Eurasian Culture, Strayer 5

9/3/2015

Here you go guys. Tear it up!

Bingham

9/5/2015 04:56:03 pm

Oh, I get it, so it's chapter 5 that you are going to bomb. You think it will be easier than 4? Okay, let's see how that works out for you.

Hallie Schulze

9/5/2015 08:49:11 pm

Margin Question #1: What different answers to the problem of disorder arose in classical China?

(The book is pretty straight forward and easy to decipher, but I was wondering if I could get help with thinking a little deeper?)

-The first answer was the Legalist Answer which was the idea that strict, clearly defined rules would make it easier for the government to have control. This led from the age of warring states to the Qin dynasty.

-The second answer was Confucianism which was the belief that if superiors strove to be moral examples than there would be harmony. Also, education was important in order to teach young people to be moral examples. The Han dynasty was built on these ideas.

-The third answer was the Daoist Answer which was the belief in withdrawing from the world and escaping into the realm of nature. This anti-structure philosophy eventually led to the Yellow Turban Rebellion.

Any suggestions?

Bingham

9/6/2015 07:11:27 am

Hi Hallie,

Well you're right, this is pretty straight forward, and I thinks that's all you needed to gleen for this question. I think the deeper stuff comes later as you start to make comparisons.

I will give you some food for thought though. In the ConfusIan tradition of finial piety, you'll find a reflection of the mandate of heaven. The mandate precedes Confucius, but the respect owed to the father in the family mirrors the same idea. What's uniquely Eastern about both ideas is that they can each be lost. That is the father must be worthy of the respect, and so the Emporer must deserve the madate. In both cases, the respect can be lost though unwise, or mean spirited acts.

Hallie

9/6/2015 11:23:00 am

Thanks!! I'm always up for some food for thought! :)

Bingham

9/6/2015 05:05:21 pm

Good. And now that I think of it, there is the similarity that they all arose in the Warring States period. Any thoughts about why that might be so?

Trevor Fu

9/10/2015 06:09:32 pm

I think that these philosophies may have all happened during the period of warring states because the civil unrest caused the educated thinkers such as Confucius and Laozi to seek a way to restore balance to society and govern the civilization with a certain rule of law to ensure that chaos like the warring states don't happen again.

Bingham

9/6/2015 07:12:55 am

*filial piety
Auto correct strikes again!

Hallie Schulze

9/8/2015 08:27:36 pm

Is it because there were so many different states that were coming up with their own ways to solve the conflict? And they all wanted to be different from each other,so the Legalists rose up first, and then Confucianism, and then Daoism? I'm just guessing here.

Bingham

9/9/2015 04:44:21 am

It's more that in times of political and social upheaval, there is an increased need for explanations, for answers to the problems people face daily.

Andres Rodriguez

9/6/2015 02:19:59 pm

Margin question 3
How did the Daoist outlook differ from that of Confucianism?

Well, Confucianism promotes that if you are educated one can better his moral character and that can solve the problems of government.
But Daoism promotes that education actually makes things worse and to with draw from social and political activism and encouraged individual behavior, and I think the natural order of things and active efforts of self-improvement.
Not sure if that's everything, any suggestions?

Bingham

9/6/2015 05:04:16 pm

yeah, that's it. Put another way:
Daoists turned the spotlight onto the immense realm of nature and its mysterious unfolding patterns, while Confucians focused on the world of human relationships.

Micah Zimmerman

9/6/2015 05:01:16 pm

Margin Question 2
"Why has Confucianism been defined as a humanistic philosophy rather than a supernatural religion?"

The Confucian religion's main focus is moral example through superiority(Filial Piety) and to create "social" harmony. It does not deny the reality of God's but mainly influences government, "human" relationships, and society, which are mortal features. Also the elite class wouldn't find gods, magic and spirits to be of help in the moral improvement and creating harmonious society.

Is there any thing I need to improve on? Also I have another question; Should we be studing all the information only important to the margin and big question or is every thing in this chapter important? This might be a stupid question but this will really help me with studing.

Bingham

9/6/2015 05:09:40 pm

I think that's a good answer Micah. This one might be a bit more thorough.
The thrust of Confucian teaching was distinctly this-worldly and practical, concerned with human relationships, effective government, and social harmony.
Confucianism is based on the cultivation of ren—translated as human-heartedness, benevolence, goodness, nobility of heart. Ren is not achieved through divine intervention but rather is nurtured within the person through personal reflection, education, and a willingness to strive continuously to perfect one’s moral character.
Ritual and ceremonies nurture ren, not because of contact with the supernatural (as is the case with most religions) but because they convey rules of appropriate behavior in the many and varying circumstances of life.

Bingham

9/6/2015 05:11:53 pm

To your second question, I'd say that MQs, and BPQs are a great guide to help you deconstruct the chapter, but you shouldn't think of answering them as the total study process needed. Certainly other things Stayer says are significant, although maybe not AS important.

Zoe Gillikin

9/6/2015 05:18:30 pm

Big Picture Question 2: Is a secular outlook on the world an essentially modern phenomenon, or does it have it's precedents in the classical era?

In the classical era (500B.C.E.-500C.E.) Confucianism, legalism, and Greek rationalism emerged all of which have a secular outlook on the world.

Legalism was a practical philosophy that relied on rules and laws without religion. Confucianism is a humanistic philosophy that marked Chinese elite culture by it's nonreligious character. Lastly Greek rationalism was a cultural tradition declaring that the world was a physical reality governed by natural laws, and that human rationality could both understand these laws and work out a system of moral and ethical life, which separated science and philosophy from conventional religion.

Any suggestions? Thanks!

Bingham

9/7/2015 09:15:18 am

Yeah, I have a suggestion. Keep being awesome!

Sophia Hartl

9/9/2015 03:05:32 am

Could Daoism be included in this list?

It was also a philosophy that influenced both chinese elite and lower classes.
Its focus was mainly nature and extracting oneself from the human world. Spontaneous and indiviualistic behavior was encouraged which seems to also support the idea that it wasn't a religion. They did believe in the dao, but to me that sounds the same as Confucius believing in the moral character of the universe. It does say daoism evolved to include magic and fortune telling, but I think the first form of dao was intended to be secular.

Olivia Manning

9/7/2015 09:41:17 am

So, I am going to answer the margin question, "In what ways did the religious traditions of South Asia change over the centuries?"

Basically, South Asian religious traditions changed from ritual sacrifice, described in the Vedas, to philosophical speculation, described in the Upanishads. The Vedas, written by the Brahmins were the first religious texts to be recognized by Indians. They described required ritual sacrifices that could only be performed by Brahmins who happened to charge for each ritual. The Indians were dissatisfied and resorted to the Upanishads. Written unanimously, these texts led to inward thinking which inspired philosophical Hinduism? (I’m not 100% sure whether it led to it, inspired it, or created it…) The Brahman, the “World Soul”, chief of the philosophical concepts, was essentially like a unitary energy. Even the gods existed in the Brahman. Philosophical Hinduism centralized around the fact that the atman, the individual human soul, was part of the Brahman. Believers’ main goal was to achieve union with the Brahman, called moksha. This was achieved through many lifetimes, as samsara, reincarnation, was a central idea of Hindu thinking. Karma was a law/term that stated that the good/bad choices of a person would reflect the level or class that person would be reborn in. In short, the main goal was to be reborn several times, each time achieving a higher rank in the caste system, until reaching union with the Brahman. Therefore, ending the cycle of rebirth and reaching nirvana.

I would definitely love some advice on my comment. I hope that it’s not too descriptive. I just feel that in order to understand the Upanishads, you have to understand all those terms.

Olivia Manning

9/7/2015 09:42:39 am

Margin question 4 btw...

Bingham

9/7/2015 12:40:36 pm

I think you've done a nice job Olivia. Bramins, and Bramans...tricky stuff eh?

Kendal LeFlore

9/8/2015 05:34:32 pm

Okay this has nothing to do with MQs or BPQs, but it's just something I discovered and would love to share. My older brother is finishing up his fourth year of high school in Katy, which is in what is considered the most ethnically diverse county in the U.S. He has many friends from all over the world, including India. Interestingly enough, most of his Indian friends are from the Brahmin caste.

Now, when he told me this, I was confused. The Brahmins were priests, as we learned in this chapter, not civilians. And wasn't the caste system recently disbanded, in the hopes of creating a more modern, egalitarian system? Well, it turns out that the Brahmins were considered the highest caste due to the wealth they gained during the time period of this chapter; it totally makes sense that the Indians living in the suburbs of Houston are from rich backgrounds, because tickets halfway around the world are not cheap. Also, despite the government attempt to abolish the caste system, the tradition is so engrained in the population, that most people still consider themselves part of their ancestors' caste.

Sorry for going off the beaten path by posting this, but I just thought it was interesting how much of the classical period is still active today. Brahmins and castes haven't gone anywhere!

Bingham

9/8/2015 06:21:29 pm

No, don't apologize, this is awesome. I agree, the folks we meet here are more likely to be of the upper class. In fact, a great WHAPer who just graduated was of the Bramin class.

Kendal LeFlore

9/7/2015 11:42:02 am

This chapter was pretty straightforward; however, there is one margin question (#5) I would love some clarification on.

"In what ways did Buddhism reflect Hindu traditions, and in what ways did it challenge them?"

Buddhism contained the Hindu elements of karma, rebirth, and meditation. Also, both religions were meant to help the believer overcome their ego and ultimately be released from the cycle of rebirth.

On the other hand, Buddhism challenged the inequalities of the Hindu caste system, called Hindu rituals and sacrifices irrelevant, and did not believe the introspective nature of Hinduism was useful in the search for enlightenment.

Anything I can improve on or add? Thank you!

Bingham

9/7/2015 12:50:32 pm

I'll be your huckleberry. So your answer looks solid. Just to round it out you might include overcoming the constant demands of the ego (a word that was yet to be coined) in the "similarities" column.

In the differences section, you might be more specific in mentioning rejection of the religious authority of the Brahmins, I mean the Buddha totally called them out. There might have been a bar fight, I'm not sure. Also, the specific no introspection thing was related to contemplating things such as the creation of the world, or the existence of gods. The Buddha was all like, "dude, deal with what's in front of you!" Also, as a woman, you might find special interest in the his claim that gender (like class) was not a barrier to enlightenment.

How's the Jesus/Sidhartha comparison coming along?

Kendal LeFlore

9/8/2015 04:55:33 am

I'm not sure what a huckleberry is, but cool!

Let's talk about Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama.

To start off with, Jesus was but a lowly peasant carpenter born in a barn, while Siddhartha was a sheltered Prince showered with luxury. They both became spiritual seekers and gave lessons on love and the release of suffering. Jesus had an intense devotion to the Jewish god and (allegedly) performed miracles in his name, while Siddhartha largely ignored the supernatural and focused more on teaching his followers how to live ethically. Jesus, in tune with his peasant background, supported the poor and impure more than the Buddha. In the end, Jesus was killed like a common peasant criminal because he pissed off the Jews and Romans, but Buddha lived a nice happy life and died naturally. Neither of them claimed that were divine, but in both cases they were raised to divine status.

Nowadays, if you preach about "loving everyone" and "releasing your problems, dude", no one takes you seriously.

Also, Siddhartha can be pictured as jolly and fat or skinny, while Jesus is usually a bearded skinny white guy.

Solomon Alhakeem

9/7/2015 12:33:42 pm

Regarding Margin Question #7:
"What new emphases characterized Hinduism as it responded to the challenge of Buddhism?"

In the new form Hinduism there was no asceticism, ordinary people not only the Brahmins were allowed to make their own spiritual journey, people can devote to a deity (Bakhti Worship Movement), Buddha was incorporated into Hinduism, the masses found it more accessible than the elaborate sacrifices of the Brahmins or philosophical speculations of intellectuals, and that it indicated more clearly that action in the world and the detached performance of caste duties might also provide a path to liberation.

Did I miss anything, and are there any suggestions? Thank you in advance!

Bingham

9/7/2015 12:53:08 pm

Looks good Solomon. Guys, don't wait for me to help out. This is supposed to be a conversation, not grafitti sprayed on a wall!

Zoe Gillikin

9/7/2015 12:35:18 pm

Margin Question 6: (Comparison) What is the difference between the Theravada and Mahayana expressions of Buddhism?

The Theravada expression of Buddhism (teaching of the elders) was an austere doctrine of intense self effort. Undertaken most often by monks and nuns, Buddha was referred to as a wise teacher, but certainly not divine. It was more physiological than religious, a set of practices rather than a set of beliefs. People were on their own in reaching nirvana (liberation). This early form of Buddhism led to a more modern form called Mahayana.

The Mahayana expression of Buddhism (great vehicle) was a popular religion of salvation. Undertaken by the majority of Buddhists, Buddha was referred to as a god and future Buddha's assisted others on their journey to nirvana. It was more religious than physiological, and a set of beliefs rather than a set of practices. People were available to help (specifically Bodhisattvas who would postpone their own journey to help others) you reach nirvana. This new form of Buddhism is widely accepted and practiced today.

Am I on the right track? Suggestions are appreciated.

Bingham

9/7/2015 12:55:46 pm

Rock solid Zoe. Those people, just had to have their gods. This shows that the need for supernatural explanations is a very human trait.

Olivia Manning

9/7/2015 03:38:20 pm

I'm hoping to answer margin question #12: "In what ways was Christianity transformed in the five centuries following the death of Jesus?

After the death of Jesus, he became divine through the views of his followers. The beginning of the church's tranformation began with Saint Paul (10-65 C.E.) He created small Christian communities in the Eastern Roman Empire, but most importantly, he proclaimed that Christianity was for everyone. Despite this, early Christianity was mostly patriarchial. There were a few opportunities for women, such as roles in the "house of churches" in the first century C.E. But Paul strongly advocated against this. Christianity gradually spread in the Roman Empire through its attractive all inclusive message. Normally, people of lower social staus converted compared to those in the higher social classes. People were also attracted to the idea that followers cared for one another. At around 300 C.E., about 10% of the Roman Empire identified as Christian. Christianity's severe opposition to any other forms of belief (pretty much the cult of emperors) caused the persecution of Christians through the first 3 centuries C.E. However, the reforms of Constantine at the beginning of the 4th century C.E. ended this and grew state support for the religion. Christianity was seen by rulers as a way to hold together the already eroding imperial state. In addition, a ban on all polytheistic rituals & sacrifices was laid by emperor Theodosius who also closed the polytheistic temples. Christianity began to be seen positively where structures and buildings were encouraged and aproval of their beliefs was given ultimately leading to it being professed as the official state religion. The faith spread widely, as this happened the religion developed hierarchy which causdd problems within the church which eventually led the the schism of the church.

As for the spread of the religion, Christianity found convers for Spain to Northeast Africa, Central Asia, and India. It spred to Armenia and Axum in the Roman Empire. And after 1000 C.E. spread to Russia as well.

Did I miss anything? Include too much detail? Does it sound on track? All comments are appreciated. Thanks!

Bingham

9/7/2015 04:14:05 pm

Pretty darn thorough. I have nothing to add.

Sabrina Koseki

9/7/2015 08:25:31 pm

Hi, I have a tentative answer for BPQ #3 as well a question about it:

The question asks about religion specifically, with the statement 'religion is a double- edged sword'. In my answer, should I include Legalist/ Confucian ideas/ Greek rationalism even though they are not religions? Similarly to religions, they could also threaten/ support political authorities and social elites... (Legalism and Confucianism support the law, while Socrates, was sentenced to death because his ideas became a threat) ... but they're not religions.

That said, my answer is:
Religion could strengthen political and social structures, especially when they were supported by authority figures, such as Constantine's support of Christianity and the way it reinforced patriarchy, Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism in Mauryan India, and the support that Zoroastrianism received from the Achaemenid dynasty.

On the other hand, religions/ religious leaders who taught a faith that contradicted the current system could challenge authorities and cause them (and their followers) to be persecuted, such as the execution of Jesus by the Roman authorities. Also, the monotheistic aspect of Christianity excluded the worship of Roman gods and the cult of the emperors, which caused them to be tagged as "atheists" and persecuted by the empire.

Sabrina Koseki

9/7/2015 08:28:38 pm

I also feel a bit iffy about my first paragraph, since I only have that one point about religions being supported by authority figures. Is there any other point that I'm missing?

Thanks in advance.

Sabrina Koseki

9/7/2015 09:22:38 pm

Oh, and I forgot to add in my second paragraph:
Political leaders who subscribed to a certain faith were bound by its rules: Ashoka's support of Buddhism meant that he couldn't use violence as much as he had before, and the supposed equality of all Christians ran counter to the social structure of Roman society.

Trevor Fu

9/10/2015 07:31:25 pm

If Science is considered a religion i would consider these religions too.

Augustus Allen

9/9/2015 05:17:59 pm

I would include Legalist/ Confucian ideas/Greek Rationalism because basically religion can be a set of practices, ethical values, philosophy/ies, and beliefs. Therefore these ways of thinking can fit under the relatively broad term of religion.

But I could be wrong so please let me know.

Caroline O'Connor

9/10/2015 08:11:05 pm

I would also include that the harsh nature of Legalism contributed to Shihuangdi's short rule and the discrediting of the entire Legalist philosophy. Confucianism's emphasis on strong education systems created a bureaucracy with government officials chosen based on merit rather than by blood or birthright.

Anything else I'm missing?

Hallie Schulze

9/8/2015 10:48:29 pm

BPQ #1: "Religions are fundamentally alike.” Does the material in this chapter support or undermine this idea?

Christianity, Zoroastianism, and Judaism were all developed in the same region of the world which may have led to similarities within them. These include a strong belief in good and evil, monotheism, and overall more dramatic, dark stories. Some scholars think that the reason why is because these religions all developed in the desert, where life was brutal. On the other hand, Buddhism, Hinuism, Confucianism, and Daoism all developed in a more friendly environment with more resources, and they have a more peaceful,loving perspective on salvation. However, you can find the purpose of peace in both groups. So, in that element, they are similar.

I'm kind of iffy about this one because it seems like I only touched on the point that they all strive to achieve peace and salvation, but I also included the environment aspects as well.... Is there something I'm missing?

Sydney Han

9/9/2015 04:17:53 pm

Hi Hallie! To add on to your answer, there are more differences between these religions as well, such as, Confucian and Daoism and between Hinduism and Buddhism.
Confucian urged for education which he believed would lead to a better moral life and his teachings also went off of ren which means human heartedness and nobility of the heart. Daoist despised these qualities, seeing them as useless and essentially fake. Daoism was all about nature and encouraged those following to immerse themselves into this world and to act spontaneously. Buddhism challenged the rituals and sacrifices of Hinduism, seeing them as irrelevant. Buddha rejected Hinduisms questioning on the creation of the world and the existence of God, not really believing that this knowledge could lead to spiritual enlightenment or nirvana. Buddha did believe that it was that individuals responsibility to find that enlightenment without any help. Lastly, Buddha challenged their caste system, truly believing this system irrelevant when it came to finding enlightenment. Supporting the statement, there is the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. After Buddha and Jesus' death, their followers began to view them as gods and new religions emerged into the world as well, though the teachers not intending to do so. And they both opened up more opportunities for women and even quarreled over interpretations of the teachings (though in Buddhism there was not as much violence as in Christianity and Buddhism did get absorbed into Hinduism). These two, both spread past their origins of location. I didn't name all of the differences; I know that there is Jewish traditions vs. Christian traditions and Greek Rationalism and Confucian vs. the supernatural based religions as well. I hope what I said was right and that it helped (if it was right), though I might have said too much (or too little?) >.<

Hallie Schulze

9/10/2015 07:54:39 pm

Thanks!! Yes that helped a lot!

Lauren De La Calzada

9/9/2015 06:54:49 pm

Sydney, Thien-Tam, and I have tried to find the 14 similarities between Jesus and Buddha.....

1. spiritual seekers
2. claimed to experience another level of reality
3. "wisdom teachers"
4. importance of love and compassion as the basis for moral life
5. personal transformation of their followers
6. neither had the intention of creating a new religion
7.personal experience provided the motivation for their life's work
8. challenging the conventional values of their time
9. urging the reunification of wealth
10. sought to reform the traditions from which they had come from (Jesus-Judaism, Buddha- Hinduism(?))
11. proclaimed their message to a much wider/ inclusive audience
transformed by their followers into gods
12. new religions spread beyond their places of origin
13. frequent controversies over the various interpretations of the religion, which led to....
14. division of the religion ( Christianity splits into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox; Buddhism splits into Theravada and Mahayana)

I know there is only 14, but the more the better and some could be wrong.....

15. their message emerged right after their death

and the obvious.....
16. males
17. located in Eurasia

I hope these are correct.... any suggestions?

Bingham

9/9/2015 09:17:45 pm

Lauren,
Obviously 16 & 17 don't pass the "duh" test, but this is a courageous effort.! Good for you, and most of these work. What do the rest of you think? Has she she got them all? Do these match up with Strayer's commentary? Has she combined some? Has she missed some? Is she saying the same thing twice? Perform your own analysis.
Oh, and don't forget upperclassmen tutoring after school, and me-helping-you-out with mom or dad tomorrow night!

Kendal L

9/10/2015 07:48:12 pm

Here is the list of Siddhartha/Jesus similarities we came up with at the after school upperclassmen whap study thing. These are similarities between the two people and (farther down the list) the religions they inspired.

1. Jesus and Siddhartha both were originally motivated by powerful religious experiences.
2. Both claimed to have personally experienced another level of reality
3. They both became mystics/wisdom teachers and accumulated a small gathering of followers while they were alive.
4. The urged the renunciation of wealth
5. They both taught their followers to be compassionate and "love thy enemy"
6. They both called for the transformation of their followers through "letting go" of the grasping that causes suffering
7. Neither intended to create a religion
8. They sought to reform the traditions/religions from which they had come
9. Neither claimed that they were divine
10. After their death, they were transformed by their followers into Gods
[Switching from the teachers to their religions]
11. Buddhism and Christianity emerged as their own religions, spreading and proclaiming their messages to wider audiences
12. Though they proclaimed they were egalitarian-based, the religions reflected prevailing patriarchal values
13. Buddhism provided a network of cultural connections in much of Asia, and Christianity did the same for western Eurasia and parts of Africa
14. Buddhists and Christians had inner conflict due to various interpretations of Siddhartha's and Jesus' teachings. (Theravada vs Mahayana; Catholic vs Protestant)
15. Both religions are still in popular practice today

I wrote these all practically verbatim from Strayer. Mostly found from The Lives of the Founders and Establishing New Religions sections with #13 right before Creating Institutions, and #14 in the last paragraph before Reflections. #15 is not in Strayer, but it's true! Any comments?

Joanna Zhou

9/9/2015 09:59:40 pm

Not too sure about the "wisdom leaders" point on its own due to its placement in the chapter in relation to point 8: Challenging the conventional values of their time i.e. the same sentence.

On its own, "wisdom leaders" seems vague and could have multiple interpretations. There doesn't seem to be anything in the chapter that defines the phrase.

Also, as a clarifying question, does this mean similarities for their religions count as well, versus just those relating specifically to Buddha and Jesus's lives and roles as religious figureheads?

By relating to religions, I mean after their deaths for notably long periods (centuries?)

For example, if the above is true, do state support (Buddhism and Ashoka; Christianity and Constantine) and patriarchy (shaky on Buddhist version of this) count as similarities?

Points seeming to lean more towards the religions are:

new religions spread beyond their place of origin,
frequent controversies over various interpretations of the religion of the religion,
and division of the religion.

Joanna Zhou

9/9/2015 10:24:10 pm

First off, this comment doesn't relate to any of the big picture or margin questions but more so just fluff, so if you're pulling an all-nighter/hardcore studying, please skip over.

A fun (though that's subjective) fact about Lao Zi:
his name was actually 李耳，or Li Er, where his first name Er meant ear. Pretty weird first name, even for Chinese people.

You can see why he'd prefer it to be 老子 (Lao Zi) an honorific title which means old/venerable master. He also rode off on a water buffalo, making him a certifiable badass.

Also, Zhuangzi was an amazing philosopher that people should check out, especially his story "The Butterfly Dream”, where he presents the "Am I in a dream?" idea in a refreshing and beautiful way.

Lauren De La Calzada

9/9/2015 07:25:21 pm

never mind

Eurasian Culture, Strayer 5

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories