Holy Scriptures Study, Week 11; Vayigash; 118.4.19

Holy Scriptures Study, Week 11;  Vayigash;  118.4.19

Torah

Bereshit 44:18 – 47:27

Yudah pleads to Yosef on Benyamin’s behalf;  Yudah offers himself instead.

Yosef bursts into tears and reveals himself to his brothers.

Yosef directs his brothers to move to Goshen in Egypt.

Yosef speaks with Pharaoh for the arrangements of his family’s arrival.

Yosef sends gifts to Israel.

Yosef’s brothers tell Israel the news of Yosef in Egypt.

Israel leaves for Egypt and stops at Beer-Sheva to pray.

Adonai tells Yaakov the destiny of Yaakov’s children.

The children of Israel are listed.

Yaakov sends Yudah ahead to make preparations in Goshen.

Yosef approaches Pharaoh with his brothers.

Yosef’s brothers solicit Pharaoh to provide the land of Goshen as a residence.

Israel speaks with Pharaoh.

The famine continues, and the Egyptians plead for food;  the Egyptians sell all belongings, cattle, land, and own bodies into slavery.

The tribes of Israel prosper.

--

What happens when Yosef abstains from enslaving the Egyptians, and instead, simply provides the Egyptians with what the Egyptians need?  Amidst such circumstances, do the Egyptians better remember the Yosef and Yaakov and abstain from subsequently enslaving the children of Israel?  Why does Yosef abstain from encouraging all the Egyptians to make similar preparations for the famine;  and, amidst observing Yosef’s preparations, why do the Egyptians abstain from making similar preparations?  Why does Yosef abstain from sending word to Israel and his brothers about the impending famine?  And what might be the result if Yosef sends word throughout the entire region to help all the people prepare for the famine, rather than all the people subsequently depending upon Egypt during the famine?

--

Bhagavad Gita

Chapters 3 – 4

Arjuna communicates apparent contradiction between the teaching of knowledge being better than action and the command to wage violent war.

Sri Krishna explains jnana yoga as the contemplative path of spiritual wisdom;  and karma yoga as the active path of selfless service.

Sri Krishna explains that complete renunciation is an illusion;  some form of action is required in life.

Being still whilst maintaining thoughts of sensual pleasure is different from spiritual aspiration.

Sri Krishna advocates selfless action.

Sri Krishna references the devas.

Brahman is present in every act of selfless service.

“What  the outstanding person does, others will try to do.  The standards such people create will be followed by the whole world.”  (v21)

“The ignorant work for their own profit, Arjuna;  the wise work for the welfare of the world, without thought for themselves.”  (v25)

Ego deludes people into thinking people are the cause of action.

Sri Krishna proclaims doctrine of striving in one’s own Dharma rather than that of another.

Selfish desire, from rajas, leads people to selfish deeds.

“Fight with all your strength, Arjuna!  Controlling your senses, conquer your enemy, the destroyer of knowledge and realization.”  (v41)

“The senses are higher than the body, the mind higher than the senses;  above the mind is the intellect, and above the intellect is the Atman.”  (v42)

“Thus, knowing that which is supreme, let the Atman rule the ego.  Use your mighty arms to slay the fierce enemy that is selfish desire.”  (v43)

Sri Krishna references Vivasvat, Manu, and Ikshvaku;  Arjuna questions Sri Krishna’s temporal existence.

Sri Krishna describes progression through many previous births, yet remaining constant throughout.

“As men approach (M)e, so I receive them.  All paths, Arjuna, lead to (M)e.”  (v11)

“The wise see that there is action in the midst of inaction and inaction in the midst of action.  Their consciousness is unified, and every act is done with complete awareness.”  (v18)

“They live in freedom who have gone beyond the dualities of life.  Competing with no one, they are alike in success and failure and content with whatever comes to them.”  (v22)

Sri Krishna describes different forms of spiritual practise.

“The offering of wisdom is better than any material offering, Arjuna;  for the goal of all work is spiritual wisdom.”  (v33)

Sri Krishna provides direction to find a spiritual teacher.

“Arjuna, cut through this doubt in your own heart with the sword of spiritual wisdom.  Arise, take up the path of yoga!”  (v42)

--

Even amidst Sri Krishna’s response, at the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna commands Arjuna to fight in the battle.  Should this be understood literally as being a conduit of violence, or is this better understood as waging a spiritual confrontation against one’s own selfishness (as is also explained within the Bhagavad Gita)?  What does this actually look like within the temporal realm (what specific, tangible actions does Sri Krishna command Arjuna to perform)?  How does the command for Arjuna to, “utilise his mighty arms to sleigh the fierce enemy of selfish desire,” coincide with the command (in Chapter 6, Verse 11), for Arjuna to find a quiet place, sit, and meditate?  How does this compare with the teaching of “Jihad” within Islam and the Koran;  and how does this compare with Israel’s “wrestling with God”?

What is the distinction between Sri Krishna and Brahman?  With the understanding of Brahman as the Ultimate Reality that exists beyond existence, how is Sri Krishna to be perceived?  Is Sri Krishna much like an Angel, as described within the Avrahamic traditions?

Within the 4^th chapter, Sri Krishna seems to identify himself as Brahman;  is this an accurate interpretation of the text?  Amidst the understanding of Brahman existing beyond existence, and simultaneously existing within all beings, is Sri Krishna simply communicating that experience of ultimate Unity with Brahman, rather than purporting himself to be the encapsulation of Brahman?  If so, what are the nuances and implications of this (considering that the “Ultimate Truth” and “Spirit of God” exists identically the same within each individual)?  How does this compare with the belief of the Trinity within Christianity (and the proclamations of Jesus being directly derived from, and/or the personification of, Brahman)?  And does Jesus’ explicit and intrinsic teachings of all people equally being derived from (and/or the personification of) Brahman compare with these beliefs?  What are the distinctions of “incarnation,” “derivation,” “descendence,” and “personification,” with respect to Brahman?  Do any of these suggest complete encapsulation?

Within the 4^th chapter, Sri Krishna essentially explains that the wise are absolved from the consequences of the wise’s respective actions.  Beyond a tacit or effective permission to commit transgressions against others, how can this concept of equanimity and progression beyond Karma be increasingly, tangibly understood?

With an offering of wisdom exceeding a material offering, how does a proficient understanding of this translate into the contemporary practise of charity, tzedakah, zakat, and the beggar’s bowl?

--

Digha Nikaya

Potthapada Sutta

The Buddha stays at Savatthi in Anatha Pindika’s pleasuance in the Geta Wood.

Potthapada dwells in Queen Mallika’s Park in the Hall.

The Buddha visits the Hall where Potthapada is.

Potthapada sees the Buddha and implores the crowd to be quiet to encourage the Buddha to speak.

Potthapada asks the question of how the “cessation of consciousness (is) brought about,” and describes the previous explanations of other Samanas and Brahmins, including:  ideas arriving and departing without reason, respectively affecting consciousness accordingly;  consciousness being derived from a man’s soul;  and, consciousness being derived from the will of other powerful Samanas and Brahmins.

The Buddha discounts the first explanation and provides the standard doctrine of appropriate training of ideas, including the silas (minor mere moralities), confidence, guarding the door of the senses, mindfulness and being self-possessed, solitude, and conquering the 5 hindrances.

The Buddha then describes the 4 Jhanas: 

1.)  a state of joy and ease, born of detachment, with reasoning and investigation;

2.)  a state of joy and ease, born of serenity of concentration, without reasoning and investigation;

3.)  a state of equanimity:  being aloof from joy, and being equable;  mindful and self-possessed;  the Arahats refer to as, “The man serene and self-possessed is well at ease.”

4.)  a state of self-possession and equanimity:  without pain, without ease, and without the joy of equanimity:  considering the consciousness of the infinity of space; infinity of cognition; the unreality of all phenomena;  inferiority of cognition, and thus facilitating cessation of conscious ideas.

The Buddha teaches there is both 1 and many summits of consciousness, based upon where an individual exists.

The Buddha teaches that the idea precedes knowledge.

The Buddha challenges the notion of “a soul.”

The Buddha communicates indifference to the opinions regarding the ultimate nature of the Universe;  citing that such questions abstain from directly imparting the Dharma.

The Buddha explains the doctrine of the 4 Noble Truths:  pain, origin of pain, cessation of pain, and the path to the cessation of pain.

Potthapada assents to the Buddha, and the Buddha departs.

The other mendicants criticise Potthapada for agreeing with the Buddha, yet Potthapada is resilient.

Potthapada and Kitta visit the Buddha and describe criticisms.

The Buddha describes the limitations of other Samanas and Brahmins who ciriticise his doctrine.

The Buddha compares the proclamation of unattained wisdom to a man proclaiming love to an unknown woman, and a man building a staircase to an unconstructed house.

The Buddha describes his example as the house.

Kitta asks which mode of personality (material, immaterial, or formless) is real.

The Buddha poses a return question of which is the True nature of an individual’s existence:  the past, present, or future?

Kitta describes that the past existence is the genuine at that time, yet rather than within the present or future;  that the present is genuine at that time, and the other 2 different;  and the future is genuine at that time, rather than the present or past.

The Buddha describes a similar comparativity towards the 3 modes of personality;  furthering comparing the progressive existence of cow, milk, curds, butter, ghee, junket;  with each having a distinct existence and characteristic within this process.

Potthapada and Kitta become members of the Sangha.

--

The Buddha’s visit to Potthapada is rather uncustomary amidst the narratives of the Digha Nikaya.  Is there any significance within this specific dialogue, and/or with the example of Potthapada?

Amidst the different descriptions of previous Samanas and Brahmins regarding consciousness, is it possible that each one describes a semblance of the Truth?  Amidst the Buddhist notion of “Becoming,” is it accurate that we each are the manifestation of each other’s own respective Karma, derived from our own respective thoughts, words, and deeds?  Is the Buddha simply a manifestation of our own respective interest in attaining Nirvana?

What does the Buddha’s teaching of equanimity compare with Sri Krishna’s teaching of equanimity?  Within the Buddha’s teaching of equanimity, what is the difference between the “self-possession” (amidst the joy and ease) that an Arahat experiences after conquering the 5 Hindrances, and the “self-possession” (amidst an equanimity) that an Arahat experiences amidst attaining the 3^rd Jhana?  Does the attainment of such equanimity, beyond joy, intrinsically involve some form of “positive,” “favourable” (or “joyful”) experience?  Is there a distinction between a “favourable” experience and a “joyful” experience, amidst the progression beyond the “door of the senses”?  And is the progression of the Arahat linear, or is it possible for a spiritual aspirant to repeatedly regress and progress through the Jhanas and stages?  Does simply imagining one Jhana effectively equate to actualising and attaining that Jhana?

The Buddha describes a doctrine of others regarding the material, immaterial, and formless phenomena;  however, what is the effective distinction between the immaterial and the formless phenomena? 

Is there any intentionality (amidst the Buddha’s practise of celibacy) in the Buddha continuing the metaphor of “the house” by proclaiming his example as “the house” to which the staircase is built, yet abstains from similarly continuing the metaphor of “the woman” towards which such love is proclaimed?  What are the metaphysical connexions and implications (and perhaps causes and effect, amidst the notion of “Becoming” and circumstances being the manifestation of thought) between the respective parables that are communicated by the Buddha, Jesus, and additional Prophets, and the respective temporal circumstances wherein the Buddha, Jesus, and the additional Prophets respectively exist?

--

Gospels

Mark 11 – 13

Jesus and his disciples approach Jerusalem;  Jesus sends some disciples to retrieve a colt.

People spread garments on the road for Jesus.

Jesus curses the empty fig tree.

Jesus expels the traders and money-changers from the Temple.

The cursed fig tree withers, and Jesus proclaims the ability to move mountains.

The Scribes and elders ask Jesus to identify his authoritative source;  Jesus responds by asking the Scribes and elders to describe the source of authority of the baptism from John the Baptist:  being from God or man;  the scribes and elders are uncertain how to answer, because of the opinion of the people.

Jesus teaches the parable of the transgressive tenants who shamefully treat and kill the landowner’s servants and his son;  comparing this to God and Jesus.

Pharisees and Herodians ask whether it is right to pay taxes;  Jesus replies:  “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  (v 17)

Sadducees challenge Jesus with a question regarding the Resurrection and a woman who is the wife of succeeding brothers;  Jesus replies:  “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in (H)eaven.”  (v25)

Another scribe asks Jesus what is the highest law;  Jesus replies:  “The first is, ‘Hear O Israel:  The Lord our God, the Lord is one;  and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’  The second is this, “You shall love your neighbo(u)r as yourself.’  There is no other commandment greater than these.”  (v29-32)

Jesus asks how Moshiach can be the son of David, yet David refers to him as (“Leader”).

“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.  For they all contributed out of their abundance;  but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living.”  (v43-44)

Jesus describes the approaching destruction of the Temple, the End of Days, false Messiahs, and the emergence of the Moshiach.

--

What is the lesson of the “empty fig tree”?  How is Jesus “duped” by the fig tree and why does he become so enraged so as to curse the fig tree into eventually withering?  What does the fig tree do to actually deserve such consequences (what is the “sin” of the fig tree)?  Does this episode actually reveal some fallacy and hubris within Jesus:  in that he is first “tricked” into thinking there is fruit on the fig tree, and then second, that he becomes enveloped within his own “egoistic” pride after being “tricked,” that he inflicts his anger back upon the tree?  What lessons can be derived regarding how we should react when similarly experiencing transgression (how does this compare with the teachings from the Buddhist Dhammapada regarding the abstinence from holding grudges against others for our own respective experiences of suffering)?  And how is this scenario explained within belief of Jesus being the personification of God, and thus maintaining perfect, omniscient knowledge?

Is there any relevance and/or significance within the notion of even Caesar’s likeness belonging to God, as well?

The 3 successive challenges provided from Jesus’s contemporaries provide 3 very strong doctrines:  “Rendering unto Caesar,” “All are like Angels,” “Loving God, and Loving neighbour,” amidst the question of authority, the parable of the transgressive tenants, and the example of the poor widow.  How does this comparatively concise sequence of teachings compare with other extended passages within the Gospels, regarding what may be considered as foundational, fundamental teachings of Jesus;  how does tenets compare with the fortitude of the Sermon on the Mount?

Beyond the principle of the widow giving out of her poverty, what may be some additional metaphysical significance regarding the generosity of the widow (particularly considering the abstinence from transgressions that the widow presumably maintains, and that additional individuals historically commit amidst the accumulation of material wealth)?  How does this coincide with Jesus’ additional teaching regarding the rich man and the passing of the camel through the “Eye of the Needle”?

Is there any irony and/or intentionality that Jesus specifically utilises the example of the fig tree (and being able to anticipate the change of seasons) soon after the description of Jesus being “tricked” by the fig tree?

--

Koran

Sura 11:  Hud

There is the command to solicit forgiveness from Allah.

Allah is Omniscient, knowing the actions of all animals and creatures.

Allah creates the Heavens and Earth in 6 days.

Man is ungrateful regarding respite from suffering and previous provisions of prosperity.

There is admonishment for those who lie against Allah.

There is the story of Noach.

Noach constructs the ark.

There is the story of Hud of the Ad.

There is the story of Salih of the Thamud, who hamstring the camel.

There is the story of Avraham and the Angels.

Sarah doubts the predilection of Yitzak’s birth.

The Angels visit Lot.

There is the story of Shu’aib and the Midianites.

There is the story of Moshe and Pharaoh.

“And be patient, for surely Allah wastes not the reward of the doers of good.”  (v115)

“And say to those who believe not:  Act according to your power, surely we too are acting;

“And wait, surely we are waiting (also).

“And Allah’s is the unseen in the (H)eavens and the (E)arth, and to (Allah) the whole affair will be returned.  So serve (Allah) and put thy trust in (Allah).  And thy Lord is not heedless of what you do.”  (v121-123)

--

What is the distinction between the description, within the Koran, of the Universe being created in 6 days, and the criticism of the Jewish observance of Shabbat?  It seems as though, within the Koran, there is the admonishment of the children of Israel disobeying the mitzvot of Shabbat, yet there also seems to be additional admonishment of the perception of Allah resting on the 7^th day, recognising that Allah is without the need for rest.  How is this balance maintained, and what is the explanation of the weekly observance (every 7 days) of Jumuah prayers?  How should the “resting” of Allah on the 7^th day be appropriately understood?

Within this Sura, there is admonishment towards individuals who prioritise material wealth rather than righteousness.  However, within the Koran, the descriptions of Heaven (with large-eyed partners, rivers flowing, and abundance of produce) seem to revert to that “primal,” “base” instinct of man, to indulge in sensual pleasure;  to simply wait for something better.  Is this notion of the “higher” carrot and stick accurate?  How does this compare with other “ultimate destination,” “Heaven/hell” teachings from Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and additionally?  Does the equanimity of the Buddha also, intrinsically, revert to this “primal,” “base” instinct of alleviation of pain;  and what are the implications of the intrinsic “primality” and “baseness” even within the “beggar’s bowl” (as even that satisfies the urges of hunger and continuation of life)?   

Whilst the example of Noach may be a mild example, how can 2 or additional communities be effectively reconciled whilst maintaining distinct versions of the same events, and without having any tangible, Universally accepted source that explains how the actual event occurs?  Is this intentional?  And is this an intrinsic characteristic of insatiability within life?  Amidst such disagreement and ambiguity, what may be some focal points (principles, practices, and additionally) that facilitate amicability amongst such communities?  And are these the “permanent” characteristics of “Reality” that are communicated as existing beyond this temporal realm?

What is the general story and temporal context surrounding Hud?

Within what context does the story of Shua’ib and the Midianites exist amidst the interaction of Yaakov and the Israelites with the Midianites?

Holy Scriptures Study (Week 10; Miketz) 118.4.12

Holy Scriptures Study (Week 10 Miketz) 118.4.12

Miketz

Bereshit 41:1 – 44:17

Pharaoh dreams of the 7 fat cows being eaten by the 7 gaunt cows; the 7 ears of grain being eaten by the 7 burnt ears of grain.
The cupbearer remembers Yosef and Pharaoh summons him.
Yosef interprets the dream as 7 years of surplus proceeded by 7 years of famine; and suggests that Pharaoh make preparations.
Pharaoh gives Yosef 2nd command of Egypt and additional gifts.
Yosef marries Asenath and the 2 have 2 sons: Manasseh and Ephraim.
The famine arrives and Yaakov sends his sons, less Benyamin, to Egypt for food.
Yosef recognises his brothers, however, his brothers fail to recognise him.
Yosef accuses his brothers of being spies; provides the food and commands that his brothers return with Benyamin; and keeps Simeon as a hostage until his brothers return; Yosef also returns the money as a pretense for maintaining leverage in dealing with his brothes.
The brothers return to Yaakov and communicate the story of events.
Yaakov refuses to send Benyamin.
The famine worsens, and Yaakov is compelled to send Benyamin, with his remaining sons, to acquire additional food from Egypt.
Yosef receives his brothers, restores Simeon, and convenes a lunch feast for everyone.
The brothers depart and Yosef plants his divining cup amidst Benyamin’s packs.
Yosef’s servants hault his brothers and find the divining cup and accuse his brothers, and capture his brothers to return to Yosef’s palace.

--

There is an interesting comparison between the way Pharaoh treats Yosef and the stereotypical ascension of a commercial hip hop artist, literally: status recognition, bling bling with the ring, new clothes, the obligatory gold chain, a new ride, a stage name, and a woman as wife. What credibility does this comparison have, and what are some of the implications/lessons that can be drawn from this?

Bhagavad Gita

Chapters 1 – 2

King Dhritarashtra solicits his seer, Sanjaya, to describe the battlefield between his side, the Kurus, and his relatives, the Pandavas.
Sanjaya tells the narrative of the Bhagavad Gita.
Duryodhana, of the Kurus, proclaims the mightiness of the opposing army, the Pandavas (including Bhima and Arjuna), who are assembled by another of his teacher’s (Drona’s) disciples, Yudhishthira.
Duryodhana the proclaims the mightiness of his own army, and proclaims increased might over the Pandavas.
Bhishma (of the Kurus) roars and blows his conch.
Sri Krishna, Arjuna, and the Pandavas respond by blowing the conchs very mightily.
Arjuna commands Krishna to drive the chariot into the middle of the field to better observe the Kurus.
Arjuna despairs at the thought of killing his relatives.

Sri Krishna upbraids Arjuna’s self-pity; commands that a Kshatriya has the duty to fight in a righteous war.
Arjuna is unsure which is better: to defeat his enemy or for his enemy to defeat him.
“There has never been a time when you and I and the kings gathered here have not existed, nor will there be a time when we will cease to exist.” (v12)
Sri Krishna begins to describe the True nature of reality; and the impermanence of the senses and that which can be sensed.
“Realize that which pervades the universe and is indestructible; no power can affect this unchanging, imperishable reality.” (v17)
“You were never born; you will never die. You have never changed; you can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, you do not die when the body dies.” (v20)
Sri Krishna describes the nature of the Self.
Sri Krishna describes the dishonor of a Kshatriya who shies from battle.
Sri Krishna introduces the concept of yoga; the 3 gunas; and progressing beyond duality.
“You have the right to work, but never to the fruit of work. You should never engage in action for the sake of reward, nor should you long for inaction.” (v47)
Sri Krishna teaches detachment.
“They live in wisdom who see themselves in all and all in them, who have renounced every selfish desire and sense craving tormenting the heart.” (v55)
Thought about objects leads to attachment leads to desire leads to lust leads to anger; anger clouds judgment; Sri Krishna teaches to move beyond senses, being free from both aversion and attachment.
Meditation and interdependence are inferred.

--

Within this beginning chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, there is the consideration of how this story fits within the context of the Mahabharata. Although the teachings within the Bhagavad Gita can arguably stand alone and seem to provide a general synopsis of Hindu Theology and additional elements, how might these teachings be interpreted or influenced amidst the context of the larger narrative of the Mahabharata? And furthermore, how are these narratives to be understood within a linear perspective (as existing somewhere between the historic narratives of Avraham, Moshe, Jesus, Muhammad, Zarathustra, Guru Nanak, Baha’u’llah and the mythological stories of Greek, Roman, and additional traditions; how does the nature of the narrative of the Bhagavad Gita compare with the different realms (and reincarnation) described by the Buddha; with the story of Creation told from Bereshit from within the Torah; with the respective legends of respective indigenous people throughout the Earth; and additionally? May Peace Be Upon All.

What is the nature of symmetry and cohesion between the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita, particularly considering the distinction of the respective names of the prominent celestial beings respectively described within both texts; such as, respectively, Rama and Vishnu?

It is also interesting that the Bhagavad Gita is actually a conversation between Dhritarashtra and Sanjaya, who are the opponents of the actual protagonists of the narrative: Arjuna and Sri Krishna. What are the implications and lessons from this irony?

There is an interesting occurrence, in Chapter 2, where Sri Krishna becomes immediately compassionate and then communicates directly through (to) the soul (Atman) of Arjuna, beyond the pretenses of social and familial status and caste and temporal phenomenon; Sri Krishna speaks directly to the esoteric infinity that exists within Arjuna, perhaps literally, a “Namaste” experience; what may be some additional examples of such communication, evidenced elsewhere in additional religions? How does Adonai’s conversation with Moshe at the burning bush or on Mount Sinai compare?

How does Sri Krishna’s description of the shame upon a fearful Kshatriya compare with additional teachings, later within the Bhagavad Gita, regarding maintaining an indifference and equanimity amidst such criticisms?

--

Digha Nikaya

Kassapa Sihanada Sutta

The Buddha rests at Uganna in the Kannakatthala deer park.
Kassapa, a naked ascetic, visits the Buddha.
Kassapa asks whether the reports of the Buddha’s categorical dismissal of asceticism are accurate.
Buddha proclaims such reports as inaccurate; being aware that some ascetics continue unto Heaven and some ascetics continue unto unpleasant existences, respectively.
The Buddha describes his previous discussions with such ascetics; establishing a comparatively objective process for analysing his practises and the practises of the ascetics: where all those topics wherein there is disagreement are placed to the side; and amidst those virtues that are commonly proclaimed, asking the respective wise students which school lives in closer proximity to those virtues; and amidst those transgressions that are commonly admonished, asking the respective wise and students which school lives further from causing such transgressions.
The Buddha proclaims the practise that is increasingly favourable on both accounts.
The Buddha makes a similar proclamation regarding the practise of his disciples compared with the disciples of others.
The Buddha proclaims adherence to Dharma and Vinaya (law of self-restraint).
The Buddha references the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Belief, Right Aspiration, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Thought, Right Meditation.
Kassapa responds by proclaiming the practises of naked asceticism in detail, including descriptions of bodily functions, acceptance of food, living soiled, clothing, sleeping, bathing, and additionally.
The Buddha responds by proclaiming that when a naked ascetic abides by all those rules and abstains from living a righteous life, the naked ascetic has yet to attain Samanaship.
“But from the time, O Kassapa, when a Bhikku has cultivated the heart of love that know no anger, that know no illwill- from the time when, by the destruction of the deadly intoxications (the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance), he dwells in that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of mind, that is free from those intoxications, and that he, while yet in this visible world, has come to realize and know- from that time, O Kassapa, is it that the Bhikku is called a Samana, is called a Brahmina!” (v15)
Kassapa responds by proclaiming that it must be difficult to gain Samanaship and Brahminaship, and the Buddha agrees.
Kassapa responds by proclaiming that it must be difficult to identify a Samana and a Brahmina, and the Buddha agrees.
Kassapa asks: “What then, Gotama, is that blissful attainment in conduct, in heart, and in mind?” (v18)
The Buddha describes the Silas (Conduct): converting to the religious life and gaining confidence; the Kitta (Heart): guarding the door of the senses, being content with simplicity, emancipation from the 5 Hindrances (covetousness, ill-temper, laziness, worry, and perplexity), and the progression through the 4 Jhanas; and the Panna (Intelligence): gaining insight, vision, and hearing, thoughts of others, previous births, the previous births of others, and the 4 Noble Truths with the destruction of the Intoxications, attaining Arahatship.
The Buddha proclaims being unaware of anyone equal to the Buddha in conduct, severe asceticism, intelligence, and emancipation.
The Buddha describes his “lion’s roar” in public and continually, convincing others to behave similarly.
The Kassapa proclaims the doctrine of the Buddha and solicits membership within the Sangha, and the Buddha describes a probationary period of 4 orbits of the Moon; Kassapa joins the Sangha and becomes Enlightened.

--

There is the interesting paradox within Buddhism regarding the notion of Becoming being the most egocentric concept, yet that the coinciding notion of an individual also being responsible for all the suffering that the individual experiences being the most ego-destructive concept. How else is it possible to directly communicate a doctrine of absolute selfishness without actually existing (as an individual “self,” and thus undermining the very notion of being without a self), and further utilising the temporal politics of language to impart such a concept?

Is there any additional, traditional explanation of the 4 Jhanas that can provide further explanation of the actual, effective distinctions of the Jhanas, particularly within the later stages?

Why does the Buddha resort to proclamations of superiority within the characteristics he previously communicates as being irrelevant? During the beginning portion of the Sutta, the Buddha describes that the severe practises of naked ascetics is irrelevant; however, in concluding the Sutta, the Buddha proclaims that all the naked ascetics have yet to practise as severe an asceticism as he practises. Is that egotistic?

There seems to be an interesting correlation between the segments of the standard teachings of the Buddha (Sila/Conduct, Kitta/Heart, Panna/Intelligence, and the inclusion of emancipation), with the 4 categories of superiority that the Buddha proclaims: conduct, severe asceticism, intelligence, and emancipation, with one distinction being that of “sila/heart” compared with “severe asceticism.” Is this correlation accurate, intentional, and/or significant? And if so, what are some of the lessons that may be learned from the apparent correlation between “sila/heart” and “severe asceticism”? How does this compare with the “heart” of Arjuna and the “heart” of Yudah, the “heart” of Levi, and of Muhammad, and additional Prophets, and the ordinary individual?

The description of the Buddha proclaiming his “lion’s roar” is rather interesting. Is it appropriate to be continually and identically assertive with one’s doctrine in an exact manner with everyone? Is there any relevance for nuance, and addressing people where people respectively exist at that juncture? Or is that actually an approach of exact similitude? Can it be perceived that that is how we intrinsically and inevitably interact with everyone, even if unintentionally? And is it possible that this is how all beings interact with us, respectively? And how does the process of learning and adjusting, amidst lessons learned, influence this progression?

--

Gospels

Mark 7 – 10

The Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples eat without washed hands; Jesus responds by citing Isaiah as well as the subverting of additional principles, such as honouring an individual’s parents.
Jesus explains that defilements come from out the body rather than by what goes inside the body.
A woman begs Jesus to heal her daughter and Jesus refuses, referring to her as a dog; the woman responds by saying that the dogs eat the crumbs from that table; and Jesus heals her dotter.
Jesus heals a mute and deaf man.

Jesus feeds crowds with 7 loaves of bread.
The Pharisees ask to see a sign; Jesus refuses.
Jesus warns: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
Jesus heals a blind man.
Jesus asks his disciples who his disciples think he is; his disciples proclaim him as Moshiach; Jesus prophesies his destiny, and commands his followers to renounce the temporal realm.

Jesus communes with God, along with Peter and James and John, with Moshe and Eliyahu.
Jesus heals boy whom disciples are unable to heal because of lack of Faith.
Disciples argue who is the mightiest, and Jesus teaches that the first is last.
Jesus proclaims that anyone healing in his name is a help to his cause.

Jesus proclaims the prohibition from divorce.
Jesus proclaims that the preeminence of children.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Sovereignty of God.” (v25)
James and John solicit sitting at Jesus left and right hand; Jesus says that such decisions belong to God; the teacher is the servant.
Jesus heals blind beggar.

--

The story of the woman with the daughter seems rather harsh. What is actually meant when Jesus compares her to a dog? And when the woman accepts the apparently derogatory comparison and continues to beg for healing, is Jesus simply rewarding her acceptance of such apparent subjugation? Is this a rewarding of genuine Faith, and what are the implications for contemporary circumstances?

The narrative of the 7 loaves of bread is rather interesting. There is the metaphysical and scientific consideration of how this miracle may be performed. There is the consideration of the power of suggestion and the people being strengthened by the power of Jesus’s suggestion, to sufficiently continue until eating at another juncture. There is also the consideration of the crowd being inspired by Jesus’ teachings and experiencing the Spirit of God until eating at another time. Perhaps the 2 are the same. There is also the consideration of whether this practise of living without food may be maintained in perpetuity? Is it possible to sustain life without material, and exclusively upon thought (and/or love, compassion, and additionally)?

The notion of the first being last and the teacher being the servant seems to communicate a benevolent doctrine of equality and equanimity. However, is there any relevant propensity of this doctrine being manipulated into an adverse political, social, and economic hierarchy: whereby an individual, or group of individuals, maintains certain comforts and temporal subjugation over others whilst proclaiming that the others are actually superior (according to this doctrine), such that the others should appreciate receiving such subjugation and comparative material poverty? Amidst any such propensity, does this cultivate a culture of retro-righteousness/piety within the apparent subjugated/material impoverished group? And/or does this doctrine facilitate a “race to be last” where adherents refuse to accept the help of others for fear of becoming less righteous? Are there any contemporary examples of such tendencies?

--

Koran

Sura 10 Yunus (Jonah)

People have difficulty believing in an ordinary man being a Prophet.
The Koran proclaims Allah as the Creator and regenerator.
The Koran references the Moon and the Sun and the cycles of time; with night and day.
“And they say: Why is not a sign sent to him from his Lord? Say: The unseen is only for Allah, so wait; surely I too with you am of those who wait.” (v20)
Disbelievers pray to Allah during adversity and turn back when adversity is alleviated.
Belief in multiple deities is admonished.
The authenticity of the Koran is proclaimed.
“And if they reject thee, say: My work is for me and your work for you. You are clear of what I do and I am clear of what you do.” (v41)
The Omnipotence of Allah is proclaimed.
“But if you turn back, I ask for no reward from you. My reward is only with Allah, and I am commanded to be of those who submit.” (v72)
The stories of Noach and Moshe are referenced.
Amidst doubts, new believers solicited to gain guidance from established believers.
“Say: O people, the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever goes aright, goes aright only for the good of his own soul; and whoever errs, errs only against it. And I am not a custodian over you.” (v108)
“And follow what is revealed to thee and be patient till Allah give judgment, and Allah is the Best of the judges.” (v109)

--

Within the beginning of this Sura, there is the command for the speaker to wait along with those who challenge his Prophesy; and this notion of simply being a warner and waiting for the response/sign/Judgment from Allah is repeatedly taught throughout the Koran. How are these teachings contextualised amidst the commands to fight oppression? There is an understanding that fighting is only permitted amidst the experience of oppression and that it is forbidden once that oppression is alleviated; so then there is the question of: what constitutes oppression? Or, what constitutes sufficient oppression so as to warrant conflict? How does disbelief in Allah factor into this concept of oppression? Is it possible to abstain from believing in Allah and/or abstaining from proclaiming the Shehadah without inflicting oppression amongst believers? And with Allah making the Final Judgment from the maintenance of Omniscience and Rahmani Raheem, (Most Benevolent and Most Merciful), upon what authority does any man make such a decision of sufficient oppression and/or disbelief such to enact violence?

Holy Scriptures Study (Week 9, Vayieshev) 118.4.8

Holy Scriptures Study, Week 9; Vayeishev; 118.4.8

Vayeishlev

Bereshit 37:1 – 40:23

Yaakov settles in Canaan in area where Yitzak settles.
Yaakov favours Yosef (with coloured coat), and brothers have animosity towards Yosef.
Yosef has dream of his brothers’ sheaves bowing to his sheaf.
Yosef has dream of Sun, Moon, and 11 Stars bowing to him (comparing Yaakov, Rachel, and brothers).
Yaakov sends Yosef to join his brothers in the field.
Yosef’s brothers throw him in a well and sell him to merchants travelling to Egypt; Yosef is sold to Potiphar.
Yudah moves away from brothers and has children with natives.
Yudah sleeps with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who bears Peretz and Zerach.
Yosef finds favour with Potiphar and attains responsibility and status.
Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce Yosef and accuses him of attempting to rape her; Yosef is sent to prison.
The Pharaoh’s cup-bearer and baker are put into prison and both have different dreams; Yosef interprets the dreams and tells of 2 different outcomes; the cup-bearer is restored and the baker is executed.

--

Why does Yosef dream about sheaves in the field when he, his family, and the tribes of Avraham are herdspeople?
It seems as though Reuven is the responsible and compassionate son in trying to save Yosef from his brothers. Yet, Reuven is described as later sleeping with one of Yaakov’s wives, causing him severe disgrace and curses. Who is Reuven and what can be learned from his example?
How does the story of Yudah, through this time, compare with that of Reuven? What is the significance of Yudah “moving away” from his brothers, and what implications does this having with respect to the subsequent occurrence of the tribe of Yudah amidst the “lost tribes”? What lessons are to be learned from Yudah propositioning a prostitute who later is revealed as his own daughter-in-law?
What esoteric (“Karmic”) lessons exist within the story of Yosef? Whilst it may seem unfavourable for Yosef to be placed within prison, this facilitates his transfer from Potiphar’s house to Pharaoh’s house that may otherwise be prevented by a possessive Potiphar. Similarly, when Yosef’s brothers capture him and sell him to the merchants going to Egypt, this secures the survival of the tribes of Israel (as is later explained in subsequent Parshot). How can we better appreciate the purpose of contemporary circumstances that seem to be other than what we favour?

--

Bhagavd Gita

Chapters 17 – 18

All creatures possess some characteristic, either sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic.
The different forms of worship of the gunas is described: sattvic: God; rajas: power, wealth; tamasic: spirits, ghosts.
The different forms of food of the gunas is described: sattvic: mild, nourishing, healthy; rajasic: salty, spicy, painful; tamasic: overcooked, stale, leftovers.
The different forms of sacrifice of the gunas is described: sattvic: mindful; rajasic: consideration of reward; tamasic: lack of regard.
Service is the discipline of the body; kind, Truthful words are the discipline of speech; calmness, gentleness, silence, self restraint, and purity are the discipline of the mind.
The sattvic perform this discipline without attachment to results; the rajasic perform this discipline to gain status, thus it is undependable and transitory in effect; the tamasic perform this discipline to gain power over others or for self-torture.
Giving for compassion’s sake is sattvic; giving for returned reward is rajasic; giving in an in appropriate manner to unworthy person is tamasic.
Om Tat Sat: Om is communicated during offering, practicing discipline, and offering gifts; Tat is communicated when striving for liberation when performing such acts; Sat (“that which is”) indicates goodness.
Sat is steadiness of righteousness; sacrifice without good Faith is “asat.”

Sannyasa is restraint from selfish actions.
Tyaga is renouncing the fruit of action.
Some wise people proclaim that all action should be renounced as transgressive; some wise people proclaim that certain action (self-sacrifice, giving, self-discipline) should be practised; Sri Krishna confirms this.
3 types of tyaga are explained: self-sacrifice, giving, and self-discipline should be practised without thought of reward.
Renouncing responsibilities is tamasic; avoiding action because of fear is rajasic; fulfilling responsibilities is sattvic.
“As long as one has a body, one cannot renounce action altogether. True renunciation is giving up all desire for personal reward.” (v11)
Indifference to reward propels one beyond Karma.
5 elements in action (right or wrong) are explained: body, means, ego, performance of act, Divine will.
Without grasping this, an individual perceives one’s self as having a separate existence.
Knowledge, the object to be known, and the knower, all promote action; the means, the act itself, and the doer, are all the totality of action; knowledge, action, and the doer can be explained within the gunas.
Sattvic knowledge sees one Being in all beings; rajasic knowledge sees all objects and creatures as separate and distinct; tamasic knowledge sees one small part and mistakes it for the whole.
Sattvic work is to fulfill obligation, without thought of reward or un/pleasantness; rajasic work is selfishly motivated; tamasic work is blindly undertaken without thought of consequences.
A sattvic worker is free from ego and full of enthusiasm; a rajasic worker has strong personal desires and is covetous and infatuated; a tamasic worker is undisciplined, vulgar, stubborn, deceitful, dishonest, lazy, easily depressed, and procrastinating.
Sattvic intellect knows when to act and ethical balance of action; rajasic intellect confuses right and wrong; tamasic intellect reverses right and wrong.
Sattvic will, through meditation, keeps prana, mind, and senses in vital harmony; rajasic will, through selfish desire, pursues wealth, pleasure, responsibility; tamasic will is immersed within obstinate ignorance, sloth, fear, grief, depression, and conceit.
Poison at first and nectar at the end is sattvic happiness; pleasure at first and poison at the end is rajasic happiness; sleep, indolence, intoxication is delusion of tamasic happiness.
The Hindu caste system is described: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra; and the qualities of each are described, respectively: self control, tranquility, purity of heart, patience, humility, learning, austerity, wisdom, and Faith; courage, strength, fortitude, dexterity, generosity, leadership, resolve to abstain from retreat; agriculture, dairying, and trade; service.
Everyone can attain perfection through devotion to one’s own duty; performing one’s own duty is preferable to performing the duty of another.
The path to unity with Brahman is described: unerring discrimination, sovereign of senses and passions, free from distraction of likes and dislikes, such an individual leads a simple, self-reliant life based upon meditation, controlling the person’s mind, speech, and body; reaching a Peace within one’s self and the Universe, and attaining the unitive state.
Sri Krishna concludes his talk with Arjuna.

--

There seems to be a fine line between the spiritual pursuits of sattva (and its indifference to the tangible pursuits of rajas) with the delusions described within tamas (and the perceivably self-involved practise of confusion). How does one appropriately deviate from convention (perceivably rajasic pursuits) whilst ensuring that such deviation is sattvic rather than tamasic?

Amidst the description of tamasic “mistaking one part for the whole,” are there any similarly microcosmic tendencies within the rigidly segregated caste system within Hinduism (particularly considering that the spectrum of skin tone of people indigenous to the Indian subcontinent exists within a larger spectrum, both lighter and darker, of the aggregate of humanity)? Does that mean that fair-skinned Brahmins intrinsically have less stature than other ethnicities with even lighter skin, and that dark-skinned Dalits intrinsically have less oppression than other ethnicities with even darker skin? And how is the proceeding irony reconciled: as an individual’s skin is increasingly exposed to the light, it becomes increasingly dark?

Throughout the Bhagavad Gita, there is the teaching of equanimity and to be indifferent to the results of actions; to simply behave in a manner that benefits all beings, irregardless of what benefits may result. Yet, tamasic sacrifice is described as having a certain lack of regard. How does one ensure that such giving is genuine whilst still abstaining from soliciting reward? How can an individual provide a gift to someone who is “unworthy”?

The description of the tamasic performing the discipline of mind, speech, and body for “power over others” actually seems to be a rajasic tendency. How is this distinction explained?

Within the Bhagavad Gita, there is the continual teaching that emphasises the pursuit of sattvic behaviour; yet, eventually, there is the description to progress (transcend) even beyond the pursuit of sattva (wisdom). How does an individual transcend the intrinsic self-involved intentions (the intrinsically selfish motivations) within pursuing wisdom, compassion, and righteous?

There is the reference to “abstaining from slaying people” when actually slaying people. This may be perceived in an esoteric Karmic sense of simply being the vehicle of Karma; however, amidst an individual’s awareness of ego, and the intention and concentration that is involved therein, how is an individual supposed to respond to this teaching? Is killing ultimately inconsequential, as all favourable and unfavourable acts are ultimately the result of the omnipotent will of God (and by maintaining this doctrine does an individual simply submit to the potential of similarly being killed) or is there some intrinsic principle of benevolence that is fundamentally involved within such evaporation of ego? Where does compassion, and the alleviation of suffering, fit into this equation? If one is genuinely free of one’s ego, then how is that individual compelled to do any action at all (whether it is killing another individual, eating a bowl of rice, or simply even breathing)? And within that spectrum of activity (of homicide, eating, and breathing) what is the balance of compulsion and free will within each act? Presumably, an individual maintains substantial control amidst a decision to commit homicide; and whilst an individual may be severely influenced to eat, presumably an individual can transcend that urge to abstain from ever eating again; however, it seems as though breathing is a compulsion that escapes an individual’s direct control (understanding that an individual eventually becomes unconscious after holding one’s breath whereby the body automatically resumes the process of breathing), unless the individual establishes certain circumstances that substantially prevent the continuation of breathing (such as jumping into the ocean).

It seems ironic, and perhaps revealing, that the occupation designated for the Shudra is “service.” What is the actual Sanskrit term utilised to describe this, and is there any intrinsic or ultimate factor of equanimity that is communicated within this distinction? What is the historic development of the Dalit caste?

Amidst the perceivable microcosmic characteristic of the Hindu caste system within the aggregate of humanity, what are the implications of this tangible, inter-generational social, political, and economic system amidst confluence with additional traditions? How does this compare with the “wrestling” that Judaism maintains with additional civilisations through numerous millennia? How might this be understood as being manifested within the temporal events of the second “World War,” particularly with Hitler being the grandson of a Jewish woman, and the Nazi party utilising the swastika as a prominent organizational symbol whilst proclaiming the superiority of the “Aryan” race? What is appropriate guidance for humanity in the proceeding generations, particularly the next 7?

--

Digha Nikaya

Mahali Sutta

The Buddha travels to Vesali; and the news of his arrival is shared amongst the local residents and visitors.
The Brahmins from Kosala and Magadha go to visit the Buddha; Nagita explains that it is inconvenient to meet with the Buddha at that juncture; the Brahmins sit and wait.
Hare-Lip the Likkavi also visits the Buddha, receives the same response, and also sits and waits.
Siha, “a novice,” approaches, with same response, and further protests.
Nagita relents and advises Siha to approach the Buddha by Siha’s own accord.
Siha approaches the Buddha, and the Buddha acquiesces to the solicitation and provides a discourse.
Hare Lip the Likkavi asks about another adherent’s experience regarding the ability to seeing Heavenly forms but the inability to hear Heavenly sounds; and Hare Lip the Likkavi asks whether such Heavenly sounds actually exist.
The Buddha confirms that such Heavenly sounds exist; and Hare Lip the Likkavi asks why the other adherent is unable to hear the Heavenly sounds.
The Buddha explains the tendency for “one-sided concentration” as being the cause; through “double-sided concentration,” such Heavenly sounds can be heard.
Mahali (Hare Lip the Likkhavi) asks whether it is for the experience of the Heavenly forms and Heavenly sounds that adherents pursue such discipline; the Buddha describes that there are phenomena “higher and sweeter than that.”
The Buddha describes the destruction of the 3 Bonds (delusion of self, doubt, and trust in the efficacy of good works and ceremonies) and this facilitating an absence of rebirth.
Upon Mahali’s solicitation, the Buddha describes the minimisation of lust, illwill, and dullness; and this facilitating the emergence as a “Once-returner.”
The Buddha describes the destruction of the 5 Bonds and transcending into the Heavens.
The Buddha describes the destruction of the Deadly Floods (Intoxicants, Lust, Becomings, Delusion, and Ignorance) and the attainment of Arahatship.
The Buddha describes the Eightfold Path as the means through which to attain such actualisation: Right Belief, Right Aspiration, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Thought, Right Meditation.
The Buddha provides the standard teaching: the arrival of the Buddha, awakening of the adherent, self-training in act, word, and speech, minor details of ethics, and the 4 Jhanas.
The Buddha explains his doctrine of abstinence regarding the conclusion of the existence of the soul and the connexion with the body.
The Buddha describes the destruction of the Deadly Floods and the 4 Noble Truths: pain, origin of pain, cessation of pain, and the eightfold path towards the cessation of pain.
The Buddha concludes his dialogue with Mahali.

--

Is the notion of “one-sided” and “double-sided” concentration simply a form of semantics? In the Buddha’s explanation, he seems to suggest that the other adherent (Sunakhatta) abstains from concentrating upon the Heavenly sounds and that is why he is unable to hear the Heavenly sounds. Yet, presumably, if Sunakkhatta tells this to Hare Lip the Likkavi, then presumably Sunakkhatta has an interest in hearing the Heavenly sounds; and if Sunakkhatta has a genuine interest in hearing the Heavenly sounds, presumably he is at least considering such an interest, if other than intently focusing upon such an interest, when he is practising the “one-sided” meditation. What, then, is the difference between having a genuine interest for something and proficiently meditation upon that phenomena in order to actualise the experience of that phenomena? What exists within the distinction of being able to see the Heavenly forms but being unable to hear the Heavenly sounds?

How does an adherent progress from an absence of rebirth to becoming a “Once-returner”? What is the difference between the two?

What is the nature of the interaction between the temporal realm of Earth and the Heavenly realm, within Buddhist Theology? It seems as though temporal beings, Arahats (Tathagatas, Bodhisattvas) maintain a higher rank that celestial beings. What are the implications of this, and how does this compare (similarly and by contrast) with the coinciding beliefs within the respective Avrahamic Faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and additionally (particularly considering the nature of the relationship between Adam and the Angels, respectively described within Bereshit of the Torah and the Koran)?

How is the Buddha’s response to the question of the soul and its connexion with the body difference from the equivocation that some of his contemporaries practise and that the Buddha is previously described as criticising (or knowing something better and beyond such equivocation)?

--

Gospels

Mark 4 – 6

Jesus teaches the parable of the sower with seeds: some on path, eaten by birds; some on rocky ground, scorched by Sun; some on thorns, choked therein; and some in good soil, producing fruit therefrom.
Jesus further explains the parable to his disciples: sower sows “the word;” those who receive it on the path, Satan takes the word; those on rocky ground, receive it with joy yet fall away amidst tribulation because of lack of roots; those amongst thorns, are consumed by the “cares of the World;” those in good soil, accept word and bear fruit.
A lamp is to be set atop of a stand.
“…the measure you give will be the measure you get…” (v24)
Jesus compares the Sovereignty of God to seed on the ground that grows without people’s knowledge of how.
Jesus compares the Sovereignty of God to the small mustard seed that sprouts into the mightiest of shrubs.
Jesus rebukes the wind and Sea and it becomes quiet.

Jesus encounters “Legion,” and heals him, sending the spirits into nearby swine that rush into the Sea and are drowned.
Jesus leaves to heal Jairus’ daughter.
A woman with a flow of blood is healed after touching Jesus’ garment.
People proclaim Jairus’ daughter as dead; Jesus says she is sleeping; people laugh at Jesus; Jesus heals Jairus’ daughter.

Jesus returns to his own country and teaches during Shabbat.
The local residents question Jesus; “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (v4)
Jesus assembles his 12 disciples and sends his disciples to heal people; “He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.” (v8 – 9)
King Herod perceives Jesus as the incarnate of John the Baptist, whom King Herod previously beheads per the request of his wife’s, and his brother’s wife’s, daughter (his niece).
Jesus’ apostles return to him.
Jesus feeds 5,000 men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, with 12 baskets of leftovers.
Jesus walks on the water.
Jesus heals additional people.

--

How does “the meaure you give…” doctrine of Jesus compare with the equanimity taught within the Bhagavad Gita and by the Buddha?

What are the metaphysics involved within Jesus’ healing of others, particularly considering the case of Legion? Why is it necessary to send the spirits into the swine (what do the swine previously, presumably, do to deserve that)? Why do the spirits vehemently ask to be sent into the swine, only for the swine to rush into, and drown within, the Sea? Is the drowning the consequence of the spirits’ presumed will (as such spirits are described as previously, transgressively inhabiting the man), or is the drowning a subsequent act of Divine will against the transgressiveness of the spirits?

Why does Jesus refuse to accept the healed man as a disciple, when the man emphatically asks to join Jesus, yet Jesus later makes an offer to the rich man to join Jesus, and the rich man despairs at the thought of relinquishing his material wealth? What apparent deficiency does the healed man have; and does the distinction of material wealth (and perhaps, presumably, social status, education, and additional characteristics) have any influence within this decision?

--

Koran

Sura 9: Al Bara (The Immunity)

Allah proclaims dissolution of previous liabilities established with idolaters, except for those idolaters that abstain from transgression and betrayal.
Allah commands the smiting of idolaters unless there is repentance, prayer, and payment of the “poor rate.”
Believers are obligated to accept idolaters who solicit refuge.
Fear towards fighting is chastised.
Stewardship of the Masjid is the exclusive responsibility of Believers.
Those who sacrifice livehood in the Cause of Allah are higher in rank.
Allah commands favour over familial relationships with unbelievers.
There is criticism towards the belief of Ezra as the son of Allah.
There is chastisement for people who hoard material riches.
Believers abstain from asking for a reprieve from striving in the Cause of Allah.
People with lack of belief ask for reprieve; and Allah intentionally separates such people from interfering with the striving of believers.
“If good befalls thee, it grieves them; and if hardship afflicts thee, they say: Indeed we had taken care of our affair before. And they turn away rejoicing.
The recipients of Zakat are identified: poor, needy, people administering it, recent converts, freeing of captives, the indebted, those striving in the way of Allah, and the wayfarer.
Some unbelieving people criticize the Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him.
Previous Prophets are referenced.
Description of people who make a promise to worship Allah whilst experiencing travails, and when the travails are lifted, abstain from actualising such promise.
Description of an absence of forgiveness from Allah towards disbelief.
There is a prohibition of previous “refuseniks” to join a subsequent campaign.
There is the direction to abstain from admiring the wealth and children of unbelievers.
There is the description of certain circumstances that warrant reprieve from fighting for believers with specific circumstances.
There is the description of the belief of certain desert Arabs.

--

Within the first few verses of this Sura, there are a number of protocols that are described specifically regarding negotiations, combat, Peace treaties, and guardianship of idolaters. What are the temporal circumstances that prompt these teachings, what are the actual teachings that are to be understood within this specific passage, and how does this passage fit within the context of additional teachings (both similar and distinct) that are provided elsewhere throughout the Koran, regarding this general topic?

Is there any distinction (room for negotiation) between an idolater practising that individual’s religious traditions and repenting, praying, and paying the poor-rate, with the idolater formally converting to Islam and summarily negating the idolater’s previous religious practises? Is it appropriate for the idolater to be compelled into Islam if the idolater abstains from transgressing against Muslims? Or is idolatry intrinsically transgressive against Islam?

Further within this passage of Sura Al Bara, there is the teaching that idolaters abstain from respecting ties of relationship. This may simply mean any form of social relationship, and the general notion of loyalty; however, there is also the consideration of whether the bond of marriage consecrated in one religion is actually acknowledged within another religion, whether it is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or otherwise. Within an arrangement of marriage, and within an increasingly orthodox observance within a specific religious tradition, there are certain qualifications that are required in order to establish a marriage as officially recognised and sanctioned within that specific religious tradition. So if a man and woman become married within a specific religion, is the sanctity of that marriage recognised by other religions? Or are both the man and the woman effectively considered as unwed and both available for marriage respectively with another woman and man within a different religion?

There is the description of the believers abstain from asking for respite in striving in the cause of Allah. There seems to be an interesting comparison with this teaching and the teaching from the Torah regarding the allowance for a soldier to return to his house amidst certain pre-existing factors.

Much of the content and teachings within this Sura seem to result from actual experiences of military conflict amongst the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, and his followers with additional Arab tribes. How are these teachings applicable to contemporary circumstances? How can such specific military confrontations be understood in a general, continual (perhaps political, socioeconomic, and even civil disobedient, ahimsic civil transcendent golden rule compassionate) manner?

What are the dynamics involved within the phenomenon of forgiveness? Within what circumstances (in response to what previous transgressions and amidst certain repentance) is it understood that Allah provides or withholds forgiveness? Are these the same circumstances that are prescribed from believers to similarly provide or withhold such forgiveness? Is there any previous transgression that precludes a believer from effectively soliciting and receiving proficient forgiveness from Allah and/or other believers, people thereby adversely effectively that believer’s progression amidst the Day Of Judgment?

Holy Scriptures Study (Week 8; Vayishlach); 118.3.29

Holy Scriptures Study, Week 8; Vayishlach; 118.3.29

Vayishlach

Bereshit 32:4 – 36:43

Yaakov sends messengers before reuniting with Esau; messengers reply that Esau is approaching with 400 men.

Yaakov prays to Adonai; Yaakov sends gifts to Esau, in droves.

Yaakov wrestles with the Angel and receives the name, “Yisrael.”

Yaakov and Esau are reconciled.

Shechem rapes Dinah; Sons of Israel deceive city of Hamor (and Shechem) into being circumcised, and kill all men in the city.

Yaakov commands his house to rid itself of idols.

Elohim blesses Yaakov, again, with name of, “Israel.”

On the way to Ephrath (Bethlehem), Rachel gives birth to Benyamin, and passes away.

The descendants of Esau are described.

The descendants of Seir are described.

The tribes of Esau are described.

--

What is the connexion between Yaakov praying to Adonai and subsequently sending gifts? Is the provision of gifts Divinely inspired?

There is an interesting similarity between the terms, “Yisrael,” and “Islam,” particularly considering how significant each term respectively is within the respective traditions of Judaism and Islam. It is also interesting to note the distinction of meanings (with terse English translations of): “wrestling with Adonai and prevailing,” and, “submission to the Will of Allah.” Is there any additional connexion, aside from the phonetic sound, “Is”? How does the term, “Ismael,” factor within this?

The story of Shechem is somewhat disconcerting. The hostility towards Shechem, after he rapes Dinah, is very understandable; however, upon learning of this story and even identifying with the hostility, how does a foreigner to Israel reconcile the propensity to deceive, and proceed towards substantially trusting the Sons of Israel?

--

Mahabharata

Bhagavad Gita

Chapters 15 – 16

The shvattha tree is described, with its branches and its taproot and s compared to Holy Scriptures, wherein people may evidence, however, there is an absence of a person who knows its source.

Gunas nourish the ashvattha tree, limbs spread above and below, sense objects grow on limbs as buds, and roots bind it to action.

Sri Krishna commands to cut down the tree through detachment.

Wise progress beyond duality of pleasure and pain.

Eternal part of Brahman, the Self, assumes powers of action, perception, and mind of prakriti; acts through gunas.

Wise, following Yoga, see Self within.

The Self exists within the life breath of all creatures.

The Self provides power to remember and understand, and can remove such.

All Holy Scriptures lead to Brahman.

There are 2 orders of beings: perishable, separate creatures and the changeless spirit.

The Self exists beyond the changeless and the changing.

True sight sees the Self.

Sri Krishna commands Arjuna to be self-controlled, sincere, Truthful, loving, and full of desire to serve; to study the Holy Scriptures; to be detached and take joy in renunciation; to abstain from anger and harming any living creature; to be gentle and compassionate; to show good will to all; to cultivate vigour, patience, will, purity; and to avoid malice and pride.

Inhuman qualities are hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, cruelty, and ignorance.

Divine qualities (leading to freedom) are doing what should be avoided, and avoiding what should be done; denial of God; causing suffering and destruction; proclaiming gratification of lusts as the ultimate.

Evilness is amassing hoards of money for cravings

Evilness proclaims likeness to God.

Evil characteristics are: self-important, obstinate, swept away by pride of wealth, ostentatious sacrifices, egotistical, violent, arrogant, lustful, angry, and envious.

Evil abuses presence of Brahman in own bodies and within others

Evil experiences Karmic consequences with continuation of existence.

There are 3 gates to self-destructive hell: lust, anger, and greed.

--

The principle of progressing beyond duality is again communicated within Chapter 15. Is this the same as “nonduality”? How the different references/teachings, regarding progressing beyond pleasure and pain, compare with each other; where are some additional examples of this?

What is the distinction between Brahman, Sri Krishna, and the Self? Is the Self, as described within this chapter, essentially Atman? How can English translations overcome the “Lord” syndrome and appropriate interpret and utilise the Name of God? Can the concept of God be accurately communicated, in a transgendered (neutral, beyond gender) manner, within a language that relies upon the intrinsic and fundamental masculinity and femininity within every noun within that language?

“All Holy Scriptures lead to Me” seems to reinforce the practise of amalgamating the Dharma of Hinduism. Does this mean, particularly considering skin complexion and the prevalence of the Hindu caste system specifically predicated upon a limited spectrum of these complexions, that the tradition of Hinduism is effectively a microcosm of the Universe, and intrinsically prone to the inaccuracies of being such a microcosm?

How do the concepts and teachings of Atman, Gunas, Prakriti, Purusha, Senses, and additionally, compare and interact with the “Western” concepts of the ego, free will, senses, the soul, spirit, and additionally?

Amidst the proclamation of anything being “evil,” it seems rather critical to identify behaviour as “evil,” rather than people as “evil;” because people are continually changing and maintain the propensity to become righteous. “Evil” behaviour remains the same.

The consideration of “abusing the Self within” one’s own body and the body of others is interesting. What is an example of this? And amidst the belief in the omnipotence of Brahman, how can anything contradict the Will of Brahman?

--

Digha Nikaya

Kutadanta Sutta

The Buddha visits the Ambalatthika Pleasuance, in Khanumata in Magadha.

Kutadanta, the Brahmin, prepares to make a large sacrifice.

Kutadanta considers to ask the Buddha about the sacrifice with 3-fold method, 16 accessory instruments; and leaves to visit the Buddha.

Local Brahmins challenge Kutadanta in a manner similar to Sonadanda, and Kutadanta similarly replies.

Kutadanta visits the Buddha, and the Buddha describes the quintessential sacrifice.

The Buddha tells the story of King Maha Vigita who wants to offer a sacrifice.

King Maha Vigita’s Brahmin advises him of disruption within the kingdom, and inappropriateness of offering sacrifice amidst such disruption; to establish accord before offering sacrifice.

The Brahmin states that military action and punishment against robbers is insufficient because it abstains from removing all culprits.

The Brahmin advises to give food and seeds to those who are interested in keeping cattle and raising crops; to give capital to whoever is interested in trading; and to give wages and food to whoever is interested in government work.

The Brahmin advises that men become productive with such investment and families dance with children and open doors.

King Maha Vigita complies; and comprehensive Peace and social and economic accord are established.

The Brahmin advises the king to consult with the Kshatriyas, ministers and officials, Brahmins, and householders, to endorse the sacrifice; this sanctioning becomes 4 furnishings for the sacrifice.

The Buddha describes King Maha Vigita’s 8 gifts: wellborn on both sides for 7 generations without a slur, handsome and fair complexion, mighty and wealthy, commanding a powerful army, believing and giving, learned and knowledgeable, understanding of the meaning of concepts, and intelligence; these gifts are 8 furnishings.

The Buddha describes the 4 gifts of the Brahmin Chaplain: wellborn on both sides for 7 generations without a slur, learned within the Holy Scriptures, virtue, and intelligence; these gifts are 4 furnishings.

The Buddha describes the 3 modes: abstaining from regret before the sacrifice; abstaining from regret during the sacrifice; abstaining from regret after the sacrifice.

The Buddha describes 10 potential detractors from sacrifice: those who delve into: killing, thievery, lust, lies, slander, rude speech, vain chatter, covetousness, illwill, and wrong views; advice to abstain from responding to such actors, and to cater to those who abstain therefrom.

The sacrifice is made without killing any animals, without cutting down trees, without oppressive labour; “whoso chose to help, he worked; whoso chose not to help, worked not.”; sacrifice is made only with ghee, oil, butter, milk, honey, and sugar.

Citizens offer sacrifice for king, and king refuses; citizens establish philanthropies with intended sacrifices.

The listeners of the story rejoice, but Kutadanta is troubled; he asks Buddha whether the Buddha is that Brahmin, and the Buddha confirms.

The Buddha describes additional, enhanced forms of sacrifices: perpetual gifts to a virtuous family; establishing a dwelling place for the Sangha; accepting a Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, as a guide; and adhering to 5 prohibitions (killing, thievery, lust, deceit, intoxication).

The Buddha provides the standard teaching of 4 Ghanas.

Kutadanta accepts the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and releases the animals.

The Buddha teaches the doctrine of the 4 Noble Truths (Dukka, Desire, Cessation of Desire, Noble 8-Fold Path).

Kutadanta offers another meal for the Buddha and the Sangha.

--

The story that the Buddha tells regarding the strategy for implementing Peace and social and economic cohesion seems rather fantastic; is it plausible? What is required, within the leadership and within the people, to establish such circumstances? How long does that process take? If there is an absence of punishment and retaliation, can it actually be expected that crime becomes nil?

The 4 groups of people that the Budda described seems to conform with the 4 traditional castes within Hinduism: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, (Vaikyas), and Shudras; is this an accurate correlation? If so, what is the distinction between “Kshatriyas” and “ministers and officials,” given that the Kshatriya seems to include ministers and officials; and does the category of “householder” apply to both (Vaisyas) and Shudras? If so, does this apparent lack of regard for the distinction connote some intrinsic arrogance: an implied lack of regard towards such castes compared to the Brahmins and Kshatriyas (also considering that the Brahmin again lists first his own traditional caste of his temporal life, Kshatriya). At what point do Dalits emerge within the historic progression of Hinduism? And is there any relevance within the perception of the traditional Buddhist Sangha, with the Monks and Nuns and laypeople, essentially being a caste system with 2 distinctions: Brahmins and Dalits (albeit, perhaps with increasing compassion, yet still with defined distinctions, esoteric implications, and social hierarchy still involved)?

Within the description of the potential detractors, the Buddha seems to revert to the 5 basic prohibitions additionally described within the Digha Nikaya (killing, thievery, lusts, deceit, and intoxication), with the exception of intoxication. What is the nature of the distinction within this list of ten behaviours (some of which seem to be rather similar) and the 5 prohibition described elsewhere? Is there any significance that should be inferred from this distinction?

How does the story of the offerings provided by the citizens compare with the story of Moshe needing to refuse the offerings from the Israelites to make the items of the ark and the tabernacle?

--

Gospels

Mark 1 – 3

There is reference to a prophecy of Isaiah.

John the Baptist lives austere life and proclaims arrival of Moshiach.

Jesus is baptised by John and Heaven opens.

God proclaims Jesus as the Son of God, and Jesus enters into the wilderness for 40 days, being tempted by Satan.

Jesus makes Simon and Andrew “fishers of men,” as well as James and John, sons of Zebedee.

Jesus teaches in Synagogue of Capernaum, with authority, and heals a man with an unclean spirit.

Jesus heals Simon’s mother-in-law and additional people.

Jesus heals leper, demands man to provide offering prescribed by Moshe, however, man proclaims the name of Jesus.

People remove roof to bring paralytic to Jesus.

Scribes challenge Jesus about his ability to forgive sins: Jesus says: It is easier to forgive than to say, “Walk.”

Jesus solicits Levi, son of Alphaeus, to join him.

Jesus eats with sinners and tax collectors; Jesus says: Only sick have need of a physician.

People ask why Jesus abstains from fasting; Jesus implies expectation of there eventually emerging a time to fast, when he is ascended; new cloth for new clothes, new wine for new wineskins.

Jesus’ disciples pluck grain during Shabbat, and Jesus refers to actions of David eating Bread of the Presence: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Jesus asks whether it is lawful to heal during Shabbat, and heals the man with a withered hand.

Jesus climbs mountain and identifies his 12 disciples: Simon (Peter), James (Boanerges) and John (sons of Zebedee), Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the Cananaean), and Judas Iscariot.

Jesus is accused of being possessed and replies: evil is unable to cast out evil.

Mother and brothers approach to be with Jesus and Jesus proclaims: Everyone who does the Will of God is my mother, brother, sister.

--

There seems to be some significance within the description of Jesus teaching “with authority.” This seems to imply that the scholars, with the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, are perceived as being subordinates, and that the conventional power-holders are the governours or political leaders who may have less knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Is this accurate? Or are people simply astonished because wisdom is being communicated in a manner that is defiant of convention? It seems like the physical act of studying inside for a lifetime precludes a man from becoming an authoritative soldier and military leader; is this accurate? And if so, what are the power dynamics regarding this? And how does this compare to contemporary circumstances where much of the socially elite are predominantly “paper pushers,” and the political authorities are often “speech readers”? From where is power and authority derived, and how is this recognized by “ordinary people”?

Citing the example of the leper who is told to make the offering that Moshe prescribes, why do the people who are healed by Jesus abstain from abiding by his command?

What are the “Talmudic” stories of the Gospel? Why are Jesus’ disciples provided with different names (such as “Matthew” in Matthew, and “Levi” in Mark); are these 2 names referring to the same individual (the tax collector) or to different individuals? What is the traditional significance and the interpretations regarding these differences? What do these differences intrinsically teach regarding how Holy Scriptures should be read, studied, understood, and practiced (from literal adherence to comparatively rationalised, or inspired, interpretation)?

What may be some explanations regarding the nature of the healing that Jesus provides? Is there an intrinsic connexion between past transgressions (sins) and physical ailment; a connexion that is alleviated through proficient forgiveness? Is physical health substantially a psychosomatic experience that is influenced through the suggestion of others? Is it possible to be healed simply through forgiveness? What actually occurs within the person being healed; what is the metaphysical phenomenon within the transformation of Faith that facilitates such healing?

How should Jesus’ reference to the prohibitions and permisions during Shabbat be interpreted? Does Jesus categorically alleviate the entire observance of Shabbat? Is there any significance in that it is Jesus’ disciples who are plucking the grain, rather than Jesus, specifically? If Jesus teaches the alleviation of Shabbat, why is there weekly Sunday worship (also predicated upon the 7-day story told in Bereshit)? And how does this compare with a seemingly similar teaching within Islam regarding the practise of Jumuah and Salat every Friday, yet without recognition of the prohibition that exist with Shabbat (and the fundamental principle of resting during Shabbat)? What are the ontological implications of this absence of observance with respect to the story of Creation and the metaphysical implications and practises that exist therein?

Regarding the man with the withered hand: is it necessary for Jesus to heal him specifically during Shabbat, or can he wait until later that night or the next day to heal the man? Is Jesus perhaps concerned about having a tight schedule that may preclude him from healing everyone, or is he perhaps being intentionally defiant simply to challenge the Pharisees?

What are the intrinsic teachings that Jesus provides regarding familial relationships, when proclaiming everyone as an immediate relative? This seems to be a practise of Universal familiality, and this is frequently included throughout the Gospels; however, Jesus also explicitly refers to the teachings of Moshe for people to honour father and mother, and presumably abide by the distinctions of familial relationships. How does this coincide with additional teachings regarding marriage and sexual relations within Christianity (particularly considering teachings Jesus provides for men to be celibate and abstain from marriage and sexual relations), and considering the traditional practice of celibacy within Christianity (and specifically, Catholicism)? What are the explicit guidelines regarding the family construct within Christianity? And what implications does Jesus’ implicit denial of his biological mother and brothers have on the profundity of the example of Mary?

--

Koran

Sura Al Anfal (Voluntary Gifts)

There is reference to voluntary gifts and the behaviour of believers in Allah, being generous.

Allah provides believers with assistance of Angels amidst concern of conflict with others.

Allah commands smoting of those who oppose Allah and the Messenger of Allah.

“This – and (know) that Allah will weaken the struggle of the disbelievers;” (verse 18).

Allah describes those who proclaim hearing but abstain from hearing.

There is the warning of affliction that may abstain from smiting exclusively the unjust.

Wealth and children are described as a temptation.

“And Allah would not chastise them while thou wast among them; nor would Allah chastise them while they seek forgiveness.” (verse 33).

Hell is described for disbelievers.

There is the description of Allah providing assurance amidst the fears of the believers.

“And if thou fear treachery on the part of a people, throw back them (their treaty) on terms of equality. Surely Allah loves not the treacherous.”

“And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely (Allah) is the Hearer, the Knower.” (verse 61)

“And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee. (Allah) it is Who strengthened thee with (Allah’s) help and with the believers.” (verse 62).

There is the description of the spoils of conflict.

--

Within the command to smote those who challenge Allah and Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, there is also reference to the Fire. Within this passage, there is an address to Angels, so is the implicit command within this passage made specifically to Angels (as is seemingly reinforced through later verses), and does the reference to the Fire coincide with this celestial invocation? Or, is this also to be understood as applicable to human believers? And if so, is there the implicit suggestion that human believers are supposed to be manifesting the trans-temporal experience of the Fire (presuming that the consequences of al Qisayimah are trans-temporal) upon unbelievers? And if that is so, is that simply a hyperbolic perception of the characteristics of the temporal realm?

“So you slew them not but Allah slew them”: how does this compare with Sri Krishna describing to Arjuna that Arjuna is simply a mechanism or manifesting the Will of Brahman that already occurs? And how does this compare with the Chrubim and Angels of Adonai protecting the Israelites from the Egyptians and additional combatants? Does this notion of “Allah doing the fighting” have any literal relevance regarding the practise of Ahimsa: being willing to vehemently confront oppression, yet abstaining from actually inflicting violence?

Within this Sura, there is the description of Allah doing away with a believer’s evils and providing protection. This passage seems to be rather static in its description, yet elsewhere within the Koran, there is also the description of believers straying from belief and returning to transgressions. So, given that additional teaching, what is the nature of this protection and alleviation of evils?

There is also the teaching of respite being given to disbelievers for a number of different reasons, including the propensity of disbelievers to seek forgiveness? What are the implications of this respite with respect to the behaviour of believers; to what extent should believers provide the opportunity for forgiveness to disbelievers?

What does “all religions are for Allah” actually mean? Understanding that Islam itself is described as a religion that precedes the temporal birth of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, and that is actually practised by Avraham and Moshe and Jesus and additional Prophets, does that mean that adherents to additional contemporary religious traditions, distinct from what is commonly referred to Islam, are also included as a “religion for Allah”? Can Islam be practised without the Shahadah? And that brings the consideration of the Buddha’s question to Sonadanda regarding the quintessential characteristics of a Brahmin (being righteousness and wisdom), is there a similar redaction that may be perceived for Muslims?

Within certain guidance for participating within conflict with disbelievers, there is a reference to the practise of treaties (in verse 58). Does this reference teach the significance of written agreements and contracts even with strangers or enemies (as contracts with business partners are described elsewhere within the Koran)? What are the dynamics between the methodology of violent conflict and the methodology of mediation, negotiation, and treaties? Elsewhere within the Koran, there is the command to only fight when the enemy is initiating the fight or being oppressive; however, there also seems to be a protocol for offering negotiations before immediately waging violence. What is the nature of that spectrum and how can the protocols for diplomacy be emphasised amidst a substantial interest, amidst some, for violent conflict?

Later, there is the description that when disbelievers attempt to deceive, for believers to simply trust in Allah. What does that actually mean? Does that mean to begin waging violent conflict and trust that Allah will deliver the rightful combatants; or does that mean to simply be quiet and accept the adversity; or something in between?

--

--

Going to visit a new friend in the new friend’s home. New friend casually provides a pitcher of a refreshing beverage and a glass; how do you know how much to pour (how much do you pour and how do you decide)? New friend asks to pour new friend a glass, how do you know how much to pour? New friend provides numerous glasses for additional friends, how do you know how much to pour? Any adjustments? How do you determine what happens amidst disparities?

Conversational questions for CCWA; story of etiquette lesson with Dan Ro (his offering, my reply and experience of sabotage)

--

Question to interfaith and religious leaders: soliciting moral endorsement of UIFAN (with basic description of methodology [and Ahimsic Civil Transcendent Golden Rule Compassion], and propensity to break laws; with UCLP, and ACE Plan)

Question: is it OK to break the law? If otherwise, do you agree with Gandhi, MLK, and Ghosananda, Mendela, and others? If yes, what are necessary circumstances for such, and do any of those circumstances exist now?

(abstain from specifically soliciting you to join us and practise ACTGRC, although you are welcome, simply soliciting your moral endorsement that we may communicate to conventional authority as legitimacy of endeavor to prevent unnecessary, (and even violent) reaction and conflict)

--

Correspondences for projects (including Project Transformation)