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)
No comments:
Post a Comment