https://amzn.to/3T3z1FF
Discussion Prompt 1: “This [Smith’s previous point that satisfaction of the desire for worldly
success is more substantial than pleasure] does not have to be argued for a contemporary
Western audience. The Anglo-American temperament is not voluptuous. Visitors from abroad do
not find English-speaking peoples enjoying life a great deal, or much bent on doing so – they
are too busy. Being enamored not of sensualism but of success, what takes arguing in the West
is not that achievement’s rewards exceed those of the senses but that success too its
limitations – that ‘What is he worth?’ does not come down to ‘How much has he got?’ (Smith,
https://amzn.to/3T3z1FF
15)
Who are these ‘Anglo-Americans’ to which Smith refers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American
Do you agree with this characterization of Anglo-Americans as not “…enjoying life a great deal,
or much bent on doing so – they are too busy. ”? Explain your view.
Anglo-Americans refers to those people who speak English as their first language or their
mother tongue. These people do not necessarily have to be whites but those people who move
to the English speaking countries and begin to speak the English language and with time when
they have offspring they learn English as their first or native language. The Anglo-Americans do
meerey
not seem to be enjoying life but are viewed to focus much on their worldly success according to
Smith. Also, these people are viewed to focus so much towards success rather than pleasure
since they are mostly viewed be migrants who leave their native countries and settle in these
countries with various reasons. These people also are believed to be living in those countries
either due to job activities or as refugees who later end up having offspring’s who learn this
language as they grow and become citizens of that state by birth because they were born in
those countries.
Discussion Prompt 2: “What is distinctive in Hinduism is the amount of attention it has devoted
to identifying basic spiritual personality types and the disciplines that are most likely to work for
each. The result is a recognition, pervading the entire religion, that there are multiple paths to
God, each calling for its distinctive mode of travel.” (Smith, 28)
What do we think about this claim, that there are multiple paths to God?
A.The use of the singular (i.e. god v. gods) and capitalization, as with a proper name {i.e. (the)
God v. (a) god} would seem to imply the same, identical, one and only one God…would that
change your mind?
B.The idea of many paths to the same goal (of union with God) might seem to discount the
worth or value of the path itself, while some religions place more emphasis on the path than the
goal…what do you think?
According to Hinduism, there are many paths to God and these paths are attributed to the four
personality types (Smith, 1994). The paths are such as through work, love, psychophysical, and
knowledge. These paths are closely examined to have intrinsic values attached to them which.
https://amzn.to/3T3z1FF
ought to be followed in order to be on the right path. For instance, an individual can use any of
the paths to God such as by use knowledge one gets to know God through learning and
exchange of ideas.
A
The singular god and gods and the capitalization of the same words (God and god) would
change my mind because according to Hinduism the god in small letters is used to refer to an
idol or an evil image made to be worshipped instead of the true God with a capitalized letter “g”.
Therefore, the singular god and gods means the same thing while the other God and god refers
to the true and supernatural God compared to the false or evil idols.
B
I believe that the emphasis should be put on the goal and not the path because the goal is the
primary objective while the path can be replaced with another if it does not yield good results
regarding the goal. Also, the path should have emphasis although not too much so as to avoid
less concentration towards the goal. It is important therefore for one to choose the correct path
that does not interfere with the goal and one which helps one to focus on the goal without
consuming a lot of time such that one may lose concentration.
Discussion Prompt 3: “The word ‘my’ always implies a distinction between the possessor and
what is possessed; when I speak of my book or my jacket, I do not suppose that I am those
things. But I also speak of my body, my mind, and my personality, giving evidence thereby that
in some sense sense I consider myself as distinct from them as well. What is this “I” that
possesses my body and mind, but is not their equivalent?
Again, science tells me that there is almost nothing in my body that was there seven years ago,
and my mind and my personality have undergone comparable changes. Yet throughout their
manifold revisions, I have remained in some way the same person, the person who believed
now this, now that; who once was young and is now old. What is this something in my makeup,
more constant than body or mind, that has endured these changes?” (Smith, 30, emphasis
mine.)
Please reflect upon Smith's questions, "What is this 'I'?" and "What is this something...that has
endured these changes?" Ask yourself, 'Who am I?' and share your response.
The letter “i” is viewed to refer to oneself whereby according to Smith, oneself is regarded as the
soul which does not change despite even the growth of other parts of the body. The soul is
inbuilt in oneself and is not visible and it is the one that possesses the letter “i” because without
it one cannot exist although it is invisible. The soul hence defines who an individual is his and
his possessions. Also, the soul does not develop like other body parts or things that are
attributed to an individual but it just exists in a person and defines the individual together with
every aspect attributed to that person. It is thus viewed to be the spiritual being in a person
according to Hinduism (Smith, 2009).
meerey
References
Smith, H., & Marranca, R. (2009). The world's religions. New York: HarperOne.
Smith, H. (1994). The illustrated world's religions: A guide to our wisdom traditions. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment