Blog Entry #1 - The World's Religions - "Point of Departure"

3)

First, I would like to admire Houston Smith's insight for making it clear that writing this book is not intended to simply "transform" one's religion or belief, but instead to educate and make notice of the different religions around the world. I especially think that the most important statement Smith makes about this book is that it builds an effort to communicate, in which he says, is a book "to throw bridges from those worlds to the reader's world.". He emphasizes that this book consist of information that will education others on different religions, thus making making it easier to understand the way people, cultures and simply, the nature of each individual in variance, live. I appreciate the fact that he explains why he is writing this book because it allows the reader to be parked in the mindset of his own, therefore when interpreting his analogies on religion, it will be much more lucid and comprehensive. In addition, when Smith writes, "The final reason for understanding another is intrinsic - to enjoy the wider angle the vision affords", I believe that this is definitely the prime statement that explains what he is trying to convey to the readers: the importance of this book on religion is to educate, in which will expand knowledge and perspective overall.

Question #3:
I think for me, the most important of the three will be Smith's focus on ''making a real effort to communicate.'' This is simply because, like he said, I need to make the connection from my ''religious bridge'' to the other major religions' in the world. This is the only way I will be able to learn a lot while maintaining an unbiased opinon. I also really liked his comment that ''religions [are] not primarily a matter of facts; [they are] a matter of meanings.'' I think this will be a fresh take on learning about the world's religions... just because we often see them through a historical perspective (focusing more on dates and important leaders), rather than the ''essence'' of the religion. I also think, just like Smith said, in order to fully submerge myself into the book I will need to erase all previous preconceptions I have. This overtime, will help me to truly understand a religion, and hopefully become more interested and excited about what the world and its religions have to offer. I am really excited to read this book, it is definitely a different approach than I have ever faced before.

I think that Huston Smith did a great job picking and choosing parts of region to focus on. His first point, the fact that his book is not a like a history book with lots of dates and figures. In my opinion these just get in the way, as long as the reader understands the general time frame, it makes room for more beliefs and traditions than numerical facts. his second point, that his book does not and could not include EVERYTHING about all religions is reasonable. As long as he covers the main religions and what defines them, there is no need to go into the small sectors, which most people couldn't tell the difference between without a lot of specifics. It was a wise choice to select his main topics based on the number of followers that religion has. His third point, that this is a book about value makes a lot of sense. There is on reason why he should spend the time writing, or the reader reading about tiny relatively insignificant details of religion. His final point about his book not meaning to compare religions is well stated. He assures the reader that the most talked about religion is not the "best" religion and visa versa. Huston Smith shows compassion for all religions and dedication to education the world about all that is religion. It is clear he spent a long time carefully deciding what to include in his book and what to leave out. He did a nice job showing the reader that these decisions had to be made and he put a lot of thought into them. Overall, I agree with his reasoning.

I liked the fact that Huston Smith does not try to sway any reader into a certain religion. I think it is important that we learn about these religions. However, i think it is also important that we do not get too involved in any one religion just because of this book. I enjoyed reading about why Huston Smith decided to write this book. It is nice to know that he wrote this book purely for educational purposes and not to change anyone's religious views. I agree with smith when he says that in order to fully understand the different religions, he must first get rid of all previous preconceptions he had. By doing that, it will be much easier to understand all the different things religions have to offer. I think this book will be extremely educational and worth reading.

I think it is unique for an author of a book to openly tell the reader, in the first few pages of the book, what the book “is not,” and I do agree with his decision to consciously avoid doing, or having his book become, those things. For one, I think it is necessary to put out there what the book is not, because it gives Smith a realm in which to work. By defining what the book is not, the author is limiting himself to a certain area of what the book is, which I think could help him establish his writing. It is also helpful because many people who first pick up this book might think it to be more or a textbook style of writing, rather than what it is, a book that emphasizes the general values and themes of religions, without going too much into historical details. Someone who was looking for a more detail and date-oriented book on religions, they would probably realize that this was not the book for them after reading this chapter. Another reason I think it is good that Smith openly states what this book “is not,” is because it then allows him to go in so many different areas of what the book “is.” Since he can probably only focus on and incorporate a number of different areas of religion into one coherent book, it is important that he limited himself to what the book would be. I think the book will be much stronger because of this.

Huston Smith seems to have a pretty open view of accepting religion and says multiple times that no religion is more valuable than the other or more correct at that. For a books based on the world’s religions it seems essential for this to be the case or else he book would be bias and probably fairly uninformative save the “negative” aspects of certain religions. He also explains things that is book will not be and I think that based on what he is going for in the book, it seems reasonable to exclude things like the history of religion or to explain the generalities of religions considering how difficult it would be to explain in detail every aspect all the sects. As to what this book is, he’s absolutely correct that everyone in the world should have an understanding of the other’s religion and culture. As a reader of the book, I think that the most important one will be that he intends to take religion seriously. He could easily find many ways to rate different religions or to skew someone’s view on different religion, but he says something along the lines of him trying to sift the bad out of religion and let the good shine through. I think this is so important because it seems like it’s really the only way to show the beliefs of all the different religions in an unbiased way, and even so it will most likely still be a little bias.

2. Beginning on page 2, Smith describes four things that he says this book "is not." Do you agree or disagree with the author's decision to consciously avoid doing these things? Why or why not?

I agree with Smith’s decisions in writing his book. Smith does not want to make a textbook on the history of religions. I think that this is a good choice because religion was not made because of its names or dates; it was constructed around beliefs, ideas, and morals. Smith also says that this book is not a book on comparative religions in the sense of seeking to compare their worth. Again I agree with the author because from an objective view, no religion is better than another. All faiths were built on the intent to do well; in fact, many religions have the same values. To truly study religion, one must look at each faith without bias.

I would like to answer question 2. I like Smith's description of the book and what it is NOT about beforehand. I agree with him that it should not be a textbook for history or religions. The book is more about ideas and the feeling of the religions, not just listing some facts and beliefs about the religion. This book, i feel, will give me an insight into his personal experiences with different religions, and give me a more in depth picture. I also agree that he cannot talk about every single sect of a different religion, because that would take too much time and would seem to be more like reading a text book. I like how in this book, i feel like we will be able to get the general idea of a religion, and not only that, but an inside and indepth look at HOW and WHY the beliefs are focused on the ideas that they have focused upon. Overall, i generally agree with the author not to compare religions, and that the book is not a balanced book on its subject. This book is based on the accounts, experiences, points of view, and many other factors that contribute to making this book educational in a way that gives the reader an idea of the religion, and not just the facts. It generalizes the feels and experiences, its morals and standards, as well as its values and its focuses. Smith does a good job with explaining this in the first chapter, by which he gives the reader a chance to expect something more than learning about the religion, but to give the feeling of an experience first-hand.

I agree with most everyone in saying that Smith has done a good job is saying what he has set out to do in his book, namely a unbiased review on the world's major religions. From the start he acknowledges that he is not writing a text book or comparing religions. This I think is a very good policy, religions should not be based on dates and events unless they are important and the religions should not be compared because this would lead to rating and judgement which would make the reading biased and therefore not give a fair representation of the religions.

I also think that his personal approach to religion is good. How he tries to experience and understand as many different religions as he can. And looking at the positives rather than hold negatives against them. The incorporation of various faiths is a very good way to learn about many different religions without an unfair bias.

Oh and this is Kevin FYI

question #2
Huston Smith strictly states that names, dates and historical facts, regarding each religion, will not be emphasized in this book. I disagree with Smith's assessment. For the most part individuals choose a religion based on its beliefs and ideas, but I do not think it is good to just focus on those aspects of each religion. It is also important to acknowledge the names of those who played an important role within that religion. Dates and historical facts are also equally as important. So, while beliefs and ideas should serve as the basis when teaching about a religion, important names, dates and historical facts, should not be left out.

#3.
In my opinion, the most important statement for me will be that this book is looking to embrace the world. It's a book looking to emphasize all major religions and not one to favor one over the others. It states there are proverbs from China, tales from India, and paradoxes from Japan. I don't know very much about most religions other than christianity, but this book gears to help me with the perspective of each religion giving a genuine in depth look at the background and main parts of each religion.

First of all I would like to point out before I respond to the required question that the author seems to have an unjustified personal dislike for the entire field of science. Several times he “brushes aside” science as second best and claims religion is the defining feature of civilization. Yet he repeatedly returns to science and technical fields for metaphors and examples.
It does appear (occasional pomposity aside) that the author knows what he is talking about. He describes a number of real life experiences relating to many of the religions about which he teaches. From the synagogue in Jerusalem to the mosque in Istanbul to the Buddhist Shrine in Rangoon his experiences suggest an author who is open to the beliefs and outlook of all religions. This objectivity is important in an effort to relate not the factual history but instead the “worlds great wisdom traditions.”
For me, I believe the book will be most important in broadening my understanding of religions and peoples of whom I am entirely ignorant. As the author notes the world today is a single global community where exposure to the diverse values and faiths of the world is more vital than ever.
And finally let me attempt to excuse any limitations in my blog post with a quote from Smith himself, “Even when stretched to the maximum, a single pair of arms falls short, and feet must be planted somewhere.”

I definitely agree with what this book isn't and greatly admire Smith for not pandering to what people are expecting. What struck me the most is how he stated that this will not be a "balanced approach." The idea of taking a balanced view of religion is what most people are looking for, but if Smith had taken a balanced approach, he would have had to spend time focusing on extremism and points of view that stray from most religions' goals. Smith definitely sees religion as a positive influence in people's lives and wants to focus on these aspects. I liked the idea that religion can be viewed as "wisdom traditions."
As for what Smith states that he will cover, his optimism definitely appeals to me. He calls the time that we live in a "fantastic century" and focuses on how amazing it is that for the first time people are working to understand each other more deeply across continents. But at the same time, I feel that many in the world are trying to stay away from other cultures and remain blissfully ignorant about other religions. I think that this idea of trying to gain new perspectives is really what a world religions class should be about; trying to understand the world better through the lens of understanding people's faiths.

I agree with the first thing this book isn’t, which is a standard textbook of religions. I think that it is best that it reads like a nonfiction story than a textbook because a textbook could be more boring and less insightful. I also agree with the second thing the book isn’t, which is a complete view of all sects of all religions. I agree with this because I think that the book wouldn’t be useful if it just listed all of the sets of all of the religions. I disagree with the third thing the book isn’t, which is not “An unbalanced account of a subject.” I believe that it should be a balanced account so one can get a good picture and doesn’t make assumptions such as the example about making assumptions about Hinduism. I agree with the last thing this book is not, which is a book to compare the worth of various religions. I agree with this because it is impossible to compare the worth of religions and if one were to attempt to, he or she would offend many people.

I agree with all 3 of the things the book is. I think the most important is the first, or that it will attempt to be a universal book. However, I think the third will be themost important. The third thing this book is, is a book that tries to communicate and show the worlds of various religions and translate them, and if the book succeeds in doing that, it will be by far the most helpful of the three.

On page 2 Smith says, "Does one faith carry the lead, or do the parts share in counterpoint and antiphony where not in full-throated chorus? We cannot know." Basically, using a metaphor he is saying that no one can be absolutely sure that any one religion is the right one. I think this shows that his personal views on religion are based on questioning and constantly seeking. He does not seem to be an extreme Christian, and has a sense of humor about his own faith.

He says this is not a textbook of religions, and I agree and disagree on this point. This is the best selling textbook for religion classes and I think by not being such a typical textbook (emphasizing dates and names) really hits on many more of the truly key points of religion. He also says that his book is not a mean of religions, but more of a median. He finds specifics to certain sects of religions and talks about them- after all, it would take an entire book (or more!) just to write about one religion and all it's different sects and all their different traditions and such. He says that he choose the sects by relevance, population and universality. I think those are good qualities to choose in order to shift through and eliminate some religions. He goes on to say that his book is not a balanced view - which seems logical, considering his last point was that he only wrote about the median, some of the sects of religions instead of everything.

I think the most important thing that Smith's book is, is that it "takes religion seriously." I already am making an effort to communicate and learn so having an inclusive and serious textbook that is still readable will be helpful.

After reading the opening chapter in Smith's book i believe that he views all religions as the same concept leading to the same place. Smith has experienced all of the religions he speaks about first hand. On page two Smith says that this book is not a text book and it does not try to give a "rounded view" of any religions. I agree with these statements because most textbooks are boring and it is hard to remember all of the important people and dates without taking notes. in this book it seems so far like it has less names and dates, it still has them but only the very important ones. on page six Smith says that his book is an attempt to "embrace the world." this one is most important to me as a reader because he is not trying to be bias it is simply to learn more about different people.

The only way to approach such a broad subject as world religions is through an unbiased, open opinion. Huston Smith establishes what the point of the book is after describing what it is not. HE states earlier in the chapter that he "tries to do justice to several perspectives". Whereas others will try and catalouge multiple groups into one. He describes his religious experiences in the preface and sets up his point of view. I think this will be a good approach to the religious studies.

It was smart of Smith to confess his well-rounded approach to describing religions. It really would be impossible to include all niches of every religion, yet people seem to become very offended when their particular belief is absent from the description. These few sentences, or disclaimers, probably saved Smith hundreds if not thousands of letters from angry readers who felt their branch of religion was excluded or ignored. I also agree with the way which Smith chose to break down the process of choosing certain view points to include. “How many?” and “Which ones?” are his two questions. His analogy about explaining Christianity to a Thailander is a nice way to put the reader in his frame of mind. The three guidelines of choosing which views are logical. He is right; numbers should be the primary consideration. The book is titled The World’s Religions, it makes sense to chose those which are the most prominent in the world. His second consideration, using a modern mind, is also a wise choice. Many people believe to be unbiased one must explain a religion at it’s most fundamental position. Often times religions have evolved so much over time, that its original basic identity is unrecognizable to current affiliates. The third guideline, universality, is a smart way to help relate people of different background to religions or lifestyles other than their own. Most religions, if not all, share a foundation of morals and ethics. The ways which these morals and ethics are expressed is what varies from religion to religion. Yet, if someone can see that X religions shares the idea with their religion that one should not kill innocent youth, then they will have a more positive propensity towards X religion because of the common moral ground they share. The idea of universality seems to be a belief Smith holds dear. He seems to believe religion can work for everyone. He never shows a bias towards one religion, and I believe that this is because he does not have one. He says no religion is more valuable or correct than the other, and I truly think he believes everyone can benefit from religion.

1: In telling the reader what his book is and is not Huston Smith has inadvertently revealed his personal beliefs of religion. From what he would like to write a book on we can reasonably infer these are his views and interests in religion: he tells us that he will educate on each religion's values, not give a balanced view of religion. He obviously believes religions are not about rituals or their fundamentalists, but the core values. Smith then shows his positive perspective on all religions in many ways throughout "Point of Departure", including refusing to compare the religions, and saying "[His] concern is religion at its best." Smith also says that despite attempting to be objective the book is written by and for westerners and reveals that his is an optimist by thinking all people are "citizens of the world."

2. Beginning on page 2, Smith describes four things that he says this book "is not." Do you agree or disagree with the author's decision to consciously avoid doing these things? Why or why not?

I agree with the author's decision to conciously avoid doing these things because he makes an effort to inform his readers that he is not trying to generalize the world's religions. He also admits that the topic of "world religions" is very complex, and he intends to gain a better understanding of the world's religions because he understands that the balanced view of religions would be comprised into "a list that has no end". Smith approaches this book with a sincere understanding for the complexities of religion. One important point that Smith points out is that "this book makes a real effort to communicate" it is "a book of translation."

Question #1:
From what smith says he has sampled the world's main religions, and take what he like out them and formed his own quasi-religion. If I were to be religious, that is how i would go about it; looking more at the core values, as someone else said, than the more definitive rites and rituals of the respective religions. However, this also seems a weak way to practice anything, even spirituality. He belittles the idea that religion is a set of values coupled with proper procedures of recognizing the religion. i agree with his premise that the religions would be better combined with the best elements of each (page 3). He compares religion to singing, and asks whether religion might be with one standout, or as one.

I really enjoyed how Huston Smith takes a purely informative tone with this book. He is not attempting to sway anybody in one specific religion, but instead gives us an unbiased view on religion. I fell much better reading this book knowing that I am going learn each part of each religion equally. I think Smith has the right idea for how to learn something that is completely new; you must get rid of all preconceptions, in doing this you can take things in for what they are. I am looking forward to reading this book and learning about many different religions.

I really enjoyed how Huston Smith takes a purely informative tone with this book. He is not attempting to sway anybody in one specific religion, but instead gives us an unbiased view on religion. I fell much better reading this book knowing that I am going learn each part of each religion equally. I think Smith has the right idea for how to learn something that is completely new; you must get rid of all preconceptions, in doing this you can take things in for what they are. I am looking forward to reading this book and learning about many different religions.