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?