benzwithaz

[benzwithaz]

Seated Buddha with Double-Lotus Base

Description: Bronze sculpture of a seated Buddha from the late 11th century Pagan, modern day Burma. The sculpture is 23.5cm in height, 18.4cm in width, 12.4cm in depth and inlaid beautifully with silver and copper. 

Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/65015

This sculpture signifies that revival of the Theravada Buddhism in the 11th century under Anawrahta Minsaw (r. 1014-1077AD), ruler of the Pagan Empire. Although Buddhism was spread throughout Southeast Asia as early as the 3rd century during the rule of Ashoka Maurya from India through trade, marriage and missionaries, Hindu was the dominant religion throughout Southeast Asia during the Khmer empire. Anawrahta built schools and monasteries that taught Theravada Buddhism beliefs and ideologies, which view Buddha as a teacher rather than a god. Eventually, Theravada Buddhism became deeply rooted in countries like Thailand and Myanmar till present day.

This sculpture is really interesting to me because I have a lot of Thai friends, who know the names of different Buddhas by heart. I showed them the picture of this sculpture and none of them knew which Buddha is this. In addition, this bronze sculpture was so beautifully handcrafted and inlaid with silver and copper. This showed that there were sophisticated tools available and the quality of craftsmanship and materials were extremely high as early as the 11th century for this sculpture to last for almost a millennium.

[benzwithaz]

TRAVELS IN ASIA AND AFRICA, 1325-1354 (IBN BATTUTA)

“I had made a contract of marriage at Sfax with the daughter of one of the syndics at Tunis, and at Tripoli she was conducted to me, but after leaving Tripoli I became involved in a dispute with her father, which necessitated my separation from her.”

“I then married the daughter of a student from Fez, and when she was conducted to me I detained the caravan for a day by entertaining them all at a wedding party.”

“The women servants, slave-girls, and young girls go about in front of everyone naked, without a stitch of clothing on them. Women go into the sultan's presence naked and without coverings, and his daughters also go about naked. Then there is their custom of putting dust and ashes on their heads, as a mark of respect, and the grotesque ceremonies we have described when the poets recite their verses.”

There were several quotes regarding the rights of women that caught my attention. According to the text, Ign Battuta was married twice: once to the daughter of the syndics at Tunis and to the daughter of a student from Fez. From my understanding, the daughters were ‘conducted’ to him for the first time and they got married almost immediately. The women were like ‘gifts’ given him as a form of transaction which Ibn Battuta later did not provide the other end of the exchange. As a result, he was involved in a dispute with his first wife’s father. Although the Muslims practiced polygamy, I feel that women and marriage shouldn’t be used as a form of gift or transaction.

Secondly, I find it really degrading to have naked women serving a group of men nor could I imagine having my daughters go around naked in front of my guests. Is it really their tradition? Or are the people of Mali trying to offer or entice Ibn Battuta with women, including their daughters?

[benzwithaz]

THE FIRST LIFE OF ST. FRANCIS by Thomas of Celano

“When St. Francis, the father of the poor, heard of it he was deeply grieved, and sharply rebuked the brother who had spoken thus, and bade him strip himself before the poor man, kiss his feet and beg his pardon.” After reading this text, I was surprised on 2 occasions when St. Francis stripped naked. There were 2 counts where St. Francis stripped himself naked in public: The first time when he met the bishop and the second time when a brother gave a sharp answer to a poor man who asked alms. In my opinion, St. Francis believed that being naked symbolizes being poor, having no material wealth is one step closer to Christ. He believed that “the wall of flesh alone may separate him from the vision of God”, wearing more clothes mean the connection between him and the god is weakened or diffused. Thus, by stripping himself, the only barrier is the flesh.  “For he used to say, "He who reviles a poor man does a wrong to Christ, for the poor man bears the noble ensign of Christ Who made Himself poor in this world for us.”

St. Francis, “the father of the poor”, also associates the poor being a step closer to Christ, for Christ himself was poor. In addition, throughout the whole text, material wealth was associated with “dust”. Lastly, in my opinion, the “deadly disease” that was mentioned was “Greed”. 

[benzwithaz]

LETTERS FROM PLINY AND TRAJAN

“ For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.”

I find this quote is somewhat interesting and amusing that Pliny considered that Christianity is a kind of “illness” that endangers humans’ lives and contagious. He believed that there is still a cure to ‘convert’ Christians back. In my opinion, I feel that the Romans are mixing religious and politics, they believed that their gods are the best and the common people should do the same if they want to live in the Roman empire. In addition, from my understanding there was an ongoing power struggle of the “true” king. The Romans believed theirs was while the Christians believed otherwise. Therefore, the Romans want to punish or eradicate Christianity worshipers to fulfill their political and religious ambition (prevent the spread of Christianity). 

[benzwithaz]

THE BHAGAVAD GITA (VYASA)

There are three quotes from this reading that caught my attention:

“It does not become you to yield to this weakness. Arise with a brave heart and destroy the enemy.”

“You were never born; you will never die. You have never changed; you can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, you do not die when the body dies.”

“The warrior confronted with such a war should be pleased, Arjuna, for it comes as an open gate to heaven. But if you do not participate in this battle against evil, you will incur sin, violating your dharma and your honor.”

Arjuna was hesitating to participate in this war because he saw himself as a evil person to slay his friends and family, he eventually he broke down and seek Krishna for help. Personally, in modern day context, I feel that killing your own kin and friends because they are ‘evil’ is morally wrong. Krishna not only said that this feeling is a weakness but also a sin to feel this way. He went on to advise Arjuna to cast those feelings aside and destroy all of them.

Krishna also mentioned that, “you do not die when the body dies” and “ so when the body is worn out a new one is acquired by the Self, who lives within”. It is Arjuna’s duty as a Kshatriya (warrior) to never retreat from this battle against evil, if not he “will incur sin, violating his dharma and honor.” So, Krishna described this battle as an embodiment against evil and the people that he will slay are just vessels of evil souls which he will exterminate. 

Krishna went on further to explain the duties and roles of the different classes, and that it is Arjuna’s fate to participate and not back down from this battle. Everyone has their personal duty, “By devotion to one’s own particular duty, everyone can attain perfection. Let me tell you how. By performing one’s own work, one worships the Creator who dwells in every creature. Such worship brings that person to fulfillment.”; by fulfilling these duties, one can then be liberated from the bonds of samsara.

[benzwithaz]

DaoDeJing - Laozi (5th c. BCE)

“If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial. If you want to become straight, let yourself be crooked. If you want to become full, let yourself be empty. If you want to be reborn, let yourself die. If you want to be given everything, give everything up.”

Laozi mentioned a lot of logical paradoxes in his teachings. For example: good vs evil, difficult vs easy, beautiful vs ugly. In my opinion, humans form their perception of good and evil and set a benchmark for what is good and what is evil. “When people see some things as good, other things become bad.” That is why “ If you want to become straight, let yourself be crooked.”, we have to experience how it feels like being crooked (evil) in order to become straight (good). I feel that he is trying to say that ‘Tao’ is a balance, good and evil coexist. There can never be good if there is no evil, likewise for beautiful and ugly things/people. In order to feel/become/obtain something, we have to know/feel/experience something that is perceived as opposite of that thing.

If we take an example from the Analects of Confucius,  “The Master said: “The noble man is all-embracing and not partial. The inferior man is partial and not all-embracing.” There are also a lot of direct contrasts. In this case, in order to what is becoming of a noble man, we have to know what are the bad qualities of an inferior man. 

[benzwithaz]

THE ENCHIRIDION & LETTER TO MENOECEUS (EPICTETUS)

“Don’t demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.” This quote from Epictetus is interesting and enlightening, especially when it comes to things like desires (power, reputation, riches) and fears (death and poverty). He set a few ‘codes of conduct’ like focus on things that are in our control like “opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions”, “, which can be applied daily. you will see such obstacles as hindrances to something else, but not to yourself” and “ consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it”. 

It gives me another perspective about life and its limitations because different people born for different things. We cannot desire for power and immortality when it is not within our control and does not belong to us, we will only be disturbed and disappointed if we keep pursuing it. What we can do is to change our mindset and focus on things that are within our control which are attainable and give us happiness. While doing these, if riches and power comes along the way, embrace it, and you will be even happier. 

He emphasized on having a strong mindset to “go on well”. If you lost an eye or a leg, it doesn’t change the way you make your choices. He mentioned that  “You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.”, physical disability will not be a hindrance to you unless you allow it to be. Likewise on the perspective of death, it is unavoidable. If we embrace and prepare for it, we will not get disturbed or disappointed.

[benzwithaz]

Lysistrata

This act is about Lysistrata, a Athenian women, hatching up a scheme to end the war by convincing a group of women to go on a sex strike with their lovers and husband. She believed that if all the women of Athens and Sparta stop having sex with men and older women can help by seizing the treasury, they could eventually “save Greece”. Her intentions were to tease the men, making them want sex more and more and going to them with an erection, to the point where women have them by the balls and eventually the Athenians and Spartans had no choice by to sign a peace treaty. With the help of Lampito, a Spartan, she managed to convince and lead all the women to take an oath. I am quite surprised here because both sides were at war and they were supposed to be enemies, yet they were super nice to one another. This showed that the Peloponnesian War was all about men and their brainless fights. I can see that the women were so fed up and frustrated with such a drawn out war that they actually came up with such a funny and interesting way to try to end it. It will be hilarious if they actually ended the war this way. I think we will get a clearer picture about men's and women's sexuality and stereotype in the other acts.

[benzwithaz]

Epic of Gilgamesh

Although Gilgamesh is considered a hero from all his adventures and achievements, I feel that he is also considered a villain too. From the text,  "Gilgamesh does not leave a son to his father” and “Gilgamesh does not leave a girl to her mother”, he made young man build his temples and walls, sent them to war and he demanded that he is entitled to sleep with all women. Did Gilgamesh rape these women or did they sleep with him willingly? After-all he was a two-third god, if compared to the Egyptians, women would offer themselves to him, however I think otherwise. Secondly, Gilgamesh often proclaims himself as a god and able to overcome any obstacles laid upon him. From tablet XI, he was unable to finish the tasks given by the ancient one and eventually accept that he was just a mere mortal.

[benzwithaz]

Birth of Hatshepsut

Birth of Hatshepsut

“He gave her his heart and allowed her to recognise him in his divine form, after which he approached her. She rejoiced to show her beauty, and his love went over into her body.”

lahmes was wife to the King, Tuthmosis I, who was still a youth. Yet, she laid with Amun, Lord of the throne of the Two Lands, even though he showed her his true form after disguising himself as the King. This explained the complicated ideas of sex, sexuality and marriage between Egyptians and their gods. Egyptians are willing to do anything for their gods, including sexual intimacy. Technically, Hatshepsut was not the daughter of King Tuthmosis I, but the child of Amun.