Red Lotus Of Chastity: Devasmita And The Nun

When a prince is in need of force, he must channel his inner beast. Machiavelli believes that it is good to be both a fox and a lion, but it is wiser to be a cunning fox because lions are stupid. Machiavelli says, “It is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify wolves… Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about… He who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.” What he means is that foxes are cunning and smart enough to get out of traps, but they are not able to defend themselves against wolves. Lions on the other hand are perfectly capable of keeping the wolves at bay, however they are susceptible to traps He says that lions are stupid as where foxes are cunning and thus it is better to be a fox. As a fox, the prince would know when and where to keep his promises as long as it still benefits him.

In general, Machiavelli believes people are fundamentally self-interested and unreliable. He writes “Men are quick to change ruler when they imagine they can improve their lot.” (The Prince) Machiavelli looks at all men as stupid and irrational, incapable of knowing what is actually best for them. He believes that men would opt for a diet that taste better and completely ignore the fact that there may be a hidden poison within the food because men are so accustom to taking care of their self interest over everything else they are blind to the actual deception of man’s evil intent. In his eye’s all men are greedy, yet gullible, so they are easily acceptable to manipulation and cons. Human nature is nothing more than men behaving as if there is no difference between the nature of man and animal. Just like animals, men possess both good and bad qualities that allow them to survive within the presence of a community. Because man is so anxious to avoid danger, he is able to keep his self interest at bay most of the time. Machiavelli suggests the reason this happens is because a lot of the time people’s self interest actually intertwine. (Erb) The difference between Augustine and Machiavelli is that while Machiavelli feels that all human behavior is conceptual from birth, Augustine believes that men choose to be

Machiavelli is unapologetic about the asserted inevitability of a ruler committing immoral, or even evil, deeds to obtain power, but advises that the suffering should be minimized and the injured party should eventually profit. He writes, “Well-used cruelty (if one can speak well of evil) one may call these atrocities that are committed at a stroke, in order to secure one’s

“The Lady, or The Tiger” by Mr. Frank R. Stockton has compelled readers for as long as time. This story ends with all wondering, so which is it, the delicate and fair young lady or the savage, fierce, wild-eyed tiger standing behind the door. This makes us ponder whether human heart chooses love or jealously. Within this essay, there will be proof that it is the stunning young woman behind the door. Although there is evidence proving that it is the tiger, in a sense there is more evidence stating that the elegant and barbaric princess allowed her real lover to continue living. To begin let us start with the small dwindling points that the tiger, lye behind the door.

Machiavelli uses a compound-complex sentence to inform those who want to be a leader the need of malevolent. Machiavelli uses an independent and dependent clause to gain attention from audience with the purpose of clearing his idea. For Machiavelli’s long sentences in the end of the first paragraph, the prince “profession of virtue” will get “destroyed” by other evil. This cause and effect sentence help the audience to have an images of the impossible of a perfect pure personality of a leader. He warn those who want to be a leader that the prince should be wise and knowing when to act evil rather than good. Moreover, he lists good and bad adjectives such as “cruel” and “compassionate” to imply that a good ruler need to be both moral and immoral. .After all the conventional moral advice, he convey to the prince that action that appear good will damage his position, prince’s power, while those that depict as bad will enhance it.

In the Red Lotus of chastity, two characters Devasmita and the nun are implementing the same concept from the Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. They followed the Machiavellian concept of being a lion and a fox. Devasmita was Guhasena’s wife and while her husband was far a way from her they promised each other to keep red louts in their hand. Whoever commits adultery in the absence of the other; the lotus will wither away and will be unfaithful. The nun was planning to undo the chastity of Devasmita while Devasmita was trying hard to protect it. Both Devasmita and the nun acted cleverly as a fox. However, Devasmita continued acting like super fox until she rescues her husband from death, while the nun ended up acting like a lion.

In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, Machiavelli is able to express and display his own theories and views on how a prince should act in certain situations. The style that Machiavelli uses to explain himself it is very straight forward and most of the time the opposite of what people would think. Machiavelli’s concept of being a lion and fox appears in Somadeva’s “The Red Lotus of Chastity” , where two of the main characters Devasmita and the nun, Yogakarandita, both attempt to follow Machiavelli’s concept of being a fox and a lion. However, Devasmita is the only one that fully uses Machiavelli’s concept and comes out with a victory against the nun, which on the other hand did not use both attributes but instead pretended to.

By using Machiavelli’s concept of being both the lion and the fox, Devasmita comes out victorious in her fight against the nun and the merchant’s sons. Near the end of the story Devasmita must save her husband from the revengeful merchant’s sons. Because she previously did such an effective job at being both a lion and a fox, she is able to have one step ahead of her opponents. “‘So we shall,’ they said. They unwound the turbans on the four men and they all saw the dog’s paw on their foreheads. The merchants’ guild was ashamed, and the king surprised”. (967) This part of the story shows that although Devasmita’s use of the lion concept and branding the men as dogs was not a part of the initial plan, her fox is able to step in and save the day. As a fox, Devasmita is able to quickly think and deceive the

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

Yvain chooses the lion but not the snake, illustrating that Yvain now gains more understanding of what is right and what is wrong: as a knight, he can not lose his mind and be a beast anymore; as a husband, he can not uphold his beloved lady’s promise and let her humiliate him in public. Therefore, Yvain identifies himself as the Knight of the Lion, and the metaphor of the lion, the king of all animals or the Father, indicates that Yvain has overcome those struggles in his heart, and will be a true knight very soon. In other words, the identification of as a lion tells the romance’s readers that love can destroy a man, but can also fill one with determination and

Machiavelli believed wicked means were to be used to achieve a virtuous outcome. In his eyes, a successful ruler was able to balance ethical virtue with harsh, sometimes even merciless pragmatism.11 If this meant partaking in the most ruthless acts of murder, brutalizing,

Whether it is in a polytheistic or a monotheistic religion, the gender of divinity is always a topic given great attention. Although Buddhism doesn’t put much focus on gods in the teaching, it does include certain religious aspects such as praying to the higher beings. The feminine divine traits in Buddhism can be found with a closer examination on the feminine metaphors in the Buddhist scriptures. While Buddhas are predominantly in male form, divine beings like Bodhisattvas often appears to be female figures including Kwan Yin and Tara. The concept of Buddha nature is described as “tathagata garbha” at times, which means Buddha womb. The imagery of this spiritual womb nurturing the nature for all beings implies the significance of this feminine feature. Another example is how the Buddha’s wisdom is referred to as a ‘she’ in some Buddhist texts. The involvement of both feminine and masculine traits seems to underline the irrelevance of gender in Buddhahood. On the other hand, in Christianity a prevailing image of God being the ‘Father’ is developed. The teachings of Jesus powerfully delineate God as a kind and merciful father accepting and guiding his children with no discrimination. In fact, there is only one explicit example in the scriptures comparing God seeking a sinner to a housewife in search of a lost coin. In addition to the masculine image of God, it is argued that between two human sexes, Jesus as a male is

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

attempt to flatter him. When choosing wise men for his government and allowing them the freedom to speak the truth to him