Analytical assignments require you to selectively summarize, evaluate, and explain the wider relevance of a major source (i.e. one of the full-length historical books assigned for purchase), clearly separating each of those three steps as outlined below. If you have chosen the theory-oriented approach to this course, you must complete analytical exercises for three of the four major sources.

Your Task: select two or three important themes and/or issues on which to focus your writing and then address each of the following steps, clearly separated by either numbers or section headings.

1. Selective Summary: articulate what you deem to be the one or two most important claim(s) of your source [footnote 1] with respect to your chosen themes/issues; and then summarize selectively but also accurately the statements and examples put forth by the source in support of the claim(s) you are highlighting. Your summary should drawn on a variety of points from different parts of your source; and also use a blend of paraphrase and quotation to clarify the way that specific statements fit into the paragraphs and pages that surround them.

2. Evaluation: examine critically the soundness & consistency of the claim(s) articulated in your summary, making reference to specific statements of your source (either those already summarized or others not yet mentioned). As part of this assessment you should consider the subtext (i.e., subtle emphases, tone, implied approval/disapproval, assumptions) of what the source says [footnote 2] , briefly comparing the author's statements to those of the contemplative practice guide you chose to read at the beginning of the course (and also to other major sources encountered, where relevant).

3. Wider Relevance: discuss the significance of those themes/issues highlighted in your summary and evaluation for understanding the nature of contemplative practice--especially its relationship to cosmic powers and forces on the one hand and social realities on the other (see "Overview" for course).  Here once again you must make reference to specific claims and statements from your source.

Point Values: just over half of your score (usually 6 out of 10 points) will be based on #1 above, so make sure to give your summary the attention and space it deserves. The remaining two parts (#2 & 3) will receive equal weight. Thus evaluation and relevance are less significant than the summary; but note that failing to address one or the other will considerably lower your score.

Criteria for Evaluation: In evaluating each part of your analysis, I will consider the following for each of the three items listed above:

1. the precision with which you isolate and articulate the one or two primary claim(s); then relate each part of your summary to it using transitional sentences; and finally restate the claim after reviewing each statement or example of the source to specify exactly how it relates to the claim(s). In addition I will note the extent to which you:

•  fairly represent your source(s) in a balanced way, noting (even if only briefly) the variety of statements that are made about your chosen themes/issues.  Avoid focusing on one or two of a text’s statements—especially its general introductory or concluding remarks—while ignoring others that may significantly change the text’s overall point.

• briefly but consistently paraphrase your source provide context for each quotation [footnote 3]. By all means, avoid citing words without giving any sense of the surrounding context in which they occur.

See the “Sample Summary” for an example of how you might balance these various requirements.

2. the degree to which you rely on specific statements found in your source(s) in order to evaluate your source's claim(s) fairly and accurately, avoiding general value labels such as “true/false,” "biased/unbiased," “right/wrong,” etc. The latter are superficial assessments; focus instead on discussing the exact nature of the truth, bias, rightness or wrongess in your source's claim(s). I will also expect you to address at least two of the types of subtext mentioned above (and defined more fully in [footnote 2]).

3. the level of insight you display in connecting the specific details discussed in your summary and evaluation with the wider issue of contemplative practice.

Citation: You should make frequent and explicit references to specific page numbers, even when simply paraphrasing (see “Notes on Written Work” regarding the format for doing this). In refering to your source within the text, make sure to show awareness of the following distinction:

• Primary sources are those written by pre-modern Christians, Hindu-s, and Buddhists themselves, in contrast to analyses written by contemporary scholars; these should be the focus of your summary & evaluation. In the Hindu & Buddhist cases the exact composers of the source are often unknown, and in fact many of the sources are retellings of earlier accounts; thus you should speak fairly vaguely in terms of "the author(s)," "the composers of [X]," "whoever recorded these ideas," etc.

• Secondary sources are the texts written by contemporary commentators & scholars trying to make sense of the much older works of pre-modern contemplatives.  You may find it useful to consult such writers in composing your analyses of the major historical sources; but in your summary & evaluation you should focus as much as possible on the primary source(s) rather that on contemporary scholar’s claims about them. When you do mention or cite a secondary source, make sure to distinguish clearly between the ideas of its author and those of the primary source(s) (s)he discusses.

Reminders about length: 1000-1500 words (4-5 pages in most fonts); deadlines: the Monday immediately following the last class during which your source is discussed; and medium: stapled or paper-clipped typed copy (if you email your analysis to meet a deadline, make sure you also drop off a hard copy as soon as possible afterwards).  Also make sure to review the “Notes on Written Work," especially regarding parenthetical references, formatting, academic style, loose pages, and late work for these written exercises.

____________________________________
[1] For this class, the claims you articulate should fit the following formula: "[author X] claims/argues/emphasizes/suggests/etc. that..." : The exact verb you use will depend on how strongly the author (or alternately you yourself) makes her or his point; but you should at all costs avoid constructions such as "[author X] talks about/discusses/focuses on..." as these lead away from specific articulation of the author's underlying intent and towards general descriptions of the topics covered. If you think that the claim you have articulated might be too general, test to see if there is at least one viable counter-argumen; if not, it is probably too obvious a point on which to build a summary. [back to text]

[2] More fully defined, these four types of subtext are: (a) the degree to which (s)he emphasizes particular perspectives, arguments, and/or approaches over others; (b) the underlying emotional tone (e.g., zeal, enthusiasm, passion, disgust, anger, etc; note that disinterest, detachment, etc. are also emotional tones) with which (s)he seems to emphasize her/his particular points; (c) the extent to which (s)he seems to approve/disapprove (often not stated explicitly) of the perspectives, arguments, and/or approaches considered; and (d) the unstated assumptions which (s)he seems to make about those perspectives, arguments, and/or approaches. In practice these four overlap; tackling the specifics of any two of these is an effective way to address subtext more generally.[back to text]

[3] The most systematic way to do this is to provide (a) the essential details of that which precedes the word, phrase, sentence, or set of sentences your are quoting, either in the immediately preceding sentence, paragraphs and pages, or else much earlier; then (b) subsequently note (again briefly) the way that the content of your quotation is resolved in the subsequent parts of your source; and, (c) if several quotations follow one another, the essential details that fall between those quotations.[back to text]