Holy Scriptures Study, Week 9; Vayeishev; 118.4.8
Vayeishlev
Bereshit 37:1 – 40:23
Yaakov settles in Canaan in area where Yitzak settles.
Yaakov favours Yosef (with coloured coat), and brothers have animosity towards Yosef.
Yosef has dream of his brothers’ sheaves bowing to his sheaf.
Yosef has dream of Sun, Moon, and 11 Stars bowing to him (comparing Yaakov, Rachel, and brothers).
Yaakov sends Yosef to join his brothers in the field.
Yosef’s brothers throw him in a well and sell him to merchants travelling to Egypt; Yosef is sold to Potiphar.
Yudah moves away from brothers and has children with natives.
Yudah sleeps with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who bears Peretz and Zerach.
Yosef finds favour with Potiphar and attains responsibility and status.
Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce Yosef and accuses him of attempting to rape her; Yosef is sent to prison.
The Pharaoh’s cup-bearer and baker are put into prison and both have different dreams; Yosef interprets the dreams and tells of 2 different outcomes; the cup-bearer is restored and the baker is executed.
--
Why does Yosef dream about sheaves in the field when he, his family, and the tribes of Avraham are herdspeople?
It seems as though Reuven is the responsible and compassionate son in trying to save Yosef from his brothers. Yet, Reuven is described as later sleeping with one of Yaakov’s wives, causing him severe disgrace and curses. Who is Reuven and what can be learned from his example?
How does the story of Yudah, through this time, compare with that of Reuven? What is the significance of Yudah “moving away” from his brothers, and what implications does this having with respect to the subsequent occurrence of the tribe of Yudah amidst the “lost tribes”? What lessons are to be learned from Yudah propositioning a prostitute who later is revealed as his own daughter-in-law?
What esoteric (“Karmic”) lessons exist within the story of Yosef? Whilst it may seem unfavourable for Yosef to be placed within prison, this facilitates his transfer from Potiphar’s house to Pharaoh’s house that may otherwise be prevented by a possessive Potiphar. Similarly, when Yosef’s brothers capture him and sell him to the merchants going to Egypt, this secures the survival of the tribes of Israel (as is later explained in subsequent Parshot). How can we better appreciate the purpose of contemporary circumstances that seem to be other than what we favour?
--
Bhagavd Gita
Chapters 17 – 18
All creatures possess some characteristic, either sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic.
The different forms of worship of the gunas is described: sattvic: God; rajas: power, wealth; tamasic: spirits, ghosts.
The different forms of food of the gunas is described: sattvic: mild, nourishing, healthy; rajasic: salty, spicy, painful; tamasic: overcooked, stale, leftovers.
The different forms of sacrifice of the gunas is described: sattvic: mindful; rajasic: consideration of reward; tamasic: lack of regard.
Service is the discipline of the body; kind, Truthful words are the discipline of speech; calmness, gentleness, silence, self restraint, and purity are the discipline of the mind.
The sattvic perform this discipline without attachment to results; the rajasic perform this discipline to gain status, thus it is undependable and transitory in effect; the tamasic perform this discipline to gain power over others or for self-torture.
Giving for compassion’s sake is sattvic; giving for returned reward is rajasic; giving in an in appropriate manner to unworthy person is tamasic.
Om Tat Sat: Om is communicated during offering, practicing discipline, and offering gifts; Tat is communicated when striving for liberation when performing such acts; Sat (“that which is”) indicates goodness.
Sat is steadiness of righteousness; sacrifice without good Faith is “asat.”
Sannyasa is restraint from selfish actions.
Tyaga is renouncing the fruit of action.
Some wise people proclaim that all action should be renounced as transgressive; some wise people proclaim that certain action (self-sacrifice, giving, self-discipline) should be practised; Sri Krishna confirms this.
3 types of tyaga are explained: self-sacrifice, giving, and self-discipline should be practised without thought of reward.
Renouncing responsibilities is tamasic; avoiding action because of fear is rajasic; fulfilling responsibilities is sattvic.
“As long as one has a body, one cannot renounce action altogether. True renunciation is giving up all desire for personal reward.” (v11)
Indifference to reward propels one beyond Karma.
5 elements in action (right or wrong) are explained: body, means, ego, performance of act, Divine will.
Without grasping this, an individual perceives one’s self as having a separate existence.
Knowledge, the object to be known, and the knower, all promote action; the means, the act itself, and the doer, are all the totality of action; knowledge, action, and the doer can be explained within the gunas.
Sattvic knowledge sees one Being in all beings; rajasic knowledge sees all objects and creatures as separate and distinct; tamasic knowledge sees one small part and mistakes it for the whole.
Sattvic work is to fulfill obligation, without thought of reward or un/pleasantness; rajasic work is selfishly motivated; tamasic work is blindly undertaken without thought of consequences.
A sattvic worker is free from ego and full of enthusiasm; a rajasic worker has strong personal desires and is covetous and infatuated; a tamasic worker is undisciplined, vulgar, stubborn, deceitful, dishonest, lazy, easily depressed, and procrastinating.
Sattvic intellect knows when to act and ethical balance of action; rajasic intellect confuses right and wrong; tamasic intellect reverses right and wrong.
Sattvic will, through meditation, keeps prana, mind, and senses in vital harmony; rajasic will, through selfish desire, pursues wealth, pleasure, responsibility; tamasic will is immersed within obstinate ignorance, sloth, fear, grief, depression, and conceit.
Poison at first and nectar at the end is sattvic happiness; pleasure at first and poison at the end is rajasic happiness; sleep, indolence, intoxication is delusion of tamasic happiness.
The Hindu caste system is described: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra; and the qualities of each are described, respectively: self control, tranquility, purity of heart, patience, humility, learning, austerity, wisdom, and Faith; courage, strength, fortitude, dexterity, generosity, leadership, resolve to abstain from retreat; agriculture, dairying, and trade; service.
Everyone can attain perfection through devotion to one’s own duty; performing one’s own duty is preferable to performing the duty of another.
The path to unity with Brahman is described: unerring discrimination, sovereign of senses and passions, free from distraction of likes and dislikes, such an individual leads a simple, self-reliant life based upon meditation, controlling the person’s mind, speech, and body; reaching a Peace within one’s self and the Universe, and attaining the unitive state.
Sri Krishna concludes his talk with Arjuna.
--
There seems to be a fine line between the spiritual pursuits of sattva (and its indifference to the tangible pursuits of rajas) with the delusions described within tamas (and the perceivably self-involved practise of confusion). How does one appropriately deviate from convention (perceivably rajasic pursuits) whilst ensuring that such deviation is sattvic rather than tamasic?
Amidst the description of tamasic “mistaking one part for the whole,” are there any similarly microcosmic tendencies within the rigidly segregated caste system within Hinduism (particularly considering that the spectrum of skin tone of people indigenous to the Indian subcontinent exists within a larger spectrum, both lighter and darker, of the aggregate of humanity)? Does that mean that fair-skinned Brahmins intrinsically have less stature than other ethnicities with even lighter skin, and that dark-skinned Dalits intrinsically have less oppression than other ethnicities with even darker skin? And how is the proceeding irony reconciled: as an individual’s skin is increasingly exposed to the light, it becomes increasingly dark?
Throughout the Bhagavad Gita, there is the teaching of equanimity and to be indifferent to the results of actions; to simply behave in a manner that benefits all beings, irregardless of what benefits may result. Yet, tamasic sacrifice is described as having a certain lack of regard. How does one ensure that such giving is genuine whilst still abstaining from soliciting reward? How can an individual provide a gift to someone who is “unworthy”?
The description of the tamasic performing the discipline of mind, speech, and body for “power over others” actually seems to be a rajasic tendency. How is this distinction explained?
Within the Bhagavad Gita, there is the continual teaching that emphasises the pursuit of sattvic behaviour; yet, eventually, there is the description to progress (transcend) even beyond the pursuit of sattva (wisdom). How does an individual transcend the intrinsic self-involved intentions (the intrinsically selfish motivations) within pursuing wisdom, compassion, and righteous?
There is the reference to “abstaining from slaying people” when actually slaying people. This may be perceived in an esoteric Karmic sense of simply being the vehicle of Karma; however, amidst an individual’s awareness of ego, and the intention and concentration that is involved therein, how is an individual supposed to respond to this teaching? Is killing ultimately inconsequential, as all favourable and unfavourable acts are ultimately the result of the omnipotent will of God (and by maintaining this doctrine does an individual simply submit to the potential of similarly being killed) or is there some intrinsic principle of benevolence that is fundamentally involved within such evaporation of ego? Where does compassion, and the alleviation of suffering, fit into this equation? If one is genuinely free of one’s ego, then how is that individual compelled to do any action at all (whether it is killing another individual, eating a bowl of rice, or simply even breathing)? And within that spectrum of activity (of homicide, eating, and breathing) what is the balance of compulsion and free will within each act? Presumably, an individual maintains substantial control amidst a decision to commit homicide; and whilst an individual may be severely influenced to eat, presumably an individual can transcend that urge to abstain from ever eating again; however, it seems as though breathing is a compulsion that escapes an individual’s direct control (understanding that an individual eventually becomes unconscious after holding one’s breath whereby the body automatically resumes the process of breathing), unless the individual establishes certain circumstances that substantially prevent the continuation of breathing (such as jumping into the ocean).
It seems ironic, and perhaps revealing, that the occupation designated for the Shudra is “service.” What is the actual Sanskrit term utilised to describe this, and is there any intrinsic or ultimate factor of equanimity that is communicated within this distinction? What is the historic development of the Dalit caste?
Amidst the perceivable microcosmic characteristic of the Hindu caste system within the aggregate of humanity, what are the implications of this tangible, inter-generational social, political, and economic system amidst confluence with additional traditions? How does this compare with the “wrestling” that Judaism maintains with additional civilisations through numerous millennia? How might this be understood as being manifested within the temporal events of the second “World War,” particularly with Hitler being the grandson of a Jewish woman, and the Nazi party utilising the swastika as a prominent organizational symbol whilst proclaiming the superiority of the “Aryan” race? What is appropriate guidance for humanity in the proceeding generations, particularly the next 7?
--
Digha Nikaya
Mahali Sutta
The Buddha travels to Vesali; and the news of his arrival is shared amongst the local residents and visitors.
The Brahmins from Kosala and Magadha go to visit the Buddha; Nagita explains that it is inconvenient to meet with the Buddha at that juncture; the Brahmins sit and wait.
Hare-Lip the Likkavi also visits the Buddha, receives the same response, and also sits and waits.
Siha, “a novice,” approaches, with same response, and further protests.
Nagita relents and advises Siha to approach the Buddha by Siha’s own accord.
Siha approaches the Buddha, and the Buddha acquiesces to the solicitation and provides a discourse.
Hare Lip the Likkavi asks about another adherent’s experience regarding the ability to seeing Heavenly forms but the inability to hear Heavenly sounds; and Hare Lip the Likkavi asks whether such Heavenly sounds actually exist.
The Buddha confirms that such Heavenly sounds exist; and Hare Lip the Likkavi asks why the other adherent is unable to hear the Heavenly sounds.
The Buddha explains the tendency for “one-sided concentration” as being the cause; through “double-sided concentration,” such Heavenly sounds can be heard.
Mahali (Hare Lip the Likkhavi) asks whether it is for the experience of the Heavenly forms and Heavenly sounds that adherents pursue such discipline; the Buddha describes that there are phenomena “higher and sweeter than that.”
The Buddha describes the destruction of the 3 Bonds (delusion of self, doubt, and trust in the efficacy of good works and ceremonies) and this facilitating an absence of rebirth.
Upon Mahali’s solicitation, the Buddha describes the minimisation of lust, illwill, and dullness; and this facilitating the emergence as a “Once-returner.”
The Buddha describes the destruction of the 5 Bonds and transcending into the Heavens.
The Buddha describes the destruction of the Deadly Floods (Intoxicants, Lust, Becomings, Delusion, and Ignorance) and the attainment of Arahatship.
The Buddha describes the Eightfold Path as the means through which to attain such actualisation: Right Belief, Right Aspiration, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Thought, Right Meditation.
The Buddha provides the standard teaching: the arrival of the Buddha, awakening of the adherent, self-training in act, word, and speech, minor details of ethics, and the 4 Jhanas.
The Buddha explains his doctrine of abstinence regarding the conclusion of the existence of the soul and the connexion with the body.
The Buddha describes the destruction of the Deadly Floods and the 4 Noble Truths: pain, origin of pain, cessation of pain, and the eightfold path towards the cessation of pain.
The Buddha concludes his dialogue with Mahali.
--
Is the notion of “one-sided” and “double-sided” concentration simply a form of semantics? In the Buddha’s explanation, he seems to suggest that the other adherent (Sunakhatta) abstains from concentrating upon the Heavenly sounds and that is why he is unable to hear the Heavenly sounds. Yet, presumably, if Sunakkhatta tells this to Hare Lip the Likkavi, then presumably Sunakkhatta has an interest in hearing the Heavenly sounds; and if Sunakkhatta has a genuine interest in hearing the Heavenly sounds, presumably he is at least considering such an interest, if other than intently focusing upon such an interest, when he is practising the “one-sided” meditation. What, then, is the difference between having a genuine interest for something and proficiently meditation upon that phenomena in order to actualise the experience of that phenomena? What exists within the distinction of being able to see the Heavenly forms but being unable to hear the Heavenly sounds?
How does an adherent progress from an absence of rebirth to becoming a “Once-returner”? What is the difference between the two?
What is the nature of the interaction between the temporal realm of Earth and the Heavenly realm, within Buddhist Theology? It seems as though temporal beings, Arahats (Tathagatas, Bodhisattvas) maintain a higher rank that celestial beings. What are the implications of this, and how does this compare (similarly and by contrast) with the coinciding beliefs within the respective Avrahamic Faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and additionally (particularly considering the nature of the relationship between Adam and the Angels, respectively described within Bereshit of the Torah and the Koran)?
How is the Buddha’s response to the question of the soul and its connexion with the body difference from the equivocation that some of his contemporaries practise and that the Buddha is previously described as criticising (or knowing something better and beyond such equivocation)?
--
Gospels
Mark 4 – 6
Jesus teaches the parable of the sower with seeds: some on path, eaten by birds; some on rocky ground, scorched by Sun; some on thorns, choked therein; and some in good soil, producing fruit therefrom.
Jesus further explains the parable to his disciples: sower sows “the word;” those who receive it on the path, Satan takes the word; those on rocky ground, receive it with joy yet fall away amidst tribulation because of lack of roots; those amongst thorns, are consumed by the “cares of the World;” those in good soil, accept word and bear fruit.
A lamp is to be set atop of a stand.
“…the measure you give will be the measure you get…” (v24)
Jesus compares the Sovereignty of God to seed on the ground that grows without people’s knowledge of how.
Jesus compares the Sovereignty of God to the small mustard seed that sprouts into the mightiest of shrubs.
Jesus rebukes the wind and Sea and it becomes quiet.
Jesus encounters “Legion,” and heals him, sending the spirits into nearby swine that rush into the Sea and are drowned.
Jesus leaves to heal Jairus’ daughter.
A woman with a flow of blood is healed after touching Jesus’ garment.
People proclaim Jairus’ daughter as dead; Jesus says she is sleeping; people laugh at Jesus; Jesus heals Jairus’ daughter.
Jesus returns to his own country and teaches during Shabbat.
The local residents question Jesus; “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (v4)
Jesus assembles his 12 disciples and sends his disciples to heal people; “He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.” (v8 – 9)
King Herod perceives Jesus as the incarnate of John the Baptist, whom King Herod previously beheads per the request of his wife’s, and his brother’s wife’s, daughter (his niece).
Jesus’ apostles return to him.
Jesus feeds 5,000 men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, with 12 baskets of leftovers.
Jesus walks on the water.
Jesus heals additional people.
--
How does “the meaure you give…” doctrine of Jesus compare with the equanimity taught within the Bhagavad Gita and by the Buddha?
What are the metaphysics involved within Jesus’ healing of others, particularly considering the case of Legion? Why is it necessary to send the spirits into the swine (what do the swine previously, presumably, do to deserve that)? Why do the spirits vehemently ask to be sent into the swine, only for the swine to rush into, and drown within, the Sea? Is the drowning the consequence of the spirits’ presumed will (as such spirits are described as previously, transgressively inhabiting the man), or is the drowning a subsequent act of Divine will against the transgressiveness of the spirits?
Why does Jesus refuse to accept the healed man as a disciple, when the man emphatically asks to join Jesus, yet Jesus later makes an offer to the rich man to join Jesus, and the rich man despairs at the thought of relinquishing his material wealth? What apparent deficiency does the healed man have; and does the distinction of material wealth (and perhaps, presumably, social status, education, and additional characteristics) have any influence within this decision?
--
Koran
Sura 9: Al Bara (The Immunity)
Allah proclaims dissolution of previous liabilities established with idolaters, except for those idolaters that abstain from transgression and betrayal.
Allah commands the smiting of idolaters unless there is repentance, prayer, and payment of the “poor rate.”
Believers are obligated to accept idolaters who solicit refuge.
Fear towards fighting is chastised.
Stewardship of the Masjid is the exclusive responsibility of Believers.
Those who sacrifice livehood in the Cause of Allah are higher in rank.
Allah commands favour over familial relationships with unbelievers.
There is criticism towards the belief of Ezra as the son of Allah.
There is chastisement for people who hoard material riches.
Believers abstain from asking for a reprieve from striving in the Cause of Allah.
People with lack of belief ask for reprieve; and Allah intentionally separates such people from interfering with the striving of believers.
“If good befalls thee, it grieves them; and if hardship afflicts thee, they say: Indeed we had taken care of our affair before. And they turn away rejoicing.
The recipients of Zakat are identified: poor, needy, people administering it, recent converts, freeing of captives, the indebted, those striving in the way of Allah, and the wayfarer.
Some unbelieving people criticize the Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him.
Previous Prophets are referenced.
Description of people who make a promise to worship Allah whilst experiencing travails, and when the travails are lifted, abstain from actualising such promise.
Description of an absence of forgiveness from Allah towards disbelief.
There is a prohibition of previous “refuseniks” to join a subsequent campaign.
There is the direction to abstain from admiring the wealth and children of unbelievers.
There is the description of certain circumstances that warrant reprieve from fighting for believers with specific circumstances.
There is the description of the belief of certain desert Arabs.
--
Within the first few verses of this Sura, there are a number of protocols that are described specifically regarding negotiations, combat, Peace treaties, and guardianship of idolaters. What are the temporal circumstances that prompt these teachings, what are the actual teachings that are to be understood within this specific passage, and how does this passage fit within the context of additional teachings (both similar and distinct) that are provided elsewhere throughout the Koran, regarding this general topic?
Is there any distinction (room for negotiation) between an idolater practising that individual’s religious traditions and repenting, praying, and paying the poor-rate, with the idolater formally converting to Islam and summarily negating the idolater’s previous religious practises? Is it appropriate for the idolater to be compelled into Islam if the idolater abstains from transgressing against Muslims? Or is idolatry intrinsically transgressive against Islam?
Further within this passage of Sura Al Bara, there is the teaching that idolaters abstain from respecting ties of relationship. This may simply mean any form of social relationship, and the general notion of loyalty; however, there is also the consideration of whether the bond of marriage consecrated in one religion is actually acknowledged within another religion, whether it is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or otherwise. Within an arrangement of marriage, and within an increasingly orthodox observance within a specific religious tradition, there are certain qualifications that are required in order to establish a marriage as officially recognised and sanctioned within that specific religious tradition. So if a man and woman become married within a specific religion, is the sanctity of that marriage recognised by other religions? Or are both the man and the woman effectively considered as unwed and both available for marriage respectively with another woman and man within a different religion?
There is the description of the believers abstain from asking for respite in striving in the cause of Allah. There seems to be an interesting comparison with this teaching and the teaching from the Torah regarding the allowance for a soldier to return to his house amidst certain pre-existing factors.
Much of the content and teachings within this Sura seem to result from actual experiences of military conflict amongst the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, and his followers with additional Arab tribes. How are these teachings applicable to contemporary circumstances? How can such specific military confrontations be understood in a general, continual (perhaps political, socioeconomic, and even civil disobedient, ahimsic civil transcendent golden rule compassionate) manner?
What are the dynamics involved within the phenomenon of forgiveness? Within what circumstances (in response to what previous transgressions and amidst certain repentance) is it understood that Allah provides or withholds forgiveness? Are these the same circumstances that are prescribed from believers to similarly provide or withhold such forgiveness? Is there any previous transgression that precludes a believer from effectively soliciting and receiving proficient forgiveness from Allah and/or other believers, people thereby adversely effectively that believer’s progression amidst the Day Of Judgment?
No comments:
Post a Comment