World Religions

Our recent trip to the Asian Art Museum was interesting to say the least. We viewwed several different religious art relics from China, India, and Japan. My favorites were the Chinese or Japanese guardian statues. The way they were carved was intricate, and their eyes were so realistic it was a little scary. One thing I noted was that most of the art was from Buddhism. We saw one Jain sculpture, maybe four Hindu sculptures, but the rest was mostly Buddhism. I think this may have had something to do with the relative age of the religions or beliefs. Buddhism is younger than Hinduism, and in Jainism, plainness was encouraged and thus art was discouraged. Still, however, I was intiruged, and felt that it made the museum seem a little one sided. We barely viewed any other aspect of religion in these respective countries, such as Shintoism. If we did, it certainly wasn’t explained or embellished upon. I think the Shinto sculptures especially would have been fascinating, seeing how multi-faceted that particular religion is. All in all, it was an interesting trip. Some of the other parts of the musuem that did not pertain to religion were great, such as the Peacock room. i would do it again, given the opportunity.

In my opinion, Guru Angad Dev should be considered the greatest guru in Sikhism. Although hew as not the founder, he had a profound effect through the continuation of Sikhism. Appointed Nanak’s successor over his son, he reluctantly accepted the role. Although he made no significant changes, he took charge of the religion when it was at its weakest: the beginning. Although it is one thing to start a religion, or a cult following if you will, it is quite another thing to maintain the religion someone else started. Not to mention he also created an alphabet centered and established several centers of education. Although he did not make any profound changes to the religion, he is most important for his ability to keep going what would have died without his guidance or assistance. Even though he reluctantly accepted the job, he was the best man for it in the end. Without Guru Angad Dev, Sikhism would probably not have survived to become what it was today.

Guru Nanak Dev was born on April 15, 1469 to a small Hindu family. He recieved a formal education, and was hailed for his learning abilities and questioning of teachers. At age 13 he refused the sacred cotton thread of Hinduism which marked him as a rebel. Eventually, he was forced into marriage in an attempt to get him to conform to the Hinduist traditions, and although he loved his wife, this did not stop him. One day, he fell into a river while bathing and reportedly drowned. He appeared three days later, claiming to have had a visitation from God. He claimed there was only one God. He proceeded to travel across the country spreading his new word of Sikhism. He went on four great journies, the first to  Kurukshetra, the second almost to Sri Lanka, the third to Tibet, and the fourth to Baghdad. On all of these, he gained followers through mostly his actions, not words. He debased local superstitions, pointing out flaws in traditional beliefs of God. One particular occassion was his stay over at Saidpur. he chose to stay with a carpenter, Lalo, rather than the local chief, Bhago. When he refused Bhago’s invitation, Bhago became angry, asking how the peasants wares were better than his. Nanak proceeded to take a piece of Lalo’s food in one hand, Bhago’s in the other. When he squeezed Bhago’s, blood came out, and milk came out of Lalo’s. This signified that where Bhago’s food was earned by exploiting peasants, Lalo’s bore the milk of hard labor. Guru Nanak eventually retired to Punjab, his original town, with his wife and two kids. in 1532 he was approached by Lenha, who became his apprentice. Guru Nanak died in 1539, on September 22. Thorughout his life, Nanak preached honesty and a certain skepticism about superstitions. He successfully established the foundation and ideal behind Sikhism.

When we were talking about Animal Rights Ethics today during class, I could not help but remember a short story by Neil Gaiman called Babycakes. It is about when the world runs out of animals to test on and starts to test on babies. The author said it was one of the few stories he wrote that also disturbed him. I think its funny, when you think about it, that when you replace animals with babies just how wrong these testings seem. A parallel he draws is that babies are just as unaware of there surroundings as animals, if not more so. However, as human beings, we would feel a little cannabilistic using babies in said fashion. I would like to argue, however, that some of these tests truly are necessary. Although it is unnecessary to test make-up products on monkeys as they did a few years back, but say you have a new medicine. Should we skip straight to human testing, or let it out on the market without any testing? If people did that, it would make more than just PETA angry. Although its not really right, its better than the alternative, unsafe drugs being released into the world. It is a necessary evil people will have to put up with. Besides, evil is just a point of view. The other side is always wrong, therefore evil. But not necessarily. They may simply be a little more willing to accept the fact that good is not achieved through good alone, you have to drag a little bit of evil in with it. For those of you who want to read the story here it is.

This title seems totally generic and random, but it is the best to describe my own little internal debate. Is it okay to step on someone else in order to further your own goal? Is is okay to sacrifice someone else to further yourself? This, in my opinion, could be similar to a bigger business, like Walmart, destroying a smaller business to further its profit. In my opinion, this can be alright, but their are qualifiers, as always.Your intentions must be good, otherwise this decision is unethical. You should not step on someone else simply because you want to, or you want their domain for your own good and no one elses. Although it is wrong to squash someone elses dreams, you can not achieve good purely through good. Some evil must be intertwined, otherwise you will get nowhere. Like in a war, the self-declared “Good Side” will not get anywhere by simply laying their weapons down an trying to talk it out all civilized like. You have to shoot someone else in order to win. back to the main topic, you must also not sacrifice too many others in attempting to achieve your goal. If those you hurt outweigh those whom you are trying to help, then you went wrong somewhere. As the Utilitarians say, your good must outweigh your bad. Although I could be completely wrong about this. In the end, good intentions will not be enough, though. You must carry out your plan, and make sure that you are still pulling for the same people in the end. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.