Final Round: Crucifixion and Resurrection

Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection are of the most important part of the Gospels. Both John and Mark spend a long time talking about the Last Supper, of Judas' betrayal and the judgement of Jesus. There is one thing in which Mark focuses the most, which is on Jesus' humiliation. He talks a whole deal of how they spat on him, they whipped him and let him to die in the cross. Reading the crucifixion according to Mark was like watching "The Passion of the Christ" with less blood.
Earlier in the Gospel, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection three times, but nobody really understand what he says. Later, when he relates the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, everything becomes clear to everyone. Still, nobody does anything to stop it because "it is written". Judas betrays Jesus, even when he predicts it in the Last Supper, and Peter, like Jesus predicted, "That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."(Mark 14:30).
 It seem it really was written, because even when Jesus warned them ahead, they both did what they were meant to do. What later came was a perfect portrayal of "The Passion of the Christ". Like the Gospel said:
"And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, and began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him."(Mark 15:17-20). I remember watching this in the movie, and it really was as terrible (or worse) as it sounds.
In the end, after Jesus finally dies, he is buried and three days later, he resurrects and ascends to heaven while his disciples spread his message. This part in the Gospel of Mark was a little short. John, on the other hand, focused more on the resurrection than on the crucifixion's details (then again, there were some things that appeared in Mark that didn't on John and vice-versa). Anyway, I suppose that if you combine what each Gospel says, we can have a very good account of how the life, death and resurrection of the Christ was. They all seem to have something the other one doesn't have, and so they must somehow complement each other.

Round 2: Jesus' Teachings According to Mark

Throughout the Gospel, Jesus keeps on performing miracles. Like in John, he makes many blind people see and cures the diseases on many others. There was one particular case in which Jesus cures the a man at Bethsaida. This man is also mentioned in the Gospel According to John. In both Gospels the story is:
"And he cometh to Bethsai'da; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.

And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught. And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up; and he was restored, and saw every man clearly. And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town."(Mark 8:22-26, John 9:1-7).
It didn't happen exactly in each Gospel, since John pursued the story of them an further, having a trial over Jesus' actions by the Pharisees later, but it's the first healed person mentioned in both Gospels. Each Gospel has very different people who were cured by Jesus, and this is the only one in which they agree.
Going back to Mark, this Gospel has many teachings and very straight forward actions Jesus believes in (in contrast with John, in which no much was mentioned except for the lamb of God and how Jesus had come to save humanity). For example, Jesus talks about marriage and divorce. If you leave your husband/wife in divorce, you are committing adultery to him/her. It seems that to Jesus, you are married forever to the person you chose. Now that I think about it, I didn't even know divorce existed in that time. In that case, I know a lot of people who are committing adultery against their partner but they seem to be OK with it. It's just modern times. I wonder if they will go to hell for that (I hope not).
Jesus also told a rich boy to give away everything he had in order to go to heaven. He then said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25). I suppose I won't be able to go to heaven then, because I wouldn't be able to leave everything I had to go to heaven. I mean, I would if money weren't so important to survive these days. People say that money isn't the most important thing, but I say that it is at least in the top five. You need money to get a good education, get a good job and then get a good home where you can take care of your family and be able to survive. Have you ever seen the movie "In the Pursuit of Happyness"? That explains it all. Money is key to survive in the harsh world we live in today. It might not be the source of happiness, but at least it's the source of tranquility. Anyway, I suppose it would have been easier during Jesus' time. I hope he doesn't kick me out of heaven when I die for having lived a comfortable youth.

Round 1: Mark vs. John

I started to read the Gospel According to Mark as my second task after reading the Gospel of John. I thought they would be the same because apparently the Gospels are Jesus' story, and there can't be too many differences in one same story.
What I have been finding as I read is that it does seem like the same story with the same general plot line. However, there are some small differences of what happened and how the story is told. Until now, there are many things that happened according to John that didn't happen according to Mark and vice-versa. Also, the two Gospels agree on some things while they differ on others.
For example, in both Gospels Jesus was able to heal people and even resurrect them. However, the Gospel According to Mark assures that Jesus was also able to perform exorcisms on possessed people. In fact, it was one of his most popular abilities. Like it was mentioned:
 "And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him."(Mark 1:32-34).
In John, evil spirits are never mentioned, and Jesus never heals so many people. Jesus' miracles were not so frequent in John, while in Mark (like the aphorism would indicate) Jesus has no real problem in healing anyone that might have faith in him.
Something that came up in Mark that I hadn't seen in John were the parables. The parables (from what I read) was like Jesus' way to spread the word of God in metaphors. For example The Parable of the Sower, were he explains how the good people are ready to receive the teachings of God. Another parable would be the Parable of the Mustard Seed that goes:
"And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?

 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: but when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it." (Mark 4:30-32).
Again, I found in Mark's Gospel that Jesus chose his twelve disciples, and to them, he didn't give them parables, but gave them the teachings with no complications and even gave them healing and exorcist powers. John never really mentioned were the disciples came from, although he states (several times) that Judas will be the one to betray Jesus. I wonder why both Gospels say from so early in the story that Judas was the betrayer. Maybe the hate him a lot.
There is one part in which the two Gospels are totally agreeing with, which is the part of the angry Pharisees. This part (which if this Gospel is similar to John) will be seen again further on. Probably in this Gospel, the Pharisees will also be the ones who will want to kill Jesus.

INRI

What came next on the Gospel According to John was the main reason why Jesus is such an important figure in Christianity. This is when Jesus is caught, humiliated and finally crucified by the Jews. The time when he completes his mission on Earth finally arrives. Like the Gospel said:
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3).
Every Spring Break, I wonder what would have happened if it hadn't been that way. What would have happened if Jesus hadn't been crucified and later resurrected?
First of all, I've always been impressed with Jesus' will to keep on with the torture. He was the Son of God he could have avoided the whole situation if he had wanted to. However, he wanted to sacrifice himself for humanity. He loved us so much he accepted endless torture and humiliation only to save our sinful souls.  Besides, he didn't really die. He knew he was going to resurrect, and that way he could prove he really was the Son of God, and start his new alliance (religion). It apparently worked because today, more than one third of the world population is Christian.
In the end, Jesus' sacrifice was good for everyone, and it was planned so that it would end well (somehow). Still, I can't help but think how evil was incorporated into this. Judas betrayed Jesus (it had been foreseen) to the Pharisees, which were in an awful need to kill him. They wanted to see him dead for claiming he was the King of Jews and the Son of God. They were even happy to let the evil Barabbas free in order to crucify Jesus.
Peter was a very disappointing case. During the Last Supper, he claimed he would give his life for Jesus. However, like Jesus had predicted, before the crow crew, Peter had already denied him three times. What a perfect display of hypocrisy.
Pilate is sort of a different situation. He didn't want to condemn Jesus at all. He did all he could to appease the angry Jews, but they only wanted Jesus' blood. Like the Gospel said:
" And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."(John19:12).
He really had no choice. If he let Jesus go, the Jews might make a scandal over Pilate ignoring the Caesar as the emperor. His very own life was at stake, so he couldn't sacrifice it over some weird Jew scandal. All Pilate can say to comfort himself is that Jesus didn't expect him to save him at all. I wonder if he ever felt remorse over what he did.
The happy ending of this story was that Jesus resurrected after the horrible ordeal he had to endure. I think we should all be thankful for the huge sacrifice Jesus made to save our sorry butts from burning in the fires of hell, and actually give us a chance of forgiveness.

Miracle Man

Jesus keeps on working on his mission. He keeps on spreading the word of God, and continues to make miracles. However, there are many who don't like Jesus at all. Jesus had previously cured a man at the pool of Bethesda. Many Jews grew angry because he had done so during sabbath. His breaking of the sabbath made them think he was a devil, or an evil person. They insisted on this when he kept curing people without really paying attention at the sabbath. He made a man who was blind since birth see, but he again did so during sabbath. This controversy created the following arguments:
"This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" (John 9:16). I really don't understand how they denied Jesus after all the miracles he was performing in the name of God. During that time, science and technology were in no way capable of disproving those miracles in the name of God. There was simply no way to scientifically deny that Jesus had cured the man's blindness with spittle clay. He even resurrected Lazarus after he'd been dead for four days. There's not enough science today to prove it can be scientifically done. There's no way to prove it wasn't a miracle which required the power of God to do so. So why did they keep denying him? What was the reason for the Pharisees to think an evil person could accomplish actions of good?
Several times they tried to stone Jesus, and poor Jesus insisted on his mission. I don't understand why Jesus would try to convince them anymore. He already knew that the Pharisees would try to kill him, so there was no real hope on making them see he was the real son of God. I think Jesus always knew what his fate was, because that was the real reason why he had been sent to this world. He even warned his disciples about it in the Last Supper. Like the Gospel said:
"Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."(John 13:1).
It had been foreseen by Jesus a long time ago, and he was fully prepared for the horrors that were yet to come.

The Word of Jesus

In our path of reading the Bible and understanding the teachings of God, we have finally arrived to one of the crucial parts of Christianity: the Gospels. Surprisingly, as I started reading the Gospel according to John, I noticed I was familiar with many things that were mentioned. It appears to be that that's what I've been hearing in church, especially a few months ago during Easter Week.
In any case, this Gospel seems to be about Jesus' life as the Son of God. To me, Jesus is one of the most important characters that have ever existed. He was born from the Virgin Mary in a stable. He preached the lessons of God, and performed miracles for the benefit of the people. He came to Earth to save our poor and miserable humanity, and he shared all of human conditions except for sin. He let himself be crucified to save us, and he resurrected as the Holy Ghost so he can come back on the final day to judge us.
Jesus is the merciful part of God. In the Old Testament, God appeared as an almighty and sometimes fearful being. He had his temper, and he had no mercy over those who acted against his will. Jesus came to Earth as a fragile baby, and had to grow up as a human child to later become an adult. He worked to accomplish his mission of spreading the word of God, and bringing a message of hope of an eternal afterlife. Like he proclaimed:
"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:47-51)
 His message was also of mercy and forgiveness, which is a very important part of the Catholic faith. Even when one has sinned, Jesus will be able to forgive you and protect you. Like he did with the woman caught committing adultery. The men asked Jesus if he would let them stone her, and he replied that those who were free of sin could do so freely. When everybody realized it, they went away in shame and Jesus asked, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11).
I really believe Jesus is a vital part of the Catholic faith, and if it weren't for his teachings it would be very hard for me to believe in the Catholic religion. I like Jesus' message, and even if some people say he didn't exist, I think the idea of Jesus is a great one. I can believe in his teachings whether he existed or not, or even if he wasn't the messiah at all, even if he was just a regular person. I feel his message is a very valuable one.

Not Possible!

The rest of Tao Te Ching was like hearing Lao Tze complain about bad governments and give his opinion on how he thought it should change. It seems as if the whole book had just been centered on that particular point. All the aspects of Tao applied to his reasons of how the government was wrong and how a government which followed the Tao would be a perfect country. He was almost painting his own version of Utopia.
What the Tao Te Ching highlights the most is the state of not acting. Therefore, Lao Tze uses it to criticize the rulers, and model a type of government he wants to be ruled by.
 He says that a government that interferes too much causes people to starve, rebel and lose the value for their life. Like the book said:
 " Why are the people starving? Because the rulers eat up their money in taxes...Why are the people rebellious? Because the government interferes too much... Why do the people think so little of death? Because the rulers demand too much f life."(pg.77, chapter 75). In other words, a leader who interferes is a bad ruler. "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer the people become...The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers."(pg.59, chapter 57).
What Lao Tze wants is a government that rules with little actions. He almost wants a ruler to make the presence of a ruler, but make no restrictions over the people. This way, he thinks that people will freely do good, and respect one another without caring about having wealth or food, and live happily ever after!
There's something about that magnificent view that just doesn't fit well. I think Lao Tze hasn't heard about the Tree of Knowledge and doesn't know that people on the inside tend to look for the best for themselves. People are not going to follow the Tao unless someone somehow forces them to. However, he doesn't want a ruler to force laws upon them, so there's a small complication between what he wants and what lies between the possible limits.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that his dreamed Utopia is not possible inside the normal parameters of the universe and human capabilities.

Redifining Tao and Its Power

As I move on with the teachings of the Tao, I'm discovering there is still too much of it I don't understand, and as I read on, I keep finding more and more teachings that try to explain the Tao better.
From the chapters I read, I've confirmed that the Tao is something impossible to fully understand. Like the book says, "The Tao is forever undefined. Small though it is in the unformed state, it cannot be grasped."(pg.34 chapter 32). As I previously thought, it is the way of nature, and all the "ten thousand things" to which Tao is their source come back to it as it were their master, even if it's not. (pg. 36, chapter 34). The book also mentioned that if someone were able to control the Tao, he/she would be in control of the "ten thousand things". All the world would obey easily and everything would be as the controller of the Tao wants it to be. It's very good luck for us that the Tao is so impossible to grasp. I couldn't imagine what would happen if so much power could fall in a single person's hands. That would mean that everything and everybody on Earth would have to obey that person like we obey the Tao now (only this time we would be able to see what is that weird force that's making us do so many weird things). So I really hope the Tao stays just as it is: invisible, untouchable, unchanging and free (especially).
I also found that the Tao teaches about war. It obviously recommends not to use violence or weapons, but it said that when there's no choice, you must conquer without rejoicing over your victory, and you must not delight in it because it means you find pleasure in killing.
I wonder why the Chinese thinkers (Confucius and Lao Tze) I've been reading lately are so inclined to make their books so political. Confucius makes some of his teachings as if they were directed to someone with power. From the Analects for example:
 "Do not impose on other what you yourself do not desire."(15:24). "Impose" to me sounds like a ruler making choices for others who have no way of making their own or even protesting. From this I concluded that Confucius is trying to tell rulers to be fair with their people. I also came to think that maybe his book was indirectly written to people of high power so they would become better rulers from reading his book. Tao Te Ching makes its political appearance when the narrator says, "Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao..."(pg.32, chapter 30), and then advises about avoiding violence and war.
These two books were clearly trying to make a difference on the Chinese rulers of that time, and mold them the way each one of them thought a ruler should be. That's just something I thought of as I read, so it's not necessarily true. It was just a thought I wanted to consider.

What is the Tao?

The Tao Te Ching is starting to give some very important concepts of life. I recall that one of our class QUESTions was, "Why is  the world unjust?". The Tao Te Ching answers that question very simply, and quite originally. Its answer was:
"Accept disgrace willingly. Accept misfortune as the human condition."(pg.15, Chapter 13). The book explained that accepting disgrace willingly meant accepting being unimportant, and you shouldn't worry about losing or gaining, but simply satisfy yourself with what you already have.  Accepting misfortune as the human condition meant that being human meant having misfortune, and that's all there is to it.
From what I am understanding, the Tao is something you can't feel, touch or hear, but it's there all the same. It mysteriously formed, and is standing alone and unchanging. According to the text, it is one of the four powers of the universe, and it follows what is natural. It tells you it is impossible to do anything to achieve it, so you have to do exactly the opposite: do nothing. One of the teachings the Tao has is, " Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom, and it will be a hundred times better for everyone. Give up learning and put an end to your troubles." (pg.21-22 Chapter 19-20). It was impressive to read this ,especially after reading the Essential Analects of Confucius, which were all about learning and gaining wisdom. The Tao says not to bother yourself with those troubles, and instead follow its natural flow. It says that you'll achieve great things by not acting. For example:
"...the wise embrace the one and set an example to all. Not putting on a display, they shine forth. Not justifying themselves, they are distinguished. Not boasting, they receive recognition. Not bragging, they never falter. They do not quarrel, so no one quarrels with them. Therefore, the ancients say, ´Yield and overcome´." (pg.24 Chapter22). It's interesting how effective not acting can be. This must be what the Tao is about: not acting is the way of nature.

The Beginning of Tao

I just began to read Tao Te Ching, and I'm beginning to tag it as one of the strangest books I've ever read. I don't mean it in a bad way, because I'm actually starting to like it a little. What strikes me as weird of the text is that it bases its teachings upon very common aspects of life we can relate to, but we have never thought of before in that way. He uses a very common thing like a door to show us how important empty space is.
For example, "Cut doors and windows for a room; it is the holes which make it useful. Therefore, benefit comes from what is there; usefulness from what is not there." (pg. 13, chapter 11).
I had never thought the real usefulness of a door was the space in the middle which lets you in and out. If you think about it, the main difference between a door or window to a wall, is that it has space, which make your house accessible to light, wind and people.
However, I wonder what the difference between usefulness and benefit are. Wouldn't the usefulness of something be beneficial for you? In some way or another, something useful will be useful because it benefits you. So maybe, the useful and the beneficial are somehow connected.
 Also, if you look at it in another way, there are many examples in which I would doubt a useful thing is not there. For example, a lamp is very useful, and there's nothing taken off which makes it useful. The space around the bulb doesn't give the light, the filament with electricity does. In fact, many new light devices have eliminated that useless space to make smaller and more useful light devices.
In any case, I hope to find some explanation ahead in the book to explain my doubt over useful vs. beneficial.
The rest of the teachings I've read until now are very interesting too, and as I read, I hope I find some magic revelation that will help me understand them fully. I'm sure there's some important concept that connects all the teachings, and I'm curious to see if I'm right.
I'm also wondering what the Tao really is.

Science Vs. Religion

As a student, it is inconceivable to me to think that any law would prohibit teaching. What's even stranger to me is that anyone would want to deny the existence of science and how it affects every single aspect of our physical world. This is why I'm entirely opposed to the law that forbids the teaching of the evolution and sending a man to jail for doing so.

Science is one of the things I am completely certain of. Everything in our lives can be somehow related to science: astronomy, anatomy, chemistry, genetics, evolution, physics, etc. Every single aspect of our universe can be explained by science, and they are all somehow connected.

Religion is one part of life that is a little vaguer. It is all based on faith, and believing in a superior force we are not capable of fully understanding, and have never even seen before. I don't disagree with the moral teachings the Bible gives us because they are very valuable ones. I believe everyone needs some type of moral guidance in order to live peacefully in a community, and it’s not wrong to believe there is someone out there which could possibly be keeping on eye on us.

Many things in the Bible have miracles and occurrences that wouldn't be possible in the physical world. For example, during that time, people lived about 900 years, with each generation dying younger. Like it is mentioned during the first part of Genesis, “And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.” (Genesis 5:8). This is entirely impossible. Humans could never live that long: a regular human lifespan is about 70 years, depending on which country you live in. Even today with technology and medicine no one can live more than 120 years.

Another “fact” the Bible claims is every single person in the world comes from the blood of Adam and Eve. As far as I know, God only created Adam and Eve as the first humans. However, it is blatantly contradicted in Cain’s situation:

“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.” (Genesis 4:17-18) Where did Cain’s wife come from? How did his children have more children? Did their wives suddenly pop out from the same place Cain’s wife came from? The same happens with Seth. How did he begat so many children? I seem to remember breeding from the same line of DNA can give offspring with damaged DNA, and many times these offspring have strange diseases that kill them young. How then, could generations and generations of humans come from only one couple (Seth and his unmentioned wife)?

In my personal opinion, the Bible shouldn’t be treated as fact or ancient history, as they want to treat it in the Scopes Trial. It’s absurd that people claim that the beginning of our human race is just as the Bible claims it to be, and refuse to accept other theories that have actually been physically proven and are based on real life that is happening right now (or certainly happened millions of years ago). We cannot deny that the universe and everything around us can be explained by terms other than a book.

It is great to follow the Ten Commandments and follow Jesus’ example of a good human. What I really wish people don’t do is limit the levels of our understanding to a book full of impossibilities that couldn’t possibly apply to the material reality we live in.

It's foolish to prohibit the learning and enrichment of our own knowledge, because for one thing, God gave us good brains to think, (if you want to believe it that way) and achieve great things. As great human thinkers, we should concentrate on moving forward in our path of wisdom and discovery, always open to new possibilities.

Standing Out

I kept reading the Analects, and found more teachings I appealed with. For example:
"When the multitude hates a person, you must examine them and judge for yourself. The same holds true for the man the multitude love." (15.28). I like this once because it tells you to judge for yourself over anyone else's opinion. Many times, the crowd isn't right about something and you cannot let their erroneous opinion influence yours. From this passage, I also noticed a very important thing: Confucius wants us to be individuals. I hadn't noticed before, but Confucius wants us, as single individuals, to become great gentlemen for the benefit of the society. Each person should strive to reach "Goodness" so the world can be a better place. What's best is that he doesn't want us to be part of the crowd. He wants us to have our own opinion over something, not letting the general opinion change our own judgement. This is the great difference between the Essential Analects and the Baghavad Gita. There, Krishna condemned individualism, which is something I didn't like about it.
This last reading let me realize something. Women are never mentioned! All Confucius says is man has to be good and the gentleman will be righteous, etc. Women are never part of his visions of a good human. The only part he thought of speaking of women, he insulted them:
" Women and servants are particularly hard to manage: if you are to familiar to them, they grow insolent, but if you are too distant, they grow resentful."(17.25). Since when are women unworthy of any comment but criticism? Doesn't Confucius see the real value of women? I do notice many cultures consider women as simple housewives that only belong at home, but at least some of them see them as a respected partner. I wonder if Confucius would ever try to give his teachings to a woman. It's so typical men have to be sexist pigs!

The Fear to Fail

These new readings have brought new thoughts to me. One of the passages I read was:
"That I fail to cultivate Virtue, that I fail to inquire more deeply into that which I have learned, that upon hearing what is right I remain unable to move myself to do it, and that I prove unable to reform when I have done something wrong-such potential failings are a constant worry to me." (7.3). Is this not what everybody fears? Isn't our possible failure of doing things right what scares us all? Or even not being able to correct the mistakes we've done?
We all come across crossroads in life, each turning to different directions. They depend on the decisions we make, and not all of them are good choices. The problem is, we never know which choice is best, and in life, there isn't a certain way of knowing that. People can advice you, or even incite you to take certain ways, but only you are the one able to make you final choice. The possibility of failing is always there, and many times, we can't be as good as we expected we would be. As time goes by, we trip, fall, trip again, and fall again. Fortunately, we can learn from our mistakes and learn to trip less often. This is probably why Confucius thinks elders are wiser than young people. Many times, time can be related to wisdom. Like Confucius said:
"If I were granted many more years, and could devote fifty of them to learning, surely I would be able to be free of major faults." (7.17).
There is something that bothers me still. Is age really a sign of wisdom? True. Elders have had enough time to make mistakes and learn from them, but have they made the same mistakes as you have done during your shorter life time? During the time they have lived and you are starting to live, a lot of things change. People, as well as society in general change, and choices that might have been the right ones during that time might not be the best ones for this time. I think that what we should do is find a balance between preserving ancient values and traditions, and welcoming progress and new ways. In my opinion, both of the have great advantages.
However, there is only one thing that will never change, and that is that we are all humans. No matter what type of choices or paths we want to take, we will somehow fall in our path to success, and we will somehow get up and move on.

Learning

Reading the Analects is an extremely hard task. The text has no logical order I can find, and the small "verses" or paragraphs are very dense and hard to understand. Sometimes I can't keep track of what I'm reading, and other times I have to reread a passage over and over again, to even understand what the words mean. However, I have been able to understand some small parts of what I started to read. From these little parts, I realize Confucius had some very good teachings, and they also have a very meaningful message. One of the passages I liked was:
"When you see someone who's worthy, concentrate upon becoming their equal; when you see someone who is unworthy, use this as an opportunity to look within yourself." (4.17). I interpreted this passage as Confucius' technique to help us become the best we can be. When we see the example of a "good" person, we can try to follow their example. When we see someone who is not "good", we can make a review of the example we ourselves are giving. This way, we can always strive to be the best we can be (in theory).
At the same time, I found some teachings that were a little exaggerated, and probably unnecessary. For example:
"While your parents are alive, you should not travel far, and when you do travel you must keep to a fixed itinerary." (4.19). Does this mean we need to be beside our parents until they die? Are we supposed to live with them and never be far for too long? I don't think our parents would like to take care of us for the rest of their lives. I do understand that Confucius wants us to respect our elders, but even for him, that's an unnecessary teaching (in my opinion).
I'll keep reading the Analects and maybe with practice, I'll get better at understanding the deep meaning each passage conveys. I really think it's important to be able to do so, because once you get the meaning of them, they become into valuable lessons (that you might or might not be able to apply in life. I don't think anyone could be as "good" and "worthy" as Confucius wants us to be).