PLEASE FULLY RE-WRITE (PARAPHRASE) THE FOLLOWING:

In reading the first few paragraphs, I noticed that all described their examples in great detail, first laying the foundation for their evidence and then citing that evidence. I also noticed that although the first person chose four quotes to use, the second two people only used one quote each.

I feel as though sometimes I try to prove I have evidence for all my conclusions by providing too many quotes, which can make my paragraphs seemingly lack analysis. I think it is important for me in the future to find a balance between not including enough pieces of evidence and including so many that my conclusions are lost. I think the feedback has been generally helpful so far.

My only request would be that we could get a completed grading rubric (like is posted at the bottom of some of the assignments) to see the specific areas in which we are being docked points so we know where we need to improve.

After reviewing the excerpts above and considering the key points, I think it is more clear to me just how biased the film was. Although I did write about some of its bias in my homework, I did not consider the fact that is was outright propaganda for Buddhism.

The first paragraph really acknowledges this point that while the film provided an interesting narrative for the Buddha's life, it did not actually consider alternative ideas or distinguish fact from colorful storytelling.

Furthermore, Buddhism is a universal religion in today's regard. However, it is important to understand that it initially originated from the traditions of many particularistic religions, as is stated in both the Johnson and Johnson article and the PBS film.

Buddha adopted traditions from different cultures to make a new religion, wherein it took the begging of women and the request by a man, Ananda, for women to be included. It was only after some time that he decreed the religion was suitable for all, and even then he did not anticipate for it to become universal in the way that it did.

Although the film acknowledges that the Buddha based some of his teachings off of other traditions, they neglect to mention his refusal to include women in his religion at first out of fear they would be a distraction to men, which was stated in the Johnson and Johnson text. Thus, we can see there are quite a few differences in the biased narrative of the PBS film and the focus on pieces of evidence within the Johnson and Johnson article.

In particular, the first four paragraphs above did a good job of highlighting the keys points from both sources and then drawing their own conclusions. In the future, I will aim to follow these formats in my own writing.