Blog #2 - Buddhism

Buddhism

In my last blog, I made entries that some could take as being anti-Chinese; which is furthest from the truth.  In fact, I am going to make statements that support the history of China.  You may ask "How can this be?"  You may also ask "What does this have to do with world history?"  Well, the answers lie at the end of this blog.  But wait, don't just scroll down to the end, give me a chance first to support my opening statement.

A few semesters back, I was enrolled in a Religions of the World course instructed by Cassie Lipowitz.  As we all know, we are required to take two courses on religion to satisfy our undergraduate requirements.  It was an interesting course.  We learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism (Daoism), Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  We read the assigned texts, participated in class discussions, wrote weekly reflection papers, and submitted a paper on a religion not of our primary faith based on research and from a visit to that religion's place of worship.

Starting with the religions I did not choose ... I felt Hinduism was too broad and would be too difficult to locate a local temple.  Judaism and Christianity were too similar to the faith I practiced.  I took a "peek" at Islam, but decided against it because my friends, and their families, who were Muslim did not regularly practice their faith, so there was a possibly it could be difficult in getting an insider's honest perspective.  I also ruled out Confucianism and Daoism because I felt they were more of a philosophy rather than a religion.      

I was instantly drawn to Buddhism.  Like Judaism and Christianity, it was similar to my practice; where one central person had the ability to enlighten anyone willing to listen, and this one person suffered while seeking this level of enlightenment.  I never regretted my choice and actually enjoyed the personal research into the religion.  I even had the opportunity to interview a Zen Buddhist Priest at one place of worship, and was able to another variant of Buddhism at a different temple.

So now we can go back to the questions posed in my opening statement.  First, how could I speak about a country in such a positive manner after the comments I made in my first blog.  Second, what does this have to do with world history? (and I hope you did not cheat and scroll past the meat and potatoes of this reflection and directly to this part of the blog)  Well, the reason I speak positively about China in this instance is because the country has allowed the religion to continue even though religion is not a high priority in a communist society.  Another important point, which relates to the historical perspective, is that Buddhism did not originate in China - Buddhism traces its roots back to India and did not come to China until 150 AD.  Buddhism is arguably the highest practiced religious faith in China and is tolerated by the government, yet did not begin there.  If you ask me, I believe this is one of the most civilized acts that stemmed from the Neolithic Era.

Blog #1 - Civilization

Hello all.  Momentous day today as I literally post my first blog ever.  Thanks to my classmates who helped me get beyond logging on to the school computer.

CIVILIZATION

I'd like to reflect on the reflection (go and figure that) made by Strayer at the end of Chapter 3.  In this section he wrote that he "called them 'civilizations,' but scholars have reservations using the term..." (Strayer, 83).   I also had similar thoughts and questions about the term as I read through the chapters - where initially I agreed with the use of the term, but later disagreed with its use.  To bring this blog into a time perspective, I am referring to the authors description of the First Civilizations; which included the Olmee Civilization, the Norte Chico Civilization, the Nile Valley Civilization, the Mesopotamian Civilization, the Chinese Civilization, and the Indus Valley Civilization (Strayer, 58-59).

Where I agree with the use of the term "civilization" was the manner of which Home Sapiens evolved.  Our (Homo Sapiens) actions as we moved from the Paleolithic Era to the Neolithic involved a major shift in our way of life that led to our ability to increase our numbers and survive.  From the making of a simple tool called a hoe, we were able to irrigate fields and raise crops.  From the raising of livestock, we no longer had to hunt.  It was from this step, or these steps, that we were able to move forward.  It is also worthy to note that as we have moved from one era to the next, the span of time in each era has decreased - but then, I digress.

Where I disagree with the term "civilization" was its broad use of the term civilized.  Strayer wrote a section on "The Erosion of Equality" with references on Hierarchies of Class, Hierarchies of Gender, and Patriarchy in Practice (Strayer, 64-67).  I am going to use the Shang Dynasty from the Chinese Civilization as an example.  Strayer told of an ancient poem  which described the lives of farmers exploited by their landlords (Strayer, 65).  Personally (although I did not conduct any research on this specific period for this reflection) I am aware China has a history of class struggles.   These sources include discussions in previous classes, to the tone set in Chinese movies depicting various dynasties, up to current events with the demonstrations at Tiananmen Square and the government's actions in order to construct the structures for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.  Although much beauty has been garnered from this era, there are as many examples of uncivilized actions that led to these creations.

This is why I believe the use of the term "civilization" should be carefully considered and kept in the context.

I'm in

This is a test.  Hopefully I'm in the right spot.  Later.  J