From our first class I would like to review both of the papers that we went over.

The first was Part 1. The Vedic Period. I found this rather interesting in the way it explained the law of Karma and how it a they believed would even effect the gods. I understood it as any sin of your past will eventually come back around to you. It explained that the only be free from Karma responsibility to ones self, and because of this the burden of social service is left behind. “it is said that there is no emphasis on the bearing of one another burdens.” Though in reality it states that we can only be free from Karma through social service. Now, what I find interesting with Karma is how it takes the position that there is naturally good and evil actions, and that performing ether will make you “reap what you sow”. It states that because of our unconscious actions become unconscious habit, the only was to break free of the cycle of Karma is to pause and reflect on what happened before you act. I don't agree with this. I use the example of one person wronging another, and the person wronged takes the time to think over what has happened, but instead of turning the other cheek he gets revenge, for lack of a better word. He adheres to the way the Vedic says to overcome Karma, but still breaks in by choosing a “evil action”. It takes the point of view that there is a standard immorality and a standard “evil” that I believe is more of a cultural belief and structure. The next paper we went over is “The Three Dimensions Of A Complete Life” by Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King talks about what he believes is needed for one to have a complete life, and uses the analogy of length width and height. For the most part I agree with what he stated, that life should be measure in length or how far one is willing to go to take care of themselves and provide for there internal welfare. The width or how far one is willing to go to care for others and spread what help they can to everyone. The one I disagree with is the height, or as he put it, how close is one to god. I think that this part had to come from his background and his life, being a minister, but I believe it limits the morals and the guidance that his sermon could provide. I believe that instead of closeness to god could be replaced with something more universal, perhaps height of ones achievements, would better make this wonderful speech more applicable to the world.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.