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!