Holy Scriptures Study (Week 7; Vayetze) 118.3.21

Holy Scriptures Study, Week 7; Vayetze; 118.3.21

Vayetze

Bereshit 28:10 – 32:3

Yaakov leaves Beer-Sheva towards Haran

Yaakov dreams and sees ladder to Heaven, with Adonai’s Angels

Adonai tells of the vastness of Yaakov’s progeny

Yaakov builds pillar of stones, with oil, and calls it “Beth El;” makes vow to Adonai

Yaakov meets and kisses Rachel and moves stone from well

Yaakov contracts with Laban to labour 7 years for marriage with Rachel

After 7 years, Laban provides Leah; Yaakov labours another 7 years for Rachel

Leah gives birth to Reuven, Simeon, Levi, and Yudah; Bilhah gives birth to Dan and Naphtali; Zilpah gives birth to Gad and Asher

Reuven picks duda’im for Leah; Leah trades to Rachel; Leah sleeps with Yaakov and conceives Issachar; Leah conceives Zebulun and Dinah

Rachel gives birth to Yosef

Yaakov plans to leave Laban; negotiates wages; Laban deceitfully removes Yaakov’s flocks; Yaakov establishes methodology, with blessing of Adonai, for bountiful flocks

Yaakov and his family and house flee from Laban; Rachel steals Laban’s idols

Laban pursues Yaakov; receives warning from Adonai to be temperate with Yaakov; Laban catches Yaakov; is unable to find idols

Laban and Yaakov make treaty of Peace and erect pillar and mound of stones

Laban departs from Yaakov’s camp

--

What are some of the social dynamics within the relationship between Rachel and Leah? And what is the role of the respective “maids”/“slaves,” Bilhah and Zilpah? Does this have any implications regarding any implicit hierarchy amidst all of Yaakov’s sons?

What are some of the social dynamics within the aggregate relationship between Yaakov and Laban (and Laban’s house)? How does this relationship evolve throughout the narrative in Bereshit? Utilising the example of Laban wanting to kiss his children goodbye as one instance, how does each utilise a portion of the Truth to make an argument that might solicit an exceeding acquiescence on the part of the other?

What is the nature of the marital relations between Yaakov and his wives? How is he able to maintain a proficient amount of cohesion amongst his 4 wives, compared to Avraham with Sarah and Hagar? Within the practice of polygamy, or maintaining multiple wives, is there an inevitable establishment of 1 favoured wife and additional subordinate wives? The example of Yaakov seems to be different from a sultan maintaining a harem of women. It seems as though Yaakov maintains the practice of sleeping with Rachel, however, he evidently sleeps with Leah, without Rachel’s explicit permission, in order to conceive Zebulun and Dinah. Are there any historic examples of there being proficient equitability amongst numerous wives of one husband? How binding is Laban’s demand for Yaakov to abstain from marrying any additional women?

There seems to be an appropriate comparison to the spoils of victory from a violent battle and Rachel’s stealing of Laban’s idols. Other than causing insult and/or harm to Laban, what benefit do Laban’s idols provide to Rachel and Yaakov and his family and house? Contrarily, does stealing the idols implicitly involve Rachel and Yaakov and his family and house within the same transgression of idol worship (or at least perceiving significance within idols) for which Laban is intrinsically criticised? Does this have any connexion with the later description of Yaakov being required to remove all the idols from his household? How is the practice of maintaining murtis explained within Hinduism, amidst a belief in an Ultimate Reality, Brahman, that exists beyond matter, personification, duality, and existence itself? Is there a difference between Hindu murtis, statues of the Buddha, Christian depictions of Jesus, the Kaaba in Mecca, and bowing before the Torah, from the idol worshipping practiced by Laban and other nations described in Bereshit and the Torah?

--

Mahabharata

Bhagavad Gita 13 – 14

The body is the field, the knower of the body is the knower of the field; Brahman is the Knower of the fields of all

The field consists of: 5 sense perceptions, 5 elements, 5 sense organs, 3 components of mind (manas, buddhi, ahamkara), and undifferentiated energy from which previously described characteristics are evolved

Within field arise desire and aversion, pleasure and pain, body, intelligence, and will

True knowledge is free from pride and deceit; is gentle, forgiving, upright, pure, devoted, internally strong, self-controlled; even-minded through fortune and adversity; delighted with solitude

Sri Krishna describes the Self as the True end of Wisdom

Sri Krishna describes Brahman as beyond being and nonbeing; It exists within all beings

The subtlety of Brahman is beyond comprehension; It is indivisible, yet appears divided within separate creatures

It is the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer

It dwells in every heart and exists beyond darkness

Prakriti is without beginning; and is the agent, cause, and effect of every action; and the phenomenon from which the gunas are derived

Purusha rests in Prakriti; experiences pleasure and pain; witnesses play of gunas born of Prakriti

Attachment to gunas leads a person towards benevolence or transgression

The supreme Purusha within the body is the highest Self (witness, approver, supporter, enjoyer)

Some realise Self through meditation, wisdom, and/or selfless service; and/or hearing and following an illumined teacher

True vision sees Brahman the same in all creatures

Actions are performed by Prakriti, whilst Self remains unmoved

Witnessing variety of Creation rooted in, and growing out of, unity of Brahman, provides fulfillment in Brahman

Sri Krishna describes the womb of Brahman as Prakriti, wherein the seed is placed; resulting in the creation of all phenomenon

3 gunas bind the immortal Self to the body: sattva, rajas, and tamas

Sattva: pure, luminous, freedom from sorrow; binds with attachment to happiness and wisdom

Rajas: passion from selfish desire and attachment; binds Self to compulsive action

Tamas: derived from ignorance, deludes creatures through heedless, indolence, and sleep

Sattva predominates when rajas and tamas are transformed; rajas prevails when sattva is weak and tamas overcome; tamas prevails when rajas and sattva are dormant

Through sattva, wisdom shines; through rajas, there is selfishness, greed, and drive through restlessness and desire; through tamas, there is darkness, slothfulness, confusion, infatuation

There are difference consequences for each guna

Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna to progress beyond all the gunas; victory is achieved through indifference to gunas; equanimity amidst pleasure and pain, friend and foe

--

What is the premise and the principle of “nonduality,” and “being” and “nonbeing”? Is the concept of “nonbeing” predicated upon the perception of “being,” and therefore provided as the antithetical or the eventual consequence of “being” or “life;” does “nonbeing” simply mean “dead” or “non-existent”? When proclaiming the “non-existence” of a phenomenon, such a proclamation, in and of itself, necessarily establishes the existence of that very phenomenon, at least in an abstract, conceptual, imaginary, or delusional manner; it is tantamount to writing a contract to forget something and referring to that contract in order to remember what to forget. Amidst the notion of “being” and “nonbeing,” how can the concept of that which transcends this duality be effectively perceived and communicated in a proficiently tangible manner? What is the direct, intrinsic, and esoteric connexion between “nonduality” and the teachings, within the Bhagavad Gita (and also seemingly within Buddhism and additionally) regarding equanimity and maintaining indifference to pleasure and pain? How can these teachings of indifference be compared to the hardened “street codes” of pimps and gangsters that profess similar doctrines? How does the selfishness of pimps and gangsters on the streets compare with the selfishness of ordained Monks in a Monastery?

How does the “subtlety of Brahman” compare with the Taoist principle of the pious nature of water? Does such pliability equate with submission to others, and necessarily solicit a de-masculinisation within men? How should an ordinary, “householder” man appreciate and practise this principle of subtlety and the nature of water, without being ridiculed and abused by others?

“Indivisibility amidst the separation of creatures” seems like a very powerful awakening; what are some further penetrating considerations regarding the metaphysics of this concept?

The reference to, “creator,” “preserver,” and “destroyer,” seems exceedingly exact to the “trinity” within Hinduism of, respectively, “Brahma,” “Vishnu,” and “Shiva.” Is this what is actually meant? And if so, how does this fit within the context of the explanation of Sri Krishna being an iteration, avatar of Vishnu? Is this doctrine of the ultimate “Oneness” of the “trinity” an authoritative, traditional interpretation, belief, and doctrine? How is this explained and/or evidenced within the Rig Veda and additional Hindu Holy Scriptures? And, on another note, there seems to be an interesting similarity between the Sanskrit term, “Shiva,” and the Hebrew term, “shiva.”

Meditation, wisdom, selfless service, devotion, renunciation of results are often described within the Bhagavad Gita as distinct paths; there seems to be an absence of a combined practice of a multiple of these paths. Are these paths mutually exclusive or intrinsically connected? What are some appropriate balances of such combinations? And, is there any deficiency in exclusively concentrating upon or practising one path?

Later descriptions of the respective behaviours of sattva, rajas, and tamas seem to communicate a significant similarity between sattva and tamas, within what may be perceived as a linear (or circular) spectrum of sattva, rajas, and tamas. How does a spiritual aspirant ensure that the spiritual aspirant is progressing beyond the gunas and abstains from practising a “tamasic microcosm” of the Ultimate Reality of the Universe? And, is there any susceptibility of Hinduism, and perhaps any religious tradition, effectively being a microcosm of the aggregate experience of humanity and the further reaching infinity throughout the Universe (particularly considering the familial and ethnic-based caste system within Hinduism and the existence of a wider spectrum of skin colour (both lighter and darker) than exists within the finite parameters of the Indus civilisation?

--

Digha Nikaya

Sonadanda Sutta

The Buddha and the Sangha rest at the Gaggara Lake, in Kampa, in the Anga country

Sonandanda, the Brahmin, proclaims intention to visit the Buddha

Brahmins criticise Sonadanda for such intentions because of the diminishment of his reputation resulting from thus, citing his qualities as a Brahmin, including being: well born on both sides, prosperous, a repeater of the Vedas, handsome with fair complexion, virtuous, provided with pleasant voice, a teacher of teachers, aged, honoured, and a resident of the prosperous area of Kampa (provided by Seniya Bimbisara)

Sonadanda proclaims virtues of the Buddha, including being: well born on both sides, a religious forsaker of his family, a religious forsaker of treasures, departed from his handsome and youthful manhood, departed from his parents and his household life, handsome with fair complexion, virtuous, provided with pleasant voice, teacher of teachers, without the passion of lust, a believer of Karma and righteousness, a renunciant of the Kshatriya clan, a renunciant of a wealthy family, a recipient of visitors from distant lands, a recipient of the trust of Heavenly beings, an Arahat, a possessor of the 32 signs, a welcomer of all men, honoured, the recipient of the belief or men and dieties, an instiller of Peace, a chief of religious sects, a recipient of the trust of Seniya Bimbisara, Pasenadi, Pokkharasadi, and a guest of Kampa

The Brahmins acquiesce to Sonadanda

Sonadanda becomes fearful of being unable to proficiently answer a question from the Buddha or being unable to proficiently ask the Buddha a question; and thus, losing standing

The Buddha asks Sonadanda a simply question: what makes a Brahmin a Brahmin?

Sonadanda proclaims 5 characteristics that qualify an individual as a Brahmin: well born on both sides for 7 generations, a repeater of the Vedas, handsome and fair complexion, virtuous, and wise

The Buddha asks if an individual can qualify as a Brahmin without any 1 of these characteristics

Sonadanda concedes that 3 characteristics (handsome and fair complexion, repeater of the Vedas, and well born on both sides for 7 generations) are unnecessary in qualifying as a Brahmin

Brahmins criticise Sonadanda for depreciating the Brahmin caste

Sonadanda responds by citing example of his nephew, Angaka; proclaiming that Angaka has the 3 characteristics, yet if he behaves without virtue and wisdom (citing 5 prohibitions within Buddhism: killing, stealing, adultery, dishonesty, and intoxication), he disqualifies himself as a Brahmin

The Buddha asks whether an individual can qualify as a Brahmin without either virtue or wisdom; Sonadanda affirms his stance regarding these 2 characteristics and the Buddha agrees

The Buddha asks: what, then, is that righteousness and what that wisdom? Sonadanda returns the question to the Buddha, and the Buddha provides standard teaching of the Dharma

After receiving the discourse, Sonadanda proclaims to be an adherent of the Dharma

Sonadanda makes disclaimer of social protocols in abstaining from bowing to the Buddha in public to maintain his standing

--

Is the characteristic of avoiding ever receiving a slur an actual, historic trait, or is this somewhat of a hyperbole? There is the consideration that within different historic civilisations, particularly wherein there is less written communication and reliance upon verbal communication and agreements is vital, that people may be increasingly conscientious of what people actually say (compared to contemporary circumstances of multimedia and hyperdrive communications). Is it possible, amidst contemporary circumstances, to live without a slur ever being communicated against one’s self (either personally and/or implicitly through affiliation with a general community); and, is it possible to live without communicating a slur against someone else and/or another general community?

Within this Sutta, the Buddha is described as having a proficient ability of telepathy. Is proficient telepathy a marvel within the intellectually entrenched practices of “Western civilisation”? And do Eastern traditional practitioners maintain a proficiency within this phenomenon of telepathy? To what extent do people actually believe in the ability of telepathy and what are some of the protocols or guidelines regarding the actual practice of telepathy? It seems that simply by the communication of the concept, the ability necessarily exists in some degree or another. There is the consideration of “tacit” communication and inside jokes. Within one episode of Star Trek, where the crew interacts with extra-terrestrial life that maintains such ability, there is the description of a certain protocol of etiquette in practising telepathy where the practitioner is advised to abstain from “reading” the thoughts of another individual without receiving appropriate permission from that individual. Are there any additional protocols of etiquette that seem appropriate? One consideration, amidst the practice of telepathy, is how an individual is able to definitively determine the source of the thoughts of another individual. There may be an initial perception of a thought being communicated from another person within an individual’s immediate physical proximity, however, amidst the phenomenon of telepathy, there is the consideration that thoughts can be communicated from the vast infinity of space and the progression of events (time); perhaps even from people who are passed from this life. We may consider the previous “influences” and teachings that people respectively have upon us and how that affects the thought that we seem to experience with others who are physically and immediately close to us. How much are these thoughts being communicated from those near to us, those distant from us, and how much are these thoughts simply a projection from our respective selves? From where is a thought actually derived?

What is the custom associated with being one who is the first to “hold out the ladel”?

--

Gospels

Matthew 25 – 28

Jesus teaches the parable of the 10 maidens, with lamps, waiting to see the bridegroom

Jesus teaches the parable of the master providing talents (5, 2, 1, respectively) to 3 servants

Jesus proclaims greeting from Heaven: “I was hungry and you fed me,” and additionally, and the contrary

Jesus prophesies his own crucifixion amidst Pesach

Woman pours ointment on Jesus’ head; his disciples rebuke her, and Jesus proclaims her virtue in doing such

Judas Iscariot arranges betrayal of Jesus for 30 silver coins

Jesus tells disciples to go to house and arrange for Pesach dinner

During dinner, Jesus prophesies one of his disciples betraying him

Jesus breaks bread and proclaims it as his body; drinks wine and proclaims it as his blood, providing forgiveness for sins

Jesus and his disciples walk to Mount of Olives, and he prophesies each falling away from him; Peter denies, and Jesus prophesies Peter’s denial of Jesus 3 times before the cock crows

Jesus prays to God for alleviation of crucifixion; his disciples fall asleep whilst on guard

Judas identifies Jesus to the authorities with a kiss; his disciples cut off ear of one of the authority’s slaves; Jesus rebukes violence and heals the slave; Jesus proclaims that all adversity must occur to fulfill the prophesy

Jesus is taken away; Caiaphas, the High Priest, interrogates Jesus about being the Moshiach; Jesus is indignant; Caiphas condemns Jesus to death; bystanders ask Peter about his allegiance, and Peter denies his affiliation with Jesus 3 times before the cock crows, and he cries

Jesus is taken to Pilate

Judas repents, returns the silver coins, and commits suicide

Pilate interrogates Jesus and has difficulty finding fault; Pilate abides by his Pesach custom and offers to the public to release Jesus or Barabbas, a murder; the crowd demands the release of Barabbas, and condemns Jesus to crucifixion; Pilate washes his hands before the crowd and sends Jesus to be crucified; the soldiers mock Jesus; Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus’ cross, and Jesus is crucified next to 2 robbers

Jesus cries to God and yields his spirit

Joseph of Aramathea takes Jesus’ body and places it within the burial cave

The Pharisees solicit Pilate to send guards to watch over Jesus’ tomb

Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit Jesus’ tomb

An Earthquake emerges and an Angel of God removes the rock from the tomb

The guards fall unconscious, and the Angel tells the women that Jesus is gone from the tomb and to tell this to his disciples

Jesus meets the women and instructs the women to tell his disciples to meet him in Galilee

Jesus meets with his disciples, proclaims the trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and commands the proselytisation of all nations

--

Within the parable, it seems as though the master is being compared to God (or perhaps, within a traditional Christian interpretation, Jesus) and that the criticism of the servant with 1 talent is being admonished. However, within the parable, the master seems to admit that he (the master) is a deceitful and transgressive individual, and this confirms the initial criticism and fear that the servant communicates. And yet, the servant is still admonished because of his response to the unrighteous master. So, first of all, the master seems to be an inaccurate depiction of the righteousness and ultimate authority of God (at least in a traditionally perceived manner); the master is harmful. And also, the parable seems to espouse the temporal pursuits of making money (talents) and accumulating material wealth; and that seems to contradict actual, direct teachings that Jesus otherwise provides: for his disciples to forsake the temporal pursuits of this life for the sake of reaching Heaven. It may be understood that every parable and metaphor is intrinsically limited in communicating a full and accurate depiction of the incomprehensive realm of Heaven and God, however, this parable seems rather contradictory. How does this compare with the metaphor of the rich man, Heaven, the camel, and the eye of the needle?

What are the implications regarding Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross of Jesus, particularly amidst Jesus’ teaching of each person carrying each person’s own respective cross?

What is the exact doctrine that Jesus proclaims as his own that is to be proselytised to all the nations, and what is the prescribed methodology of this proselytisation (particularly amidst Jesus’ emphatic teachings regarding love for one’s neighbour as one’s self, and love for one’s enemy, in addition to his proclamation that he has “other sheep” of whom his disciples are unaware?

--

Koran

Sura 7: Al A’raf; The Elevated Places

The Koran proclaims the Oneness of Allah, and the tendency of disbelievers, including Iblis

Iblis vows to corrupt humanity

The story of Adam, evil, and the forbidden, is described

The Koran implores the children of Adam to be righteous, and avoid seduction of evil unlike example of Adam and Eve

There is the description of the cycles of civilisation; and imploring of humanity to abide by the Message

There is the description of a veil and the Elevated place between the believers and the disbelievers

There is the description of how Allah creates the Universe

There is the command to call upon Allah humbly and in secret

The mercy of Allah is provided to the doers of good

There is reference to Noach

There is reference to Hud who refers to Noach

There is reference to Salih and the people of Thamud, who references the people of Ad (and Hud), and the Thamud hamstring the she-camel

There is reference to Lot

There is reference to Shua’ib and the people of Midian, who teaches fair measures

There is the description of people being tested with blessings

There is reference to Moshe, Pharaoh, the rod into a snake, and the dissonance between Moshe and Pharaoh and Pharaoh’s Priests

There is the description of the plagues suffered by Egypt

Moshe communes with Allah for 40 days, whilst Aaron is with the children of Israel

Aaron and the Israelites form the golden calf and repent when Moshe returns

The Messenger of Allah, Peace Be Upon Him, is referenced, also as “the Ummi”

There is the description of the miracles amidst Moshe

There is the description of the transgression of the Israelites

The Hour is described

Verse 199: “Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn away from the ignorant.”

--

When reading the Koran, is there a certain pattern of technique that can or should be recognized regarding many of the versus of the Suras? For instances, there are certain themes and principles that are repeatedly emphasised (such as the Oneness of Allah, the Creation of Allah, tendencies and consequences of disbelievers, references to historic responses from believers and disbelievers, blessings, curses, descriptions of Creation, and additionally). Is there a certain combination where specific teachings and principles are usually connected with each other in sequential verses? If there are certain patterns, is there any variation from this, within the Koran? And, amidst such patterns, is there any significance to where and how these patterns are arranged, and/or within any manner of how these patterns may vary within the Koran? Does the inclusion of any frequent, standard teachings, principles, and/or patterns amidst other (perceivably distinct and stand alone, and less repeated) teachings provide increased or decreased significance to the other teachings being communicated in a specific passage?

What is the actual distinction between the 1^st person plural proclamations of the Koran, made from the Angels of Allah (and presumably the Angel, Gabriel) and the actual actions and proclamations of Allah? Is the voice of Allah explicitly or intrinsically included within that 1^st person plural language of the Koran?

How does the belief, understanding, and/or interpretation and implications of the story of Adam and Eve, the Tree of Knowledge, and the serpent (evil, Devil, additionally) compare between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

There seems to be an implicit suggestion of a linear sequential emergence of Noach, Hud, Salih, Noach, and Shua’ib. Is this an accurate observation, and is this the historical progression of each of these individuals? How does this compare with the narrative within the Torah, the Talmudic and traditional explanations, and additional accounts of the history within this same geographic area?

There is an interesting distinction in the respective stories that describe Moshe’s interaction with Allah on the Mountain. Within this Sura, Al A’rah, Allah is describe ed as crumbling another mountain when Moshe solicits to see Allah; whereas, within the Torah, there is the description of Adonai passing by Moshe so that Moshe is able to see the back of Adonai. Amidst these obvious differences, what are some of the fundamental similarities within these 2 stories, and how do these compare with additional descriptions of similar experiences, such as Arjuna and Sri Krishna, Jesus, and the Buddha, and additionally?

After a considerable amount of concentration, repetition, and consideration, this Sura seems to become increasingly cohesive. There seems to be a linear description of the many Prophets revered within Islam and within the Koran (as previously described and continuing through Moshe and Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Each Prophet). Is this intentional? This lineage also exists within the context of additional teachings (also, as previously described). Does this have any significance. The name of this Sura is, “Al A’rah” (The Elevated Places), and seems to refer to the specific teaching (also previously described) regarding the distinction of the respective experience of believers and disbelievers upon the Day of Judgment. What are the implications of this title of, “Al A’rah,” with respect to the lineage of the Prophets; and who provides this Sura with this appellation?

There is the consideration, amidst the title, “Al A’rah,” is it easier to be a “believer” when one is in Heaven, or when one is experiencing the adversity of the curses of the Day of Judgment. The teachings of Heaven, within the Koran, seem to communicate the “carrot and the stick” approach, offering exceeding sensual pleasures (of gardens, companions , and additionally) within Heaven, upon the Day of Judgment. Yet there is also the teaching that the bounties and pleasures of this temporal realm are simply a test of righteousness and to abstain from indulging in such seduction. So why is Heaven described as a sensual delight of pleasures when there is the teaching to abstain from becoming enveloped within such sensual pleasures? The teaching to abstain from such sensual pleasures seems to suggest that such sensual pleasures are ultimately insignificant; and if such sensual pleasures are ultimately insignificant, then such descriptions of heightened sensual pleasures in Heaven, upon the Day of Judgment for the believers, is a false motivation for those who adhere to such beliefs. The notion of “saving up” one’s righteousness to experience the ultimate sensual pleasures in Heaven seems to be intrinsically contradictory. How does this approach to transcending sensual pleasures of this temporal realm compare with the teachings of indifference (maintaining equanimity amongst pleasure and pain, friend and foe) provided from the Bhagavad Gita?

Within this Sura, the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, is specifically referenced, which seems to be somewhat unusual; however, this may also be understood within the previously described context of the linear history of the Prophets. Is there any significance to this inclusion? Why are Avraham and Jesus and others (such as David and Solomon) excluded from this linear historic description? And, what significance to Peter and Paul respectively maintain within the Faith of Islam?

When the Koran commands: “Say: …I am the Messenger of Allah…”, is this a specific, exclusive command for Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, or are all Muslims who recite this passage supposed to identify as being the recipient of this command and this position? What are the implications with either of these understandings?

What is the meaning and significance of the reference to “the Ummi” (one who abstains from writing and reading what is written)?

Within this Sura, there is reference to the 99 Names of Allah; and amidst this, there is the consideration of a book-writing project, where each of the 99 Names of Allah are listed within the order that these names appear within the Koran, with citations, and with each name written in Arabic, with translations of each name in additional, appropriate languages. And perhaps such a book may provide some additional insight and teaching regarding many or all of these names.

Also within this Sura, there is the description that alternate personas of worship, other than Allah, are very much slaves just like those who provide the worship. How can this teaching be applied to the contemporary form of celebrity and the pursuit of fame and personal glory?