aastha srivastava

hi, this is my blog for UGC 111. all posts pre-class responses notes

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 23

(link to the original source)

This artefact was created in Cambodia, around 1150 - 1250 CE. It’s a sculpture of Buddha, who is sheltered by, and sitting on, a snake-like being, known as the Muchalinda. (naga translates to snake). 

This artefact is interesting to me for two reasons. One, as the information provided mentions, Hinduism was prevalent and dominant in Cambodia during this time period, yet one of the artefacts that was kept and preserved was the Buddha’s. This could go to show the intersection or intertwining of the different religions, perhaps? Another reason this interested me was because the imagery of snakes being a protector or an accompaniment to Buddha never came to me. Given the perception we have of snakes in general now, seeing an important figure in Buddhism with snakes just made me do a double-take at the picture. 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 22, group B

The reading, “On The Tartars”, has Ibn Al-Athir stating:

“For even Antichrist will spare such as follow him, though he destroy those who oppose him, but these Tatars spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes.”

This shows the Mongols as unbelievably cruel and torturous. If anyone were to read Ibn Al-Athir’s account, it would seem as the Mongols are the worst people to exist. After all, they are worse than the Antichrist himself, which is saying a lot.

However, reading “The Account of The Mongols”, William of Rubruck has a lot of positive language that is used to describe the Mongols. They are described as systematic people, with a place for everyone in society (the Master, the Mistress, the men, the women). Reading William’s account, one would assume that the Mongols are just another group of people with their own ways of doing things. 

William had a more neutral language in describing the Mongols. On the other hand, the extreme contrast in these two readings just goes to show the extreme bias that Ibn Al-Athir could have had against the Mongols (perhaps because he was not treated as well as he would have liked to be). 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 20, group B

I felt that Sura 4 from the Quran had a lot of emphasis on the treatment of women and children, which is a contrast to all of the texts we’ve read so far. The text preaches messages such as:

"4.15 And (as for) the ones of your women who come up with the obscenity, (i.e., illegal sexual intercourse; abomination) so, call four of you to witness against them. Then in case they (bear) witness, then retain them (The pronoun is the feminine plural) in the homes until death takes them up, (i.e., they die) or Allah sets for them a way.”

“4.16 And (as for) the two of you who come up with (an obscenity), then hurt them both. Yet, in case they (both) repent and act righteously, then veer away from them (both); surely Allah has been Superbly Relenting, Ever-Merciful.”

We’ve read various texts that encourage one to be more aware of their surroundings, and to strive to treat people around us well. However, it was (usually) assumed that the people that were included in the narrative were men. However, the Quran specifically mentions and focuses on women. It also hints at more equity than the other texts. In the previous texts, the women were blamed for any adultery solely, even though it takes two hands to clap. However, while the Quran mentions punishing women for adultery or any other sins, it does not allow for false accusations as witnesses are required, and also mentions that if men are at fault then they should be punished too. 

In terms of the ancient texts that we’ve read, the Quran seems more progressive and inclusive of various groups of people than other texts. 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 18, group B

I feel what stood out to me the most was the difference in tone that Tacitus and Herodotus took in describing Germans and Persians, respectively. Herodotus had a condescending tone (or ambiguous at times) when he compared Greece to Persia, and implied that Greece was better than Persia in many ways.

However, in Chapter 7, Tacitus states

"In the choice of kings they are determined by the splendour of their race, in that of generals by their bravery. Neither is the power of their kings unbounded or arbitrary” 

In this text, although Tacitus makes comparisons between the Germans and Romans, he doesn’t do so with condescension. In fact, it seems as though he’s more objective about evaluating the society he’s a part of (Rome) and the Germans who inhabited the borders of the empire. One could argue that he might even be putting down the Roman Empire and how it works, but considering he was a senator (Wikipedia), that doesn’t seem as likely, because he also states in chapter 15: “Now too they have learnt, what we have taught them, to receive money”. This shows that he acknowledges the Romans are better in some aspects as compared to the Germans. 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 16, group B

One of the most interesting aspects of this reading was the role and dynamics of women in society. 

Early in the reading it’s stated:

"But neither gods nor men sheltered her or her babes from the king’s cruelty”

This quote is a clear indication of the lack of power women had in society. Even though the Vestal used a god to defend her pregnancy, she was punished. This goes to show that even the “god’s will” (because we don’t know if it’s true or not) is not taken seriously, because it was (specifically) said by a woman. 

However, later in the reading, the women of Rome/Sabine women had significant power to stop their fathers and husbands from fighting. In fact, Rome was desperate for women to be present so that they could prosper and flourish. The contrast between how women were treated before and after Romolus was in power is quite significant. I’m not saying that later, the women were treated right (since they were abducted and all...), but they were still treated better than they were in the past. This could have been due to the fact that Romulus’ mother was imprisoned, and he could therefore have more empathy for women - although more information is needed for that. 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 13, group B

In the reading, 

the Carter/Palihawadana translation states: “If, with perception polluted, one speaks or acts, / Thence suffering follows / As a wheel the draught ox’s foot.” while 

the Easwaran translation states: “Those whose minds are shaped by selfish thoughts cause misery when they speak or act. Sorrows roll over them as the wheels of a cart roll over the tracks of the bullock that draws it.”

In my opinion, Easwaran’s translation is biased (not positively or negatively, though. Just biased.) due to his own perception of Buddha’s teachings. While the academic (and hence, more neutral) translation of his teachings simply indicates polluted perception, Easwaran goes a step further to interpret that polluted perception is the same as selfish thoughts. However, a polluted perception could be an indicator of much more than selfish thoughts - it could mean having too much pride, anger, or ego (Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia). 

While Eswaran interprets the text as how most of us would, his translation omits a lot of minor details that, perhaps, don’t matter in the overall message. On the other hand, the Carter/Palihawadana translation is careful to keep as close as possible to the original text - which allows multiple interpretations of the text. In that way, the question would be if it’s good to read a translation as Eswaran’s - which allows the followers to follow one interpretation, or if it’s better for followers to have their own interpretations of his teachings (which is not necessarily a good thing)? 

[aastha-ugc]

key concepts and definitions

link to human origins notes

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 10, group B

The reading states: 

“1.16 The Master said: “I am not bothered by the fact that I am unknown. I am bothered when I do not know others.””

“12:16 The Master said: “The noble man develops people's good points, not their bad points. The inferior man does the opposite.”“

I feel that Confucious reiterates the point of self-development and self-awareness a lot. That it’s important to be aware of your presence, role and place in your surroundings and develop yourself according to it. The problems and behaviours of others are beyond our control, but what we can control is ourselves - that’s why it’s okay if we remain unknown, because the acknowledgment of our presence lies on others, not us. However, this is why we must be aware of others and strive to improve their good points, because the acknowledgement of their presence falls on us. I think it’s interesting how Confucious uses a person as pivot to change their surroundings and society, all by encouraging change of mindset from the within. 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 8, group B

(sorry if this went a little over the limit! If it did, please ignore the 2nd point :) )

The reading states

"They hold it unlawful to talk of anything which it is unlawful to do. The most disgraceful thing in the world, they think, is to tell a lie; the next worst, to owe a debt: because, among other reasons, the debtor is obliged to tell lies.”

According to my interpretation, Herodotus implies that Persians think the worst thing ever is to lie, which is confusing to me. Herodotus is definitely comparing Persians and Greeks throughout the text, and in the Ancient Greek society, crimes such as poisoning and assassination existed (Hays, 2008). Does this indicate that Herodotus is insulting the Persian society by saying they didn’t care about the killing of humans and other severe crimes as long as they tried to keep their personal conscience clear, or is he praising the society for having such minimal crimes that the worst thing they could do was lie? Personally, I lean more towards the former but that’s because I’m unsure about the level of objectivity Herodotus kept (despite an obvious, subconscious bias).

Another minor point I wanted to add:

"Their sons are carefully instructed from their fifth to their twentieth year, in three things alone---to ride, to draw the bow, and to speak the truth. Until their fifth year they are not allowed to come into the sight of their father, but pass their lives with the women. This is done that, if the child die young, the father may not be afflicted by its loss.”

It’s amusing that while men were assumed to be the stronger ones in society, there were kept hidden from the emotional burden and pain. I know that men were considered stronger in terms of physical strength but were they considered... weaker emotionally?

Reference: Hays, J. (n.d.). CRIME AND JUSTICE IN ANCIENT GREECE. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub367/item2004.html

[aastha-ugc]

The first two sentences here are very strong and conceptually the post is rather good! You acknowledge your surprise & summarize what seems so different here. The last two sentences are in a bit of trouble tho. The quote doesn't directly point to Yahweh relying on Abraham, so that idea needs further explanation. (Original insights usually require more evidence.) And then the last sentence is either a typo or a misunderstanding. This text demonstrates monotheism rather than polytheism. :)

Alright prof, thank you! I should have elaborated more (or perhaps my interpretation was a bit off), will take note for the future. And yes, sorry, that was a typo on my end! 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 6, group B

The reading states

"the Lord came to Abram in a vision, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me”?

This line really stood out to me because I had been subconsciously been getting used to the idea of obedience/lack of questioning from the followers towards their Gods. However, in this reading, Abram/Abraham does not hesitate in questioning in what his God, Yahweh, can do for him in exchange for his devotion. This is probably the first few instances that we’ve read in which we can see that the Gods need ordinary citizens to “exist” (not literally, but rather being a part of society), as opposed to citizens relying on Gods for better conditions. An interesting glance as to what the world of Polytheism was like in the Ancient World. 

edited after comments: I meant Monotheism**, whoops. 

[aastha-ugc]

Good start here! You're attentive to the text and you've worked to provide context-based explanations for your questions. Keep doing that :) This is particularly good, by the way: "this could also be due to the fact that Amun was highly respected rather than women being treated unequal."

Thanks, prof! Noted :) 

[aastha-ugc]

pre-class response, class 4

The reading states

“”My lord, how great is your glory. […]” [Thus she spoke,] after the majesty of this god had done with her all which he wished.” as well as

“The queen who accordingly immediately became pregnant and now suffers the birth pains was delivered in the presence of the god Amun and goddess of the birth place Mesekhnet with the assistance of many spirits and divine nurses.”

I think an interesting issue that the reading points to is the issue of a woman’s self-worth — seeing that Queen lahmes felt honoured for her body to be used “as [Amun] wished”. Despite her body being used by someone else for their own means, there was no indication of shame, but this could also be due to the fact that Amun was highly respected rather than women being treated unequal.

Secondly, it is interesting how Queen lahmes was not considered pregnant until after she had been blessed, despite all of the Gods talking about Hatshepsut as if she were in existence already. Perhaps this could be because Egyptians do not consider one pregnant until they are blessed from various Gods?