After reading the the brief autobiographical excerpt from Samuel Heilman, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. What does Heilman mean when he says "The Temple now was portable"(264)?
2.
Heilman describes living a "double life" and being
"compartmentalized." To what is he referring? Have you ever felt a
similar way?
3. Eventually Heilman will say "Here compartments collapse"(276). Explain.
4. Describe Heliman's experience of prayer on 273. Have you ever felt that way in prayer?
5.
"I have gone through the Talmud three times," the learned man
answered. "Yes" the rebbe replied, and then inquired, "but how much has
the Talmud gone through you" (277)? Explain.
REMEMBER:
No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last
initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.).
You do not have to create a completely new comment as your
participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your
contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No
personal or ad hominem attacks
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Zaynab al-Ghazali
After reading the brief
autobiographical excerpt from Zaynab al-Ghazali, I want you to think
about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to
do so) of the following questions:
1. Al-Ghazali seems to have conflicting ideas of women's role in Islamic society. At one point she says "...in Islamic society it is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women"(377), and at other times she seems to be quite stern and unyielding in speaking to her husband (cf. pp. 386-7). How can she hold both positions?
2. What do you think al-Ghazali means when she talks of "complete incorporation" on page 380?
3. "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378). How is this possible? [hint: think of the spread of the Umma and the Shariah in early Islam]
4. From reading this short excerpt, what do you think al-Ghazali's and the Muslim Brotherhood's ideal religio-political reality would be? What does she mean when she writes "...Islam is both religion and state..."(389)? Would the existence of individual states like Egypt or Iraq or Jordan cease to exist in the ideal religio-political reality of al-Ghazali and the MB?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
1. Al-Ghazali seems to have conflicting ideas of women's role in Islamic society. At one point she says "...in Islamic society it is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women"(377), and at other times she seems to be quite stern and unyielding in speaking to her husband (cf. pp. 386-7). How can she hold both positions?
2. What do you think al-Ghazali means when she talks of "complete incorporation" on page 380?
3. "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378). How is this possible? [hint: think of the spread of the Umma and the Shariah in early Islam]
4. From reading this short excerpt, what do you think al-Ghazali's and the Muslim Brotherhood's ideal religio-political reality would be? What does she mean when she writes "...Islam is both religion and state..."(389)? Would the existence of individual states like Egypt or Iraq or Jordan cease to exist in the ideal religio-political reality of al-Ghazali and the MB?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Jalal Al-e Ahmad
After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from Jalal Al-e Ahmad, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. In general, what was your reaction to Al-e Ahmad's description of the Hajj? Does it seem like an attractive event? Do you think that your reaction would be different if this text had been written by a fervent believer?
2. From pp. 364-366, Al-e Ahmad discusses two rituals: the running back and forth between Safa and Marveh and the circumambulation of the Kaaba. In both of these rituals, Al-e Ahmad says that one loses the sense of "self." Explain why and if you think this is a positive or negative thing.
3. Al-e Ahmad also talks about pilgrims finding real meaning in the Hajj. "A meaning higher than this dealing, marketing, tourism, discharge of obligation, and ritual enactment economy, government, and a thousand other inevitable things"(367). Having studied the infancy of Islam, of what does this remind you? It seems that Al-e Ahmad is indirectly comparing the Saudi administration of the the Hajj to what?
4. What is Al-e Ahmad's view of the West's influence on and relationship with Islam (or Islamic peoples and cultures)?[hint: look at pp. 368-72]
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
1. In general, what was your reaction to Al-e Ahmad's description of the Hajj? Does it seem like an attractive event? Do you think that your reaction would be different if this text had been written by a fervent believer?
2. From pp. 364-366, Al-e Ahmad discusses two rituals: the running back and forth between Safa and Marveh and the circumambulation of the Kaaba. In both of these rituals, Al-e Ahmad says that one loses the sense of "self." Explain why and if you think this is a positive or negative thing.
3. Al-e Ahmad also talks about pilgrims finding real meaning in the Hajj. "A meaning higher than this dealing, marketing, tourism, discharge of obligation, and ritual enactment economy, government, and a thousand other inevitable things"(367). Having studied the infancy of Islam, of what does this remind you? It seems that Al-e Ahmad is indirectly comparing the Saudi administration of the the Hajj to what?
4. What is Al-e Ahmad's view of the West's influence on and relationship with Islam (or Islamic peoples and cultures)?[hint: look at pp. 368-72]
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
Monday, November 19, 2012
Thich Nhat Hanh
After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from Thich Nhat Hanh, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. On p. 159 TNH tells a story about a Zen master answering yes and no to the same question asked by two different disciples (if a dog has a Buddha nature). He goes on to explain, "'Yes or 'no' here were not the truth, but were just a means to point to the truth" (159). Does this make sense to you? Why or why not?
2. On p. 161 TNH talks about an experience of trying to get a few leaves out of a container of water. Having been unsuccessful trying a few different methods, he states, "After I stopped stirring, the water in the jar continued to swirl, and the leaves rose to the surface" (161). Does this remind you of the Buddha's teaching on desire? Or the Zen teaching about thinking? Why or why not?
3. On p. 164 TNH dissuades Vinh (or his "friend") from entering the monastery and pursuing Buddhism as a way to escape the world. Do you think it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism? Why or why not?
4. "Buddhism does not tolerate dictatorial thinking[...]You can[...]make new spiritual discoveries without fear of being condemned or excommunicated by any power, even that of the congregation" (168). This statement sounds like a rather liberating statement. What are the positives aspects of such a teaching? Is there any danger in such a teaching?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
1. On p. 159 TNH tells a story about a Zen master answering yes and no to the same question asked by two different disciples (if a dog has a Buddha nature). He goes on to explain, "'Yes or 'no' here were not the truth, but were just a means to point to the truth" (159). Does this make sense to you? Why or why not?
2. On p. 161 TNH talks about an experience of trying to get a few leaves out of a container of water. Having been unsuccessful trying a few different methods, he states, "After I stopped stirring, the water in the jar continued to swirl, and the leaves rose to the surface" (161). Does this remind you of the Buddha's teaching on desire? Or the Zen teaching about thinking? Why or why not?
3. On p. 164 TNH dissuades Vinh (or his "friend") from entering the monastery and pursuing Buddhism as a way to escape the world. Do you think it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism? Why or why not?
4. "Buddhism does not tolerate dictatorial thinking[...]You can[...]make new spiritual discoveries without fear of being condemned or excommunicated by any power, even that of the congregation" (168). This statement sounds like a rather liberating statement. What are the positives aspects of such a teaching? Is there any danger in such a teaching?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Shudha Mazumdar
After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from Shudha Mazumdar, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. On page 137, Mazumdar's mother is quoted as saying, "A man may do whatever he chooses, but that home is doomed where a woman follows her own desires." Is this an utterly sexist comment? Is there any truth to it?
2. Was it difficult to understand the many rites, rituals, and puja that Mazumdar describes in pp. 137-142? If so, why? Do you think it would be difficult for Mazumdar to understand some Catholic rituals if they were described in detail? Why?
3. When discussing the multiplicity of religions with her older brother, Mazumdar seems to think that her brother is teaching her that all religions are basically the same thing called by different names (cf. the water anecdote on p. 142). Mazumdar then asks her brother, "Then it doesn't matter much, does it, which road we take" (143)? Her brother responds, "But it does matter..."(143). What does he mean? Do you agree?
4. After a near death experience (cf. pp. 147-148) Mazumdar feels a "detachment from [her] body." She even refers to her body as "this cage of flesh that decomposes." Do you think this detachment from the body is good/healthy? Does the Hindu emphasis on the "real self" as opposed to the "surface self" (i.e. body, conscious mind, ego, attachments, etc.) make sense to you?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
1. On page 137, Mazumdar's mother is quoted as saying, "A man may do whatever he chooses, but that home is doomed where a woman follows her own desires." Is this an utterly sexist comment? Is there any truth to it?
2. Was it difficult to understand the many rites, rituals, and puja that Mazumdar describes in pp. 137-142? If so, why? Do you think it would be difficult for Mazumdar to understand some Catholic rituals if they were described in detail? Why?
3. When discussing the multiplicity of religions with her older brother, Mazumdar seems to think that her brother is teaching her that all religions are basically the same thing called by different names (cf. the water anecdote on p. 142). Mazumdar then asks her brother, "Then it doesn't matter much, does it, which road we take" (143)? Her brother responds, "But it does matter..."(143). What does he mean? Do you agree?
4. After a near death experience (cf. pp. 147-148) Mazumdar feels a "detachment from [her] body." She even refers to her body as "this cage of flesh that decomposes." Do you think this detachment from the body is good/healthy? Does the Hindu emphasis on the "real self" as opposed to the "surface self" (i.e. body, conscious mind, ego, attachments, etc.) make sense to you?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Gopi Krishna
After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from Gopi Krishna, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. Gopi Krishna describes going from a naive young believer in "every impossible and unbelievable incident" (123) to a college student who became a "full-fledged agnostic, full of doubts" (123). Eventually he reaches a type of middle ground and states "But science itself, though extremely useful in other ways...was not fit in my view to rule the domain where faith holds sway" (125). What does he mean and do you agree?
2. When Gopi Krishna decides he wants to practice a certain level of asceticism and yoga, he decides that he would not leave his family to focus on these spiritual pursuits full time (cf. 130). Is this a wise choice? Does this continued attachment to the world hinder his spiritual pursuit? Is he somehow half-stepping toward his goal? Or is this mode of living a balanced, healthy way to pursue mystical knowledge and spiritual discipline?
3. Gopi Krishna has a rather powerful mystical experience when he was 34 years old. He states "I was no longer myself..." (134). After confirming to himself that his experience was a real mystical awakening and a brush with the divine, he nevertheless feels sad and scared. He states "But, why did I feel uneasy and depressed" (135)? What do you make of these negative feelings Gopi Krishna feels after his awakening?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks.
1. Gopi Krishna describes going from a naive young believer in "every impossible and unbelievable incident" (123) to a college student who became a "full-fledged agnostic, full of doubts" (123). Eventually he reaches a type of middle ground and states "But science itself, though extremely useful in other ways...was not fit in my view to rule the domain where faith holds sway" (125). What does he mean and do you agree?
2. When Gopi Krishna decides he wants to practice a certain level of asceticism and yoga, he decides that he would not leave his family to focus on these spiritual pursuits full time (cf. 130). Is this a wise choice? Does this continued attachment to the world hinder his spiritual pursuit? Is he somehow half-stepping toward his goal? Or is this mode of living a balanced, healthy way to pursue mystical knowledge and spiritual discipline?
3. Gopi Krishna has a rather powerful mystical experience when he was 34 years old. He states "I was no longer myself..." (134). After confirming to himself that his experience was a real mystical awakening and a brush with the divine, he nevertheless feels sad and scared. He states "But, why did I feel uneasy and depressed" (135)? What do you make of these negative feelings Gopi Krishna feels after his awakening?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Ninian Smart Interview
You've all read the interview with Ninian Smart called "The Future of Religion."
Please discuss anything you found interesting or thought provoking about the interview. You might want to write about the following:
What questions might you have asked Mr. Smart? Is there anything confusing about Mr. Smart's answers? Did you enjoy reading this? Was it boring? What was going through your head as you read this interview?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks.
Please discuss anything you found interesting or thought provoking about the interview. You might want to write about the following:
What questions might you have asked Mr. Smart? Is there anything confusing about Mr. Smart's answers? Did you enjoy reading this? Was it boring? What was going through your head as you read this interview?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)