After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from Satomi Myodo, 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 is the insect, which Satomi's father is watching, doing on p. 177? Does this remind you of anything? Why do you think Satomi is so moved by her father's attention to this insect?
2. On p. 186 Satomi states, "Self-realization or no self-realization, when one considers that all things are always treading the one path of religious practice, it's clear that there is nowhere outside of this from which to intervene. It's fine just as it is." What does she mean? Is there any truth to this sentiment?
3. "That's the flagpole" (188)! What insight has Satomi arrived at when she makes this announcement?
4. Satomi states on p. 190, "All things in the universe have together nurtured small and insignificant me." Is this more of a Mahayana or Therevada statement? Why? Do you think that the universe if benevolent, malevolent, or indifferent to human beings (or the rest of creation for that matter)? [apologies for the insanely general and open-ended secondary question - have fun]
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, November 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
John Fire Lame Deer
After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from John Fire Lame Deer, 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. JFLD states on p. 65 "You can almost say that a man with no vision can't be a real Indian." What do you think he means? Do you agree with him?
2. What do you think about JFLD's rejection of peyote? Why does he feel that he "shouldn't mix these two beliefs" (i.e. the sacred pipe and peyote)?
3. From pp. 67-69 JFLD goes on a bit of a rant about white (frog-skin) culture. Is this rant completely unfair, somewhat true, completely true? What is his general point about white American culture?
4. Did you learn anything new about the Sun Dance from JFLD's description?
5. What do you think of JFLD's statement on p. 74 when he writes, "Insight does not come cheaply, and we want no angel or saint to gain it for us and to give it to us secondhand..."?
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. JFLD states on p. 65 "You can almost say that a man with no vision can't be a real Indian." What do you think he means? Do you agree with him?
2. What do you think about JFLD's rejection of peyote? Why does he feel that he "shouldn't mix these two beliefs" (i.e. the sacred pipe and peyote)?
3. From pp. 67-69 JFLD goes on a bit of a rant about white (frog-skin) culture. Is this rant completely unfair, somewhat true, completely true? What is his general point about white American culture?
4. Did you learn anything new about the Sun Dance from JFLD's description?
5. What do you think of JFLD's statement on p. 74 when he writes, "Insight does not come cheaply, and we want no angel or saint to gain it for us and to give it to us secondhand..."?
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, February 3, 2010
Tamim Ansari's Afterword
After reading the afterword from Tamim Ansari's book Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes, 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 Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is is that they "hate democracy and freedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?
2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?
3. Having studied Islam, why would you think that Ansari sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units"(353) as a bad thing? [hint: think about the Umma]
4. Does Ansari think that if the West and Islam simply sit down and really understood each other that all the discord, arguments, and acrimony would melt away as mere "misunderstanding?"
5. According to Ansari, what doctrine of traditional Islam makes giving a liberal or softened view of jihad difficult?
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
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. What does Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is is that they "hate democracy and freedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?
2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?
3. Having studied Islam, why would you think that Ansari sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units"(353) as a bad thing? [hint: think about the Umma]
4. Does Ansari think that if the West and Islam simply sit down and really understood each other that all the discord, arguments, and acrimony would melt away as mere "misunderstanding?"
5. According to Ansari, what doctrine of traditional Islam makes giving a liberal or softened view of jihad difficult?
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
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)