9-30-16

Confucianism played a major role in Chinese culture aside from being the widespread religion. It also affected political practices. Much of Chinese government and social aspects were grounded in Confucius policy.
Confucianism had different trains of thought. One being that of Taoism. This train of thought was rooted in finding the moral or ethical path for all matters. Legalism, A stem of confucianism started by the Dynasty of Qin Shi Huangdi. This school of thought believed more in an efficient and pragmatic response to government. Universal and codified law rather than moral.
These beliefs eventually merged in government after 2 millennia when the Chinese state recognized the effectiveness of centralized, bureaucratic rule, while keeping with the Tao, and Confucian spirit.

Three philosophies and their interactions in China

The Spring and Autumn Warring States refers to a period in Chinese history composed mostly of conflicts and turmoil. It was during this era that the three most prominent Chinese philosophies came into existence: Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism. These three ideologies competed with each other in their influences, promoting the inquiry into intellect, philosophy as well as politics and society. Later during the rule of Emperor Wu of Han, he promoted people to "dismiss the hundred schools, revere only the Confucian," thus setting Confucianism as the most dominant ideology of Chinese history, a tradition that lasts until the present day.


“仁义礼智信”
“Ren, Yi, Li, Zhi, Xin"

Confucius and his teachings ask humans, as social animals, refer to the laws of nature and set a series of laws within the society that both the ruler and the commoners should follow. The family is the basic unit of the society, and the country is a reflection of families in the larger scale. If the ruler is competent, and sets a good example in his conducts for his people to follow, then the country he rules should be in a stable, harmonious state. On the other hand, if the country is suffering from misgoverning, the people are justified to replace their ruler with a more morally exemplifying and politically competent person.


"道法自然”
"The Law of Taoism is Nature."

Like Confucianism, Taoism also encourages people to follow the laws of nature, and goes so far as to consider Confucian ideas impure because Confucianism involves people and people's relationships into the ideas of nature. Taoism followers believe that to emerge completely into the nature, a person should not possess desire or wants, and perform "Wu-Wei (Do-Nothing). " Taoism philosophers believe the government would be naturally created without coercion. It has had a great influence on Chinese art, literature and ideals. Taoists even downplay the importance of language because, they think, whenever a person speaks he is locked in a specific time and place, instead of being embraced by the eternity of nature. In short, Taoism encourages people to just "follow the vibe. "


“不别亲疏，不疏贵贱，一断于法。”
"Dear or distant, noble or humble, all is judged by the law."

Legalism reveres a harsher form of government, under which all are presented the same standard of law codes, and whoever that violates the law is punished. It promotes absolute ruling in all aspects of people's lives, creating, as a result, a stable society. The conflicts between Legalism - ruling by law, and Confucianism - ruling by morals, have contributed to numerous arguments on the most apt form of government throughout the Chinese history.

Reaction to the Buddhism statement

“The core beliefs preached by the historic Buddha and recorded by his followers into sutras and other scriptures were, in part, a reaction to the Vedic beliefs and rituals dominant in South Asia. Buddhism changed over time as it spread throughout Asia, first through the support of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka, and then through the efforts of missionaries and merchants and the establishment of educational institutions to promote its core teachings.” 

The statement is made up of two major ideas, both of which I agree with.

First, Buddhism originated from a set of reactions to the Vedic beliefs. 

The Vedic religions were initially put forth and advertised by the priests and scholars in the varna system, and served, to some extent, as a political tool that taught the lower classes to accept the existing social status and lead an obedient life. A group of people eventually started to break free from this determined fate promoted by the Vedic beliefs, and sought a new stream of thoughts that eulogised personal control of his or her own life. One of Buddha's central teachings is definitely associated with this reaction to the Vedic religions. As shown by the quote below, in promoting self-reliance, Buddha refrained from setting himself as the leader of Buddhism, and led towards atheism.

'You are your own master. Future, everything depends on your own shoulder.' Buddha’s responsibility is just to show the path, that’s all"



Second, Buddhism was spread by Buddhas' followers, evolving throughout time and space. 

Buddha incubated his teachings into the minds of his followers, and, before dying, told the disciples to "be their own lights," thus encouraging the free interpretations of his philosophy as long as they are centered on his core teachings. Buddha's atheism was deserted by one school of his followers, the Mahayanans, because he himself was celebrated as the godlike figure of Buddhism, although another group, the Theravadas, adhered to his original teachings and refused to create a god. At some places, monasteries were constructed and a hierarchy of monks and nuns came into being. 

I do believe that the core beliefs preached by the historic Buddha and recorded by his followers into sutras and other scriptures were, in part, a reaction to the Vedic beliefs and rituals dominant in South Asia.   Firstly the Vedic literature taught non violence, to form his religion Buddha agreed upon non violence and decided to take it one step forward and he saved the (scarified soon) animals from being killed and saved the people from being further misled by the corrupt priests.  Buddha also taught four basic truths that suffering exists, there is a cause for suffering, suffering can be eradicated, and there is a means to end all suffering.  These truths became popular in the Buddhism religion but these four noble truths had previously been discussed in the Sankhya philosophy before Buddha's appearance, and had later been further elaborated upon in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. So this train of thought actually was not new.  “Buddha also taught that suffering is essentially caused by ignorance and our own mental confusion about the purpose life. The suffering we experience can end once we rid ourselves of this confusion through the path of personal development. Otherwise, this confusion and ignorance causes us to perform unwanted activities that become part of our karma that must be endured in this or another existence.  Although this was the basic premise from which Buddha taught, this theory was mentioned in the Nasadiya-sukta of the Rig-veda long before Buddha ever appeared.”   Many other parts of Buddhism have seemed to come from the Vedic beliefs and rituals.

I agree with the statement that Buddhism has changed over time.  I believe that Buddhism has lost focused of the original main focus which is to reach enlightenment.  People began to put their own twist on the religion.  Schools also emerged having to do with the Buddhist religion, but instead of focusing on the whole religion these schools focused on one specific part The two most prominent schools were the Ch'an and the Pure Land schools. The Ch'an school emphasized the practice of meditation as the direct way of gaining insight and experiencing Enlightenment in this very life. The Pure Land school centres its practices on the recitation of the name of Amitabha Buddha.  I do not think that today Buddha would recognize or be pleased with what his religion has became.

Buddhism and Vedism (9-29-15)

Buddhism and Verism have some very interesting similarities. They are similar literature and prayer/meditation techniques. I believe that the evolution of buddha came from refinement of Vedic rituals. Finding deeper meaning and reasons to explain a changing time.  I personally find the Buddhist beliefs and practices very intriguing and can't help but notice a similar framework to christianity and the bible. The concept of an immaculate conception of a young girls through spiritual means is clearly mirrored in both scriptures.

Reaction to Buddhism

“The core beliefs preached by the historic Buddha and recorded by his followers into sutras and other scriptures were, in part, a reaction to the Vedic beliefs and rituals dominant in South Asia. Buddhism changed over time as it spread throughout Asia, first through the support of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka, and then through the efforts of missionaries and merchants and the establishment of educational institutions to promote its core teachings.”

The evolution and adaptation of religion as it travels across borders and cultures is natural. Many of the original nuances from the original Buddhist scriptures are lost in translation and interpretations in different ethnic groups and regimes. The fact that some countries regard Buddhism as a religion, and some see it as more of a spiritual belief is indicative of the evolution of Buddhism- it is a very introspective school of belief/religion, and open to personal interpretation; thus, it is not very surprising to me that it changed over time.

The worst mistake in the history of the human race?

The name itself already seems like a commercial fraud, and from it we can reasonably guess that the arguments are going to be absolute and extreme, which is exactly the case in this article. Diamond may be right on his claims about the defects in a society rooted in the agricultural revolution, but those defects are simply not strong enough to render the agricultural revolution a huge mistake, or rather, as Diamond puts it, "the worst mistake in the history of the human race."

Two points I'd like to disagree with:

1. Agriculture led to dense communities. Dense communities led to trouble. Apparently he is tricking us into believing that without agriculture a lot of problems would not exist. But the truth is they do. War and political manoeuvres stem from greed, a quality inherent in humans, instead of from agriculture. Agriculture amplified the scale of these problems, but did not give rise to them. Disease would not spread as fast, but hunter-gathers must have faced much more dangers than most of our species do today, a point clearly demonstrated by the population growth in the agricultural societies.

2. Diamond completely switched the idea of owing leisure time and owing the time and intelligence for arts and sciences. He used the existing hunter-gatherers to illustrate the point that they are as free leisure-time-wise, and even claimed that they own the ability to build a Parthenon if they have tried. Of course he can assume so, but the harsh truth is that no hunter-gatherers have built anything close in grandeur to the Parthenon. For this point I have a contrary argument. I think humans' inherent urge to create more advanced tools and utilise them have helped sharpen the human mind throughout the history. Curiosity and invention go hand in hand, because they are both, after all, part of intelligence, which is the stem of our civilization. If humans have been able to stay hunter-gatherers happily, they would probably also, until this day, eat, run, and die with the same type of content, without thinking too much. 

It is hard to deny that agriculture has done harm to our environment in a much more efficient manner than hunter-gathering. But to say it is the worst mistake in human race is definitely an overly extreme claim. Diamond can be a good entertainer, but not an objective historian.

Comments on "Plough and Now" and "Worst Mistakes"

           The article from The Economist is fairly reasonable, though in some ways simplifies the history and overly emphasizes the importance of plough. It brings quite revealing contemplations about the modern people are subconsciously guided by a stereotype created in a process of utilizing and changing tools. On the other hand, Diamond’s article makes less sense. It is indeed interesting to consider the lasting influence of the pre-historic era to the modern life. Nonetheless, although I agree that his arguments may raise some factors and concerns that we usually ignored (and thus become valuable) and admire his ability to touch history in a unique way, I have to point out that there’s indeed some logical flaws in his articles. 

           For instance, Diamond argues that the progressive view was unsubstantiated because the remaining gatherers in the current world are still able to sustain themselves. That is entirely a biased argument, since we all know that compared to the farmers, the surviving gatherers are much less. This drastic contrast in population can at least prove to you farming’s superiority. If not, why did people from different parts of the world invariably choose this way? The gatherers he mentioned are able to sustain themselves are and very possibly enjoy the environmental advantages that they obtained by sheer luck (i.e.happen to live in the right place) For most of the people in the other parts of the world, however, farming is definitely a much more preferable option. Besides, he quoted one gatherer’s response which does not have much value since the answerer never experienced what it is like in modern society and does not have the essential yardstick for comparison. Later, he himself uses the same argument to justify that “we do not know what happened in that society, so possibly we will be better off” and contradicts his own assumption. Moreover, he compares the diversity of food we eat with that of the gatherers, attempting to prove that they are healthier and thus we are not good. Nonetheless, the actual situation is that we “do have a choice but we choose not to”. Comparing to “we do not have a choice so we have to”, I personally think his argument does not stand. After all, modern civilization grants us more possibility, more autonomy to choose, and more bargain power when confronting the natural threats.

Reaction to Jared Diamonds two articles

I believe that Diamond has very important points that he makes in his writing The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race and The Plough and the Now.  In todays world the large majority of people could never even imagine having to hunt and gather for their food, like people of the past had done for tens of thousands of years.  Before reading Jared Diamonds articles I thought that agriculture since it’s beginning had made life better.  Although agriculture seems to have improved and helped life of the people of the present, the people of the past beginning agriculture had a very hard time and it has also affected today massively.  Although agriculture helps yield large amounts of food that can be stored and help avoid starvation, early farmers, although having large amounts of food, did not receive all essential nutrients from their stock.  The life expectancy during the uprising of agriculture was 19-26 years. When some farmers solely focused on one product to farm, if the produce did not grow for example like potatoes in the 1840s, many people could die, like the hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers who died during the potato famine.  Also as towns formed around farms dieses could be spread and without modern medicine the majority of people would die.  With the adoption of agriculture humans originally got smaller and weaker compared to the height from the hunter and gathering era, the height of males dropped from 5’ 9” to 5; 3” and women for 5’ 5” to 5”.  Also class division began because of agriculture considering it was never present in the hunter-gatherer era.  Now with agriculture there “could be a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses.”  Which can still be seen today.  Also the population of the world grew largely during the uprising of agriculture considering more kids had to be born to help on the farm and ever since it has been going up.  Athlough women were originally included just as much as men in the farming process of cereal grains and garden, with the new invention of the plough men took over.  The plough was far more superior and yielded more than previous tools formerly used by farmers.  The plough used large amounts of upper body strength and because of this women were not capable of using the machine.  The invention and use of the plough formed the division between men and women that can be seen in the modern era for example with previous female rights and men favored in jobs.  

Reaction to reading 9-16-15

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race I found to be a very interesting take on where our society had gone wrong at a crossroads. The author makes good points about nutrition and how agriculture set us back and it does make me wonder what life now would be like if agriculture never became prevalent. However I see agriculture as an investment for people. Sacrificing nutrition for a few thousand years before agriculture became so abundant, then allowed for later people to have an abundance of food to eat which increased the average height. Agriculture also allowed for the idea of trade. Having a surplus of goods that could be traded for other goods paved the path for expansion of people and cultures. I also thing agriculture fueled innovation of technology. 

I did however find, The plow and the now, to be a bit of a stretch with its claim that the invention of the plow made people and men stronger and better. Perhaps it lead the way for men to be the primary worker, but to go as far to say that that the use of a plow in a family made it less likely to work outside the home, is a stretch. 

Was the Neolithic Revolution really a revolution?

In the assigned reading, both articles suggest that early agricultural practices shaped gender roles throughout the progression of humankind in a misogynic direction, which I agree. The article from the Economist focuses more on the specific cultural effects of using the plough vs. the hoe-- an argument I found to be crafted more cogently than Jared Diamond’s piece. Diamond describes the agricultural revolution as possibly the worst mistake in human history, deviating from the accepted norm and making a case for the superiority of hunting and gathering. His claims are insufficiently supported because he neglects to make a case against the exponential growth in technological advancements and improved quality of life. The fact that I was able to access his published works online and that it can be communicated to the masses with a click of a mouse is an attribute to the wonders of the modern world- duly owed to the agricultural revolution. So do I believe the agricultural revolution was a mistake? No. Statistics regarding the exponential drop in infant mortality, whether it be regional or global, enforce my beliefs. I will end with this: Stephen Hawking, arguably the smartest man alive, has physical disabilities that would hinder his ultimate survival if humankind was still dependent on hunting/gathering and more physically-based “survival of the fittest,” and who is to say he doesn’t deserve a chance for survival?