Without Knowledge, There is No Action

Here, the issue is whether knowledge is completely independent of the duties of the several stages of life or is somehow dependent ... Of course, knowledge is dependent on all the duties of the various stages of life, it is not completely independent ... Once it has emerged, [however] knowledge does not depend on anything else for the attainment of its fruit. But it is so dependent for its emergence ... Authoritative [though not sacred] texts too say this; for instance, ‘Action burns up impurities while (valid) cognition is the supreme goal. When action has burnt up impurities, (valid) cognition emerges.’30 

There is a quote from Fredrick Douglas that says "There is no progress without struggle." While this may seem unrelated, I translated it for the purpose of the blog to "without knowledge, there is no action." In our readings yesterday, we discussed Ram Prasad's Knowledge and Action. Within these readings, the correlation between the two are debated amongst the Kumārila and Śaṅkara traditions. While I will not be discussing these traditions in detail for this writing, I really would like to highlight the concept of this battle. 

As I was thinking of what exactly to write, I found myself continuously erasing and typing and erasing again. How do I discuss this epic battle? Is there a winner? I know these questions may seem silly when read out of context, but when I consider how these two sects look at these important virtues as a mean for living (for lack of better words) I don't understand how one could be more important than the other. In my own personal opinion I feel as if they are necessary for the other. Knowledge is... well I don't even know how to define it. I know it is a source of power and all but I can't even describe what I think it is. As far as action, I do believe that action cannot take place without knowledge, but at the same time knowledge cannot really happen without action.  Rereading this I find myself all over the place, but I guess this is the part of readers block or something along those lines.  

 

  

free post

Know Your Self.

"Both sides are agreed, as we will see, that knowledge of the self is required in 
any correctly religious life, that is, in any life oriented towards the attainment of the 
highest good."  The excerpt taken from page 101 of Indian Philosophy and the
Consequences of Knowledge was really important to me.

Within this article, the author is debating the who, what, when, where, and why of knowledge, and its relation to finding oneself in religion, from two main view points which are the Mīmāṃsakas and the Advaitins. This sentence above represented something that was so true and so relevant in today's times an that finding the knowledge of the self. While this is taken in religious terms, to me finding out who you are can relate to anybody and I am evaluating this phrase in that regard.

I've seen some many children in middle school or younger who just seem so lost because they have no idea as to who they are or who they are supposed to be. All they know is what their elder's tell them, their guardians, teachers, environment and even other friends. They watch all these shows, and listen to all this music and all that new knowledge gets absorbed into their brains that they are convinced that this is them. That how they are being portrayed must be how they are supposed to behave. But what's heartbreaking the most is when I hear stories of counselors in high school telling the same kids that they shouldn't even apply to a Uni or college because they won't get in. That they should focus on sports, or not major in Biology or Mathematics because it's too hard.

Some of these same kids grow older, wondering the world aimlessly until they become adults who are still confused as to their placement on Earth or what they are supposed to be doing. But no matter what is that they are supposed to be doing it starts with them finding out who they are and not who other's seem them as. There's a big difference between the two and it all starts with the self. At least to me that's why this phrase was so important because we all need to find ourselves, to know ourselves, and then later on use that knowledge to better enhance our paths to our 'higher goods.' 

Free post

Using my free blog post for this week. 

The Snake Simile and the Raft Simile (Late Post due 2/19)

The Snake Simile reminds me of many situations in life about truth telling and when the truth should be told and how it should be told. There are times where the truth needs to be told right away as a savior or as a means of clearance. However, telling the truth in the wrong times and how you tell it can have a bigger effect than you expected, and often in an opposite way than you would have hoped. In reading Ganeri's Concealed Art of the Soul, I quote that, "Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time." shows me that the truth when used in the right way, can e used for the advancement of life and prosperity. Otherwise, learning the truth in the way of a vicious snake would cause one to be fearful or scarred by the truth.
In the Simile of the Raft, holding on to things that have helped you previously. may not be of utmost importance to hold on. For example, I still hold on to objects that have served their purpose in my life. I have teddy bears that were of use when I was a young child growing up. When thunder storms came, I would sleep with my teddy bears so that I would not have to feel afraid. Now that I am older and no longer afraid of thunder storms, there are no needs for me to take my teddy bears with me to college. That phase of my life has passed, as so should I in the case of holding on to things that have served their purpose in it's given time. Over time, holding on to my stuffed animals may become a hindrance when I want to make room for the new useful objects in my life. As the Buddha taught about the raft, when things no longer have value to us, we should let it go because attachment is a form of suffering. We should use what is needed to tackle the obstacle at hand then move on accordingly.

Thou Shall Spread the Good Word, or Not?

One of the most interesting things that I have seen in religious practices is the varying ideas of social or community responsibility. What I mean by is this is the 'duty' for lack of a better word, that is given to members of a certain faith to 'spread the word', or 'bring followers to the light' of whatever truth that is supposed to be uncovered. In Christianity we are told that while the process of getting to heaven is your responsibilty, if you do not share the teachings of Christ with others, you are not sharing the salvation of The Lord and that is a great sin. In Islam there is also responsibility of the man of the family to make sure the rest of the family is following correct Islamic practices. This weeks readings concerning the Buddhist faith stance on this has confused me however.

In The Concealed Art of the Soul by Ganeri, one of the most famous stories is told about the smilie of the raft. Now, this parable was told by the Buddha as a lesson of truth, but also of responsibility. 

"The Buddha tells the story of a man who, having built a raft in
order to get across from a dangerous place to a place of safety, then thinks
to himself 'This raft has been very helpful to me. Suppose I were to hoist
it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.'
The Dhamma is similar to the raft, says the Buddha: it is for the purpose of
crossing over, not for the purpose of holding on to."

(Ganeri, 45-46)

In class we discussed the fact that it was not uncommon for people to be concerned with the self and nothing else. This fine line between what is considered selfish and self-consumed is toyed with in this reading as the man had to be selfish to cross over, but must not be self-consumed enough to not aid another in there journey. This becomes an area of difficulty for me, though as I am not sure if this is aid is given because of the feeling of responsibility or fear of bad karma, inhibiting the continuation of the man to parinirvana. 

After looking at other passages for guidance I also came across this quote in Mahayana Buddhism:

The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams:

‘The Lord has admonished us and praised us that we should live in seclusion’. But it is the
hermit, who considers the monk who visits villages and mixes with laity to be possessed 
of impure morality, who falls to hell after death, while the altruistic preacher is revealed to
be the Buddha in a previous life (Braarvig 2000: 130–1; cf. also Karashima 2001: 159–60)

(Williams, 38)

After reading this, I felt as if I was even more unsure of the answer to this question. The problem for me lies in the fact that the quote leans so much towards the social responsibility ideas that it doesn't actually sound like Buddhism to me. Now I am very aware of my minimal knowledge of Buddhism and when I look back at the last sentence I am confused as to what I menat by 'sounding Buddhist' but it just seems very liberal in comparison to the conservative readings that we have done previously. 

What are these readings saying? Is there a responsibilty to spread the word? And if not then how has the teachings of Buddhism spread over the thousands of years? If there is a responsibility then why is the culture areound the process of enlightenment a singular one? How can one truly release the idea of 'self' if the self is apart of the whole that you are carry responsibility for getting 'to the other side?' Is there even a black and white answer to these questions? 

Does This (Dress) Make Me Look Fat?

These are probably the most dreaded words someone could ever say. Not because of the complexity behind the sentence or the meaning of each word. The difficulty lies in the answer to this age-old question, and many questions just like it. Honesty is sometimes brutal, and yet it is what it is. I guess this allows one to wonder what the idea behind the truth is and what it really means to tell the truth. Does the truth really set you free? Or does the truth set you up? Ganeri focuses on this subject he refers to as "Dangerous Truths" in The Concealed Art of the Soul. 

So to, prince, such speech as the Tathagate knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true and correct, but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe knows the time to use such speech.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true, correct, but unbeneficial, and which is also welcome and agreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is also welcome and agreeable to others; the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech.

This passage comes from a lesson from the Buddha himself. While looking upon this initially, it seems quite repetitive and can be a little confusing. What is occurring however the explanation of the truth in the relation to certain scenarios is. Notice that in only two areas does the Buddha decide it’s a time to speak. Ganeri talks about this decision in the 'Dangerous Truths’. Within the book, he also uses other parables, such as the simile of the snake, as well as the simile of the raft to explain the gravity of truth. To paraphrase both of these parables, there is a time and place for the truth and if it is handled incorrectly the effect is almost certainly negative. As stated in the reading above, it appears that the Buddha does not waste time or truths on unnecessary causes.

Within this chapter of 'Dangerous Truths' Ganeri poses the question does the Buddha lie? The answer to this question however, depends on many factors. First, what is a lie? Is a lie considered the complete absence of the truth or the altering of it? What about the omission? Is the omission of the truth a lie or is it just that? Ganeri tells us that the absence of the truth is not necessarily a negative thing when the absence of truth is not beneficial to a specific situation (54). Ganeri refers to the 'value' of the truth as instrumental, meaning the need for it is not always instant and may vary. With these implications, it would seem that if the situation called for such action, then the truth will not be presented if it has no overall benefit (55).

As I attempt to draw the correlation between these Buddhist concepts, and my own life I, too agree with the idea that the Buddha poses. We are taught by society to tell the truth and that it is the only way to go to heaven, (or nirvana in the Buddhist practice) as well as be a better person overall. As an individual who is known for being blunt, I felt as if I am persecuted for the one thing that is so valued in our society today. As I have matriculated through Spelman, I have realized that I do not express myself as much as I once did, because I find myself considering the feelings of others more important in some cases. Even though I may not agree with this idea. I believe that the negative energy that comes out of an unwelcomed truth is incapable of making impact. So in the future if I am asked those awful 7 words (Does this ___ make me look fat), I know that my answer may be no or even the omission of no and all other words.

Remindings

When I read the readings from Friday It reminds me of how when someone tells you what shouldn’t be done (how the Buddha says not to delight in pleasures) you try to find exceptions or make up your own rules to try and test what was said or to find a way around the rules (how Arittha says pleasure is not an obstacle along the path to liberation.) In the end we know that most rules are set to help us and not hurt us.
            When I read the story of the simile with the snake I also thought of how when people hear things, they like to take it and run with it, when they don’t know the essence of what is being told to them. I also thought of the saying “the more you think you know the less you actually do.” When I read the lines “Instead they learn the Dhamma only for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma” many things popped in my head. The first thing I thought about, being a Christian, is how many people feel that Christians are hypocrites because many of them act in this manner. A lot of Christians will throw bible verses at you, but do not live according to the words in the bible. Then they use the verses to try and condemn you and make you feel like a bad person when in reality they are the ones who are worse off than you. I also thought of how some people to charity for recognition instead of doing to from the heart. Some like to pretend to be interested in the needs of others, but truly couldn’t care less about the beings of others. Or in movies, and possibly real life, people put on for the cameras and when the cameras cut off they show their true character because they feel no one is watching. It reminds me of a movie I watched called Good Deeds and the woman felt as is she was a charity case for the man and she didn’t believe that he would ever want to interact with her if she didn’t need help. I don’t remember the exact quote, but they got into an argument and she said “you don’t even know the price of a gallon of milk!” she was basically saying that he was to busy worrying about how other people saw him that he didn’t truly know the lives of the people who worked for him. (I know I probably went off topic but that’s what I thought about when I was reading.)
            When I read “while the one limits the impact the truth can have on them, the other allows it to saturate the whole of his mental” it goes back to what I was saying in the first paragraph and rules and how they are made to help and not hurt. I thought about how when we don’t learn our lesson from something the first time, you keep going through it, maybe something worse, so that you actually learn your lesson. When we are more receptive to things we don’t have to go through hard times for the point of the lesson to come across. I also thought about how we don’t take things for what they are worth and how we take so much for granted.
            The simile with the raft it reminded me of how as kids our parents/guardians give us things such as pacifiers, night lights, and baby blankets to help us get through different phases in life during times of transition. Once the object has served its purpose it is not needed anymore. Sort of like using training wheels to ride a bike, once you master how to balance on your own the training wheels aren’t needed, but you know the next child on a tricycle will eventually need to the training wheels to get from a tricycle to a bicycle.
            In the next chapter I thought about how sometimes it is so important for people to learn things, people don’t care how the message is said. Some people may even lie to you if it means that you get/understand/hear what you are supposed to. Or how when people have something that you need to hear, but there will be opposing views, they simply state facts as to not appeal to a certain side.

When to tell the truth

This is the first part of my blog post and the quotation is taken from The Concealed Art of the Soul, Passage on Dangerous Truths:

“The Buddha too comes across as reluctant to speak the truth about the self; indeed, he is portrayed as wondering at first whether to try to teach it at all. In a telling moment, he is made to liken his ideas to a snake, hard to grasp safely, dangerous if seized the wrong way. More often, he is given to speak in parables,…”

This section stood out the most to me in the entire section because it’s the most important lesson for one to understand about knowledge. When the question is asked what is the meaning of life? That phrase in itself is a normative question derived from a normative word which is life. We have the biological and scientifical explanations for how to determine a person is alive but what is the meaning of life? There are thousands and millions of answers to that exact question because in reality every one perceives life, their own individual life, to mean something different than someone else.

And the fact that the meaning of life can’t be measured or broken down into one to two simple explanations it’s that reason alone that the Buddha feared trying to blatantly answer that question. And he couldn’t really answer that question because there is no one answer; or to some there may not be an answer at all but if there is an answer then it’s up to us, the people or followers, to figure out and understand the meaning for ourselves. Something this grand and massive can’t merely be given to us but we have to seek it for ourselves.

Because we would not be able to handle the truth about the things the Buddha has already seen, or the things he knows. Somewhere the translation would be lost and that’s why it’s easier to speak in parables to say things are like something else or such as because if we knew the truth we would not be able to grasp or handle it at one time. So does that mean we don’t deserve to know the truth? Don’t deserve to understand the meaning? No. It means we have to read and reread the texts, follow the teachings and try to seek understanding for ourselves as well as vision for ourselves. If the truth got out and taken in the wrong context it could lead to disaster for oneself or many if we can’t comprehend what it is we should comprehend at the time. At least that’s what I got from that passage. 

The Most High T. Norman

"Holy be the name of your lord most high
who created then gave form
who determined then gave us guidance
who made the meadow pasture grow
then turned it to a darkened flood-swept remnant

We will make you recite. You will not forget
    except where the will of God allows"

This sura makes me fully aware that I have no control over the universe where I have not been given that power. GIVEN. I also now know that there will always be reminders of the Sura recitations."The Most High" gives a label to only one entity, who cannot be called a mere person, but a God. the divine God that has allowed life to grow. At any moment, when people of the world under the God that is powerful do not obey or do not honor their blessings, all of it can be taken away. (Taken from: then turned it to a darkened flood-swept remnant).

THE DAWN

This quote is from The Dawn, in The Qu'ran:

"Such is the human being that when his lord
  tries him with generosity and bounty
  he says: my lord has honored me
but when his lord tries him with hunger and lack
  he says: my lord has treated me with disdain"



      When I finished reading this passage, for about the third time, I came to realize thatThe Dawn was an awakening. As The Most High stated, there are constant reminders of what god has done for his people. Here in this reading is the subject of being ungrateful for struggling times, only acknowledging the honor of God in times when He gives, and not when he takes away, or makes day times harder. Another reminder that is present is that you have to be grateful and appreciative of struggling, because after one endures a struggle but continues to honor his lord, good will come of it. One cannot simply live with God if they are constantly praising for good times and favor. The bad times, or times of strife are where you are supposed to pull strength from your God and be buried in his teachings and live in Faith, for not all times are good and not all resources are plentiful.
      In another approach, humankind will point the finger at their God and say what their God has not done, or how they have been shorted, but fail to acknowledge what they as humans have not done in accordance to the God they live by.

Suras and learning

What fascinated me most about my reading in Approaching The Qur'an is that when the children are in a Quran learning school they are taught to read it, in it's original Arabic form, from the end to the beginning. The Quran is composed up of stories detailing what, prophet, Muhammad saw and learned about during his time on earth but also includes Suras. These Suras explain Muhammad's life on earth and majority of them are placed at the end of the Quran while the beginning of the Quran foretells the meaning of life and jumps right into the teachings. (pages 11-13)


It's interesting to compare how the Quran is read and taught versus other religions like Christianity. The Bible is taught in a sort of chronological order starting from Genesis (Old Testament) The birth of Christ and then ending with Revelations which speaks of the second coming and end of times. The Bible has many different translations and rarely do you find bibles with the original language included, it's mostly been translated some much that some of the original intent maybe lost amongst translation. But for the Qur'an they are taught to study and read it in its original Arabic format; so they can truly understand the teachings that are placed  within and because they deem it more sacred.

"The message of the Qur'an is more explicitly fitted into a prophetic lineage beginning with the creation of Adam, the first prohpet in Islam, extending through the stories of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, John the Baptist, and ending with Muhammad." (page 14)

This stood out the most to me because you see a lot of similarities that are overlapped or included in the bible as well. The same stories told in a different context with its original language and out of order but still with such great significance. It makes me wonder if reading the bible in its original language or languages would change the meaning or context of some of the stories? Makes me wonder if the bible was taught from end to beginning to middle, if we would receive a different message all together.

Forgiveness.

        I’ve noticed all the similarities between Christianity and Islam, mainly the similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible. One thing that stands out to me as a difference is how the Bible tells us many things that we shouldn’t do or activities we shouldn’t partake in, the ten commandments being an example, among others. Also Christianity tells us that the only way into Heaven is to be saved through Jesus Christ and that the path to heaven is “straight and narrow.” Also, a way to get forgiveness is to repent. What I noticed about the Qur’an was a lack of things “to not do.” There were no set rules explaining what is deemed unacceptable. Also living a life that will get you into heaven seems fairly easy: sharing one’s wealth; attending to the orphan, the destitute, and the disinherited; performing the prayer; and carrying out just deeds. If someone chooses not to do what gets a Muslim into heaven, but later changes their ways, is that acceptable? Is there not a process they need to go through for forgiveness of their past actions? Is there anything a Muslim can do to get forgiveness? If a Muslim who has led a life of good deeds suddenly changes and does a series of bad deeds and dies, are all the good deeds wiped out and the bad deeds focused on? Or does the concept of Heaven or Hell only apply to the Day of Reckoning?

Our Father/The Opening

Upon first opening Approaching the Qur'an I was not sure if the book was supposed to be a historical reference or a religious translation. Now as I type, I think the meaning of Approaching the Qur'an is supposed to be a intersection of the two, as my topic today refers to the scripture "The Opening":

In the name of God, the Compassionate the Caring. Praise be to God, lord sustainer of the worlds, master of the day of reckoning. To you we turn to worship and to you we turn in time of need. Guide us along the road straight, the road of those to whom you are giving, not those with anger upon them, not those who have lost the way.

I would also like to add "The Lord's Prayer" as a future reference:

Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kindgom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.

 When I got to the commentary portion of "The Opening" the first sentence referred to this prayer as the "Islamic equivalent" of The Lord's Prayer (pp.43). I however did not draw this parallel upon initially reading both works. I understood the jist of both as callings to God (or Allah) of respect and admiration, but nothing else.  Because the idea of 'talking another's word for it' doesn't sit well with me I decided to break apart each by verse (or sentence) and attempt to draw the correlation. I am unsure of what was absent upon my initial read but as I read them both simultaneously, it seemed as if it was the same prayer. This understanding reminded me of a statement I had heard once 'All religions are essentially the same, they just have different names for different locations.' I assumed this statement to be wrong, because it had to be much more complex than that, yet something was missing. Had I not even opened up my mind to possibility of the commonalities between different religions? Is society really that large of an influence that one cannot even recognize when a bias is placed upon them? I alway prided myself as being an open-minded individual, yet I never knew that Jesus was acknowledged in the faith that many of my friends carry. How does one see these prejudices and correct them? Even though I understand that ignorance to a subject is just that, I am enthusiatic to continue the learning of Islam and other sects of worship to end it.

Blog 1 T. Norman

"He is ungraspable for he cannot be grasped. He is undecaying. for he is not subject to decay. He has nothing sticking to him, for he does not stick to anything. he is not bound; yet he neither trembles in fear nor suffers injury" - Ganeri page 25

This quote from The Concealed Art of the Soul explains that the idea of self, cannot be obtained, tied down, or shown as a tangible figure because it does not exist. But it does exist. The self that is being sought by the searcher will never be able to seek the elf in which they want to find. The searcher is looking for something that cannot be found just by looking deep within one's "self". Although there are many examples in life of "finding yourself" or having revelations in which you appear to yourself, it is simply known that the self is not a tangible obtainable object. I have been a student who wishes to find herself, but in the beginning of this course, I now know that finding myself, while being aware that i am eagerly trying to do so is impossible and will not be revealed to me. I often rely on the occurances that whenever I am not in search of something, I eventually find it. With the knowledge of "self" and making new discoveries, I find that the self that i wish to explore will not be found right away, or maybe not at all.

Wait, Are We Talking About Yourself, Myself, or The Self?

In the section entitled "Soul-Searchers and Sooth-Sayers" in Ganeri's The Concealed Art of the Soul the concept of what the 'self' is persay, is one idea that I have already found myself wondering.

     "Whole has become one's very self (atman), then who is there for one to smell and by what means? Who is there for one to see and by what means? Who is there for one to hear and by what means? Who is there for one to greet and by what means? Who is there for one to think and by what means? Who is there for one to perceive and by what means? By what means can one perceive him by means of whom one perceives this whole world? Look-- by what means can one perceive the perceiver?

                                                                                                                                                   (BU 2.4.14)

Everytime I run across the word 'self' in any of these readings, my mind becomes puzzled. It is only within such writing can you understand and misunderstand and interpret these sentences into complete thoughts. At the core of the matter I can grasp the concept of the perceivers point of view being different as the angle ( whichever type that may be) given is different. On the other hand, the problem lies in the separation of one's self from its human source. The idea that the self is not a conscious part of who we are as people make me question my own centric composition. Who am I? How does my 'self' relate to this dymanic?  Why am I constantly going around exclaiming phrases like "How can you know others if you don't know your self?" .when I should be saying "How do you know your self? Who is the 'self' mentioned? and Where is this self?" We are told to trust only ourselves and our opinions are the only ones that matter, yet the existence of the selves of othes are the basis by which we live. What 'self' do we attempt to appease? How is it we "know" who we are if we don't know ourselves? I find my subconscious wearing the 'self' hat yet isn't the soul supposed to harbor there? Or is the soul, in this case my soul compiled of things others' selves told me I am? How can I examine myself whole heartedly if I can't see myself? Who is to suggest the self that is perceived by others is no the same/ different self that I carry each day? My hope is to be able to answer at least one of these thoughts by the completion of the course. Not just to know the flow of philosophical identification, but also to know which self we are even talking about?

Avoidance.

CH 8 of the Upanisads. - A conversation between Gārgi and Yājñavalkya.

Question 1: "The things above the sky, the things below the earth and the sky, as well as all those things between the earth and sky, as well as past, present, and future- on what are all these woven back and forth?"
His Answer: THEY ARE WOVEN ON SPACE.

Question 2: "on what is space woven?"
His Answer: "the imperishable. which is neither course nor fine, short nor long. Has neither blood nor fat. is without shadow or darkness, without air or space. without contact; has no taste or smell; it is without sight or hearing; it is without energy, breath or mouth... at its command the sun and the moon stand apart...pitiful is the man who departs from this world without knowing this imperishable. on this imperishable space is woven."

After this answer, Gārgi says that Yājñavalkya can never be defeated in a theological debate. 

My thoughts: what is it that Yājñavalkya said that makes him undefeated in a theological debate? The answers he gave were vague and they weren't a concrete answers. How can the past, present, and future be "woven" into space? How can you weave time? Also, how can you weave space onto something? Yājñavalkya goes on to say that this imperishable is without space, but if space is woven into it then doesn't it in fact have space? How can you weave something onto something that is not supposed to be perceived or thought of ? Is the imperishable supposed to be the creator god ? Yājñavalkya also explains the imperishable as the one who commands the sun and the moon to stand apart, commands seconds, minutes, hours, night, and fortnights ? who can do this but the creator? 

Blog #1: Price

Starting this blog post off with an excerpt from The Big Verda...Pages 25-26.

"There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water bottomlessly deep?"


The excerpt is taken from a hymn that describes what it was like or must have been like in the beginning of time. The hymn continues to describe a period in history where darkness was hidden from light, where sickness did not exist, were water began to rise and emptiness covered the land. A time where no one knows who planted the first seed, when desire started to form and everything we have grown to love, know, and hate began. But who started it all? That's the ultimate question, who was there first?

This creation hymn has been evaluated and discussed by scholars from all parts of the world and each religion has there own spin on how everything became to be. I chose this quote because this is the reason why I love taking religion courses in the first place. I love how one event can happen and become this vantage point where so many different people see the same thing happen in so many different ways. I want to continue to learn and explore what people see, what they believe in and understand where they're coming from. 

Starting a new year with the Secretary of State!

Greetings! This post marks the official start of the Spelman incarnation of our exploration of sacred texts. To get us started, here's a statement from the Secretary of State John Kerry:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/314438-1

Watch the first ten minutes and thirty seconds or so to get a feel for the importance of studying religion (and some information about a sweet new initiative at the State Department!). If someone ever derides your taking a class on religion, tell them that Kerry said:

“In fact, if I went back to college to day, I think I would probably major in comparative religion because that’s how integrated [religion] is in everything that are working on and deciding and thinking about in life today.”