A (Thin) Boundary Not to Be Crossed, or "Lakṣmaṇ-rekhā"

Q2 Arts and Humanities
D. Stasik
{"title":"A (Thin) Boundary Not to Be Crossed, or \"Lakṣmaṇ-rekhā\"","authors":"D. Stasik","doi":"10.12797/cis.21.2019.02.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the concept of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā that originates in the later Rāmāyaṇa tradition and for centuries has functioned as a metaphorical expression denoting a strict (moral) boundary that should not be crossed, as its transgression inevitably exposes one to danger. It has featured prominently in Indian public discourse on female chastity and is also very much present in different socio-cultural and political contexts, often vocalised in literature, works of art, etc. In the concept of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā, one of the most basic and at the same time most important functions performed in culture by symbolic boundaries is manifested—the function of delineating the known, familiar, safe and permissible from the unknown, unfamiliar, dangerous, impermissible. Significantly, these boundaries have inherent moral weight and help individuals as well as whole societies to structure and regulate the universe they live in, on the micro- and macro-scale.In this paper, first I discuss textual evidence that can be found in wellknown Hindi Rāmāyaṇas such as the Rāmcaritmānas, the Rāmcandrikā and Rādheśyām Rāmāyaṇ, as well as in the Sūrsāgar. This analysis of literary material is meant to contextualise various levels of explicit and implicit meanings of the concept of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā that emerge from traditional sources in Hindi. In the second part of this article, I offer a survey of relevant Hindi dictionary entries and then focus on modern non-literary (and not only Hindi) usages of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā. Finally, I place the previously examined literary and linguistic material in the context of the findings of contemporary social scientists on the concept of symbolic boundaries (Epstein 1992). It is hoped that this study that gives emphasis to structuring and regulating (but not only) aspect of boundaries can contribute to our understanding of how broadly understood safety and values are negotiated in contemporary Indian society by way of drawing (ethical) boundaries and what happens if they are compromised.","PeriodicalId":36623,"journal":{"name":"Cracow Indological Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cracow Indological Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12797/cis.21.2019.02.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses the concept of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā that originates in the later Rāmāyaṇa tradition and for centuries has functioned as a metaphorical expression denoting a strict (moral) boundary that should not be crossed, as its transgression inevitably exposes one to danger. It has featured prominently in Indian public discourse on female chastity and is also very much present in different socio-cultural and political contexts, often vocalised in literature, works of art, etc. In the concept of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā, one of the most basic and at the same time most important functions performed in culture by symbolic boundaries is manifested—the function of delineating the known, familiar, safe and permissible from the unknown, unfamiliar, dangerous, impermissible. Significantly, these boundaries have inherent moral weight and help individuals as well as whole societies to structure and regulate the universe they live in, on the micro- and macro-scale.In this paper, first I discuss textual evidence that can be found in wellknown Hindi Rāmāyaṇas such as the Rāmcaritmānas, the Rāmcandrikā and Rādheśyām Rāmāyaṇ, as well as in the Sūrsāgar. This analysis of literary material is meant to contextualise various levels of explicit and implicit meanings of the concept of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā that emerge from traditional sources in Hindi. In the second part of this article, I offer a survey of relevant Hindi dictionary entries and then focus on modern non-literary (and not only Hindi) usages of lakṣmaṇ-rekhā. Finally, I place the previously examined literary and linguistic material in the context of the findings of contemporary social scientists on the concept of symbolic boundaries (Epstein 1992). It is hoped that this study that gives emphasis to structuring and regulating (but not only) aspect of boundaries can contribute to our understanding of how broadly understood safety and values are negotiated in contemporary Indian society by way of drawing (ethical) boundaries and what happens if they are compromised.
不可跨越的(薄)边界,或“Lak”ṣmaṇ-rekhā“
本文讨论了lak的概念ṣmaṇ-源自后来的Rāmāya的rekhāṇ几个世纪以来,这是一种传统,一直是一种隐喻性表达,表示不应跨越的严格(道德)边界,因为它的越界不可避免地会使人面临危险。它在印度关于女性贞操的公共话语中占有突出地位,在不同的社会文化和政治背景下也非常普遍,经常在文学、艺术作品等中发声ṣmaṇ-rekhā,在文化中通过象征性边界实现的最基本、同时也是最重要的功能之一得到了体现——将已知、熟悉、安全和允许的事物与未知、陌生、危险和不允许的事物区分开来的功能。值得注意的是,这些界限具有内在的道德分量,有助于个人和整个社会在微观和宏观层面上构建和调节他们所生活的宇宙。在本文中,我首先讨论了在众所周知的印地语Rāmāya中可以找到的文本证据ṇ例如Rāmcaritmānas、Rāmcandrikā和Rādheśyām Rāmāyaṇ, 以及在Súrsāgar。这种对文学材料的分析旨在将lak概念的不同层次的显性和隐性含义置于语境中ṣmaṇ-来自印地语传统来源的rekhā。在本文的第二部分,我对相关的印地语词典条目进行了调查,然后重点介绍了lak的现代非文学用法(不仅仅是印地语)ṣmaṇ-rekhā。最后,我将之前研究过的文学和语言学材料放在当代社会科学家关于象征边界概念的发现的背景下(Epstein 1992)。希望这项强调边界的结构和调节(但不仅仅是)方面的研究能够有助于我们理解当代印度社会如何通过划定(道德)边界来协商广泛理解的安全和价值观,以及如果这些边界受到损害会发生什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cracow Indological Studies
Cracow Indological Studies Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信