Hinduism Essays (820 words) - Spirituality, Shabda, Nondualism

Hinduism By Justin Paget The idea of "religare" or binding oneself back to one's religion is key to many religions. In Christianity, we bind our selves back to the truth unveiled through scripture, myths, tradition, and the church's teachings. Hinduism, however has a much different interpretation of the idea of binding oneself back. There really is not a whom or what that I can put my finger on. We all came from one God and we must get back to God. But how can one go about doing that? A Hindu would say to free ourselves from the desires and illusions present here on Earth. To free ourselves from the material possessions and pleasures would be to obtain Moksha. Moksha, for Hindus, would be the point of freedom and the attachment to Brahman. In a way this is extremely ironic, for in the act of binding oneself back, a Hindu would obtain liberation. To me, these terms seem directly contradictory, however, this is proof to the fact that our minds cannot understand certain aspects of religion, and that we are limited. The goal of a Hindu is to release themselves, but also to gain a complete understanding of life. By doing this, they are freed from the continuous cycle of reincarnation. There are, as Huston Smith tells us, four paths to the goal. The yogas are the specific direction taken to unleash the human potential of Moksha. The goal of the yogas is to come in to and remain in touch with Brahman. The first way to God is through knowledge. The three steps taken on this path is learning, thinking, and the third, a little more complex, consists of separating one's material ego form one's Atman. The second way to God is through love. The love we show to others can be translated into a love for God. The third path to God is though work. Through a devotion to one's work, God can be seen through the highest rewards if done so wisely. The final Hindu path to God is through Psychophysical Exercises. In this way, a Hindu experiments with mental exercises and observing their effects. Not all Hindus take the same path to God, but the goal is identical. The Buddha made much reform to the path to God. Well, not so much a reform as perhaps an alternate route. He called this the Middle Path. A way between sensuality and asceticism, the Middle Path lay through intelligence. The main revolutionary idea behind the Buddha's teachings was that he rejected asceticism, which at that time had been a popular belief and a socially approved route to salvation. Not only did he reject self-denial, but the worship of gods. In his renowned Eightfold Path, there is never any mention of worship. Also, he refuted the idea that one had to pass through countless rebirths to reach the Brahmin caste before being able to obtain salvation. For this very reason, Buddhism ultimately failed in India, because of the widespread control by the Brahmins. The most challenging concept for the Hindus to except was that the Buddha taught that the soul did not exist. Hindus thought that the Atman, or soul, was actually God. The Buddha reasoned that if the soul is purely God, the it is not individual and therefore is an An-Atman, or no soul. The achievement of liberation then for Buddhist takes form in Nirvana. Nirvana occurs when people release their yearning for a false selfhood, which is similar to Hinduism. Paradoxically, as with Hinduism, the act of extinguishing this yearning occurs simultaneously with an enlightenment. Studying Hinduism and Buddhism has been surely an enlightenment for me. To my amazement, Hinduism actually addresses a few questions I have had before. I've wondered about the way life is connected and how life is a flowing circle of life and death. Hinduism is based primarily on the idea of Brahman and that everything is one. The idea that material positions are basically meaningless is something that I dread to think about, because I am most certaintly a victim of todays society based on wealth and power. It infuriates me to think that my possessions are meaningless, but for some reason I am drawn to these teachings of Hinduism. The majority of teachings of all the religions we have studied so far has made sense to me, and this is the most puzzling conclusion I am faced with. What does this mean? I have found something here and I am utterly confused. How the heck can more than

Good vs. Well, Bad vs. Badly

Good vs. Well, Bad vs. Badly Good vs. Well, Bad vs. Badly Good vs. Well, Bad vs. Badly By Maeve Maddox Do you cringe when you ask someone â€Å"How are you?† and the person replies, â€Å"I’m good†? Why? Perhaps, like me, you are expecting the response to be â€Å"I’m well, thank you,† and the â€Å"I’m good† offends your expectations. However, if your complaint is that good is an adjective and well is an adverb, you’re on thin ice. The fact that well is the adverbial form of good is irrelevant because in this expression, both good and well are being used as adjectives. Good and well function as more than one part of speech: The diner is noted for good food. (adjective) A true statesman is dedicated to the common good. (noun) You speak French well. (adverb) He was ill, but now he is well. (adjective) Life is like a well. (noun) As an adjective, well is usually used to mean â€Å"sound in health,† or â€Å"recovered from sickness.† An earlier sense of â€Å"prosperous† survives in the expressions â€Å"well to do,† and â€Å"well off.† One of the numerous meanings of good is â€Å"morally commendable, virtuous.† This definition is invoked by speakers who wish to ridicule the â€Å"I’m good† response. For example, in an episode of 30 Rock, Tracy Jordan corrects another character who has said â€Å"I’m good† this way: â€Å"Superman is good; you’re well.† Another meaning of good is â€Å"satisfactory, unimpaired, not depressed or dejected.† Although the â€Å"I’m good† response still strikes many ears as colloquial at best, it is not ungrammatical. Speakers who object to the usage are free to avoid it in their own speech, but they may wish to refrain from ridiculing its use in the speech of others. While we’re at it, this may be a good place to mention a common error with the adjective bad and its adverbial form badly. Here are some incorrect uses of badly from the web: Facebook makes us feel badly about ourselves. I think awards just make the other kids who didn’t get awards feel badly. Maybe her intention isn’t to make you feel badly, and you’re making yourself feel badly. I guess I just sometimes feel badly for my extrovert kids. These are all from commenters and amateur bloggers, but even professional writers fall into the error: People who go through life applying a measuring ruler against every situation judging its â€Å"fairness† will often feel badly and negative because of it. –John M. Grohol, Doctor of Psychology You must never feel badly about making mistakes† Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth In each instance, the expression should be â€Å"feel bad,† not â€Å"feel badly.† Badly is an adverb. It must be used with a verb that expresses an action. Feel can be either a linking verb or an action verb, but when it is used in the sense of experiencing an emotion, it is a linking verb and takes an adjective to complete it: â€Å"I feel bad.† As an action verb, feel means â€Å"to handle† or â€Å"to touch.† For example, a person who â€Å"feels badly† would have trouble learning to read Braille. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:25 Subordinating Conjunctions40 Fish Idioms10 Humorous, Derisive, or Slang Synonyms for â€Å"Leader† or â€Å"Official†