Chapter 4 Journal Commentary
Chapter 4 speaks mostly about the religious practices in different regions. The text begins with the introduction of Confucianism and Daoism.
Confucius' actual name was Kong Fuzi and he was born in 551. He was an everyday person who lived thousands of years ago in China. He was born from wealthy parents. During this time, China was going through turmoil. There was much disorder in the land, and Confucius believed that he had the answer to all of China's troubles. His profound way of thinking was what set him apart from other forms of understanding and, in turn, became a leading culture in China.
Daoism was started by a figure named Laozi. Whether this person actually existed isn't known for certain, but the Daoism way of thinking did make its mark and moved forward in China. Confucianism and Daoism were opposite ways of thinking. Confucianism thought was patriarchal and viewed the family in hierarchical terms. It focused on education and morality as a way of life. Daoism was more in tune with nature. Education was not of importance here.
My theology mindset was piqued when the text spoke of the dao in Daoism as follows:
"All life comes from it. It wraps everything with its love as in a garment, and yet it claims no honor, for it does not demand to be lord. I do not know its name and so I call it the Dao, the Way, and I rejoice in its power."
This passage reminded me of God as worshipped in the Christian faith. All life was created by Him and He wraps everything with His love because He is love. However, God is Lord even though the dao claims to be otherwise. There is no specific name for the dao, but it is referenced as the Way and it is believed to have power. God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and He is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Very clear connection for me.
India comes into play here with a different tradition, Hinduism. A compelling fact is that Hinduism was not started by anyone. I thought how can so many people follow a belief system that had no founder? It seemed to be a compilation of ideas formed over the years by different people in certain
areas. Because it was a very diversified accumulation of thought, it appealed to many cultures. I guess you can say there was something in it for everyone.
Some writings were also discussed in the text. The Vedas were put together by priests called Brahmins. These writings told a story of how people lived over time. Ritual sacrifices were also mentioned. I feel that this is where things went sour. There was a high price to be paid to these priests for these "required" rituals. So the Brahmins were growing quite wealthy at the price of their people. People began to pass judgment on this type of service.
So, of course, from these complaints materialized a replacement text, so to speak. The Upanishads were a series of writings from unidentified "thinkers" that broke down perceptions of Hinduism into simpler terms. These writings brought forth the concept of Brahman which was defined as the World Soul. This was one's final destination. These thinkers believed that this World Soul was the real deal; anything from the material world was all but a myth, didn't matter. In simpler terms, it goes like this:
the human soul, atman, was a part of Brahman. As you go through your life, the final goal was to achieve union with Brahman. This coming-together of souls was known as moksha. It is up to this point that I was able to make a relation to Christianity. I know, here I go again. I see it like our own human soul and that God is what would be considered their World Soul, even though the divine is not really a big part of the Upanishads. Anyway, our end result is to one day be reunited with our Creator, God. We will become one with Him just like the human soul in Hinduism becomes a part of Brahman. There's my connection. Bear with me. I'm sure there's more to follow.
This is where the similarities end because then the topic of reincarnation is introduced as the means to accomplish this union of souls. Gender roles are also made specific in that women were seen as the less and weaker beings. Pretty blatant in their description of women's roles as they are compared to the "weak semen" or that she is always under someone else's control, never to be independent.
Buddhism is introduced at this time. Siddhartha Gautama was its founder. Quite interesting story. He was a prince that had a good life. He was astonished to learn about old age, illness, and death. So he left everything, family, money, everything to fulfill a six-year journey in order to achieve nirvana which is the enlightened state. He became known to everyone as Buddha (the "Enlightened One"). His faith was based more so on suffering. People should live modest lives and practice meditation. There were similarities and some differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. Even while Buddhism adopted some of the same teachings, it did not approve of the Brahmins or any god-like figures. It was solely up to the person, themselves, to achieve the ultimate state. The irony in all of this individualism is that women were still seen as less than men. So orders of nuns formed that gave women the place they needed to live until nirvana was reached.
Last, there's Christianity. I must admit, I had a difficult time reading this part. Although my knowledge of history in reference to places and specific time frames can be a bit fuzzy - remember, history has never been a strong point of mine - I am a Catholic Christian and I live my faith on a daily basis. I felt that the description of Christianity and Jesus was not quite accurate in some respects. In the text, it stated, "Jesus never claimed divine status, seeing himself as a teacher or a prophet, whose close relationship to God could be replicated by anyone" (p. 173). So wrong. Jesus knew He was and is God. This is the mystery of the Blessed Holy Trinity. There are three persons in one God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They all share in the same divine nature but are three distinct Persons. Therefore, this relationship could not be copied by anyone as the text mentions.
Catholicism is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. The Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, so the Judaism practiced is the incomplete form of Judaism. When the text spoke of Jesus associating Himself with lepers, adulterous women, tax collectors, etc., it stated, "These actions reflected his lower-class background . . ." (p. 173). Jesus associated Himself with sinners, not because of his background of poverty, but because that's why He came to earth and lived among us. He was showing us all how we are to live. In Mark 2:17 it states, "Jesus heard this and said to them [that], 'Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.'"
While I understand that there are comparisons being made about many faiths and practices, I can only really comment on my faith in the way that I have because this is what I know to be true. Perhaps others who practice Buddhism or Hinduism feel that their faith was not truly represented correctly either or perhaps it was. My logic is to read the text based on the research compiled by the authors with the notion that it was put together as accurately as they believed it to be. I don't believe inaccuracies were made intentionally.
Confucius' actual name was Kong Fuzi and he was born in 551. He was an everyday person who lived thousands of years ago in China. He was born from wealthy parents. During this time, China was going through turmoil. There was much disorder in the land, and Confucius believed that he had the answer to all of China's troubles. His profound way of thinking was what set him apart from other forms of understanding and, in turn, became a leading culture in China.
Daoism was started by a figure named Laozi. Whether this person actually existed isn't known for certain, but the Daoism way of thinking did make its mark and moved forward in China. Confucianism and Daoism were opposite ways of thinking. Confucianism thought was patriarchal and viewed the family in hierarchical terms. It focused on education and morality as a way of life. Daoism was more in tune with nature. Education was not of importance here.
My theology mindset was piqued when the text spoke of the dao in Daoism as follows:
"All life comes from it. It wraps everything with its love as in a garment, and yet it claims no honor, for it does not demand to be lord. I do not know its name and so I call it the Dao, the Way, and I rejoice in its power."
This passage reminded me of God as worshipped in the Christian faith. All life was created by Him and He wraps everything with His love because He is love. However, God is Lord even though the dao claims to be otherwise. There is no specific name for the dao, but it is referenced as the Way and it is believed to have power. God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and He is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Very clear connection for me.
India comes into play here with a different tradition, Hinduism. A compelling fact is that Hinduism was not started by anyone. I thought how can so many people follow a belief system that had no founder? It seemed to be a compilation of ideas formed over the years by different people in certain
areas. Because it was a very diversified accumulation of thought, it appealed to many cultures. I guess you can say there was something in it for everyone.
Some writings were also discussed in the text. The Vedas were put together by priests called Brahmins. These writings told a story of how people lived over time. Ritual sacrifices were also mentioned. I feel that this is where things went sour. There was a high price to be paid to these priests for these "required" rituals. So the Brahmins were growing quite wealthy at the price of their people. People began to pass judgment on this type of service.
So, of course, from these complaints materialized a replacement text, so to speak. The Upanishads were a series of writings from unidentified "thinkers" that broke down perceptions of Hinduism into simpler terms. These writings brought forth the concept of Brahman which was defined as the World Soul. This was one's final destination. These thinkers believed that this World Soul was the real deal; anything from the material world was all but a myth, didn't matter. In simpler terms, it goes like this:
the human soul, atman, was a part of Brahman. As you go through your life, the final goal was to achieve union with Brahman. This coming-together of souls was known as moksha. It is up to this point that I was able to make a relation to Christianity. I know, here I go again. I see it like our own human soul and that God is what would be considered their World Soul, even though the divine is not really a big part of the Upanishads. Anyway, our end result is to one day be reunited with our Creator, God. We will become one with Him just like the human soul in Hinduism becomes a part of Brahman. There's my connection. Bear with me. I'm sure there's more to follow.
This is where the similarities end because then the topic of reincarnation is introduced as the means to accomplish this union of souls. Gender roles are also made specific in that women were seen as the less and weaker beings. Pretty blatant in their description of women's roles as they are compared to the "weak semen" or that she is always under someone else's control, never to be independent.
Buddhism is introduced at this time. Siddhartha Gautama was its founder. Quite interesting story. He was a prince that had a good life. He was astonished to learn about old age, illness, and death. So he left everything, family, money, everything to fulfill a six-year journey in order to achieve nirvana which is the enlightened state. He became known to everyone as Buddha (the "Enlightened One"). His faith was based more so on suffering. People should live modest lives and practice meditation. There were similarities and some differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. Even while Buddhism adopted some of the same teachings, it did not approve of the Brahmins or any god-like figures. It was solely up to the person, themselves, to achieve the ultimate state. The irony in all of this individualism is that women were still seen as less than men. So orders of nuns formed that gave women the place they needed to live until nirvana was reached.
Last, there's Christianity. I must admit, I had a difficult time reading this part. Although my knowledge of history in reference to places and specific time frames can be a bit fuzzy - remember, history has never been a strong point of mine - I am a Catholic Christian and I live my faith on a daily basis. I felt that the description of Christianity and Jesus was not quite accurate in some respects. In the text, it stated, "Jesus never claimed divine status, seeing himself as a teacher or a prophet, whose close relationship to God could be replicated by anyone" (p. 173). So wrong. Jesus knew He was and is God. This is the mystery of the Blessed Holy Trinity. There are three persons in one God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They all share in the same divine nature but are three distinct Persons. Therefore, this relationship could not be copied by anyone as the text mentions.
Catholicism is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. The Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, so the Judaism practiced is the incomplete form of Judaism. When the text spoke of Jesus associating Himself with lepers, adulterous women, tax collectors, etc., it stated, "These actions reflected his lower-class background . . ." (p. 173). Jesus associated Himself with sinners, not because of his background of poverty, but because that's why He came to earth and lived among us. He was showing us all how we are to live. In Mark 2:17 it states, "Jesus heard this and said to them [that], 'Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.'"
While I understand that there are comparisons being made about many faiths and practices, I can only really comment on my faith in the way that I have because this is what I know to be true. Perhaps others who practice Buddhism or Hinduism feel that their faith was not truly represented correctly either or perhaps it was. My logic is to read the text based on the research compiled by the authors with the notion that it was put together as accurately as they believed it to be. I don't believe inaccuracies were made intentionally.
Comments
Post a Comment