Reading: Einstein

I really like how Einstein discribes the mystical in the first section. He revels in the idea of being awe struck, and the ability for man to be amazed by the universe. "He to whom emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead." This was a really powerfull section, and unfortunately there are a lot of people in the science feild who I think are strangers to emotion. It honestly surrprised me the Einsteins writings were going to be on emotion.

I also liked his discripsion of science. How it is essencially a very primative attempt by man to understand a vastly complex and beautifully universe. He also emphasizes how narrow human perception is. Which I feel is very improtant for us to really understant the space we occupy.

Both this and Emersons readings seemed to focus on a humble recognition of man's insignifigance. Which seems like a very disressing thing when given enough thought. I think my astronomy teacher said it best, "we are all made of star poo."

Reading: Emerson

In the first section Emerson discuses the odd phenomina where people aford more respect to things that are old. On one hand I agree with what he has to say, "The centuries are conspiratores against the sanity and authority of the soul." I always wondered why people read and study some of the most rediculous things when their only reply is, "well its really old." I think its simply human nature to give worth to old things, if for no other reason, because if they have been around this long there must be some kind of truth to them. I also wonder if durring Emerson's time citing ancient text wasn't a popular way to win arguments. I know that today when someone begins citing statistics I become extremely critical. This seems to fit right inline with what Emerson says, "If therefore a man claims to know and speak of god and carries you backward to the phraseology of some old mouldered nation... believe him not." I dont like how universal he paints this concept though. There are somethings that dispite their age are still extremly relivant.

The third section was also pretty thought provoking. Emerson is really tring to communicate how relavent everything is. I really think he makes a great point. We as humans put an enormous weight on our own affairs, and all but ignore all the other inhabitants of our universe. Its laughable to even consider how a dog would view the universe, but he must even if its in the most primative fation. In the end though people are people and dogs are dogs. I think we should never diliberatly cause harm to another animal, but people get a little silly when their pets are involved.

All and all a good read. I was a little arcane, but I guess that just comes with anything form the nineteenth century.

Reading: Heraclitus

This is certainly the most unique reading we have had so far. I have to say, I liked it. I think the simplicity is kind of misleading. I am sure that a lot of people will look at this reading, and pass it off as not having enough “meat” to warrant comment. Something else I find interesting is that these are fragments so whatever Heraclitus truly meant in many of these passages will totally left to the interpretation of the reader. All that being said I still feel there is a lot to be had here, mainly because there is so little. One section that communicates this so well is “The way to God is the way through the self.” These passages may provide the spark, but it is up to the reader to stoke the fire.

Looking at the text itself there were a couple of sections I really liked. “Opposition brings together, and from discord comes perfect harmony.” This concept is so simple t is often overlooked. There are a myriad of examples throughout history where we see to enemies become allies to face a common enemy. The French and English, for example, have centuries of hate and malice between them. However, when faced with a common enemy, the Germans, these differences are quickly forgotten.

Here is anther quote that I really liked. “To men, some things are good and some are bad. But to God, all things are good and beautiful and just.” I always gravitated toward the concept of everything being fundamentally good. This is the same concept that is so clearly expressed in the first chapter of Genesis, in the Bible. This notion that God creates everything in the universe, and when he looked on his creation it was good. It also implies that everything that is bad is only that way because humans perceive it as such.

All things considered I really liked this reading. Its simplicity seems to say things that volumes could not. I think this is because I am really reading in my on answers.

Reading: Maximus of Trye

Now this is a reading I can really sink my teeth into. I not only appreciated the message, but the tone as well. It appeals to me so much because it is written very much in a way that I would argue something. That is if people are doing something that is bringing them faith, why should we be upset with them. Even if what they are doing is against our own dogma, the chance of us changing their mind is slim and the odds of making enemies are high. To me this is right inline with the Buddhist point of view. This point of view is the concept that once you have discovered an idea that is particularly enlightening its fine to share it with people, however one should never try to inflict their opinions on others.

The first section discuses the intangibility of God, and to me this is a topic becomes more of an issue the more theological a discussion becomes. I would be very surprised if most practicing people, of any of these faiths, really give much thought to the “unknowability” of God. However to the theologians of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism this topic is of critical importance. I really feel that this rather ridiculous. It reminds me of a section in Monty Python’ s Life of Brian. In the scene a man is about to be stoned for speaking God’s name, however, in reading the crimes the judge inadvertently says God’s name too. In the end they are both stoned. I think Maximus is trying to express the same concept here, while maintain a bit more seriousness.

I really respect this Maximus fellow. He did an eloquent job of describing the foolishness of persecuting those that do not follow the same faith, but he did it while maintaining a level of civility that I found very refreshing. Especially in today’s mediums of discussion where it seems like the only way to be heard is by saying something inflammatory.

Abu Abdallah Al-Harith Al-Muhasibi

I found this a much easier reading than the piece from Muhammad. Where in the previous reading it seemed like the theme was, one God, this reading seemed to focus alot more on the love a praise of that God. It also makes a very strong case that those that love God will lead much happier lives. "Their bliss is eternal and their joy is made perfect. " Here we are duscusing love rather than surrender, and for me personally I think it's a better message.

One concept I didn't like from this reading was were it talks about seeing the face of God. "'By my glory, I will show him my face'" I feel they are taking this passage a little to literally. The way I invtion it is once a man devoted himself to the love of God he is granted a vision of this Zeus like being up in the clouds. I never like the idea of a diety that sits in the cloads with a Greek body looking down on all his creation. I just seemed trite to me.

All and all I liked this passage. I think it had a lot of good notions. The idea that if you love God life will seem easier I'm sure is true. I think it's the same concept that the eastern religions communicate in their paths to enlightement. That is that if you eliminate yourself, ego, you will find life far easier to live.

Reading: Muhammad

We have seen many diffrent religions in this class now. Several of those have been monotheistic, but it seems like none take the concept of one God more seriously than Isam. In particular, Muhammad's writings, have one cental theme: One God. This is repeaded through out these readings. "Do not dispise the world, for the world too is God." I tend to appriciate this acceptance of a God that is principally good, but who does creat evil. Often times other monotheirstic religions will blame the evils of the world on another being, typicly a devil creature. The way I see it that is defying the principe of a monotheistic faith. I think this is becuase it is much easier to conceptualise an "all good" God and an "all evil" Saitan than it is to picture an "everything" God. Even I would feel more comfortable placing my faith in somthing that is pure good, but in Islam you must place that faith in a God of "everything" and know that it will turn out alright. I have a lot of repect in that kind of faith.

This reading also deals a lot with the concept of surrender. This is somthing else that I respect the idea of, but could never seem myself doing. I think this concept of surrender is very much like faith. It's the idea that you have to give up something to get something. This is the point of contest for me. The idea of suspending my judgement, and accepting what is being told has never seemed right. This may be because of my age or just who I am, but the notion of faith in or surender to a doctirne without constantly questioning as always seemed alien.

Reading: Cloud of Unkowing

I found this reading very similar to some of these eastern religions, but also very diffrent. The concept of prayer in this reading is very reminicent of meditation. "And be sure not to think of anything." This is very much in line with the idea of clearing ones mind and getting rid of all that extemporanious thought. This seems like just as much of a catch 22 as in buddism. That is in the attempt to clear ones mind all one will think of is the fact that their mind is not cleared. I think this reading even acknolages this in a later section. "Otherwise it is hard, and a miracle if you can do it." It find it paculuar that this concept of clearing ones mind is so prolific through out the world. Though I can't say I have ever accomplished it, there must be something to be had by doing it or it wouldn't have spread like it has.

Most eastern religions seem to discribe this sort of mind state only in abstract metaphors, but hace very little instruction as to how specifially to go about it. In this reading I found it to be extremely specific and far more blatent with the message it is trying to communicate. "For although it is very profitable sometimes to think of certain conditions and deeds of certian special creatures, neverless in this work it profits little or noyhing."

Over all I was able to grasp this reading far more than the previous few we have studied. I'd probably have to atribute this to the fact that it was writen for a European audiance, and as a result apeals to some basic values that have been injected in our society.

Reading: Jesus of Nazareth

There was a lot of good stuff in this reading, but there were somethings I didn't quit agree with. For example the first section where Jesus says, "pray for those who misstreat you." I always felt this was a very cercomestancial lesson to live by. The idea of leting somone hurt you hoping that a God will punish that indavidual seems like the kind of pacifism I just can't support. On the other hand if you are the brunt of a joke at work and letting it go for the sake of the community seems like a just aplication. Some acts deem retaliation, while in other situations it is best to turn the other cheek. I think the mark of a mature person is knowing which is which.

I though the second section was rather obscure. From our perspective worring about what to eat and wear is a matter of chouce. I'm sure at the time Jesus was preaching this, people were constantly worrying about wheather they were going to be able to eat at all or have clothes that weren't going to fall apart. I think the message still aplies though, that we should not be so cought up in the material nature of life that we miss the really good bits.

I think the Prodigal Son section really illustraites why christianity caught on so well. Comming from a religion like Jewdaism, where an infaction of the covinant would result in a calamitous disaster, to Christianity, a religion with a lot more forgiveness. This man's son could go out and live a life of sin, and oppon his return, rahter than be ostrisied by his father, he is welcomed back as if risen from the dead. I'm sure that would seem preposterous to many from that time, but I personally prefer that much more than exiling the wayward son, and I think a lot of people at the time did as well.

Reading: The Diamond Surtra

A thought came to me as I was reading this passage. If rencarnation ends when a person reaches Nirvan, and escapse the wheal of suffering, are new "souls" ever added to the world? The idea that we live life over and over till we finally reach enlightenment is somthing that I find extremely interesting, but after an eternity wouldn't there eventually be no one left? I realize that this is blaphimous because I am subjecting logic to an illogical universe, but the though still hands in my mind.

Getting back to the reading, I didn't like this one quite as much as the selections from Budda. This reading seemed a little more criptic and hard to understand. "no being has been liberated. Why? Because no Budhisattva who is a true Buddisattva entertains sush concepts as self or others" (35). This seems like one of those paradoxal saying that eastern religions love to distress their students with. The idea that there really isn't enlightenment, because those that are enlightened do not precive themselves as an indavidual therfore there is no one to be enlightend. All of that seems more designed to confuse and confound the readers rather than to empart any kind of meaningful message.

Reading: The Budda

I very much enjoyed this reading. The idea that this is a compilation certainly needs to be taken into acound, and the passages that Stephen Mitchell selected do come together to from a very specific message. That message being that one should, "Hold to the truth within yourself, as to the only truth" (11). That being said I really agree with this perception of things. I always liked that idea of thinking and feeling my way through religion rather than accepting a teaching or reading part and parcel. This isn't to say that I never want to hear what others have to say, or read anything about religion. I simply like to make the final call on what I really agree with, and these passages from Budda are certainly amoung those things I agree with.

"...when you realize that something is unwholesome and bad for you, give it up. And when you realize that something is wholesome and good for you, do it" (10). This seems like such a basic no brainer, and I feel like I have always tryed to stick to this sort of a rule weather I really acknowledged it or not. Though it is a very simple way of looking at life some times I seems so hard. Staying up late doing a paper because I procrastinated on it, is a great example. I certainly knew it would be far more wholesome if I had done the paper earlier, but I chose not to and now I find myself forced to do it in an unwholesome manner, so that I can achive my goal of passing the class.

Reading: Pai-Chang

Stephen Mitchell describes this section the best, “Short and sweet” (55). It seems like all eastern religions have a hard time exemplifying enlightenment, and Pai-Chang is no exception. However I do think this is one of the simpler explanations. For example he says, “When the time comes, you are awakened as if from a dream.” This is probably the most strait forward description of enlightenment I have read. I know that it is pretentious to ask how one knows when they are enlightened, but it seems like so many people have written so much dodging the issue. I realize that it isn’t something that can be taught, that it has to be found in the self, but then again it seems like there are always so many people willing to tell me how to get to enlightenment.

The influence of Hindu spirituality is also clearly present. “You are simply free from unreality and the delusion” (55). This is obviously rooted in the concept of Maya, that all of existence it the fundamentally the same, and our perception is simply an illusion. I suppose it’s really impossible to argue against this keeping in mind that we now accept the theory of atomic matter. So in the end everything thing really is made of the same stuff. On a spiritual level, ignoring scientific fact for a moment, I do like the idea of a connection existing with all things. I also like the idea that our universe if far more complicated than our meager perceptions can detect.

It seems like a trend is starting to form with all these readings. I can’t say I have read any I completely agreed with, but on the other hand there hasn’t been one yet that I completely loathed. So I guess it goes without saying that like all the others this one I got bits and peaces of things I liked, and things I didn’t.

Shay out-

Reading: Tzu-Ssu

This was a reading of extremes for me. On one had there were some messages I really liked, but on the other there were some I though much less of. I particularly liked the message about self reliance and determination. "Life can present him with no situation in which he isn’t master of himself” (13). I always felt that this was the best outlook for someone to dictate their lives. Too many religions feel the need to blame a deity for the fortune or misgivings in human life. I much prefers the idea that if something good is accomplished it was through hard work or prudent thought, and if misfortune strikes one should take action rather than wait for an external force to push them along. Some see it as ego, but I enjoy looking and things I have made or accomplished and am proud of my work. On the flip side when something goes wrong in life I know that I’m going to have to work to get through it. I think what it comes down to is responsibility.

There were some points that I found a little less to my liking. “The mature person accepts his situation and doesn’t desire anything outside it” (13). Knowing ones limits and not being overconfident is one thing, but I also feel that having ambition is just as important. Being completely content with ones station is the ultimate stagnation of ones society. Most great actions were those committed by those that were discontent with their surroundings and rose up to change them. I interpreted this as apathy witch is unacceptable in my book.

Reading: Zlotchov

Though there were aspects of this reading I found agreeable on a whole I did not like the tone of this author. It seems like throughout this passage Zlotchov is trying to belittle the reading. He is constantly emphasizing how small and insignificant humans are, and those who think they are important are even less so. He also defies one of the greatest minds of the enlightenment, René Descartes, who said, “I think therefore I am” by saying, “Thus if they think they exists, they most certainly do not.” (157) This a can’t agree with at all. Existance is one think that I believe in absolutly with the same logic that Descartes did. If I am able to question my own existance then I must exists.

I didn’t like the overtone of this reading, but there were a few sections I still found agreeable. The very last line was very powerfull, “ Like a drop of water fallen into a great sea and is one with the waters of the sea and cannot be recogniozed as aa separate thing.” The fact that if we are broken up we are indistinguishable from the rest of the universe the same way a drop of water is from an ocean made a lot of sense to me. This reminds me a lot of the Hindu way of looking at things as all the same.

The last section I wanted to talk about was where we discus time and its perspective. “…how can they be great, when one night they exist and the next night they die? Their days are like passing shadows…” (157) This is a perfect example of the relativity of time. To an entity that has and will exist forever one day would seem like an instant, and an entire life would be over and done in the blink of an eye. To us it all seems very important, but to a divine being I imagine the definition of “great” would be slightly diffent.

I liked this reading, even tough I couldn’t agree with a lot of it I felt like it did give me perspective.

Reading: The Bible

The first section in the reading is one more the most important. "And God looked at everything that hr had made, and behold, it was very good." (5) I know we have already given this section a great deal of consideration in class, but I felt it really resonated with me. It seems like in the modern era it is impossible for religion and science to co-exists, and every moment they are trying to disprove one another. One of the most fervently argued subjects is the age of the earth. Stephen Mitchell did an excellent job of demonstrating the true importance of this passage, and that is that the universe God created was good. Not that it was created in seven days. It seems like this fallacy is all too common in religion, where people focus on the semantics of a writing rather than what the author is trying to say.

Another section I really felt hit home was toward the end of the reading. “I have put truth in your innermost mind, and have written it in your heart. No linger does a man need to teach his brother about God. For all you know Me…” (5) I soundly agree with this. Religion and faith is something some one has to discover for themselves, and it can’t be taught by others. I felt that Maharshi hit on the very same note, in that it simply not possible for a master to show someone else the way. I also like the passage because it shows us that we have every thing we to reach an understanding of God inside. It also see to be admonishing those that would influence others which again I feel is absolutely correct.

All and all I really enjoyed these reading. They really showed me how steeped in dogma so many Christians are in that I have never heard most of these sections, and I feel they have important messages to tell.

Reading: The Upanishads

I found this reading profoundly difficult to grasp, and I was forced to read through it several times. It seemed like a lot of this section was devoted to trying to impress on the reader that God is something unknowable. This concept I can agree with, and I always liked the idea of God being something beyond our comprehension. I feel that this is far closer to the truth than a Zeus like figure that sits on a thrown in the sky.

The earlier section where they discus Self I was completely lost. I think the problem here was that I simply don’t understand the premises of this discussion. I suppose the Self is rather like a soul, they also talk about the fact that it is not a personal thing. It is also said in this section, “Unmoving, it moves faster then the mind.” I suppose this means that because self is everywhere it doesn’t have to move to travel faster the mind. In the end I think what they are getting at is like God, Self is one of the unknowable things.

The section where sense is discussed came together a lot easier for me. Here they say that, “That which makes the tongue speak but which cannot be spoken.” Which to me mean that God is the impious for the thought and then action of speaking, but because It is unknowable we can’t speak of it. I certainly could stand behind that notion and how it applies to the other senses.

All and all I don’t know if I would say I liked this reading. It seemed to be written for the explicit purpose of confutation, but then again that might just be what this reading is trying to impress.

-Shay out

Reading: Rama Maharshi

This was a great reading. It was very deep, and thought provoking. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this Mahashi. It really helped me to understand Hinduism a lot more. The lecture was good, but these sayings really put things in perspective for me. For example, Mahashi says, “All we need to do is give up our habit of regarding as real that which is unreal.” (193) This really brought the whole concept of Maya and the act of avoiding it home. That simple statement took a seemingly complex and confusing concept, and made it so simple it instantly became obvious.

I was on the fence about the sections where he addressed helping others. First he talks about those that try and save the world. “Wanting to reform the world without discovering one’s true self is like trying to cover the world in leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.” (193) It seems like Mahashi is supporting apathy in a way. By saying that rather, than try and fix our surroundings, we should instead steal ourselves personally for the stones and thorns of life. I can agree with this on one hand, but disagree on the other. I can see the need to protect ones self against the trails of life, but isn’t it sometimes better to cover your little section of the world in leather? The other passage that caught my eye was when he talked about what a Master is to do. Mahashi describes a scenario where a man not wanting to wake up from a dream before all the others in his dream do is parallel to someone wanting to inhibit their own progress to enlightenment to see that others make it first. This I can totally agree with. The path to enlightenment is a personal one, and repressing yourself to help others will not help them anymore that if you did nothing. I feel this was communicated by the fact that the other members of your dreams will never wake up as long and you are sleeping.

All and all I liked this reading and I felt it help me to understand the principals of Hinduism a great deal better.

Reading: Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha

Though neither of the speeches we read this week were what I would call enjoyable, I certainly found this speech by Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha a great deal more agreeable. Whereas Seattle’s section was melancholy, even depressing, this speech seemed to exude defiance. I liked very much what he had to day, and how he said it. I found it particularly interesting when Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha commented on the bible it self. He asked the preacher, “We know only what you tell us about it. How can we know when to believe, since we have been laid to so often?” (p 160) This caught my eye because it so paralleled Medieval Europe when all the bibles were printed in Latin, a language most people couldn’t understand, and forced to believe what their priests told them.

Through out this section I felt there were very interesting ideas, but all and all it was the seeming vigor in which these responses were leveled that really struck me. For example toward the end of the reading Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha speaks about how happy they are now, and turns around to mention that the Great Spirit made them this way. He goes on to point out that they should retain their differences that were clearly the Great Spirits intent.

The logic he applied appealed to me as well. Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha tells this preacher that if the local people start acting any nicer once that have adopted this new form of religion then they will reconsider. He also uses that fact that God did not provide his people a book, which seemed to be the crux of the missionary’s argument, or the means to read one. Therefore they do not need a book to worship the Great Spirit.

All things considered I felt this was an extremely we formulated argument, and I was able to identify with most of the points made. I can see, with how direct the argument was, how the missionary could be a little put off after words.

Reading: Chief Seattle

It’s hard to say I liked the speech by Chief Seattle. I felt it was well spoken, and had many important points. The contents, however, were so grievous I would hate to say I enjoyed reading it. In the same way that I wouldn’t say I enjoy reading a well written obituary, and that is essentially what this man is describing; the death of his people.

Given his perspective I feel that he made the right choice. To look at how Indians were being treated at the time he must have realized that to fight would mean total annihilation, and to give in would me the slow disintegration of his culture. When faced with the decision between a violent and bloody end, or a slow and steady one, it is hard to say which is the dignified way to choose. In the end dead is dead.

Chief Seattle did make clear that he did not want to fight by describing the young men going to war. He sees them wearing ugly black face paint, and knows that the cost of war isn’t just physical but spiritual as well by telling of these men’s blackened hearts. He goes on to justify why they would do these things, which seems to me like more of a plea. Seattle is showing Governor Stevens that these young men fight for revenge, but admits that there is “everything to loose and nothing to gain.”

The ideas here are very melancholy. I feel that the words are powerful, but the position Seattle is speaking them from is very weak. He is essentially backed into a corner and this is him coming to terms, and maybe trying to convince his own people to come to terms with the reality of the situation. Finally the part I found the most telling was when the Chief makes the demand to visit his people burial places. I noticed this passage not because of what was said, but because I knew that even if Stevens gave this concession it was likely short lived.

- Shay out

First

Just testing to make sure this post works!