In what ways did the rise of Islam influence Jewish life?

After the destruction of the second temple, Jews began to disperse and settle outside Israel. They carried with them the canon of scripture, allowing their tradition to live on despite apparent defeat. The diaspora led Jews to places like Spain and Iraq, which were far from Israel, but where Islam was prominent. Islam was (and is usually) very tolerant of Jews and Christians since they are all part of the same family of religious thought—they are the “peoples of the Book.” This tolerance made it such that Jewish thought was allowed to continue to flourish.

From Jewish academies in Babylonia we get the creation (c. 600 CE) of the Babylonian Talmud—which is a collection of material including Biblical laws and applications and commentaries on them—was written. The Babylonian Talmud is second only to the Hebrew Bible in terms of significant Hebrew literature. The process has continued through time with additional commentaries successively added, making it essentially a “large encyclopedia.”

Along with the Babylonian Talmud, Hebrew scriptures were also translated into Arabic to make the material more accessible to a wider audience, including the non-Jewish Muslims who also resided in these areas. Many Jewish scholars flourished in the receptive environment. One of the significant thinkers who made use of Arabic to communicate his message was Moses Maimonides, who said that Judaism was a religion based on rationality and that faith does complement reason. Maimonides also wrote (in Hebrew), a religious code which summarized the Talmud and wrote of the basic principles of Jewish belief.

In broad terms, what impacts did the dominant Christians have on European Jews?

Throughout history, Christianity has had a degree of prejudice against Jews. Medieval European Christianity, which was the dominant religion, accented many of these prejudices. Jews were not seen as loyal. Christians were suspicious of what went on during Jewish religious practices—many of which took place, not in public, but at home. Jews were forced to live in ghettos and excluded from owning farmland.

Economic as well as religious motives in the late Middle Ages forced Jews into exile. Many Christians resented the fact that they owed money to the Jews, who were the only ones allowed to lend money with interest. Christianity proscribed usury. Exiling the Jews would free the borrowers from their debt. Jews in Spain were offered the option to convert to Christianity or to leave. This period of time is significant since it was then that Judaism underwent a great cultural division that resulted in Sephardic Judaism and Ashkenazic Judaism. Sephardic Judaism took root in Mediterranean regions and mixes Latin, Spanish and Hebrew in its language. Ashkenazic Jews were those who eventually settled more towards central Europe. They spoke Yiddish, which was a combination of medieval German mixed with Hebrew, written in Hebrew.

Another major shift for European Jews (and Christians) came during the Renaissance, which produced another split in the Judaism—this time on traditional rather than cultural grounds. One direction taken was that of traditionalism, which emphasized the rules of the Torah and the Talmud. The other direction was that of modernization, or Reform, in which Jews began to become more integrated into society, in the process loosing some elements of traditional Judaism.

Finally, in even more recent times, European Judaism was faced with almost complete destruction in the Holocaust, when Ashkenazic Jewish tradition almost came to an end.

List five practices or beliefs that distinguish Orthodox Judaism.

Until the Reform movement, which began to incorporate Jews into society at the sacrifice of some tradition, all Jews were Orthodox since all Jews were traditional. With the Reform movement, the Orthodox movement began with the intent of retaining traditional Jewish practices and beliefs. Orthodox Jews are reluctant to change anything about their traditions, especially practices mentioned in the Torah.

One of these practices is that services are conducted completely in Hebrew by male rabbis. This, of course, separates those Jews who may have adopted foreign languages, such as Arabic or Ladino (Sephardic Jews), for the sake of either communicating the Jewish message on a larger scale, or as a mean to help their culture survive discrimination from other members of society.

A second practice that distinguishes Orthodox Judaism is the act of keeping social roles for men and women strictly separate. The woman’s place is at home, while the men go out to work—to be the breadwinners. In relation to this is a third distinctive practice: men and women are separated in Orthodox Jewish synagogues.

Orthodox Jews also stick closely to the strict laws about diet which value cleanliness and care in food preparation. These practices were originally developed for hygienic reasons, but through time, became “rules about ritual purity,” or as the Jews would say, Kosher practices.

A fifth practice held by Orthodox Jews is the strict observance of the rules concerning the Sabbath. No work is to be done by anyone, man or animal, on the Sabbath. Food cannot be cooked, and fires can’t be built. In modern times, Orthodox Jews now also refrain from driving cars or using telephones on the Sabbath. In fact, to further separate themselves from Conservative Judaism, which follows the many of the practices of traditional Judaism, Orthodox Jews, won’t even turn lights on or off on the Sabbath.

To many Orthodox Jews it is not difficult to observe these strict practices. Rather, the practices are seen as devotionally fulfilling, with “every moment consciously devoted” to God.

Briefly summarize the development and practice of Reform Judaism.

With the harsh treatment of Jews throughout history came the desire to become integrated into society. Reform Judaism was an attempt by Jews to leave the ghettos in Germany and incorporate themselves into mainstream European culture. It did so with the hopes of survival of Judaism in the world. This has undoubtedly led to some loss of traditional Judaism.

Moses Mendelssohn, in the late 1700s, called for religious tolerance, and for the embracing of the European Enlightenment. An acceptance of the European Enlightenment, which included such ideas as secular education, equality, individual liberty, and scientific development, made Jewish beliefs and practices open for question.

This has resulted in a change in the way Judaism is practiced. Some of the major changes is that men and women sit together in synagogue worship, traditional dress has almost disappeared, and service is conducted in both Hebrew and the native language, thus increasing acceptance and effectiveness. One of the most significant changes brought about through Reform Judaism is the change in the traditional gender roles—equality is now greatly encouraged. One change in practice that is related to the Reform point of view is that girls now also have a coming-of age ceremony, bat mitzvah, which proclaims them “daughters of the commandment.” Thanks to Reform Judaism, the position of rabbi is no longer reserved for males only.

Paul is said to have defined the relationship of Christians to Judaism. Summarize the significant teachings of Paul in this regard.

Much of the early growth of Christianity has been credited to the missionary Paul (Saul), so much so that he is occasionally called “the cofounder of Christianity.” Much of his popularity arose from the accessibility of his interpretations of Jesus’ teachings.

Paul was born and raised under traditional Judaism. He initially opposed the Christian movement, until Jesus came to him in a vision. When he had this vision, he was baptized, and spent several solitary years learning about Jesus. It was then that he decided that he would spend his life spreading the belief in Jesus.

Paul chose not to expend too much effort trying to convert Jews to Christianity, and was not always well received by Jews. Like the first Christians, Paul was convinced that Jesus was the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for. Not all Christians, however, came from Jewish backgrounds, and the question about differentiation between Judaism and Christianity arose. Much of the controversy and debate centered on whether Christians should keep Jewish religious laws, such as circumcision and dietary practices. Paul felt that one of Jesus’ messages was one encouraging freedom. He felt that laws hindered freedom too much and that they often “hurt more than they helped.” Furthermore, Paul said that it was not through laws that we strengthen our relationship with God, but rather faith and acceptance of Jesus and the love of God. He argued that this did not exempt us from moral rules since the laws of morality are really based on an interior force. This difference of opinion defined a major difference between Judaism and Christianity, and had a fundamental impact of separating their relationship quite early on.

Identify the two key Christian sacraments. Describe the beliefs and practices associated with each.

One of the key elements of most religions is ritual. The most important rituals in Christianity are called sacraments. The two key Christian sacraments are baptism and the Eucharist.

Baptism is the universally used initiation rite in Christianity, and is a cleansing with water. This practice was derived from the Jewish notion of ritual bathing as a form of purification. Some forms of Christianity allow sprinkling of water on the head, instead of immersion of the body in water, as sufficient for the ritual. The early ritual of complete immersion was a symbolic one, letting us recall “the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.” It is also seen as a sign or repentance and of moral purification. Many forms of Christianity perform the ritual on infants, but some forms of Protestantism feel that baptism should be a voluntary ritual, thus making it a ritual for adults ready to make the choice of initiation.

The Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, began with early Christians as a Passover meal imitating Jesus’ Last Supper. The act is a symbol of sharing the life and death of Jesus through the consumption of wine (Jesus’ blood) and bread (Jesus’ body). Some groups take the representation of wine and bread as the blood and body of Jesus quite literally, with some metaphysical transformation, called transubstantiation, taking place while ingestion takes place, if the person’s heart is fully with Jesus. While others simply partake symbolically, all forms of Christianity have this ritual.

What kind of person was Muhammad? How was he viewed by his family, by his followers, and by those who opposed him?

Muhammad saw himself as the last of the prophets to speak God’s word to humanity. His followers felt the same. Although he was an instrument of God, and was seen as the “ideal human being,” Muhammad was not divine.

Muhammad was born in 570 CE in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, where among other local religions, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity were practiced. The local religions had a “supreme God,” Allah, who was the creator of life, but not involved in everyday concerns. Allah was not the center of faith and worship in this society, which also paid reverence to many other tribal gods and goddesses. Through his job as a caravan driver, Muhammad was exposed to many of these religions, learned a lot from them, but also noticed major differences within them. He noticed the division between Jews and Christians concerning God and Jesus. He also noted the widespread worship of nature spirits.

Muhammad spent much time meditating and pondering religion. He received his first revelation at the age of 40, but initially doubted the nature of it, attributing it to perhaps madness or hallucination. However, he was urged by his wife to accept the revelation as direct communication with God. After additional revelations came to him, Muhammad decided to share his revelations first with his family, who then became the first Muslims—”people who submit” to Allah.

His open proclamation of his revelations was often not well received. In addition to the insistence that only one God, Allah be worshiped, and the worship of other gods forbidden, Muhammad also had revelations which threatened business people. For example, the lending of money with interest was forbidden by Muhammad’s revelations. Also, the destruction of pillars of worship to the many tribal gods meant a loss in revenue that would normally come in with the many pilgrimages to the shrines in Mecca. The social content of his revelations challenged the existing order, preaching a very democratic message.

Muhammad’s controversial, unwelcomed ideas eventually forced him into exile. He managed to set up a mosque some distance away from Mecca, but always had the intention of returning to Mecca. Eventually, Muslims managed to take control of Mecca and Muhammad was able to return to his homeland.

Describe the Qur’an and its place in Islam.

The Qur’an, or “recitation,” is the sacred book of Islam. The book’s title represents both the origins of the scriptures (the recitations of Muhammad), as well as the way the scriptures should be communicated. The Qur’an which is said to be God’s word delivered through Muhammad in his sermons, was written down during his lifetime (570-632 CE), and completed in an authorized version in 656 CE. The book is read literally and is thought to be the most accurate revelation of God’s will. The Qur’an succeeds where the Old and New Testaments failed, since it accurately records all of the Truth, and since the Old and New Testaments were “partially corrupted in transmission,” as can be seen with the discrepancies which occur between them.

The Qur’an, which has 114 chapters (suras), covers stories from the Jewish and Christian Bibles, tells about events in Muhammad’s life, and gives advice about topics in everyday life. The book is not divided into stories or segments, but within each sura, different topics will be combined. The topics concerned with Muhammad’s life often concern religious matters, such as fasting, divine judgement, and pilgrimage. Topics concerning everyday life include rules about marriage and divorce, money, and property rights.

Passages from the Qur’an are often used in artistic expression, utilizing creative cursive Arabic lettering to embellish and contrast with intricate geometric designs. In addition to the appearance of the written text, the language in which the Qur’an is written is also supposed to have a high degree of fluidity and hypnotism associated with it. This can be attributed to the original nature of the Qur’an—originally commonly a memorized set of Muhammad’s suras.

How does science view the universe, the earth, and human beings?

From the beginning of progress in modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, science and religion have always been in some form of conflict or another. Religious people say that science is trying to undermine notions such as God and morality. To them, science basically often comes into conflict with its worldview. Scientists point out that science is a way to better understand and appreciate our universe—that it helps give us a better picture of reality.

Science finds most things to be quite material and quantifiable. It offers a theory about the creation of the universe—although there are still questions about what preceded the universe—and about the current place of humans in this universe. Furthermore, the universe is no longer unfathomable, but rather we can make good estimates about how many galaxies it contains. We can also look back in time to the moments just after the creation of the modern universe and see what was happening.

Science can explain the formation of the earth through time—the gradual process of heating, cooling, life formation, destruction, revival of life, and the influence of humans on the earth. Every physical thing can be broken down into sub-atomic particles and analyzed. Scientists can make claims to knowing “the building blocks of life.” Many natural phenomena, such as lightning and storm formations, can be explained through scientific experiment rather than relying on faith.

One of the major problems that some religions have with science is human evolution. If we have evolved, for example, how can we also say that we are created in God’s image? Another concern by the religious community is that sometimes scientists may be seen as “playing god,” using medicines to alter our states of being and work against the forces of nature.

Marxist Communism has shown a number of parallels with religions. Explain.

Marxist Communism, which is an atheistic philosophy, has occasionally been called a non-theistic religion. Some people even refer to Communism as “the God that failed.” Many of the key characteristics of religions are present in Marxist Communism. It offers us a worldview, telling us our place in society (social classes), and helping explain why we are there (exploitation), and how we can get out of such a situation (unification and a social uprising representative of the will and belief of the common man).

Religions and Marxist Communism also offer us a social setting—a community—to offer us comfort. Both are also supposed to try to help care for elders and disabled members of society. This implies also that ethics is present as a characteristic of Marxist Communism, and certainly with the notions of exploitation and unequal distribution being clearly wrong, the characteristic fits well.

There is also a level of sacredness concerning the words of many past Communist leaders. Chairman Mao’s “little red book” can serve as an example. Moreover, it is not just the words that are held sacred. Lines of people wait to see the preserved bodies of Mao and Lenin. Taxi-drivers in China have photos of Mao on their dashboards as good luck charms. Marx, Lenin, and Mao are often portrayed as deities in artwork, with rays of light shining from behind them. Karl Marx’s writings are still very prominent in the minds of anyone studying society and economics. The only reason that his God failed was that the economics could not help make it a reality.

I will begin by summarizing the three pieces, in the above-mentioned order, then discuss similarities and differences between the pieces and their implications to society. As stated before, all pieces deal with our views of our selves—but they also carry implications about the role of the individual in society or in the universe. While looking at the ideas of these essays on an individual level I can find points of personal disagreement, taking all three together does have considerable value to life. If anything, they should encourage us all to be a little less selfish in our manners.

Sri Aurobindo—The Reincarnating Soul

Sri Aurobindo’s The Reincarnating Soul is an attempt to find the proper point from which we should start our discussion of the possibility of reincarnation. He feels that “human thought” for most people has resorted to “a rough and crude acceptance of unexamined ideas.”  This observation holds even truer when the ideas require “subtle thinking” and “precision.” We can manage thought about evident, tangible things, but Sri Aurobindo feels that out of “impatience,” in almost a lazy manner, we are contented with accepting crude ideas.

Reincarnation is one such subject. Aurobindo holds that the idea of reincarnation as popularized by contemporary thought has become popularized in a crude, misleading manner. The popular idea is that of a reincarnating soul, where “the soul is reborn into a new body.” The questions often stop here, with no thought given to the definition of a soul. Is the soul Purusha (Person, or Atman)? Does Purusha simply take up a new body and bring along with it the old personality of the “now discarded physical frame?”

The popular view, as seen by Aurobindo, is that many believe that our identical souls infinitely waft into new bodies after the death of our present physical frame. The crude notion is that the personality is reborn into different “bodily circumstances.” According to Aurobindo, this view satiates those who truly love life and are afraid of the loss of “their” personality at death, for it offers them a promise of survival—a form of immortality, and a way to cope with death. The “obvious non-survival of memory” of past lives, however, is the prime objection to this idea of an identical “I” leaving one body and entering another.

This has not always been the view held of reincarnation. Aurobindo recalls Buddhist and Vedantist thought, which deny the survival of the identical personality. After all, what is an identical personality? Does my present personality persist for more than just a moment before it changes? Buddhist and Vedantist thinkers took this into consideration and determined that an “identical personality was a non-sense, a contradiction in terms.”

Buddhist thought concerning the self “denied any real identity.” As Aurobindo puts it, “The identical ‘I’ is not, never was, never will be.” Rather, we more closely resemble flowing water in a stream—ever changing. Continuing the analogy, however, despite the continually changing water in the stream, the identity of the identical stream remains the same to us. Buddhist thought does not believe that this is an incarnating soul or personality, but a flow of Karma that persists down an “apparently uninterrupted channel.” A major distinction in Buddhist thought, however, is that there can be an end to the permanent flow of Karma with enlightenment, at which point we are brought to a state of non-being.

Vedantist thought is a bit different from Buddhist thought. It also comes to the conclusion that there can be an end to the cycle of rebirth. But, according to Aurobindo, the Vedantist “admits an identical, a self—but other than my personality.” However, when the person achieves the knowledge—the enlightenment—of the real Person, Immortality is achieved. What separates the Vedantist conclusion from the Buddhist one is that there is a distinction in Vedantist thought between the Immortal life and the “constant passing from death to death,” while in Buddhism there is a cessation of being.

Aurobindo asks the question, “Who creates the forms into which we reincarnate?” Vedantist thought ascribes “the Self, the Purusha…” as the answer to this question. Our “ego-sense” then goes on to distort the reality, giving us notions of identity and personality. Indeed, the Purusha is “imperishable, immutable, unborn, undying,” and as such does not exist in the body, but rather, we exist in the Self. We create the illusion of our identities, but we are really all part something much larger.

What, then, are we? What is it that takes form and has personality? Sri Aurobindo says that the changing personality can be called Prakriti, or “the totality of nature that is not Purusha.” This is an intricate, multi-level composite that is “all surface work.” Memories or burdens of the past are set aside allowing us to “concentrate on the work immediately in hand.” Aurobindo sees the body simply as a convenience, and urges us to pay more attention to the Self: “To ignore it is to ignore the whole secret of our being.”

Jean-Paul Sartre—Existentialism

Jean-Paul Sartre was a major French intellectual in the existentialist movement. His lecture, Existentialism, dealt with defining and defending existentialism, and also with defining the assertion that we are free.

Sartre begins by pointing out that there are Christian existentialists and atheistic existentialist. Both forms of existentialism agree that “existence precedes essence.” This is an essential statement in his lecture, for it would appear that, if God exists and did create man, essence preceded existence. That is to say, God knew exactly what he was creating, thus making us determined—a product, or realization of a concept.

According to Sartre, if God does not exist, human reality is at least one being “in whom existence precedes essence.” This means that there is no such thing as human nature, for from this point of view, “man exists, turns up,” then goes about the task of defining himself since there is no God to determine his human nature. This is the first principle of existentialism—that man is what he makes himself. Prior to this point of definition that is an act of will, man is nothing. Sartre goes on to point out that although this definition is an act of will, the will is based on a plan rather than a want, since man is continually “conscious of imagining himself as being in the future.” As such, since we are responsible for what we are, and we are conscious of ourselves in the future, we are responsible, also, for all of mankind.

Sartre asserts that it is “impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity,” which is the act of “making” himself. This is the second essential principle of existentialism. Since we are responsible not only for ourselves, but also for mankind, when we choose our own self, we make the choice for all men. We do not just make ourselves what we want to be, but we make ourselves, and others, what we think man ought to be. Our choices create man’s image, and our actions affirm values. When we choose our acts, we ascribe value to them, and we will “always choose the good,” since Sartre feels that what is good for the individual will be good for all men.

It is because of this responsibility for mankind that Sartre feels “that man is anguish.” We must always realize that we are not the only ones involved when we do something. As Sartre believes, we should always be thinking about the consequence of our actions in consideration of the question, “What if everyone acted this way?” In other words, the scrutinizing eyes of humanity are our guiding forces in our choices.

Sartre uses this idea as support for the atheist perspective. He uses the idea of a form of divine intervention and questions how it is that one could prove this and be certain it is not a hallucination. Ultimately, the one who has been chosen as the messenger must question whether the advice given is good or true, and it is then the messenger who has the will to believe or not to believe. In other words, even orders that seem to come from above—especially those which are too broad—must be interpreted considering mankind. Existentialists feel that seeking omens, if they exist, is dangerous since many are likely to interpret the omens to suit themselves. Sartre feels that in cases where interpretation is necessary, the only thing we can trust is our instincts.

Existentialists are not ready “to abolish God with the least possible expense.” According to Sartre, they do not believe that God is useless. The existentialist is distressed that there is no God, because with that, the notion of an “a-priori Good” disappears since there was no perfect consciousness to conceive it. As such, “everything is permissible if God does not exist,” leaving man feeling forlorn. There are no pre-determined values or commands that we can use to excuse our conduct. As Sartre put it, “man is condemned to be free.” We did not choose to be in this world, but once we are here, we are responsible for ourselves.

According to Sartre, no given doctrine will show you how to live since we ultimately involve ourselves as our advisors. With that in mind, he leaves us with a doctrine of his own: “Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life.”

Mencius—Human Nature is Good

Mencius, a Chinese philosopher, believes that human nature is good. That is to say, considering what Mencius believes to be genuinely in man is what makes man capable of becoming good. The question about whether humans are by nature good or evil is a central debate for students of Confucius’ philosophy. If we feel that humans are naturally good, we are more likely to look to outside influences, such as society or government interference to see what corrupts the good and brings evil into society. If, on the other hand we feel that human nature is evil, we may be inclined to impose more corrective controls over individuals.

Human Nature is Good begins with a discussion between Mencius and other Chinese philosophers. An analogy is made by one of the philosophers that human nature is like the willow, and that dutifulness is like the craftsmanship which goes into making utensils from the willow. Mencius argues that in the process of transformation from the willow to the utensil requires mutilation of the nature of the willow—do we also need to mutilate the nature of men to make them moral?

The second argument against human nature being good is delivered in an analogy to water. A philosopher said that human nature is like water—it goes whichever way the outlet directs it. Human nature does not show any inclination to good or bad, just as water does not prefer to flow in any particular direction. Mencius points out that water does have a preference to high or low ground. He says that human nature seeks the good just as water seeks low ground. However, he points out, just as water can be made to shoot up, or be dammed atop a hill, so to can we alter and influence the natural states of humans.

Another question is posed concerning whether goodness is internal or external. It is decided that benevolence is internal, and that rightness is external. Treating someone with love, for example, is based on internal feelings. Treating someone with respect, for example elders in society, is right, and based on external forces. Mencius feels, however, that rightness is also an internal feeling, but we need to find it in our hearts, and we need others to help us.

It is at this point that Mencius brings up education. According to him, “As far as what is genuinely in him is concerned, a man is capable of becoming good. That is what I mean by good. As far as for his becoming bad, that is not a fault of his native endowment.” We all possess four hearts: the hearts of compassion, shame, respect, and right and wrong. The heart of compassion applies to benevolence, shame to dutifulness, respect to the observance of rites, and right and wrong to wisdom. Mencius feels that these do not have the radiance of coming from outside. They are in everyone originally, but we have to find it—we must have knowledge of the Way.

Mencius goes on to defend that there is rightness in the heart. Again, an analogy is used. If in sowing seeds of corn, you plant some in better soil and pay more heed to them, they will grow up better. The same can be said for humans. Everything needs nourishment to grow, for without nourishment, they would wither away. If humans are deprived of a nourishing environment each day, we are likely to adopt behavior that can be likened to those of animals.

Furthermore, Mencius feels that things of the same kind have the same preferences—they are all alike. According to him, we all have very much the same preferences in taste, sight or beauty, and sound. Reason and rightness is no different, for it is in common to all hearts. To realize this is to become a sage.

This brings up the question, “Why are some men greater than others.” Mencius feels that although all men are equally human, the difference in greatness stems from how men allow themselves to be guided. Those who allow themselves to be guided by the sensory organs, which cannot think, can be misled, and are “small” men. Great men, on the other hand, are led by the heart, which can think, but which finds answers only if it does think.

Mencius feels that man has the four hearts within which are the building blocks for the development of the “prince” within him. When this is fully developed, man can manage and take care of the world. If he fails to develop his hearts and come in contact with them, he cripples himself—he won’t even “be able even to serve his parents.”

Discussion

As we can see with Sri Aurobindo’s essay, before we can begin discussing notions such as reincarnation, it is important to get to know ourselves first, and to understand the notion of the Self. An understanding of the Self for the Vedantist ultimately results in our understanding that we are ultimately part of something much larger—we are all Atman. Atman is the unchanging reality that underlies all things; everything that we perceive as real is actually Maya, or illusion. Our bodies are created by Atman, and are made of everything that is not Atman. Bodies are merely surface work, a matter of convenience, which allow us to concentrate on the present. Ultimately, however, we are largely determined beings, determined by a divine universal moral law, which takes the form of the notion of Karma. According to the law of Karma, we reap what we sow. If we hope to someday achieve immortality from the constant cycle of rebirth we, must partake in correct action in life, and become enlightened of Atman.

In many ways, this would be complementary to the idea of the Western God, which has provided us with directions on how to live our lives. This divine law has already determined the consequences of our actions. This idea, however, is in direct contrast to Sartre’s atheistic view of the world that stems largely from the idea that nothing would change if God does not exist. In complement with Vedantist thought, Sartre feels that it is important to understand the true nature of the self, but he does not feel that we are determined and will-less.

Sartre would agree that correct action is necessary—but not because there is a doctrine that dictates it. The necessitation of correct action is brought about by the “doctrine” of the eyes of humanity that are upon you. We are constantly keeping ourselves in check because we are always considering the effect of our actions, not just on a personal, immediate level, but also, on a societal, timeless level. Our actions are very likely to have a ripple effect through time, and for this reason, we must be responsible in our actions.

This is not too different from Buddhist thought. In Buddhist thought, which is non-theistic, there is the notion of Anatman. Anatman refers to the Buddhist idea that there is no unchanging reality that people are all part of. Instead, the Buddhist sees reality as constantly changing. We are part of this reality and our identity is made up of Karma flowing apparently uninterrupted, and constantly changing through time. Similarly, to Sartre, we are nothing else than our acts.

One problem with free will is the problem of evil. Without God or some form of divine guidance, are we inherently evil? As with many of the religions that had split from Hinduism, the imperfection in the universe—the suffering and evil—led to doubts in God. To Sartre, the notion that God does not exist is “distressing” since there is no longer the notion of the Good, and “all possibilities of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears.”

The question of evil also arises in the Chinese tradition, also an atheistic tradition. There is, however, still belief in the heaven—not in terms of looking for a doctrine, but to see what works, and in doing so, finding the knowledge of the Way. There is no value in telling people the Way, but we are all, by nature, good, and listening to our hearts and not to our sensory organs, helps get us there.

Mencius’ idea that we should to follow our heart, which can think, rather than our sensory organs, which cannot, is similar to Sartre’s idea that man should follow a plan rather than a want. In fact, it is not too dissimilar from Buddhist thought, which says that to live is to suffer, suffering comes from desire, to end suffering we must end desire, and desire can be ended through the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path, in turn, is a set of advice about correct living.

All of these philosophies embrace the idea of education. For Mencius, although humans are innately capable of becoming good, the influence of society and our surroundings can corrupt us. If our society and surroundings do not nurture us, we can become bad. Similarly, the Buddhist idea that the source of suffering is desire can be related here—with many of the desires we have stemming from desires created by the influence of society, for example material desires. Aurobindo’s essay does not discuss the idea of goodness in Buddhist or Vedantist thought, but the implication of an enlightenment from a correct way of living suggests that we strive for the Good. While Sartre feels that there is no human nature, he does feel that we are all inclined to do good since our actions will involve all mankind. The teaching of society—experience and history—are our textbooks, and ultimately, we are our own teachers.

In all three cases, the nurturing of the understanding of the self is most stressed. Aurobindo ends by urging us to detach ourselves from our physical bodies and to come into contact with our true Self. Sartre points out that we are just our plan, we are nothing other than our acts. As such, we are urged not just to act and create ourselves, but to have a plan—to think at a level higher than the individual, day-to-day, sensory level. Mencius ends his discussion saying that we need to get in touch with the “great man” within us—the teaching of our hearts. Denying the teaching of our hearts cripples us, just like, in Aurobindo’s mind, denying the Self is missing the secret of our being. As J. Krishnamurti put it, “Society is what you and I, in our relationship, have created; it is the outward projection of all our inward psychological states. So if you and I do not understand ourselves, merely transforming the outer…has no significance whatever.”

Whether or not we believe in God, or in an after life, it is important to be able to detach yourself from the individual—from the small self, the ego-self—and realize that we are part of a bigger “plan” or reality. Reality is not just our lives, for in a sense, we do persist in the consequences of our actions. This brings up the importance of education in our society. In many ways, it is not so much education as much as it is providing people with an environment that promotes social growth and well being. It can be dangerous to offer solutions, especially if we are, as Aurobindo feels, quick to accept ideas in a rough, crude, unexamined manner. Considering that, perhaps we should place more faith in humanity and encourage the individual to find their place in the world.

Reincarnation is one such subject. Sri Aurobindo feels that the idea of reincarnation as popularized by contemporary thought has become popularized in a crude, misleading manner. The popular idea is that of a reincarnating soul, where “the soul is reborn into a new body.” The questions often stop here, with no thought given to the definition of a soul. Is the soul Purusha (Person, or Atman)? Does Purusha simply take up a new body and bring along with it the old personality of the “now discarded physical frame?”

The popular view, as seen by Sri Aurobindo, is that many feel that our identical souls infinitely waft into new bodies after the death of our present physical frame. The crude notion is that the personality is reborn into different “bodily circumstances.” This view satiates those who truly love life and are afraid of the loss of “their” personality at death, for it offers them a promise of survival—a form of immortality, and a way to cope with death. The “obvious non-survival of memory” of past lives, however, is the prime objection to this idea of an identical “I” leaving one body and entering another.

This has not always been the view held of reincarnation. Sri Aurobindo goes on to write of Buddhist and Vedantist thought, which does not attach importance to the survival of the identical personality. After all, what is an identical personality? Does my present personality persist for more than just a moment before it changes? Buddhist and Vedantist thinkers took this into consideration and determined that an “identical personality was a non-sense, a contradiction in terms.”

Buddhist thought concerning the self “denied any real identity.” As Sri Aurobindo puts it, “The identical ‘I’ is not, never was, never will be.” Rather, we more closely resembled flowing water in a stream—ever changing. Continuing the analogy, however, despite the continually changing water in the stream, the identity of the identical stream remains the same to us. Buddhist thought does not believe that this is an incarnating soul or personality, but a flow of Karma that persists down an “apparently uninterrupted channel.” A major distinction in Buddhist thought, however, is that there can be an end to the permanent flow of Karma with enlightenment, at which point we are brought to a state of non-being.

Vedantist thought is a bit different from Buddhist thought. It also comes to the conclusion that there can be an end to the cycle of rebirth. But according to Sri Aurobindo, the Vedantist “admits an identical, a self…—but other than my personality.” However, when the person achieves the knowledge—the enlightenment—of the real Person, Immortality is achieved. What separates the Vedantist conclusion from the Buddhist one is that there is a distinction in Vedantist thought between the Immortal life and the “constant passing from death to death,” while in Buddhism there is a cessation of being.

Sri Aurobindo asks the question, “Who creates the forms into which we reincarnate?” Vedantist thought ascribes “the Self, the Purusha…” as the answer to this question. Our “ego-sense” then goes on to distort the reality, giving us notions of identity and personality. Indeed, the Purusha is “imperishable, immutable, unborn, undying,” and as such does not exist in the body, but rather, we exist in the Self. We create the illusion of our identities, but we are really all part something much larger.

What, then, are we? What is it that takes form and has personality? Sri Aurobindo says that the changing personality can be called Prakriti, or “the totality of nature that is not Purusha.” This is an intricate, multi-level composite that is “all surface work.” Memories or burdens of the past are set aside allowing us to “concentrate on the work immediately in hand.” Sri Aurobindo sees the body simply as a convenience, and urges us to pay more attention to the Self: “To ignore it is to ignore the whole secret of our being.”

The desire for some sort of explanation of what happens after death is reasonable to me. It can help us cope with death and often also gives us encouragement to live a good life. Although I was raised as a Hindu, I have never felt the need to believe in reincarnation. Nor have I ever been inspired to actually follow any religious routes. I do not have very much patience when it comes to questions concerning the creation of the universe, and I am not ready to blindly hand it over to any given god. I prefer, instead, to accept that I am here—now—and will do as I find necessary and good.

I have no desire to live on forever, and I do not think that such a view makes this life worthless. Being alive, knowing of the impact that I can have on society however small it may be, rippling through human contact, has the most significant impact on how I choose to act. This brings to mind a quotation from Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism, “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” I do not see this simply as a statement of individuality and free will, but rather as a statement that shows us that we are personally responsible for our actions and who we are. I am not a good person just because I was told that if I were not good I would suffer. As Sartre wrote concerning our free choices of action, “One should always ask himself, ‘What would happen if everyone looked at things that way?’” It is in such a manner that we should all be able, as rational beings, to police ourselves.

Understandably, this is a bit idealistic. To begin with, it makes the assumption of rationality. It also raises questions about governance and punishment. Sartre says of the non-existence of God, that this now leaves us responsible for our actions. “He can’t start making excuses for himself.”

Sri Aurobindo has a good point about the nature of human thought. I can easily use myself as evidence. On a subject such as God, where “precision and subtle thinking are most needed,” I want proof, something substantial to believe in. I am not very willing to make time for the analysis of such questions. Partially it is, as Sri Aurobindo states, a result of impatience, but more significantly, it is my “selfish” wanting to live for myself. It is my desire to be responsible for myself.

Why do religions exist? Give at least three possible reasons, and defend them with good arguments.

Putting it in extremely simple terms, religions exist to help humans deal with certain questions that are difficult to answer. One of the most obvious groups of questions in which religion proves to be of assistance is the group of questions related to death. Religion can help us deal with death in a more comfortable way.

Religion can also make us feel more secure about the world, or rather, the universe in which we live. Religion tries to help us understand something about our immediate environment by offering us stories about our creation; it often also includes stories to try to explain the stars and the heavens in a manner in which we can feel more comfortable with our place in such an unfathomable reality.

Another explanation for the existence of religion is that “human beings are also social by nature.” Religion often offers the means for social gatherings, providing both a location and a means of communication. The communication is not limited to those resembling social gatherings, but also includes communication that uses more creative means of expression, such as music and art. Religion also often provides a sense of security and belonging for older people and people in less favorable social and economic conditions.

List, and briefly describe, five characteristics that are typically associated with a religion.

It is difficult to list characteristics that all religions must have, but there are a few characteristics that are commonly looked at when studying religions. They characteristics looked at are the following: belief system, community, ethics, characteristic emotions, ritual, and sacredness.

The belief system, or worldview, of a religion is its approach to understanding the universe and our place in the universe. Many of today’s religions are practiced using “sacred texts” as the basis of our worldview. Most of these, however, have their roots in the oral tradition, where the knowledge of the understanding of the universe was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.

The belief system is developed, practiced, and shared among a community. This community is also likely to have ethical rules of conduct to help society function more smoothly—a social lubricant of sorts. These rules of conduct may include rules concerning the treatment of outsiders to the community, and treatment to elders and the poor. Often, the basis or the justification for these rules would be said by religious leaders to have “been revealed from a supernatural realm.”

Religions often have a certain degree of ritual involved in their ceremonies. Rituals do not have to be ceremonial in nature. I may, for example, decide that I desire to meditate quietly in solitude, but make it a daily ritual.

The religious community may also set aside particular locations for the ceremonies to be practiced. These locations are often removed from the realm of the ordinary, and placed into the realm of sacredness. A cathedral, for example is a sacred building, and—even for those outside of the religion—will point out its distinction from ordinary buildings, simply with the sheer beauty of the architecture and its impressive size.

What are the four Vedas about? Describe them in detail.

The name Veda means knowledge or sacred lore, and the work they refer to represent the earliest of the Hindu sacred texts. The Vedas were originally passed down through the oral tradition and include ceremonial rules and chants. There are four collections of these sacred texts.

The most important of these, the Rig Veda, presents, among other things, a chant / hymn about the creation of the universe. The Rig-Veda, or “hymn knowledge,” is a collection of chants to the Aryan gods. The Yajur Veda is a collection of “ceremonial knowledge” and includes hymns to be recited during offerings. The Sama Veda is another collection of chants, and includes music to accompany the chants. The fourth Veda, the teachings of Atharva (cleverly called “Atharva Veda”) includes knowledge of charms, as well as additional “practical prayers and charms.”

The Vedas were changed later on to include detailed ceremonial rules called Brahmanas and Aranyakas. Brahamanas were included for the priests of the same name, and detailed such tings as ritual objects, and ceremonial times and places. Aranyakas were written to allow ascetics to practice the Vedas in a “non-literal, symbolic” way.

The Vedas end in the philosophical work of the Upanishads.

Define the concept of maya, and describe the impact of this concept on the Hindu understanding of death.

The Upanishads’ use of maya often translates into “illusion.” Maya deals with appearances and our perception of reality. The reality of the world, for example, may not be quite how we see it. Instead, the world we see as real is often the one that we create with our projection of our perception.

Yogis who have “risen to a state of super-consciousness,” see the world as close to reality as is possible. This view of the world is very different from the view of the “real” world that we have. All materiality, and the multitude of “real” worlds created by individuals, vanish.

Although we see only an illusion of the real world, Hindus believe we must treat maya as real as long as it “appears real and demanding to us.”

The illusion involved in maya lies in our viewing our material things and ourselves as individually real, while “in reality,” everything is Brahman. As such, death is not seen as “the end.” Since we are all ultimately “manifestations” of Brahman, which is “ultimately beyond time and beyond space,” our death is maya. Reality is that we keep on living—the spirit never dies. Reality is that we may never have been born—there may have never been a beginning.

Describe three of the yogas and explain how they function within Hindu practice.

Yogas are active means, versus quiet meditation, of living spiritually. The word yoga means to join, and is related to the word yoke. Yogas can be seen as the paths that lead to our union with the divine. Hinduism recognizes that different people operate differently, and as such there are different yogas to accommodate for these different needs. Here is a description of three kinds of yogas.

Jnana Yoga, or knowledge yoga, is the study of the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads, and studying under gurus. This is a very philosophical yoga that seeks to make aware in the yogi that everything is united under Brahman.

Bhakti Yoga, or devotion yoga, involves devotion to deities, and to one’s parents, spouse, and spiritual teacher. Bhakti Yoga can come in various forms, including “chants, songs, food offerings, and the anointing of statues.” This can be seen as the way to unity with love.

Raja Yoga is a type of yoga that promotes meditations as its mean of becoming spiritually united with the divine. Meditation can be practiced in many ways. The most commonly know form of meditation in the western world is the “emptying of the mind.” In whatever form, the purpose of the meditation is to clear the mind and to use your energies “to reach higher consciousness.”

List the Four Noble Truths. Explain how they illustrate the practical nature of Buddhist teaching.

The Four Noble Truths are Buddhist teachings about the truth concerning life.

The First Noble Truth is that “to live is to suffer.” Put more illustratively, birthing is painful, as is growing old. Disease—or dis-ease—is also suffering. Finally, death also hurts—it causes suffering to those around you. The more optimistic view of this message is that with acknowledgement of the suffering of life, we can find out why we suffer, and ultimately, reduce that suffering.

The Second Noble Truth is that “suffering comes from desire.” Unfortunately, we all have desires. We all have certainly seen this truth. We have all been in situations where we swore that “If I just had this one thing, I would be content,” only to find that, when we get that thing, there is another craving to take its place. This discontent is the cause of our suffering.

To solve this, the Buddha says that the Third Noble Truth is that “to end suffering we must end desire.” Buddha’s personal mean of recognizing this truth was to live it; he left his possessions, his family, and all that he was attached to behind, opting instead to be enlightened. Since not all people can be monks, however, Buddhists have a variation of this truth for common folk, and that is to accept things as they happen and focus on inner peace rather than happiness. We cannot change the world.

Nirvana, the ultimate Buddhist goal, is the subject of the Fourth Noble Truth, which says, “Release from suffering is possible and can be attained by following the Noble Eightfold Path.” When one follows the Noble Eightfold Path and attains Nirvana, the individual will have control over themselves, and not be a victim of desire, pressured by outside forces.

Describe two typical practices associated with Zen and explain how they relate to the goal of achieving enlightenment.

Enlightenment, or satori, in Buddhism is the recognition of our unity with the universe. Once enlightened, we can see that the separations we make are based on our projection of the distinctions in our minds. Like many of the eastern religions, this recognition represents the concept that everything essentially consists of the “same basic energy of the universe,” and that the variations are basically manifestations of this energy.

Zen monks have several techniques for reaching enlightenment, of which the most often used in zazen, or sitting meditation. Zazen is practiced in a peaceful setting, where the individual—calmly and with discipline—sits for several hours in the morning and evening. One builds up on this meditation, starting with breathing exercises, and moving up to other techniques such as word repetition. Through practice, one is able to “focus on the moment” and enter a “state of simple awareness.”

While sitting hour after hour, the Zen monks may also employ another technique for achieving Satori: the koan. The koan is a question that, to us, may seem absurd. One example is “What is the sound of one hand clapping.” The koan is “not a question that can be answered using logic.” Instead, the koan asks questions that demand so much pondering that it “agitates” and exhausts the mind. In this thoughtful, open state, there is the possibility for a flash of satori.

Explain the yin and yang, using examples as necessary to illustrate your explanation.

The yin and yang is the thought that the universe is composed of “opposite but complementary principles.” The yin is often seen as possessing “passive or receptive” forces, while the yang represents more “active or aggressive” forces. While it does include such examples as male and female, night and day, right and left, and good and evil, the yin and yang is not a case of good against evil. The opposites are not competing, and we are not expecting one to win.

What we do expect, however, is that there will be a balance between the two forces. Each force invades the other—there is a seed of the opposite within itself. They form a cyclical process whereby the opposing forces eventually exchange places with each other. One of nature’s clearest examples of this concept is that of the seasonal cycles. Winter, for example, is a time when little life flourishes. But it contains an element of spring, which gradually takes over, with warmth and life. This “yang” of spring continues through summer, but in summer there is also the yin that leads us from autumn, and back into winter.

This is representative of the idea that “everything contains its opposite and will eventually become its opposite.”

What is the Tao Te Ching and what role has it played in the Taoist religion?

The Tao Te Ching is like the Bible for Taoists. Its title means “the classical book about the way and its power.” The short book consists of eighty-one short chapters, and deals with politics, ethics, and metaphysics—”the study of what is genuinely real.”

Throughout the book, there are references to the Tao, or, if translated, “the way.” The Toa, however, is nameless, formless and indescribable. It cannot be put into words, so the appointed author of the book, Lao Tzu, used brief, paradoxical poems to write of the Tao. I have heard that one can read it in an hour or a lifetime.

The Tao Te Ching goes on to say that not only is Tao the origin of everything, but also, “all individual things are ‘manifestations’ of the Tao. We may be inclined, then, to think of Tao as “God.” This does not, however, mesh with Taoist thought, which believes that Tao “does not have a personality.” Human beings are given no favored status by Tao, but were simply produced “along with the rest of nature,” and are merely a part of Tao.

The Tao Te Ching offers a lot of imagery in its poetry to try and help portray something natural that most resembles Tao. One of the most powerful of these images is water, which Taoists observe as effortlessly flowing, constantly adapting to its environment, and which they also observe to be one of the basic necessities of life.

Explain the ideal of wu wei.

The wu wei, the ideal of effortlessness, is one of the main teachings of the Tao Te Ching. Wu wei literally means “no action,” but can be better described as the “avoidance of unnecessary action and action that is not spontaneous.” The wu wei contains recommendations about how we should live to live in harmony and balance with nature. This may seem to go against the idea that our actions should be spontaneous, but the recommendations are simply recommendations, not rules. It suggests looking at, and learning from, the effortless way in which nature gets done that which is absolutely necessary. The way of nature is referred to as Tao. To live according to the wu wei, one must be in tune with Tao, and live a life without tension and imbalance.

The wu wei can also be applied on different levels. For example, in the case of politics, the wu wei, as was noted before, are not rules. Applied to governments, the wu wei would agree that “the less government, the better.” On a personal, moral level, the wu wei suggests that in acting spontaneously, we would not have “selfish attachments to the consequences of our actions.” Finally, as noted before, on the “cosmic” level, we should follow the Tao, and realize that “there is nothing artificial in natural events.”