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 4th
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
4th 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 3rd 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 7th 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 7th 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?
No comments:
Post a Comment