This week in class, we looked at an introduction to Hinduism. I thought it was interesting how the word “Hindu” was only used because of the Persians mispronouncing the word “Sindhu.” I noted that unlike Legalism and Confucianism that we have previously studied, Hinduism has no single founder. It also has no single holy book that is followed.

The concept of reincarnation is essential to Hinduism. Hindus believe that people continue to be reborn as new beings after they die in a continuing cycle. The reading calls this cycle “samsara.” For Hindus, the main goal is “moksha.” That is oneness with the main Hindu god Brahman. For this reason, it seems like people are trapped in samsara. This might be why moksha is defined as a release from samsara. Why would you need to be released from something that you are not trapped in somehow? Karma is important as well. It is like, “What goes around comes around.” Hindus believe that if people are good in one of their lives, they will be born into another good life. If people are bad in one of their lives, they will be born into another bad life. Either way, however people act bounces back at them.

The main way to get to moksha is through “dharma.” Dharma is fulfilling one’s own duties and tasks faithfully. The animated video we watched on dharma stressed the importance of spiritual dharma. Fulfilling one’s spiritual tasks are the most important tasks on the way to moksha. The reading also said that focusing on material accomplishments will only continue the samsara cycle. One must focus on spiritual dharma to achieve moksha.

I do wonder a few things about Hinduism, though. If everyone is reincarnated, and every being is the reincarnation of another being, how does a being come into existence for its first life? It seems like it takes many lifetimes for someone to get to moksha. Do Hindus believe that someone can be born into his or her first life, complete his or her entire spiritual dharma all in one lifetime, and go straight to moksha without having to go through samsara first?

We also looked at a part of the Ramayana. In it, Rama has to rescue his wife Sita from a demon. The text is sacred and tells Hindus important lessons about life. One of the lessons is that dharma is a priority. To me it seems like a wife’s dharma is always to help her husband’s dharma. This is because Sita will not be rescued by herself or anyone else other than her husband Rama. Rama’s dharma seems to coordinate with Sita’s dharma because he is supposed to be brave and get Sita out of danger. I also thought it was interesting how Bharata, Rama’s brother, did not take the throne when Rama was in exile from the kingdom. In class we talked about how it was Rama’s dharma to become the new king, and Bharata knew that he was not supposed to take Rama’s dharma. This makes me think that dharma is based completely on whatever a person is born as and has nothing to do with any special skills or talents at all. If a person is really good at songwriting, but he or she was born as a farmer, he or she must work on farming as his or her dharma and not the songwriting that he or she is talented at doing.

So far I think this has been a good introduction to Hinduism, and I am looking forward to learning more about the caste system and the Bhagavad-Gita next week!

This week in class we learned about the Chinese philosophies of Legalism and Confucianism. Both were interesting by themselves and in the way that they contrast each other. Legalism and Confucianism don’t seem to have a lot in common about their views of the world and humanity. Although they are different, I noticed that they both have a fundamental belief. Society is built around that belief to direct people how to live.

Legalism has the fundamental notion that “the nature of man is evil.” The whole system of legalism seems to be set up around this belief. The laws are strict and harsh, and the people have no control or say in the political agenda of the society. This makes the government oppressive, and the emperor’s power is not limited by any other entity in the government. Everything is based on the law, and the only way to move up in society or government is to follow the law. Also, reputation is not valued in Legalist societies, and the reading implied that Legalists think forming friendships to gain power will only lead to corruption in the society. I disagree with this way of thinking. Legalism assumes the worst of humanity as a whole from the very start. The Legalists think that laws are the only way to turn humans good and “make crooked wood straight.” Legalism doesn’t even address the possibility that there is natural goodness in people. Even if people are born neutral, I don’t believe that all humans automatically default to evil rather than good when given the choice.

Confucianism is more in line with how I view the world. Confucianism implies the fundamental notion that there is inherent good in people, and the society just needs to be set up to bring that out of people. Confucianism has a lot to do with morals and shame to motivate people to do the right thing. From the reading, here are some of my favorite quotes from Confucius:

Excerpt from 44: “The humane man, desiring to be established himself, seeks to establish others.”

83: “You may be able to carry off from a whole army its commander-in-chief, but you cannot deprive the humblest individual of his will.”

23: “By nature men are pretty much alike; it is learning and practice that set them apart.”

With that said about Confucianism, there are still some things that I disagree with. One example is the use of the five relationships from the video we watched in class. They are “ruler to ruled,” “father to son,” “husband to wife,” “older brother to younger brother,” and “friend to friend.” All of the relationships except “friend to friend” seem to have a person of higher authority and/or social status and a person with lower authority and/or social status. It makes sense for there to be someone who is in a position that deserves a higher level of respect such as ruler, father, or older brother. Even still, these relationships seem to also carry a slight “know your place” kind of tone. Husband to wife bothers me especially because I don’t think a husband deserves more respect than his wife just for being a husband. I think husbands and wives deserve the same amount of respect, and wives probably deserve more respect than what they often get since they do so much that is not recognized by men in power.

One last point is that Confucianism reminds me of the Quaker belief that everyone has the Light Within. Confucianism does not seem to have Meeting for Worship or as much of a spiritual aspect, and Quakerism doesn’t come from the teachings of one particular person. Confucianism and Quakerism seem to operate in similar ways. The five virtues that Confucianism has (Courtesy, magnanimity, good faith, diligence, and kindness) and the Quaker Testimonies (Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, Equality, and Stewardship) are similar as well. They both rely on a person’s inner self to decide to do what is right.

Class on Friday was thought provoking. It was interesting what we came up with when we brainstormed words we thought of when we heard belief, religion, and system. I noticed that religion and belief had a lot of overlap, but system had some words that were only in that category. That may be because the word system in and of itself does not necessarily refer to belief or religion. Then when we tried to determine the difference between religion and belief systems, we had some similarities and some differences between the two. We said that religion is a belief system, but religions are more widely used throughout the world instead of being unique to a specific place.

Based on the article “Overview of Belief Systems” that we read in class, it was interesting to read about how belief systems seem to stem from wanting to find answers to the “big questions.” I noticed how the article said belief systems and religions are not inherently the same. It seems like a belief system becomes a religion when it is “portable.” People around the world follow the belief system, and the belief system is no longer about a small group of people’s individual beliefs.

Animism is a new word I learned from the article. The article lets us know that animism predates the kind of religions that we think of now. People had a generic belief in spirits, but there did not seem to be any sacred texts. However, animism and modern religions both perform rituals. The article loosely defines religions as “portable and universal systems of belief.” I think the main point of this definition is to make sure the reader understands that religions can be practiced anywhere by anyone.

I thought the article was very informative. It was helpful that the article was organized in chronological order to help the reader see how belief systems changed over time. It seems like the belief systems became more solidified over time as well. However, I still have some questions. When humans first started asking the “big questions,” why did they think of a spiritual answer instead of some other kind of explanation to the questions? Is it possible that spiritual thoughts are necessary for humans to comprehend the world around them? Is the ability to formulate spiritual thoughts embedded in the human brain for that purpose? How do the historians know for sure the accuracy of the information in the article? These are just some of the questions that I thought of after reading the article.

Also, there was the topic we covered earlier in the week about science and religion and how they can be used against each other or to support each other. I think that both are important for learning about the world. I tend to think science is grounded in facts and experiments, and the research is based only on what people can theorize, measure, prove, or see with their own eyes. Religion, on the other hand, tends to deal with beliefs and explains things that cannot be easily explained by science. A common example is about the start of the Universe. Science cannot explain what caused the Universe to begin, but religions can. Similarly, religions don’t involve formulas to calculate the age of the Universe or how gravity and inertia keep the planets in orbit around the sun, but science does.

Overall I think these first several classes have been a good introduction to the course, and I am excited to learn about the history of religions and revolutions!

Welcome to Blog @ FCS. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!