism are referred to as 莲友 lotus friends, 芬陀利花 the white lotus is a synonym for the buddha. lotuses are also integral to buddhist canon; the pure lands are detailed to have seven 宝莲池 treasure lotus ponds. every buddhist has their own lotus waiting for them in the pure lands; it is believed the more you cultivate, the more your bud in the pure lands grows/blooms.
of note, every living thing residing in the pure lands are made from lotuses. in fact, buddhist canon states that the enlightened are reborn inside a lotus bud, similar to an incubation. their new body is reconstituted from lotuses and they emerge anew when the bud blooms. crucially, it is also stated that every enlightened in the pure lands will have 莲花座 a lotus seat. this is a vehicle of transport, usually likened to the magic carpet from one thousand and one nights. it is described as 随心所欲、飞翔自在 something that acts after your heart's desire, something that flies free. the lotus seat is about boundless, freeing travel.
this isn't comprehensive at all, there are tons of other ways lotuses come up throughout buddhism. but the connection to the show is straightforward and self-explanatory. the primary motif in 莲花楼 mysterious lotus casebook is the lotus - a famous marker for buddhism itself. one of the dominant illustrations of enlightenment, the cultivation process to achieve it, and enlightened entities themselves.
the buddhist notions of rebirth are similarly heavily intertwined with the lotus. it is your body; you become it, it becomes you. from then on, you are surrounded by its image and its presence. you even have a lotus vehicle that becomes your main method of travel, a mode of travel defined by carefree contentment. sound familiar? llh's identity and his living carries major markers of enlightenment. it is one of the primary concerns of his character arc.
quick detour. a prominent moniker for enlightenment is the setting of the sun, as yet another epithet utilized by the drama.
detour over. crazy connections time.
discussions of death and suicide is, to my knowledge, particularly prominent in japanese buddhism. but as a whole, a significant portion of buddhist canon and a good number of buddhist media deals with this too. dying as a means to get closer to enlightenment, equating death and enlightenment, the subject of suicide itself. characters seemingly pass away and become enlightened, or characters strive for death with this express purpose as death is connected to enlightenment. this is true. one does not necessarily cause the other, but the concepts are interconnected in buddhism. it comes hand in hand, dissecting one means dissecting the other and vice versa.
most buddhist texts and masters do not condone a direct correlation, suicide is not the way to enlightenment. there is no buddhist value to killing yourself. but the key exception lies in one of the most important buddhist texts: the lotus sutra.
"These include several themes dealing explicitly with death, such as how suicide was committed to speed up rebirth in the Pure Land based on the sanctioning of voluntary death as a superior form of sacrifice in Chapter 23 of the Lotus Sutra ..." [1]
the chapter 23 in question talks about a bodhisattva who turns himself into a human candle and burns himself up, in offering to the buddha. there is more to the story, but it mainly functions as a lesson about cultivation and enlightenment.
in the canon about buddhist suffering, there lies a subset dedicated to physical pain and torment. there is a heavy focus on our 5 senses, specifically (that's a whole separate topic i won't go into here). very briefly, to suffer is to experience the world through our 5 senses. to live as a human being is to suffer in a sensory way.
buddhism aspires to transcend this flesh and blood suffering. so annihilation of one's body is an essential step to achieve enlightenment. usually, this theory centers natural death and decay. you accept that you are always aging, your senses will lose their edge, your body is always subject to illness, injury and other failings. let the body waste away, it will do so regardless.
hence, the human body is set on a course of gradual deterioration. this suffering is processed through our 5 senses and is defined by them. in the face of this, the lotus sutra is the only notable buddhist text that looks kindly upon "voluntary death" to transcend it.
similarly, llh accepts the effects of bicha on his body. it mimics the natural decline of the human body, accelerating the degradation of his senses, his immune system, and his physical capabilities in general. his experience of this form of suffering is also emphasized through a period losing his sense of sight. it is a very buddhist torment. but at the end of the day, it is still a man-made, unnatural cause generating this effect. accepting this is not the same as accepting 生老病死 death via age, sickness and other natural processes.
llh embodies the sentiments and themes in the lotus sutra when he consciously chooses to let bicha run its course. he chooses to die, it is a "voluntary death". let this destroy his body. let this suicidal choice (though its more nuanced than simply suicide imo) free him from buddhist physical suffering. thus bringing him closer to peace, a version of himself that will be happier.
finally, enlightenment is about ambiguity.
凡人 the common people are incapable of comprehending enlightenment. it is understood that the human senses and the human mind is too inept and unrefined, too clouded by illusions, to grasp it. there are a million ways to express it, depict it, and name it. but there is a consensus across buddhism that these are simply aids for the common student of buddhism, and they are not accurate to the truth. at the core of enlightenment is an abstraction, an inherent unknowing.
it is, by definition, a departure and a continuation. it is a removal from this world and a transition into another place, another realm. all at once, the phenomenon straddles a greyness between an ending and a beginning. it is unclear whether the enlightened has left, or is it the common man who is so lacking he cannot recognize or even perceive the enlightened? in the theory of enlightenment, buddhism accounts for both factors. but we will never know for sure.
where do the enlightened go? where are they, where have they gone? these are questions buddhists often ask and explore, and it is also the question that the remaining cast engages with. what is enlightenment, exactly? there is a suspicion, some notion of what must have happened. it might be death, it might not be. only the enlightened can answer this, everyone else is left without clarity.
in the end, the seekers get close to the answer but there is no real fruition. and so the search lasts indefinitely.
that, too, is part and parcel to enlightenment.
as for how enlightenment narratives function, i leave you with this.
"Nirvana provides the full stop (period) in the religious story; it gives what one might call, to use Frank Kermode's well-known phrase, "the sense of an ending" - that is, a real ending and not a mere breaking off. Such an ending is only possible within a narrative.
[...]
Nirvana, I want to suggest, is a moment within a discursive or practical dynamic, a formal element of closure in structure of Buddhist imagination, texts, and rituals. One might say that nirvana has primarily a syntactic rather than semantic value: it is the moment of ending which gives structure to the whole. The fact of narrative structure and closure provides a meaningful and satisfying resolution, although in itself nirvana has merely the formal value of a closure marker.
[...]
Earlier I called nirvana the full stop (period) in the Buddhist religious story; now I can add that it is a full stop in an eternal story, a full stop which brings closure to individual lives in a master text which itself can have no final ending." [2]
Sources:
Tragedy and Salvation in the Floating World: Chikamatsu's Double Suicide Drama as Millenarian Discourse by Steven Heine ↩︎
Nirvāna, Time, and Narrative by Steven Collins ↩︎
20 notes
·
View notes
H E L L O jfp-eyes pen (thats your new name btw)
i know its a little late but my mind keep going back to it and i also talked about a similar issue w several other people on here since and i was wondering if you can/want elaborate on what you said about this:
"like, u want potters to be desi? it’s not just the cute clothes and good food and linguistic differences u need to keep in mind. there’s so much more where it comes from, including several practices that will be considered highly objectionable by this rigidly judgemental crowd."
((i am v v interested but no pressure to answer this, i totally get if you dont want to get into this discourse))
dani—you’re gonna pull me into the desi potters discourse one way or the other, eh?
so. i’m not sure how much sense this’ll make because it’s like…half-baked thoughts but my problem with this scenario actually stems from a more macro, general trend i’m noticing in fandom behaviour. for some reason, puritan culture & veiled conservatism is coming back in the guise of progressiveness? and that’s leading to a lack of critical thinking in these spaces & randomly attributing buzzwords to things out of context bc u don’t have more than a shallow understanding of it.
which means that that comment was directed at a very specific subset of fandom that decided that idk ignoring the Bad Things & Flaws would somehow make them cease to exist. let’s only take the most ‘exotic’, fun aspects even if it’s a completely one dimensional reading & run with it. they wouldn’t be able to tell u what desi is beyond the barebones.
so, you’ll have people vehemently arguing that the potters can’t be anything but desi and white james is gross and i’m just like—why. why are u, as a non-desi person, so attached to this headcanon that you’ll ridicule real people for it? and then their attitudes as well. the incest thing, for example. there are communities in india that marry their first cousins—if i write a story tomorrow where james marries his mother’s imaginary brother’s daughter, then depending on how i HC him, that’s perfectly culturally acceptable (and desirable). if i write a story where euphemia and fleamont use corporal punishment for him, and he takes it super lightly and jokes about it, that’s also fine. (which is a direct contrast to how the western black family & sirius’ abuse is treated). there’ a community in india where the man ‘drinks’ from his mother’s breast, publicly, at his wedding to symbolise the last time he’d be her son before he becomes someone’s husband. another where a new mother can’t feed her son until her sister-in-law washes her breast thoroughly. caste is something that’s not even touched upon. it’s so complicated. but how do u think it’ll be received by most of the desi potter crowd if i actually do write any of this? will i be praised for my ~representation or called out on twitter for being a freak?
and that’s really where i get annoyed. the attitudes most of this crowd hold does not have any space for cultural subjectivity, what is ok to them has to be universally ethical. there’s no way other cultures do things their way and if they do, it’s barbaric/backward/problematic etc etc. pseudo-colonial, like i said.
(disclaimer: i want it to be made very clear i’m not demanding people nclude this stuff in their fics. i’m well aware of how escapism works, being the premier advocate for it. im just saying it won’t hurt to be mindful of these facts, that this is a whole culture that’s ridiculously diverse that doesn’t just exist for the sake of people’s headcanons)
and this isn’t even going into the cultural nuances of how desi families work. you can’t bring in american/european individualism & have james move out at 18 & write everything transactionally & do everything the way u would for a white character but only pay lip service when saying they’re brown ykno? when u say they’re a certain identity, there’s so much that comes with that. and if u don’t include any of that, then it really just makes me wonder why u want a brown james—feels like ego appeasement and falling to peer pressure half the time tbh.
another important thing for me is that so much of this crowd intersects with the ‘fandom is activism’ crowd and i just. fundamentally disagree with those people. and find their words/actions incredibly performative. by which i mean, the way they treat real people—people from the communities they’re adopting as HCs for their beloved characters. there’s this…hypocrisy, yeah? what i mentioned above, about how if i wrote some culturally different practice, i’d probably be attacked. they don’t want desi potter, they want white-lite potters that is palatable to & tailored for their own constitution but in a form that they can pass of as ‘oh look, my characters r diverse which makes me Morally Good and i can use that to shit on others’.
i think my problem is just that i don’t like it when people use the identity headcanons to portray themselves as being inherently better because they have ~equal representation. fandom is not a government institution—lateral visibility & membership is not a prerequisite to wanting to write about x and y fucking or going on a date or hugging or having a conversation. making a marauder group where each character—functionally an OC—is from a different community (often w/o considering how intersectionality works) for the sake of saying ‘oh i have a x in my HCs’ does not make u some radical leftist, yeah? and i strongly dislike people who pretend it does.
45 notes
·
View notes
New blog moment /pos
Hello! I am here to formally request you may or may not tell me more about this selkieverse. Is it an au where everyone is a selkie (or at least, some bugs are)? Do they just turn into aquatic like bugs instead of actual seals? If actual seals, do you have species picked out for the selkie characters yet? How does it work? Are they even selkies at all? Once more, you don't have to answer if its information you'd like to withold but as local marine biology (mostly seals and jellyfish though) nerd I must know if this may be an au that is like. Right up my alley.
Oh boy, we can answer questions! Technically, we've had this blog for a bit, we just... haven't been using it (we are afflicted with a chronic need to illustrate our worldbuilding and we just Haven't Been Drawing recently).
Not everyone is a selkie, but some bugs are - actual species varies! They're seals, or other assorted... vertebrates, mostly. "Selkie", here, is less referring specifically to seals and more referring to the general category of Bugs With Bonus Pelt. We've got actual species picked out for the selkie characters, but we do want to keep a few under wraps - of the few we can reveal, Leif is a ribbon seal, Mothiva is a leopard seal, Cenn is a yellow-bellied water snake, and Vi... well, her pelt was an ermine.
In terms of how it works - selkies are, more or less, bugs that come in two... pieces, or with two forms. It's genetic, though it can very much skip generations and occasionally appears to manifest from nowhere - generally, you have a few main strains of selkie in an area, maybe with a scattering of other species around. Seals are by far the most common around both Bugaria and The North, and the gene's most common in moths (as far as anyone knows), though it can appear in other species - and, as previously mentioned, sometimes you just get a kid who's a selkie without any previous selkie relatives.
A selkie's pelt isn't present upon hatching, but manifests later - generally either when they metamorphose, in the case of bugs like moths and butterflies, or during one of their first few instars on bugs who do That. It is, functionally, a part of them - a selkie cannot be separated from their pelt for too long, though they can wander farther from it with age and practice, and trying to keep away from it causes fun side effects (like organ failure, and feeling like you're being physically peeled out of your shell, and death).
The pelt itself is, as is typical with selkies, a pelt - seal, or snake, or ermine, or whatever else someone might be. Looks like you'd expect a seal pelt to be - although a selkie's pelt contains a few more bones. Generally, you've got a skull, spine, and ribcage, but it's not uncommon to have a few other bones - they shape the skin, more or less. As is standard, once the skin is donned, they gain the form of their pelt, but the selkie has some control over it - as well as some control over how the pelt moves.
The thing about selkie pelts is that, as they're a part of the selkie, they're functionally "alive" - an extension of the self, an extra limb. Technically, anyone can don a selkie pelt and take on the form of whatever creature they are, but it'll be... strange. Uncanny. They aren't the selkie, and this isn't their form - they're just wearing their skin. Unlike on the selkie themself, the bones aren't going to merge to them properly, they're just going to stick in there, wearing away at their shell until they eventually take it off. A pelt only retains its transformative properties while the selkie it belongs to is alive - once they bite it, it becomes just a piece of leather, though with selkie skin being the only real option as far as skins go, it's still pretty damn valuable dead.
If a selkie's pelt is destroyed, the selkie dies. Likewise, if a selkie dies, the pelt becomes inert. It's a bit like holding a vital organ in your hand - and if the selkie and the pelt are taken too far apart, the connection is severed and the selkie will die even if no damage is dealt to either them or their pelt.
As is standard for selkie mythology, having a selkie's pelt gives you some measure of control over them. Specific degree of control varies, largely based on the selkie - though all selkies can be commanded while you're actively holding their pelt, if they'll keep following that command once you've put it down is a whole 'nother ball park. If you had Leif's pelt in hand and told him to do something, he'd keep doing it even if you put that pelt down later, but if you tried the same with Vi (again, while she had it) she'd stop the second you put it down. With Mothiva, just possessing the pelt is enough - you don't need direct contact, you just need to have it. The effect's at least partially psychosomatic - while it's a direct compulsion with direct contact, anything past that is largely based on if the selkie thinks you should be able to tell them what to do.
The selkie form itself is fairly standard as creatures of its species go, albeit downsized for bug scale. They're around the size they'd normally be relative to a human, relative to an average bug (using an ant as your Standard Human works, here). A selkie is, functionally, both their bug species and their pelt species - behaviors in one form will affect the other, and vice versa. Generally, this'll manifest most noticeably in either tics or diet - a craving for raw fish, an odd sense of territorialism, an impulse to drag dead things to your dumb, bad-at-hunting teammate. It does, however, vary - and a good chunk of selkies do try to keep the fact that they're selkies hidden, especially if they might have reason to fear a stolen pelt.
...this is a whole lot of rambling on Selkie Magic Mechanics and not a whole lot of marine biology, uhh. Hope this helps sketch out the general mechanics for ya! We're always glad to talk about Cool AUs!
19 notes
·
View notes
i'm glad you enjoyed brandon F
little note about the uniform thing, the reason why he drags on a bit on that is cause he's a reenactor, 18th century uniforms are his insane obsession. he even jokes about it in the video i sent, saying "i'm finally back to my insufferable self!" when talking about the muskets
i don't blame him tbh, after watching his content for a while i had the realization that 18th century isn't like the romans, whose equipment we deduce through archeology, old sources and guess work.
like, the actual documents that standardized 18th century uniforms still exist and are not hard to access, i realized that after Brandon noted that his source was the fucking British Royal Library in London. ( i mean ffs there's literally photos of Napoleonic era vets heres a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npSru7xEzX8)
and i honestly think its relevant, because if a million dollar historical production didn't want to put in the effort to go to a library and get the official documents. then what else they weren't bothered to get right?
but Brandon doesn't just do historical reviews he also talks a lot about the history in general. like, why fight in lines? what were marines in the 18th century? the history of tactics. and what role did cavalry play in line warfare? for example
heavens bless people of utube that manage to get hyperfixated on one topic for basically their entire life and then proceed to make stuff about it for us to watch, right? it's a delight to listen to someone who actually enjoys the subject and their subject therefore basically guarantees the authencity of what they put out
oooh but yes, the concept itself of what we actually get to know about things in what manner is fascinating in on itself. so since i was small i had been very fascinated by chinese mythology and mythology somewhat comes along with other parts of the culture and so on. and you know how the chinese culture is one of the oldest in the world?
as a result i've somewhat grown accustomed to the numbers that are typical to the span of chinese history and now whenever i go look into the history of my own country i'm actually stumped over how recently certain things happened! then again you wouldn't believe how oppressed or manipulated slovaks had been across history. ain't that right -glares at hungary-
to what extent we know which culture's history is so wild. the ability for certain historical things to simply last is absolutely incredible (such as military uniform documents or musical pieces of 18th century). fun fact! there's still messages written in stone by the soldiers of the roman empire on slovakia's territory. right near Danube, i think, p sure i visited that
thank fuck for reliable sourcing and also thank u for that vid that's gon come in handy for clothing references at Some point, i can feel it
and you are absolutely correct, yes! it Is relevant! as mister Brandon has said, there's of course a certain leeway allowed when it comes to more kid oriented stuff, but i'll admit! i was surprised to learn that serious historical productions apparently put less effort into these kind of things than the sea beast did (i don't usually watch those kind of things, i'm very fantasy/sci-fi and cartoon focused)
this kind of muddling of history that may seem "insignificant" to money grabbing bastards really screws up the perception of the eras for people who don't really have the time or the drive to look into things themselves. it's annoying
oh while we are on this history stuff, i saw this originally in utube shorts, but Apparently they are making a netflix movie or smth about Cleopatra and they made her black?? which is weird, considering that Cleopatra was greek and all that stuff. like don't get me wrong, yes give silenced/less known cultures like black folk more space to present themselves and who they are but like don't do it in a way that heavily skews the history? why are you going out of your way to create misinformation that could heavily impact understanding of history by taking out an already famous (not poc) person instead of Actually making the space for historically important black people. like maybe why not make a movie about that one super rich king from the southwestern coast of Africa (i think) that crashed the egyptian economy twice by being just too damn generous. that would be SO much more helpful to black peeps' history than shoving a black person into the place of a white one
i swear films nowadays either lack soul, heart, spine or brain like 98% of time
8 notes
·
View notes
⚔️ // she felt DISHONEST.
as though she were BETRAYING HER FRIEND right then and there , by not staying. as she walked away yellow carnations sprouted from her hair. into the fabric of her coat , bursting through skin and climbing vines up her wrists and ankles. byleth grimaced and tore them out. she shuddered as the front door closed behind her.
her chest heaved.
in her empty house with no one around and no one to watch as pain lanced through byleth’s chest , she slid down , DOWN , down the door frame.
the lump in her throat worsened.
if she had a heart , perhaps it might stutter. perhaps it might stop. but it didn’t. and she fiddled with the edges of her cloak before drawing her knees to her chest.
. . . perhaps she should go back.
make sure he got his gift. ensure he was okay.
after all , his abode was only a block down. she could — . . . what? wait in the cold for footsteps that wouldn’t come? for a door that wouldn’t open? watch while his eyes burned cold , if the door did reveal him? stay helplessly silent as dimitri snarled , told her it was a WORTHLESS ENDEAVOR , and turned his back? ( again ? )
her eyes closed as fragments of time spun in the darkness there. . . . glimmers of a chapel in ruins . . . of a blue cloak. of a voice that rumbled low as it snarled out words she couldn’t place.
byleth’s head ached as more flowers bloomed there.
the lump suddenly lodged within byleth’s throat , constricting her lungs as it whistled through her teeth. her shoulders SHOOK and HEAVED before byleth coughed and CHOKED — before her lungs , with great effort , spluttered out. she spat out the lump - the OBJECT - out into her hands , fingers tinged red and mouth tasting of copper from all of the words she hadn’t said , and all of the words she hadn’t written down either.
( and the iris petals had fallen from her desk with each penned word , just as more flowers bloomed and choked the earth in its place. )
. . . a garden anemone. its petals were pale and white and fragile. they shook in her hand as she lifted it to eye level. tainted only by the red in her hands.
another to add to the growing pile of dead and wilted flowers torn from her hair and her skin and her clothes. ( dizzy. she was — suddenly feeling dizzy. with pain from flowers blooming and crawling up her skin ; fatigue from - she didn’t really know what from , anymore. )
byleth twirled the anemone between her fingers. she slowly , slowly , stood to her feet.
she would push through this.
�� ENDURE.
the anemone fell to the floor with the rest of them.
perhaps she would check on him another day.
when she wouldn’t choke on petals and flower bulbs.
2 notes
·
View notes