I have been thinking a lot about Muslim woman since Alex showed the ninja video on Thursday. We spoke of the misconceptions towards Muslim woman, but I'm still unsure they are misconceptions. Although we could say this about any culture or society that we haven't actually encountered first hand. All we have to go off of is what we are shown.

 We spoke about how the woman in the ninja video most likely come from a wealthy family but what about the woman who don't... is that where the misconception comes from? Alex was also talking about seeing the woman in their homes in Juicy Couture... once again we are speaking of families that are wealthy.There is a lot to consider when you think about things like this... they are just regular woman like anyone here. There is no reason to believe they are different. Maybe its just the cultural difference that we see negatively but if that is the case who are we to decide what is best for another culture? What do other people think about the image of Muslim woman?

Can the next prophet please stand up?

This week in class we spent a lot of time talking about peoples negative perceptions of other cultures and religions. This idea kind of goes hand in hand with my post from last week. For the average American our only view on other cultures are what we are told by the media. We are discussing Muhammad in class whose religion is is Islam. All of us are very aware of the way Americans perceive them.

Is it right or fare? No. Have we been brainwashed to think this way? Yes.

Would a prophet like Jesus even be able to to fix everyone's cynical perception of people different than themselves? Are we to far gone to be saved? Would a prophet make a difference?

My book analysis is on Taoism and I think one of the concepts really works for this argument. Taoist believe that being one with nature is key, and to be one with nature you must go back to your natural form, like a block of wood. You can carve a block of wood into anything. Just like our perceptions can be carved into anything. Can we get back to our natural way of thinking and decide for ourselves how we perceive the world around us?

Reading Avery Finnivan's post about religions being strict, and a friend who isn't allowed to be friends with someone of different beliefs really got me thinking about all religions.

When do "religions" and religious figure heads go to far. This brings me back to Jesus, and how what he was trying to teach has been altered and changed from the notion of equality among all men and woman to Christianity with thousands of rules.

Can what was originally purpose be twisted so far that the main point is actually erased? Do the wrong people become religious figure heads and alter the original message to make people act a certain way? You could even ask the same thing when it comes to news media. People are smart and know how to get reactions from the mass crowd. Scaring them into behaving.

Greed-excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

In class yesterday Professor Silliman said that greed is what makes the world a bad place. I couldn't agree more. This idea isn't just the case in Buddhism which is the religion we were discussing, but I finds this to be a universal idea.

Greed, desire, jealousy all roll into one when we think about the human experience. The human race's mind set is to have more or something better than your neighbor and by doing this you will achieve happiness. FALSE! Happiness is fleeting and will only last a few moments. I think Buddhism has it right on this one. Greed is what makes the world go round but not in a good way.

Are we like an artichoke or an onion?

This we week we delved right into The Dhammapada, and understanding the teachings of Buddha. I have really enjoyed the readings thus far and think that even if one doesn't choose to become Buddhist they could definitely take what Buddha says it stride and apply it to their lives.

That being said I am still trying to understand the idea that we are just stick figures and our lives aren't real...we just are. Professor Silliman used an artichoke/ onion metaphor in class which really helped me to comprehend what Buddhist believe, but it is still hard to fully embrace this belief. We are taught to be ourselves and have a concrete belief of who we are, and being Buddhist you have to set that aside and just...be.

I guess this idea brings my post from last week about soul full circle. It is hard to comprehend but not impossible.

Soul.

We spoke about having a soul on Thursday, and how in the Buddhist religion the idea that every individual has a soul is non-existent. This belief is alien to me. I am not necessarily a religious person but I have referenced my soul many times. This got me thinking though, what is a soul? Is it something in your very core that makes you who you are?

The definition of soul according to dictionary.com is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.". 


We hear reference to the soul all the time "hes a lost soul" when someone can't find their way, "they have a good soul" aka they're a good person. Is the idea of everyone having a soul an analogy for a moral compass or is it something bigger than can be comprehended? 


What does everyone else think about the idea of the soul?

So now we know a small amount about the historical Jesus his followers, and why everyone followed this peasant who altered many individuals perception of patriarchy among other things. I know that the gospels are embellished stories to show the significance of what Jesus did, but I want to know where God fits into all of this. I know it was a biography of Jesus, but from what I've learned over the years (I know I'm supposed to leave that out but since we are moving on I have been curious about this) the belief of Jesus and God kind of go hand and hand. Father and son, the holy family, etc. The kingdom of God is something we touch upon but once again that is not a literal place. He God also another embellishment of the history? or is that a whole other book?

Crossan.

We spent a lot of time Thursday talking about the actually history from when Jesus was alive to how it has been changed over the years. Professor Silliman described the accuracy of biblical information to a game of telephone.

So what I want to know is what makes Crossan right? Yes he has done research and compared many different scriptures from different texts and shown why they make sense. BUT he has also changed his views on several things since he has written this version and Professor Silliman has pointed out.  So are we supposed to put our faith in what Crossan says and assume its true?

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what Crossan says in his book I think it is very interest and well written. I just want to know why should believe what he writes?

Forgiveness.

 In class we had a brief discussion on forgiveness with Alex. It is a well known belief that forgiveness is divine, and Jesus forgave people so you should follow his example and forgive everyone too.

But is there limits to forgiveness? Awhile ago Professor Silliman told a story about a woman who falsely accused a man of raping her, and now they are friends many years later. Now that is forgiveness.

I think forgiveness is an individuals choice and telling someone that they have to forgive their friend is condescending. Even if you are told to forgive someone you might still hold a grudge if you aren't ready to "forgive and forget". Another topic we discussed was holding a grudge once you have "forgiven" the individual. The class was torn on if you are holding a grudge than you haven't forgiven them, and others considered a grudge and forgiveness as two separate ideas.

Forgiveness and holding a grudge go together like peanut butter and jelly. If you are forced to forgive someone than you will most likely still be holding a grudge.

I am not talking about forgiveness when it comes to borrowing your sisters shirt without asking. I'm referring to life changing altercations.

I have some experience with holding a grudge. My mother is a big believer in forgive and forget because that's what Jesus would do (nothing drives me more nuts than when she whips out this statement). Just because Jesus could forgive and forget doesn't mean you can pull his philosophy on forgiveness as a back up plan.

The difference between "illness" and "disease" is not a distinction I have ever made. In American society it seems as though the two words are used interchangeably.

In Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, Crossan, describes the two terms like this; "illnesses are experiences of disvalued changes in states of being and in social function, and diseases are abnormalities in the structure and function of body organs and systems." The distinction is very interesting. I have always thought of an illness as a cold and a disease as something more serious to you health.

I brought up in class on Tuesday the idea of a mental illness. I have never considered the choice of wording until now but, when someone is mentally ill they tend to act in a way that is looked down upon in our society...among other things. Alex said that maybe the word isn't being used correctly but if you think more in depth about it, yes there is something actually medically wrong with the person, but maybe there are bigger reasons why the word illness was used rather than disease.

Jesus, the first rebel with a cause, and John, the first terrorist. Man oh man my vision of the holy family was surely rocked this week. I have decided from here on out per Professor Sillimans request I will block off what I have learned growing up about the holy family, and open my mind to this new historical information.

But before I completely block out what I've learned I really want to know how the history of Jesus went from the first rebel with a cause to an entire religion based around him and his family.

Professor Silliman was talking about how the stories were created because he was so important. Which I understand, but there have been other inspiring figures in history aka Gandhi, and there is not entire religions based on him. Hopefully we go into this the further we get into Crossan's book!

Wow. Jesus A Revolutionary Biography is unlike anything I've ever read or heard of before. While reading it I had a difficult time understanding what Crossan was trying to have come across with his comparisons, and at some points became slightly offended. But after Professor Silliman explained the meaning of gospels as a story rather than history it sort of alters the way I perceive everything I've been told to believe.

I've been thinking about is the concept of the Virgin Mary. We talked about it a little bit in class, Professor Silliman stating that she in fact was not a virgin. Which would make sense...she was married to Joseph, no? I'm just curious why soooo many people believe that Mary is a virgin, it just seems so unrealistic.

In the society I grew up in the only religion I ever truly learned about and understood was Christianity. Reading the Gita really opened my eyes to a completely different stand point on a religion. Or as Professor Silliman, has pointed out who is to say what religion is anyways?

There are so many different gods in Hinduism, none of which are seen as an abomination to worship which is the complete opposite of Christianity. Worshiping another god other than God is seen as a Christian crime.

There is such a difference between the way the two "religions" see things its going to be exciting to compare them as we move forward in the reading. Heaven, hell, God, Jesus, Gunas, gods, brahman, atman!

On Thursday in class we were discussing becoming a Sannyasan and how it isn't necessarily a negative decision, which I agree with, but then I started creating more questions after thinking on this later.

Would you be able to end your cycle of reincarnation if you didn't choose the path of becoming a Sannyasan but choose becoming one with god on your own.  Do you have the option of living your life and being at peace and one with you Atman without abandoning your world possessions?

Or, if this was so would you by default choose the path of becoming Sannyasan?

After re-reading chapters 1-6 in The Gita, chapter 2 "Self-Realization" really spoke to me. I found what Krishna was saying to Arjuna to be inspiring.

In verse 22 Krishna says "As one abandons worn-out clothes and acquires new ones, so when the body is worn out a new one is acquired by the Self, who lives within." Krishna makes the life after the one Arjuna is living now sound so peaceful, and turns the thought of Arjuna dying in battle against his loved ones peaceful and heroic.

The video we watched in class Thursday reminded me of chapter 2 as well. The gentlemen leaving his family to explore the possibility of becoming a Sannyasin. Having to leave everything behind to live a peaceful life in connection to God.

It all just seems to peaceful and bigger than we are.

Hello! My name is Martha Bruso, and I am at 23 year old commuter student at MCLA. I am a Business Administration major and am planning on graduating next spring (fingers crossed). I am taking seven classes a semester in hopes of getting out as quickly as possible. I took a break for a couple of years between high school and college to figure out exactly what I wanted.

People always ask me what I'm going to do with a Business degree, but the thought of having a degree in business excites me. There are so many different possibilities! I was taking classes for a short while to become an Elementary teacher but then I learned I didn't like children...so...that put that to rest.

I got married this past August, and my husband Jared is currently preparing to join the Air Force.

I have never taken a philosophy class before and I am nervous, but excited to embark on something new! I am in love with learning and take my classes pretty seriously.