Reading the Bible made me realize how glad I am that we're reading it in English class, because it's a really important text and left alone there's no way I would have been to force myself to read it.
St. Matthew talks about Jesus, his birth, his life, and it seems to be starting to lead up to his death. One thing I find strange is that though you always hear about the birth of baby Jesus, and all the stories of how he cured all those people, in the actual Bibles those stories basically take up half a page. I guess as far as the world is concerned, it's really quality, not quantity, that matters.
One thing I found interesting was the difference between how Jesus and God dealt with the devil. In Job, when the Satan told God to do something in order to test Job, He did it, whereas when Jesus was told to do something to test his faith in God, he refused, replying, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," (4:7). Of course, if I were religious I would probably have a lot more faith in God than in a human, but I found it nice that Jesus didn't feel the need to torture God to test his faith.
Jesus reminds a bit of Robin Hood in the way he gets his disciples. They both just walk around, meet random people, ask them to become their followers, and the men, "straightaway left their [insert what they left], and followed him." (4:20, 4:22). Jesus also insists that people who don't do so means they aren't worthy of being his disciple ("He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." 10:37). I find it strange that people could just pick up and leave like that, not caring about their family and not feeling any need to say goodbye to their friends. I guess it's true that men are much less attached to their home and hearth than women.
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (5:38-39)
When I read this, I wanted to point out to Jesus that his father was the one who said that, and yet in 12:31 he says that anyone who goes against the word of God will never be forgiven. But I still like the saying, even though I myself don't follow it. It's a good, though slightly idealistic, idea.
Jesus is also going around healing everyone, making the blind able to see, the dumb able to talk, the lepers cleansed of their sickness, and making the dead come back to life. For some reason, though, that seems to annoy the Pharisees, "[who] went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." (12:14) Is this the beginning of the end of Jesus Christ?
I have to say, I like Jesus a lot more than I like God. Jesus is so pacific, so kind and forgiven, whereas God says things like, "If I don't like someone, I'll curse his ancestors for millenniums." I have much more confidence in my chances of getting into Heaven knowing that Jesus is up there.
miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2007
lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2007
Tao Te Ching, 77-End
"Knowing ignorance is strength./Ignoring knowledge is sickness." (Seventy-One)
Here's another example of Lao's dislike for learning. The poem then goes on to say that since a sage didn't know, he could not ignore his knowledge and therefore could not become "sick of sickness." Though I agree that ignoring knowledge is sick, I don't think that simply being ignorant will help. In both cases, you end up making decisions without any real understanding of what you're deciding on and the decision would ultimately be the same. Lao's hate of learning reminds me of the Catholics and their hate for science. Does Tao also think it's disrespecting the Tao to try and learn about it, or that the Tao is so mystifying there's no use trying to understand it because it can't be understood?
Seventy-Five is also a good poem. I like how it explains that a government that's too complicated would cause trouble, although I don't agree with the idea. Tsu seems really anarchist, and I think that if there wasn't a central government everyone would just do whatever thy wanted, which could work if everyone was good, but since we're obviously not then it just spells trouble. And a lot of it.
'"The hard and strong will fall./The soft and weak will overcome." (Sixty-Six)
At first I didn't understand what this meant, but then I thought of another book I'd read that explained it better (Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell). An old lady is explaining to Scarlett O'Hara that she was a survivor because, like grass, she bended but never broke. It's also something that Confucius talked about; you should never be completely rigid, you should adapt yourself to the environment you're in, not expect it to adapt to you because that wasn't going to happen. The analogy was that hard branches were broken by strong winds, but the grass always rose back up in the end.
"The Tao of the sage is work without effort." (Eighty-One)
I just thought I should put this in because it's the closing line of the Tao Te Ching, and it restates what seems to be it's most important moral, wu-wei. I already gave my interpretation of wu-wei so I won't write it again.
I like this book,though at first I thought it was really confusing and must've been written by some sort of madman. But when I started to think about some of the things he said, I saw that it usually made sense, even though I didn't always agree with him. It also helped me understand some aspects of Confucianism, such as the rigid part I just mentioned; and even the parts I didn't understand we're so beautifully written I liked reading them anyway.
Here's another example of Lao's dislike for learning. The poem then goes on to say that since a sage didn't know, he could not ignore his knowledge and therefore could not become "sick of sickness." Though I agree that ignoring knowledge is sick, I don't think that simply being ignorant will help. In both cases, you end up making decisions without any real understanding of what you're deciding on and the decision would ultimately be the same. Lao's hate of learning reminds me of the Catholics and their hate for science. Does Tao also think it's disrespecting the Tao to try and learn about it, or that the Tao is so mystifying there's no use trying to understand it because it can't be understood?
Seventy-Five is also a good poem. I like how it explains that a government that's too complicated would cause trouble, although I don't agree with the idea. Tsu seems really anarchist, and I think that if there wasn't a central government everyone would just do whatever thy wanted, which could work if everyone was good, but since we're obviously not then it just spells trouble. And a lot of it.
'"The hard and strong will fall./The soft and weak will overcome." (Sixty-Six)
At first I didn't understand what this meant, but then I thought of another book I'd read that explained it better (Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell). An old lady is explaining to Scarlett O'Hara that she was a survivor because, like grass, she bended but never broke. It's also something that Confucius talked about; you should never be completely rigid, you should adapt yourself to the environment you're in, not expect it to adapt to you because that wasn't going to happen. The analogy was that hard branches were broken by strong winds, but the grass always rose back up in the end.
"The Tao of the sage is work without effort." (Eighty-One)
I just thought I should put this in because it's the closing line of the Tao Te Ching, and it restates what seems to be it's most important moral, wu-wei. I already gave my interpretation of wu-wei so I won't write it again.
I like this book,though at first I thought it was really confusing and must've been written by some sort of madman. But when I started to think about some of the things he said, I saw that it usually made sense, even though I didn't always agree with him. It also helped me understand some aspects of Confucianism, such as the rigid part I just mentioned; and even the parts I didn't understand we're so beautifully written I liked reading them anyway.
domingo, 9 de diciembre de 2007
Tao Te Ching, 44-66
I think I finally understand what wu-wei is. I realized I'd been looking at in the wrong way for the past week. I thought wu-wei was the belief that if, for example, you didn't plow the field, some ghost would come along and plow it for you. I was, understandably, a bit confused.
"The world is ruled by letting things take their course./It cannot be ruled by interfering." (Forty-Eight)
I just realized that what he meant by "doing by not doing," is that things will happen by themselves. You don't need to act to make things happen, the Tao makes it so that things happen away. By interfering you're just stopping the things from taking their own course. Sixty-Four enforces my belief; "Deal with it before it happens./Set things in order before there is confusion." I think he means that if you don't act, then you won't cause trouble. It's only if you act that bad things happen, which is why you should let everything be.
"If I have even just a little sense,/I will walk on the main road and my only fear will be of straying from it." (Fifty-Three)
I don't think Tsu would like Robert Frost. Lao wants to do things the simple way, which could also be considered the "easy" way (although I think that if it were so easy more people would follow the Tao), while Frost wanted to take the more difficult and complicated path, feeling that he would get more of a reward from it. I actually agree more with Robert Frost, although that's probably because I'm thoroughly westernized. I tend to think that things that are more difficult and complex are "better." Lao Tsu probably wouldn't approve of me either.
I like Fifty-Seven, even though I don't agree that having less laws would make less bad people. Certainly they wouldn't be punished for doing unjust things, but wouldn't that just motivate the cowards to do things they wouldn't have dared doing if they knew they could get punished? I think it wouldn't solve anything.
"The world is ruled by letting things take their course./It cannot be ruled by interfering." (Forty-Eight)
I just realized that what he meant by "doing by not doing," is that things will happen by themselves. You don't need to act to make things happen, the Tao makes it so that things happen away. By interfering you're just stopping the things from taking their own course. Sixty-Four enforces my belief; "Deal with it before it happens./Set things in order before there is confusion." I think he means that if you don't act, then you won't cause trouble. It's only if you act that bad things happen, which is why you should let everything be.
"If I have even just a little sense,/I will walk on the main road and my only fear will be of straying from it." (Fifty-Three)
I don't think Tsu would like Robert Frost. Lao wants to do things the simple way, which could also be considered the "easy" way (although I think that if it were so easy more people would follow the Tao), while Frost wanted to take the more difficult and complicated path, feeling that he would get more of a reward from it. I actually agree more with Robert Frost, although that's probably because I'm thoroughly westernized. I tend to think that things that are more difficult and complex are "better." Lao Tsu probably wouldn't approve of me either.
I like Fifty-Seven, even though I don't agree that having less laws would make less bad people. Certainly they wouldn't be punished for doing unjust things, but wouldn't that just motivate the cowards to do things they wouldn't have dared doing if they knew they could get punished? I think it wouldn't solve anything.
jueves, 6 de diciembre de 2007
Tao Te Chang: 29-43
In the introduction it is said that Confucius once visited Lao Tsu, who wrote the Tao, and came back "awed" by the man.
I have to say, I found that confusing, since Confucius and Tsu preach very different doctrines.
First of all, Confucius is a passionate believer in the good of instructing your mind, while Tsu often repeats that learning is bad, and that it is the root of confusion. Secondly, Confucius insists that learning the rites is extremely important, while Tsu states that, "now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion," (Twenty-Eight). Tsu disagrees with Confucius on two of his most important point. Another, smaller, thing is that Tsu, unlike Confucius, does not look down upon women, and often praises them.
However, I think that Confucius agrees, in a way, with wu-wei. I remember a passage where one of his disciples asks him how to sow rice (or something like that; I know nothing about farming), and he replies that if he is a just Lord, all the servants in the world will come to him and sow the rice for him. This is a form of wu-wei because the disciple would, "[do] nothing, yet [leave] nothing undone," as Tsu defines wu-wei in Thirty-Eight.
Another point on which they agree is that character makes up a person's goodness, which means that he is only good if he is born good. People who try to achieve goodness are fakers ("A foolish man tries to be good,/And is therefore not good," Thirty-Eight), and Confucius stated in The Analects that people who try to follow the Way are not as good as the ones who do it naturally. I don't think is fair. People should be given even more credit if they have to try hard to do right, than if doing the same thing is natural is natural. For example, if you love beef, and manage to abstain from it for the rest of your life, you should be given more credit than someone who doesn't like beef and so has no problem with not eating it. You have to put more effort in it even though you achieve the same results, and your strength of character should be observed.
In conclusion, though Confucius and Tsu have some similar opinions, I think that they're mostly different, and I'm surprised that Confucius admired him. When I read The Analects I got the feeling he was very intolerant of people who didn't see things the exact same way as he did. I guess I was wrong.
I have to say, I found that confusing, since Confucius and Tsu preach very different doctrines.
First of all, Confucius is a passionate believer in the good of instructing your mind, while Tsu often repeats that learning is bad, and that it is the root of confusion. Secondly, Confucius insists that learning the rites is extremely important, while Tsu states that, "now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion," (Twenty-Eight). Tsu disagrees with Confucius on two of his most important point. Another, smaller, thing is that Tsu, unlike Confucius, does not look down upon women, and often praises them.
However, I think that Confucius agrees, in a way, with wu-wei. I remember a passage where one of his disciples asks him how to sow rice (or something like that; I know nothing about farming), and he replies that if he is a just Lord, all the servants in the world will come to him and sow the rice for him. This is a form of wu-wei because the disciple would, "[do] nothing, yet [leave] nothing undone," as Tsu defines wu-wei in Thirty-Eight.
Another point on which they agree is that character makes up a person's goodness, which means that he is only good if he is born good. People who try to achieve goodness are fakers ("A foolish man tries to be good,/And is therefore not good," Thirty-Eight), and Confucius stated in The Analects that people who try to follow the Way are not as good as the ones who do it naturally. I don't think is fair. People should be given even more credit if they have to try hard to do right, than if doing the same thing is natural is natural. For example, if you love beef, and manage to abstain from it for the rest of your life, you should be given more credit than someone who doesn't like beef and so has no problem with not eating it. You have to put more effort in it even though you achieve the same results, and your strength of character should be observed.
In conclusion, though Confucius and Tsu have some similar opinions, I think that they're mostly different, and I'm surprised that Confucius admired him. When I read The Analects I got the feeling he was very intolerant of people who didn't see things the exact same way as he did. I guess I was wrong.
lunes, 3 de diciembre de 2007
Tao Te Chang, 1-28
At first I thought Tao was a person, but it was made abundantly clear very quickly that it's some sort of religion, or way. Since it's a pretty random and complex piece of work I'll just talk about quotes I found interesting.
"Therefore having and not having arise together." (Two)
I liked the way this was said. It explained about contrasts, and how there would be no good without evil, no beauty without ugliness.
It's true that if everything was one way, we wouldn't notice it. For instance, the stars are white, so we never think to ourselves, "Hmm... These stars are particularly white." However, if we see an ugly person, we think, "That is one ugly guy." We notice his ugliness. We wouldn't notice it if everyone was ugly.
"If nothing is done, then all will be well." (Three)
Tao's point here is that if no one had anything, nothing would be stolen, if we didn't "exalt the gifted," no one would fight. I understand what he means by this, and it's a rather communist idea. Share everything, and everyone will be happy. I get how that could work, but I just find the idea of it horribly boring. People would still quarrel if we didn't do anything, they would become so bored of sitting around twiddling their thumbs that they would want to do something, and they would start fighting. And if there were no treasure, people would make some up. Humans like being better than their peers, they like saying, "Ha! I have a Mercedes and you have a Renault! I'm better than you." It highers their self-esteem, and makes them feel better about themselves. If there was nothing to do and no treasures to be had, the world would be full of bored, irritable, suicidal people.
Tao, however, seems to believe in the idea of nothingness being good. He mentions it several times throughout the book. He's also rather contradictory, stating, "The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead. He is detached, thus he is at one with all. Through selfless action, he attains fulfillment." (Seven)
I don't understand what he means by this. Does it mean that being objective makes it so that you are "one with all"? Stay unbiased, look at the whole picture, and you will understand everything. Actually, I sorta see how that could make sense.
"Retire when the work is done." (Nine)
I just wanted to point out that both Confucius and Tao say that it is better to do what is required, and no more. I believe this should be integrated in our grading system. Two great Chinese philosophers (or at least one, I'm not sure what Tao is), have stated that going above and beyond is not good, so teachers shouldn't want us to do that.
"Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao." (Fourteen)
Another similarity between Confucius and Tao is that they both really look into the past. I wonder if they do that because Chinese culture is so into rites, and honoring your ancestors, etc., or is Chinese culture because of what Confucius and Tao say.
"When wisdom and intelligence are born,/ The great pretense begins." (Eighteen)
"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,/ And it will be a hundred time better for everyone." (Nineteen)
"Give up learning, and put an end to your trouble." (Twenty)
What does Tao have against learning? This is a very Mao point of view, and a very un-Confucian one. What's wrong with learning? Could it be that intelligence make it so that some people are "better" than others, and therefore people get jealous, and Tao disapproves of that?
There were several of these poems that I found interesting, but just didn't have the space to comment on. One of them was Twenty. Even though it's pretty depressing, it's interesting.
I'm sorry, I just realized I was only supposed to read up to chapter 12. I got mixed up; I thought it was until 28. Whoops.
"Therefore having and not having arise together." (Two)
I liked the way this was said. It explained about contrasts, and how there would be no good without evil, no beauty without ugliness.
It's true that if everything was one way, we wouldn't notice it. For instance, the stars are white, so we never think to ourselves, "Hmm... These stars are particularly white." However, if we see an ugly person, we think, "That is one ugly guy." We notice his ugliness. We wouldn't notice it if everyone was ugly.
"If nothing is done, then all will be well." (Three)
Tao's point here is that if no one had anything, nothing would be stolen, if we didn't "exalt the gifted," no one would fight. I understand what he means by this, and it's a rather communist idea. Share everything, and everyone will be happy. I get how that could work, but I just find the idea of it horribly boring. People would still quarrel if we didn't do anything, they would become so bored of sitting around twiddling their thumbs that they would want to do something, and they would start fighting. And if there were no treasure, people would make some up. Humans like being better than their peers, they like saying, "Ha! I have a Mercedes and you have a Renault! I'm better than you." It highers their self-esteem, and makes them feel better about themselves. If there was nothing to do and no treasures to be had, the world would be full of bored, irritable, suicidal people.
Tao, however, seems to believe in the idea of nothingness being good. He mentions it several times throughout the book. He's also rather contradictory, stating, "The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead. He is detached, thus he is at one with all. Through selfless action, he attains fulfillment." (Seven)
I don't understand what he means by this. Does it mean that being objective makes it so that you are "one with all"? Stay unbiased, look at the whole picture, and you will understand everything. Actually, I sorta see how that could make sense.
"Retire when the work is done." (Nine)
I just wanted to point out that both Confucius and Tao say that it is better to do what is required, and no more. I believe this should be integrated in our grading system. Two great Chinese philosophers (or at least one, I'm not sure what Tao is), have stated that going above and beyond is not good, so teachers shouldn't want us to do that.
"Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao." (Fourteen)
Another similarity between Confucius and Tao is that they both really look into the past. I wonder if they do that because Chinese culture is so into rites, and honoring your ancestors, etc., or is Chinese culture because of what Confucius and Tao say.
"When wisdom and intelligence are born,/ The great pretense begins." (Eighteen)
"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,/ And it will be a hundred time better for everyone." (Nineteen)
"Give up learning, and put an end to your trouble." (Twenty)
What does Tao have against learning? This is a very Mao point of view, and a very un-Confucian one. What's wrong with learning? Could it be that intelligence make it so that some people are "better" than others, and therefore people get jealous, and Tao disapproves of that?
There were several of these poems that I found interesting, but just didn't have the space to comment on. One of them was Twenty. Even though it's pretty depressing, it's interesting.
I'm sorry, I just realized I was only supposed to read up to chapter 12. I got mixed up; I thought it was until 28. Whoops.
domingo, 2 de diciembre de 2007
Go
Something I found interesting in the game Go was how it could be compared to chess. Chess is a Western game (at least I think so...it's got Kings and Queens and Bishops...), and I think that if you take it as a reflection of the Western mind compared to the Oriental mind, it's quite interesting.
In Japan, there are the huge thriving businesses, where everyone needs to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the company. You don't count as an individual, you count as a part of a total. In the U.S. of A., however, people care much more about individuals, and the power and talents of a specific person (or at least that's what I think).
This is reflected in the games Go and chess. In chess, you center around the individual, the King. He is the most important person in the game, you need to kill him, then you win. In Go, no one cares about the individuals, it's the groups that matter. You need to eliminate them to win.
I really liked the game Go. It's very strategic, and the fact that the pieces have more freedom makes the game more complicated than chess (I keep comparing the two because they're the only kind of really old games I know how to play). I don't think I'm good enough at it yet to be able to tell just how intricate it is, but I'd like to become better at it if I can find people to play with, since I prefer playing with people than computers.
I don't know what else to say about it. It's a great game, and I'm curious to see how it relates to Taoism.
In Japan, there are the huge thriving businesses, where everyone needs to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the company. You don't count as an individual, you count as a part of a total. In the U.S. of A., however, people care much more about individuals, and the power and talents of a specific person (or at least that's what I think).
This is reflected in the games Go and chess. In chess, you center around the individual, the King. He is the most important person in the game, you need to kill him, then you win. In Go, no one cares about the individuals, it's the groups that matter. You need to eliminate them to win.
I really liked the game Go. It's very strategic, and the fact that the pieces have more freedom makes the game more complicated than chess (I keep comparing the two because they're the only kind of really old games I know how to play). I don't think I'm good enough at it yet to be able to tell just how intricate it is, but I'd like to become better at it if I can find people to play with, since I prefer playing with people than computers.
I don't know what else to say about it. It's a great game, and I'm curious to see how it relates to Taoism.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)