Chapter 5: Reflections on Lessons for Women

It is difficult to say why exactly Ban Zhou began her work in such a critical manner towards herself. As we know, women back then were very disregarded and viewed as unimportant so perhaps the beginning of Zhou's "Lessons for Women" was a way of introducing herself in the most humble way possible, as to not upset anyone. In the preface, it mentions that she was very educated and yet she calls herself an "unworthy writer" and "unintelligent by nature."She gives most of the credit to her wealthy family and, back then, women were not considered smart and so if they were even to be considered good at anything it must be due to some external cause.
The Confucian attitudes that I saw reflected in "Lessons for Women" were that of respect and leadership. Zhou emphasizes how women can be the best that they can be in Chinese society (which is pretty depressing to read) and Confucius also emphasized rules of how one can become the best version of themselves. As it says in the pretext, the premise for "Lessons for Women" was to apply Confucianism to the lives and behaviors of women since, in reality, Confucius hardly mentioned women at all.
A perfect marriage is described as one that is a balance between yin and yang. One is powerful and the other yields. Zhuo says that "The correct relationship between husband and wife is based upon harmony and intimacy, and conjugal love is grounded in proper union."She really does stress the importance of harmony in her writing, however for them, a proper relationship is seen as the husband controlling his wife and the wife serving her husband. Today, that is not what we would consider a harmonious relationship but things were very different back then. Statements such as these make it evident how low women were seen. A perfect woman should have womanly virtue, womanly words, womanly bearing, and womanly work. As for the man, they should be in control of their women, however treat them with respect, as she questions how love can remain intact if a man hits a woman.
In regards to education, Zhou questions why only the young boys are taught and the young girls are not. She says that she understands that the boys need to learn so that they can "manifest their authority" but she also says that what the men do not realize is that "husbands and masters must also be served." Zhou believes that they are ignoring the harmonious relationship that men and women are supposed to be sharing. She references "The Rites," a famous text that states that children should be learning at the age of eight. It does not just specify that young boys should be educated, so why are they not teaching the young girls as well? Zhou, being an educated young woman, knows how important and beneficial it has been for her to have had literary training.

Chapter 4: Reflections from the Hindu Scriptures

In contrast to Confucius and his writings, the Bhagavad Gita has some different ideas on what a good society should be comprised of. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells that the way to achieve nirvana while still remaining active in the world is to be free of all attachments. This person does not have any desires. This is a very difficult thing and that is why it is very difficult to achieve nirvana. Krishna is somewhat vague when it comes to telling Arjuna why he should perform his duty as a warrior. He tells him that those who fight such battles are given "an open door to Heaven." It is sort of like it is just Arjuna's duty to fight because it is what the higher powers want. He also tells him that if he does not fight, that he is "abandoning his duty and his fame."

Krishna describes the god society as basically being that of a caste system, which was in place in India. The caste system was quite discriminatory and if you were born into a certain caste, it was extremely difficult to leave it. The four divisions of the caste system mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita are the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. While the Sudras are the lowest class of the caste system mentioned here, they are still higher than the Untouchables, who are not even mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna explains that a good society is one in where everyone stays in their own places and does their own duties. He would rather have someone performing their own duty incorrectly than have someone performing someone else's duty perfectly. That's an interesting statement. 

A major theme that I see present in this Hindu passage is conformity. It seems that they liked everyone to play by the rules and not really ask a lot of questions or question why they might be doing what they were doing. As long as you were doing job, regardless of how "defective" it might be, you were pretty much in the clear. Don't rock the boat! Another theme that I found a little bit more comforting was the theme of rebirth. They also talk about how once someone dies, it is certain that they will be reborn, and vice versa. 

Compared to the Analects by Confucius, the Bhagavad Gita does seem very different. Confucius' work appeared to be much more inclusive and focused on being a good person and a good leader. I felt like the Hindu text was less geared towards individuals and more geared towards groups getting their job done. And if they got their job done, everything was going to be okay. However, I do think that one thing that the two have in common is the way the Confucius talked about being the best person that you can be and how Krishna also mentions how you can become the best person you can be (he mentions it is like assimilating to Brahmins, the highest class). Nevertheless, each of the texts provided some sort of groundwork for achieving the best version of yourself. 

Confucius: The Superior Man

Many of Confucius' ideas regarding leadership are extremely profound. What he refers to as "The Superior Man" is, in fact, a sort of paradigm of leadership and greatness. While there are some statements that I did not completely agree with, "Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man," there were others that I found to be quite inspirational. During the time of Confucius, religion was a much more universally accepted practice. Today, I think that more people would not necessarily agree 100% with the idea that in order to be a great person or leader that you have to believe in God. Maybe I am wrong but that's how it would seem to be. I think that one of his statements that he made should actually be more relevant than it is today: "Riches and honors are what men desire. If they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held." I like that one. Take blood diamonds, for example. They are certainly not obtained in a proper way and therefore, people should not have them. But we do. In a perfect world, there would be no blood diamonds. One of my favorite quotes that I read was, "When internal examination discovers nothing wrong, what is there to be anxious about, what is there to fear?" I liked this because it tells us that if we look inside ourselves and are content with what we see, then why should we have anything to worry about? Another great one is "The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions." Statements such as these are the ones that are completely applicable today. Leaders should be humble and they should have trust in what they are doing and who they are. Even on a smaller scale, I think that everyone has some kind of leadership within them. If we know in our hearts that something is right, and true, and pure, then it most often is.

Chapter 3: Reflection on Governing a Chinese Empire

Han Fei's Legalism is called that because it is "hardheaded" and "practical" and lies in rewards and punishments that come from following or breaking the rules. Han Fei believed that in order to have an effective government, there needed to be rules that came with some serious consequences. He wrote that "if rewards are high, then what the ruler wants will be quickly effected if punishments are heavy, then what he does not want will be swiftly prevented" (169). Simply put, Han Fei loved rules and he loved to enforce them.
Han Fei speaks of the "two handles" in his writings. The first handle is chastisement and the other handle is commendation. For those who break the rules, they will experience chastisement: death or torture. And for those who "men of merit," they will receive encouragements and rewards. By having these two handles, Han Fei felt confident that his country would be strong due to the strong law-abiding citizens.
By reading Han Fei's writings, I think that he believes that the rules should apply to everyone but the intelligent rulers. I don't think that these rules apply to the  nobles but perhaps I am reading it wrong. He seems to attempt to make things somewhat equal when he says that "if the punishment is severe, the nobles must not discriminate against the humble" (151). I am honestly kind of confused by who Han Fei is directing this to. I am having trouble discerning whether or not he is excluding the nobles from the rules and punishments or if they are, in fact, included.
Han Fei and other Legalists of the time had a very pessimistic view of human nature. He thought that nobles, such as himself, were the best kind of people and that most other people were "stupid and shortsighted" (169). The Legalists believed that the aristocrats and the thinkers had no purpose in their society. Instead, they believed that the only valuable ones were the farmers and the soldiers. While those are definitely important roles in society, Han Fei was being a little ignorant in not acknowledging everyone else as being useless. Because he believed that everyone was stupid, he was a firm supporter of Legalism and the strict rules that his people were forced to follow.