Areas of research: Religious folk practices, cultural appropriation in white spiritualism and paganism in America, counter culture activism, decolonising museums, interfaith studies, medical anthropology, applied anthropology, ethnology, ethnohistory, historical archaeology, white supremacy history of oppression, white fright, white fragility, intersectional feminism, and colonial slavery in New York.
Our culture likes to look at things in terms of polarity, there is no question. We prefer to thin... more Our culture likes to look at things in terms of polarity, there is no question. We prefer to think of things as either: right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, pleasant or repulsive; there is no room for everyone to be right, for looking at things as temporally permissible, or in the Japanese culture something that is called "wabi sabi," being both/none. In this paper I will attempt to connect heteronormativity, power, gender racialization, transphobia, and the politicization of gender, focusing upon the current issue of the North Carolina HB2 bathroom bill, which prohibiting transgendered individuals from using public restrooms corresponding to their self-identified gender. This American acceptance of politicking gender via media and legislation puts one perspective, one social norm, and one social group against the other. In essence, we other one another, and no other polarity that is more apparent in America is the one between those conforming to gender and those non-conforming. This enculturated practice of segregating thoughts, behaviours, and human beings from one another cannot be seen as sustainable in a world that cherishes diversity. The ideological benign sexual variation of heteronormativity is at the root of viewing anything outside the male/female paradigm as something unnatural, and unwholesome. However, if "variation is a fundamental property of all life from the simplest biological organisms to the most complex human social formations," how is gender and "sexuality supposed to conform to a single standard?" Why do we embrace diversity in some cases, and yet relegate vice to the underprivileged"? (Rubin 1993: 153) If we continue to honour the notion that there are "essential" biological criteria that unequivocally distinguishes females from males (West 1987: 131) our society will always be not only androcentric, but racist and transphobic. To be sure, heteronormativity is a "system that works to normalize behaviors and [patriarchal] societal expectations that are tied to the presumption of heterosexuality and an adherence to a strict gender binary" that supports married-monogamous sex only meant for reproduction. (Katz 2007, Nelson 2015, Stoler 1989) This gender binary by default only recognizes male and female as the only two existing sexes, where we expect and go to great lengths to police men and women to behave in very specific ways, solely based upon the premise that they are male or female. The whole trucks-are-only-for " boys, " and wearing pink is only for " girls, " dichotomy, circumvents personal choice and individual creativity. These gender roles that we're expected to perform are also based very much upon white depictions of gender. (Clark 1997, di Leonardo 1997) In this way, heteronormativity can also be racialized. "A key element of heteronormativity is meeting standards of whiteness. Every patriarchal gender role, the normalization of the gender binary, and the institution of state-sanctioned monogamy (marriage) has been used as a tool to oppress people of color." Connecting personal benefits with marriage certificates has historically allowed governments to withhold benefits to black folks and other people of color who were not allowed to marry, or have their marriages or relationships recognized in the same way. The gender binary was and is used as a tool of colonial violence, as it erases and denies the existence of non-white, non-binary identities. In fact, imposing a Western European gender binary was (and is) a major part of forced assimilation (forcing native people to adopt the culture of the people colonizing their land). Male dominance (white male dominance in particular) was and is a major driving force in imperialism and colonialism. (Nelson 2015, Stoler 1989) As Stoler states, " Colonial authority was constructed on two powerful, but false, premises. The first being the notion that Europeans in the colonies made up an easily identifiable and discreet biological and social entity; a " natural " community of common class interests, racial attributes, political affinities and superior culture. The second was the related notion that the boundaries separating colonizer from colonized were thus self-evident and easily drawn. Internal divisions developed out of conflicting economic and political agendas, frictions over appropriate methods for safeguarding European privilege and power, competing criteria for reproducing a colonial elite and for restricting its membership. " (Stoler 1989: 635) Unfortunately this was ingrained
Lips are cracking and mouths run dry. Faucets run unattended, yet we hit standby. Alien aesthetic... more Lips are cracking and mouths run dry. Faucets run unattended, yet we hit standby. Alien aesthetics on the open course, We shout " FOR! " but not " STOP! " without remorse. We bandage and cut and refuse to change, Yet all we need to do is turn the page. A new chapter, a new book, a new stanza, a new look. Cherish the rain, honour our future. Mindfulness is our nature? There is no mistake, the American West is dying. Global and regional climates have already begun changing, as a result of accumulating emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Cayan). As a nation we are faced with dire water crises that demand remedy. However, water, like oil, is seen as an unlimited resource; yet nearly 40% of rivers and streams in the U.S. are too dangerous for drinking, swimming, and fishing because of the buildup of chemical wastes (Barlow). This has given corporations a unique advantage at privatizing upon the thirsty needs of the commons. There is no mistake, without water there cannot be life, and corporations it seems know this more than anyone else. Upon the national stage then comes the issues of water rights, hierarchy of values concerning water users, anthropocentric ideologies, and the collective will for change within a so-called hydro-social cycle. With the plights of those I have interviewed, I have attempted to investigate these issues of the Anthropocene surrounding water rights and sustainability. What does it mean then to be hydro-sustainable in a country suffering with drought? Within the scope of environmentalism, Anthropologist Julie Totters describes it as how " conservationists want to protect nature as a resource for human use whereas preservationists seek to protect nature itself from human use. " How true. Rain barrels, smart water meters, and grey water systems have been installed all in the name of water savviness and responsibility. Rivers have been cut, rerouted, and sewn back together for the betterment of human civilisation, yet the system is still hemorrhaging. The construction of hydroelectric dams flood valleys to provide energy to cities miles away and irrigation for large landowners and agribusinesses downstream, but at the cost of displacing many other people and pushing them off their land, not to mention causing biodiverse ecosystems to also be displaced (Leslie). In the end will all we have be ruins of massive construction, and layers of dried up geologic strata? In the end will all we have left to drink be our own tears? This is why I advocate for making water a universal right rather than just a need. In recent drought disputes and negotiations of water rights however, a controversial issue has been whether human beings actually have a universal right to water. On the one hand, some argue that water is like any other commodity, applicable to market value and able to be economized for a profit. From this perspective, water is not simply a human right, but a corporate one in which there is an effective and beneficial use of water; reasonable security of water-use tenure; and, flexibility to reallocate water (Garduno). On the other hand, however, others argue that this only serves to protect corporation investments and business plans while taking away the equal access from local residents (Banerjee, Beitz). In the words of Jean-Michel Healey 1
" If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have ne... more " If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have never questioned the basics, and if you have no wish to do so, then you are likely ignorant. ― Vera Nazarian In this paper I will argue that the Buddha we have come to know is far from the glamour of our projected yearnings for a Supreme Being that exemplifies the progressive ideology of the 21 st century. While many may think the Buddha was vegetarian, a promoter of gender equality, and beacon of moral character, in fact it can be argued that Siddhartha was a meat-eating, woman-bashing, self-righteous man who committed suicide. Furthermore, many may think that the Buddha once attaining enlightenment, ascended directly into nirvana; when in fact he lived for a good long time teaching the dharma. To demonstrate that this is the case, I draw upon the following texts from Buddhist scholarship. First, I will examine the Buddha's bashing of Brahmins, to demonstrate his need to maintain his popularity and position of omnipotence. Then I will consider his rejection and treatment of women to argue an encultured misogyny within Buddhist sects. Finally, I will conclude by providing the account of the Buddha's death, and how by the use of poisoned mushrooms, the Buddha took his own life. These three examples not only show a much different personality than we are accustomed, but show that no matter how hard we try to romanticize spiritual leaders, and no matter how enlightened, that they are still very much flawed human beings. Buddha was a bully who needed to prove his dharma was better than the dharma of the Brahmins. He was not your friend, and he even went so far as to tell people not to call him as such. " Bhikkhus, do not address the Tathagata by name and as " friend. " The Tathagata is an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One. " (Lopez 2015: 129) The Buddha that we westerners have come to know, and my dear aunt Debbie has come to know, and the Buddha of antiquity are two very different beings. This is most likely due to the fact that Buddhism is now popular, and back then it was just emerging from the mud. In order for any spiritual sect, there is a time of rebellious identity and maturation. Obviously, the Buddha was still in his spiritual adolescence when he belittles the Brahmins calling them " stupid, laughable, and vain. " (2015: 184) In the passage of the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha counsels two bickering Brahmins who want to know whose methods for unification with Brahma are more effective. The Buddha condemns them both, making fun of their teachers, and asking whether or not they have ever seen or heard of a teacher who has attained unity according to their teachings. " He points out that none of the brahmins from the teachers of the present day to the great seers of the past, has ever seen Brahma, and convinces them that it is impossible to know how. " (2015: 182) Furthermore, the Buddha goes all in and blames them for not being able due to their addictions to the five pleasurable senses, and calls them covetous, angry, lazy, and full of worry and doubt. Basically, he calls the Brahmins ill fitted to serve as Brahmins and demeans them to their face. Are these the actions of a fully awakened one? Or is bullying a part of the job description? Next we see examples of how the Buddha, after achieving enlightenment, spoke of women, and upon his deathbed no less, which would be a time to make right one's wrongs or rewrite some misunderstandings. Granted, during this time children and women were seen as property by the everyday person; however, wouldn't a Buddha, an Awakened One, be able to see past gender lines, societal mores, and a heteronormative binary having seen that he was once a woman himself? Especially during a time where India had more than two genders? " Do not see them, do not speak to them, " (2015:168) he says in The Mahaparinibbana Sutta. This can be open to debate of whether or not he actually said this, or if it was just misogynist monks trying to
" Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stone... more " Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road. " ― Voltaire As the spread of Buddhism travelled outward from India, it encountered civilisations already well established, yet none so well as the Lands of Kan (China) and Wa (Japan). In this paper I will propose that the one element of distinction between China and Japanese Buddhism that is most prevalent is an element of bloody suppression and philosophic acceptance. While many may think that Buddhism has always been a religion of nonviolence, in fact an atmosphere of militarization, strict criticism of innovation, and persecution was often the case, especially in Japan. To demonstrate that this is the case, I draw upon the reception of the words of both Chinese and Japanese masters. First, I will examine the well reception of diverse opinion in China with Master Huiyan, and the accepted " critique of everything " via nonsectarian philosophy salons. Then I will consider the very sectarian exile of Masters Honen and Shinran, the ostracizing of Dogen, and even the persecution of the Daruma-shu buddhists. Finally, I will conclude by providing the arrest, exile, and failed assassination attempt on Nichiren, and the toll such deception of friendships had on the spirit of such an enlightened thinker. New ideas and interpretations have always been seen as suspect amongst Buddhist circles, however, this critique has always been seen as healthy and needed, much like a dissertation board. Out of tough love comes even richer thoughts and well founded theses. China it seems was more accepting of dissent, so much so that even war lords respected the wit and dharmic authority and power of monks over their own. Spell Master Huiyuan, who studied under Master Daoan and Fotudeng, was as well rehearsed in immortal alchemy as he was rhetoric. When his temple was under siege he was able to protect the sangha with the words, " monks do not revere emperors. " 1 He would later go on to write his defense for a political autonomy separate from the emperor, as many at the time felt that abandoning one's familial duties was sacrilege and irresponsible. Huiyuan would counter to this that ultimately to be a Buddhist was not a family shame but a strength and an incredible honour. It should be noted that the same temple for Kungfu and Chan Zen Buddhism originated at the same Shaolin temple and allowed monks to defend themselves in a very holistic manner. So here again we see a Buddhism reinforced with muscle. However the main muscle that would distinguish Chinese from Japanese Buddhism would be the brain muscle, and the want for reasonable rational nonviolent philosophical debate. In China, before Buddhism came, there was Confucianism and Daosim, two traditions that heavily enjoy the format of debate. This is probably why the Prajnaparamita sutras, with their emphasis on the philosophy of nothingness, and the critique of everything appealed to the Chinese of the time. These sutras would be so much more than mere food for thought for these thinkers, and is no doubt the very reason why philosopher salons developed out of a cultural appreciation for " deep critical inquiry into reality. " 2 Besides a vast cultural divide between China and Japan, once Buddhism was transmitted to Japan during the late Asuka early Nara
"It is not the beauty of a building you should look at; it's the construction of the foundation t... more "It is not the beauty of a building you should look at; it's the construction of the foundation that will stand the test of time."-David Allan Coe In this paper I will analyse The 1994 Paul Furfey Lecture entitled, "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women" by Rodney Stark. I will argue that Stark while perhaps having accurate points of the importance of women in the flourishing of the early church, his points are not at all very valid. To demonstrate that this is the case, I draw upon key fallacies within his research. First, I will examine how Stark falls victim to ecological fallacy, and reductionism via the error of misusing the Guttentag and Secord theory. Finally, I will conclude by suggesting more research, and ultimately archaeological fieldwork is needed to most accurately and validly deduce the impacts of the early Christian religious movements on women, and ultimately on society. Stark's argument is that Christianity did not became the most dominant religion in the world due to mass conversion via public preaching and miracle working. Instead, he posits that it was because of women, more specifically women afforded higher social capital upon conversion who were not victims of female infanticide or abortion1 who were living in a time of increased female sex ratios. Such women were primary converts who "took active roles in their own conversion, and became committed adherents based on positive evaluations of the particular faith."2 Such women, he goes on, saw Christianity more socially appealing because it afforded them a bit more control over their bodily autonomy, their wealth upon the death of a husband, and position of power within the church3. I find it interesting that Stark chose primarily secondary sources and the Guttentag and Secord's theory concerning sex ratios which reduces in effect women to a surplus crop to bolster his thesis instead of primary sources that would not contribute to the many research fallacies that render his position invalid. Again and again Stark tries to compare the early church rate of growth to that of the Mormon Church rate of growth and even Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Swedenborgians, and Spiritualists; currently all macro-level institutions to the micro-level individuals of the early church. This is why Stark falls victim to ecological fallacy. Reductionism happens when one takes mismatched evidence of a large scale and generalises it to a smaller one. It would seem to me that there are many other ways to showcase the importance of women in the spreading of early Christian doctrine without having to quantitatively support such notions that ultimately misses the mark and erases the qualitative implications of the real popularity of a religious movement. Stark ends on more of a shaky note discussing the relative status of Christian women in comparison to women in the Greco-Roman world focusing on "the improved status of women in the Christian subculture."4 It is here that 1 Rodney Stark
Our culture likes to look at things in terms of polarity, there is no question. We prefer to thin... more Our culture likes to look at things in terms of polarity, there is no question. We prefer to think of things as either: right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, pleasant or repulsive; there is no room for everyone to be right, for looking at things as temporally permissible, or in the Japanese culture something that is called "wabi sabi," being both/none. In this paper I will attempt to connect heteronormativity, power, gender racialization, transphobia, and the politicization of gender, focusing upon the current issue of the North Carolina HB2 bathroom bill, which prohibiting transgendered individuals from using public restrooms corresponding to their self-identified gender. This American acceptance of politicking gender via media and legislation puts one perspective, one social norm, and one social group against the other. In essence, we other one another, and no other polarity that is more apparent in America is the one between those conforming to gender and those non-conforming. This enculturated practice of segregating thoughts, behaviours, and human beings from one another cannot be seen as sustainable in a world that cherishes diversity. The ideological benign sexual variation of heteronormativity is at the root of viewing anything outside the male/female paradigm as something unnatural, and unwholesome. However, if "variation is a fundamental property of all life from the simplest biological organisms to the most complex human social formations," how is gender and "sexuality supposed to conform to a single standard?" Why do we embrace diversity in some cases, and yet relegate vice to the underprivileged"? (Rubin 1993: 153) If we continue to honour the notion that there are "essential" biological criteria that unequivocally distinguishes females from males (West 1987: 131) our society will always be not only androcentric, but racist and transphobic. To be sure, heteronormativity is a "system that works to normalize behaviors and [patriarchal] societal expectations that are tied to the presumption of heterosexuality and an adherence to a strict gender binary" that supports married-monogamous sex only meant for reproduction. (Katz 2007, Nelson 2015, Stoler 1989) This gender binary by default only recognizes male and female as the only two existing sexes, where we expect and go to great lengths to police men and women to behave in very specific ways, solely based upon the premise that they are male or female. The whole trucks-are-only-for " boys, " and wearing pink is only for " girls, " dichotomy, circumvents personal choice and individual creativity. These gender roles that we're expected to perform are also based very much upon white depictions of gender. (Clark 1997, di Leonardo 1997) In this way, heteronormativity can also be racialized. "A key element of heteronormativity is meeting standards of whiteness. Every patriarchal gender role, the normalization of the gender binary, and the institution of state-sanctioned monogamy (marriage) has been used as a tool to oppress people of color." Connecting personal benefits with marriage certificates has historically allowed governments to withhold benefits to black folks and other people of color who were not allowed to marry, or have their marriages or relationships recognized in the same way. The gender binary was and is used as a tool of colonial violence, as it erases and denies the existence of non-white, non-binary identities. In fact, imposing a Western European gender binary was (and is) a major part of forced assimilation (forcing native people to adopt the culture of the people colonizing their land). Male dominance (white male dominance in particular) was and is a major driving force in imperialism and colonialism. (Nelson 2015, Stoler 1989) As Stoler states, " Colonial authority was constructed on two powerful, but false, premises. The first being the notion that Europeans in the colonies made up an easily identifiable and discreet biological and social entity; a " natural " community of common class interests, racial attributes, political affinities and superior culture. The second was the related notion that the boundaries separating colonizer from colonized were thus self-evident and easily drawn. Internal divisions developed out of conflicting economic and political agendas, frictions over appropriate methods for safeguarding European privilege and power, competing criteria for reproducing a colonial elite and for restricting its membership. " (Stoler 1989: 635) Unfortunately this was ingrained
Lips are cracking and mouths run dry. Faucets run unattended, yet we hit standby. Alien aesthetic... more Lips are cracking and mouths run dry. Faucets run unattended, yet we hit standby. Alien aesthetics on the open course, We shout " FOR! " but not " STOP! " without remorse. We bandage and cut and refuse to change, Yet all we need to do is turn the page. A new chapter, a new book, a new stanza, a new look. Cherish the rain, honour our future. Mindfulness is our nature? There is no mistake, the American West is dying. Global and regional climates have already begun changing, as a result of accumulating emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Cayan). As a nation we are faced with dire water crises that demand remedy. However, water, like oil, is seen as an unlimited resource; yet nearly 40% of rivers and streams in the U.S. are too dangerous for drinking, swimming, and fishing because of the buildup of chemical wastes (Barlow). This has given corporations a unique advantage at privatizing upon the thirsty needs of the commons. There is no mistake, without water there cannot be life, and corporations it seems know this more than anyone else. Upon the national stage then comes the issues of water rights, hierarchy of values concerning water users, anthropocentric ideologies, and the collective will for change within a so-called hydro-social cycle. With the plights of those I have interviewed, I have attempted to investigate these issues of the Anthropocene surrounding water rights and sustainability. What does it mean then to be hydro-sustainable in a country suffering with drought? Within the scope of environmentalism, Anthropologist Julie Totters describes it as how " conservationists want to protect nature as a resource for human use whereas preservationists seek to protect nature itself from human use. " How true. Rain barrels, smart water meters, and grey water systems have been installed all in the name of water savviness and responsibility. Rivers have been cut, rerouted, and sewn back together for the betterment of human civilisation, yet the system is still hemorrhaging. The construction of hydroelectric dams flood valleys to provide energy to cities miles away and irrigation for large landowners and agribusinesses downstream, but at the cost of displacing many other people and pushing them off their land, not to mention causing biodiverse ecosystems to also be displaced (Leslie). In the end will all we have be ruins of massive construction, and layers of dried up geologic strata? In the end will all we have left to drink be our own tears? This is why I advocate for making water a universal right rather than just a need. In recent drought disputes and negotiations of water rights however, a controversial issue has been whether human beings actually have a universal right to water. On the one hand, some argue that water is like any other commodity, applicable to market value and able to be economized for a profit. From this perspective, water is not simply a human right, but a corporate one in which there is an effective and beneficial use of water; reasonable security of water-use tenure; and, flexibility to reallocate water (Garduno). On the other hand, however, others argue that this only serves to protect corporation investments and business plans while taking away the equal access from local residents (Banerjee, Beitz). In the words of Jean-Michel Healey 1
" If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have ne... more " If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have never questioned the basics, and if you have no wish to do so, then you are likely ignorant. ― Vera Nazarian In this paper I will argue that the Buddha we have come to know is far from the glamour of our projected yearnings for a Supreme Being that exemplifies the progressive ideology of the 21 st century. While many may think the Buddha was vegetarian, a promoter of gender equality, and beacon of moral character, in fact it can be argued that Siddhartha was a meat-eating, woman-bashing, self-righteous man who committed suicide. Furthermore, many may think that the Buddha once attaining enlightenment, ascended directly into nirvana; when in fact he lived for a good long time teaching the dharma. To demonstrate that this is the case, I draw upon the following texts from Buddhist scholarship. First, I will examine the Buddha's bashing of Brahmins, to demonstrate his need to maintain his popularity and position of omnipotence. Then I will consider his rejection and treatment of women to argue an encultured misogyny within Buddhist sects. Finally, I will conclude by providing the account of the Buddha's death, and how by the use of poisoned mushrooms, the Buddha took his own life. These three examples not only show a much different personality than we are accustomed, but show that no matter how hard we try to romanticize spiritual leaders, and no matter how enlightened, that they are still very much flawed human beings. Buddha was a bully who needed to prove his dharma was better than the dharma of the Brahmins. He was not your friend, and he even went so far as to tell people not to call him as such. " Bhikkhus, do not address the Tathagata by name and as " friend. " The Tathagata is an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One. " (Lopez 2015: 129) The Buddha that we westerners have come to know, and my dear aunt Debbie has come to know, and the Buddha of antiquity are two very different beings. This is most likely due to the fact that Buddhism is now popular, and back then it was just emerging from the mud. In order for any spiritual sect, there is a time of rebellious identity and maturation. Obviously, the Buddha was still in his spiritual adolescence when he belittles the Brahmins calling them " stupid, laughable, and vain. " (2015: 184) In the passage of the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha counsels two bickering Brahmins who want to know whose methods for unification with Brahma are more effective. The Buddha condemns them both, making fun of their teachers, and asking whether or not they have ever seen or heard of a teacher who has attained unity according to their teachings. " He points out that none of the brahmins from the teachers of the present day to the great seers of the past, has ever seen Brahma, and convinces them that it is impossible to know how. " (2015: 182) Furthermore, the Buddha goes all in and blames them for not being able due to their addictions to the five pleasurable senses, and calls them covetous, angry, lazy, and full of worry and doubt. Basically, he calls the Brahmins ill fitted to serve as Brahmins and demeans them to their face. Are these the actions of a fully awakened one? Or is bullying a part of the job description? Next we see examples of how the Buddha, after achieving enlightenment, spoke of women, and upon his deathbed no less, which would be a time to make right one's wrongs or rewrite some misunderstandings. Granted, during this time children and women were seen as property by the everyday person; however, wouldn't a Buddha, an Awakened One, be able to see past gender lines, societal mores, and a heteronormative binary having seen that he was once a woman himself? Especially during a time where India had more than two genders? " Do not see them, do not speak to them, " (2015:168) he says in The Mahaparinibbana Sutta. This can be open to debate of whether or not he actually said this, or if it was just misogynist monks trying to
" Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stone... more " Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road. " ― Voltaire As the spread of Buddhism travelled outward from India, it encountered civilisations already well established, yet none so well as the Lands of Kan (China) and Wa (Japan). In this paper I will propose that the one element of distinction between China and Japanese Buddhism that is most prevalent is an element of bloody suppression and philosophic acceptance. While many may think that Buddhism has always been a religion of nonviolence, in fact an atmosphere of militarization, strict criticism of innovation, and persecution was often the case, especially in Japan. To demonstrate that this is the case, I draw upon the reception of the words of both Chinese and Japanese masters. First, I will examine the well reception of diverse opinion in China with Master Huiyan, and the accepted " critique of everything " via nonsectarian philosophy salons. Then I will consider the very sectarian exile of Masters Honen and Shinran, the ostracizing of Dogen, and even the persecution of the Daruma-shu buddhists. Finally, I will conclude by providing the arrest, exile, and failed assassination attempt on Nichiren, and the toll such deception of friendships had on the spirit of such an enlightened thinker. New ideas and interpretations have always been seen as suspect amongst Buddhist circles, however, this critique has always been seen as healthy and needed, much like a dissertation board. Out of tough love comes even richer thoughts and well founded theses. China it seems was more accepting of dissent, so much so that even war lords respected the wit and dharmic authority and power of monks over their own. Spell Master Huiyuan, who studied under Master Daoan and Fotudeng, was as well rehearsed in immortal alchemy as he was rhetoric. When his temple was under siege he was able to protect the sangha with the words, " monks do not revere emperors. " 1 He would later go on to write his defense for a political autonomy separate from the emperor, as many at the time felt that abandoning one's familial duties was sacrilege and irresponsible. Huiyuan would counter to this that ultimately to be a Buddhist was not a family shame but a strength and an incredible honour. It should be noted that the same temple for Kungfu and Chan Zen Buddhism originated at the same Shaolin temple and allowed monks to defend themselves in a very holistic manner. So here again we see a Buddhism reinforced with muscle. However the main muscle that would distinguish Chinese from Japanese Buddhism would be the brain muscle, and the want for reasonable rational nonviolent philosophical debate. In China, before Buddhism came, there was Confucianism and Daosim, two traditions that heavily enjoy the format of debate. This is probably why the Prajnaparamita sutras, with their emphasis on the philosophy of nothingness, and the critique of everything appealed to the Chinese of the time. These sutras would be so much more than mere food for thought for these thinkers, and is no doubt the very reason why philosopher salons developed out of a cultural appreciation for " deep critical inquiry into reality. " 2 Besides a vast cultural divide between China and Japan, once Buddhism was transmitted to Japan during the late Asuka early Nara
"It is not the beauty of a building you should look at; it's the construction of the foundation t... more "It is not the beauty of a building you should look at; it's the construction of the foundation that will stand the test of time."-David Allan Coe In this paper I will analyse The 1994 Paul Furfey Lecture entitled, "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women" by Rodney Stark. I will argue that Stark while perhaps having accurate points of the importance of women in the flourishing of the early church, his points are not at all very valid. To demonstrate that this is the case, I draw upon key fallacies within his research. First, I will examine how Stark falls victim to ecological fallacy, and reductionism via the error of misusing the Guttentag and Secord theory. Finally, I will conclude by suggesting more research, and ultimately archaeological fieldwork is needed to most accurately and validly deduce the impacts of the early Christian religious movements on women, and ultimately on society. Stark's argument is that Christianity did not became the most dominant religion in the world due to mass conversion via public preaching and miracle working. Instead, he posits that it was because of women, more specifically women afforded higher social capital upon conversion who were not victims of female infanticide or abortion1 who were living in a time of increased female sex ratios. Such women were primary converts who "took active roles in their own conversion, and became committed adherents based on positive evaluations of the particular faith."2 Such women, he goes on, saw Christianity more socially appealing because it afforded them a bit more control over their bodily autonomy, their wealth upon the death of a husband, and position of power within the church3. I find it interesting that Stark chose primarily secondary sources and the Guttentag and Secord's theory concerning sex ratios which reduces in effect women to a surplus crop to bolster his thesis instead of primary sources that would not contribute to the many research fallacies that render his position invalid. Again and again Stark tries to compare the early church rate of growth to that of the Mormon Church rate of growth and even Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Swedenborgians, and Spiritualists; currently all macro-level institutions to the micro-level individuals of the early church. This is why Stark falls victim to ecological fallacy. Reductionism happens when one takes mismatched evidence of a large scale and generalises it to a smaller one. It would seem to me that there are many other ways to showcase the importance of women in the spreading of early Christian doctrine without having to quantitatively support such notions that ultimately misses the mark and erases the qualitative implications of the real popularity of a religious movement. Stark ends on more of a shaky note discussing the relative status of Christian women in comparison to women in the Greco-Roman world focusing on "the improved status of women in the Christian subculture."4 It is here that 1 Rodney Stark
Uploads