שלום.नमस्ते.สมาธิ.Pax.سلم.Peace.Sat Nam.صلح.Kwey.Amani.ειρήνη.Pace.Paz.Paix.Fred.Frieden.Vrede.Siochana.мир.امن.和平.平和.평화.Aloha.
Holy Scriptures Study, Week 19 Terumah, 118.6.13
Torah
Shemot 25:1 – 27:19
“Adonai spoke to (Moshe), saying, Speak to the Israelites, and have each one bring Me a gift. Accept the gifts from everyone who wants to give willingly. The gifts that you accept from them shall consist of the following: gold, silver, copper, blue wool, dark red wool, and crimson wool, linen, goats’ hair, tanned rams’ skins, dyed blue sealskins, acacia wood, olive oil for the lamp, spices for the anointing oil and the sweet-smelling incense, and onyxes and other precious stones for the ephod and the breastplate. The Israelites shall make Me a Tabernacle in which I will live among them.” (v1-8).
Adonai commands Moshe to instruct the Israelites to provide offerings to Adonai to construct the mishkan.
The ark of the covenant is commanded to be constructed.
A cover for the ark of the covenant is commanded to be constructed, with 2 gold, cherubim sculptures atop of the ark.
“Set the ark cover on top of the ark after you put the Ten Commandments that I will give you into the ark.
There I will meet with you and speak to you from the ark cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the ark. This is how I will pass along My instructions for the Israelites.” (v21-22).
The table for the bread of display, and its instruments, are commanded to be constructed.
The menorah is commanded to be constructed.
The mishkan (mishkan, tent of meeting) is commanded to be constructed, with tapestries, and accessories.
The gold-covered wooden framework for the mishkan is commanded to be constructed.
The partition and outer screen of the mishkan are commanded to be constructed.
The altar is commanded to be constructed, with its copper instruments.
The courtyard enclosure is commanded to be constructed, with copper instruments and copper-covered accessories.
--
Why does the cover for the Ark of the Covenant include sculptures of cherubim (angels)? Within the spectrum of the polarities of polytheistic idol worship and atheistic denial of the Divine, where does such a practise fit? Do the cherubim sculptures, and the cherubim embroidery, violate the mitzvot to abstain from making any graven image?
There seem to be a number of different interpretations regarding the dimensions of the outer sanctuary and the mishkan; how does this happen?
It is described that a “cubit” (Hebrew: “אמה,” “ammah”) is the measure of distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger of a normal sized man; is it increasingly appropriate to measure this as approximately 50cm or 1 /2’?
Within the description of the “prominent” items amidst the mishkan, there are also descriptions of “accessories,” such as sockets, clasps, hoops, hooks, moldings, ring holders, and additionally; within the Digha Nikaya, the term “accessories” is also utilised in describing different components involved in offering a sacrifice, such as the noble characteristics of the king making the offering, and those of his brahmin chaplain, as well as the process involved in making the offering; whilst this term, “accessories,” is an English translation, and the 2 contexts are somewhat distinct, there also seems to be an intrinsic similarity between the respective concepts and processes; what are some of these relevant similarities?
How do the commands for these offerings compare with Sri Krishna’s description of offering, within the Bhagavad Gita?
How can the courtyard enclosure be compared to the traditional practise of the eruv?
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapters 1 – 2
Dhritarashtra solicits Sanjaya to describe the battle scene between the Pandavas and the Kurus.
Sanjaya describes Duryohdhana’s conversation with his teacher, Drona, observing the forces of the Pandavas.
“O my teacher, look at this mighty army of the Pandavas, assembled by your own gifted disciple, Yudhishthira.” (v3).
Duryodhana admires the forces of the Pandavas and proclaims the valour of his own forces, the Kurus.
Bhishma, of the Kurus, blows his conch horn.
Sri Krishna and Arjuna both blow conch horns.
Arjuna commands Sri Krishna to drive the chariot within the middle of the battlefield.
“And Arjuna, standing between the two armies, saw fathers and grandfathers, teachers, uncles, and brothers, sons and grandsons, in-laws and friends.
“Seeing his kinsmen established in opposition, Arjuna was overcome by sorrow. Despairing, he spoke these words:” (v26-27).
Arjuna becomes sorrowful with the prospect of fighting his relatives.
“Though they are overpowered by greed and see no evil in destroying families or injuring friends, we see these evils.” (v38).
“When a family declines, ancient traditions are destroyed. With them are lost the spiritual foundations for life, and the family loses its sense of unity.
“Where there is no sense of unity, the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos.
“Social chaos is hell for the family and for those who have destroyed the family as well. It disrupts the process of spiritual evolution begun by our ancestors.
“The timeless spiritual foundations of family and society would be destroyed by these terrible deeds, which violate the unity of life.” (v40-43).
Arjuna refuses to fight.
“This despair and weakness in a time of crisis is mean and unworthy of you, Arjuna. How have you fallen into a state so far from the path to liberation?
“It does not become you to yield to this weakness. Arise with a brave hear and destroy the enemy.” (v2-3).
“Surely it would be better to spend my life begging than to kill these great and worthy souls! If I killed them, every pleasure I found would be tainted.” (v5).
Arjuna submits himself to the tutelage of Sri Krishna.
“You speak sincerely, but your sorrow has no cause. The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.” (v11).
“There has never been a time when you and I and the kings gathered here have not existed, nor will there be a time when we will cease to exist.” (v12).
Sri Krishna describes a permanent Reality that exists within each individual.
“The impermanent has no reality; reality lies in the eternal. Those who have seen the boundary between these two have attained the end of all knowledge.” (v16).
“Realize that which pervades the universe and is indestructible; no power can affect this unchanging, imperishable reality.” (v17).
“You were never born; you will never die. You have never changed; you can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, you do not die when the body dies.” (v20).
The “Self” is described.
Sri Krishna describes the duty of a warrior.
Sri Krishna references yoga.
“Those who follow this path, resolving deep within themselves to seek Me alone, attain singleness of purpose. For those who lack resolution, the decisions of life are many-branched and endless.” (v41).
“There are ignorant people who speak flowery words and take delight in the letter of the law, saying that there is nothing else.
“Their hearts are full of selfish desires, Arjuna. Their idea of heaven is their own enjoyment, and the aim of all their activities is pleasure and power. The fruit of their actions is continual rebirth.
“Those whose minds are swept away by the pursuit of pleasure and power are incapable of following the supreme goal and will not attain samadhi.” (v42-44).
Sri Krishna references the 3 gunas.
“You have the right to work, but never to the fruit of work. You should never engage in action for the sake of reward, nor should you long for inaction.” (v47).
“Perform work in this world, Arjuna, as a man established within himself—without selfish attachments, and alike in success and defeat. For yoga is perfect evenness of mind.” (v48).
“Seek refuge in the attitude of detachment and you will amass the wealth of spiritual awareness. Those who are motivated only by desire for the fruits of action are miserable, for they are constantly anxious about the results of what they do.
“When consciousness is unified, however, all vain anxiety is left behind. There is no cause for worry, whether things go well or ill. Therefore, devote yourself to the disciplines of yoga, for yoga is skill in action.” (v49 -50).
“When your mind has overcome the confusion of duality, you will attain the state of holy indifference to things you hear and things you have heard.” (v52).
“When you are unmoved by the confusion of ideas and your mind is completely united in deep samadhi, you will attain the state of perfect yoga.” (v53).
“They live in wisdom who see themselves in all and all in them, who have renounced every selfish desire and sense craving tormenting the heart.” (v55).
“Neither agitated by grief nor hankering after pleasure, they live free from lust and fear and anger. Established in meditation, they are truly wise.
“Fettered no more by selfish attachments, they are neither elated by good fortune nor depressed by bad. Such are the seers.” (v56-57).
“When you keep thinking about sense objects, attachment comes. Attachment breeds desire, the lust of possession that burns to anger.
“Anger clouds the judgment; you can no longer learn from past mistakes. Lost is the power to choose between what is wise and what is unwise, and your life is utter waste.
“But when you move amidst the world of sense, free from attachment and aversion alike,
“there comes the peace in which all sorrows end, and you live in the wisdom of the Self.” (v62-65).
--
It seems interesting that the narrative of the Bhagavad Gita is begun with a conversation between the antagonists of the story, King Dhritarashtra and his disciple, Sanjaya, of the Kurus; and that the entire narrative of the Bhagavad Gita is Sanjaya relaying to Dhritarashtra the conversation between his “enemies,” Arjuna and Sri Krishna, of the Pandavas; is this intentional? Is this an intrinsic illustration of the equanimity that is explicitly taught within the Bhagavad Gita? And what lessons may this provide with respect to “walking in another man’s moccasins;” understanding the perspective of others, even one’s enemy?
How does this conversation, between Dhritarashtra and Sanjaya, compare with the conversation, described within the Torah, that Balaam and Balak have whilst looking over the camp of the Israelites before attacking, as well as the provision of the blessing (paraphrasing), “How goodly are your tents, Israel…”?
Is there any esoteric, metaphysical significance in Arjuna’s command for Sri Krishna to drive the chariot into the middle of the battlefield? Perhaps beyond, or rather than, a militaristic tactical maneuver, does this interest of Arjuna signify an interest in mediation, searching for the middle ground? Can this be considered as the tangible beginning, or continuation, or Arjuna’s spiritual quest?
How does Arjuna’s reluctance to fight against the Kurus compare with the command provided to the Israelites to abstain from fighting against the descendants of Esau (Yaakov’s/Israel’s brother)?
There seems to be an intrinsic hypocrisy within the prospect of fighting against one’s relatives: homicidally competing for resources to sustain one’s progeny, yet understanding that one’s progeny are eventually such relatives as well (suggesting the inevitability of such continuing conflict); yet there is also the consideration of all humanity existing as such “distant relatives;” and thus there is the consideration: how do we appropriately facilitate balance amongst our respective communities and relatives, to continually live prosperously and amicably?
The soliloquy that Arjuna provides seems rather inspired and convincing; how does this compare to the nature of the Buddha’s conversations with his contemporary brahmins, particularly regarding the notions of family and asceticism? And, yet, Sri Krishna summarily rebukes Arjuna’s comments, and eventually provides the crux of the Bhagavad Gita (the teachings of which seem to actually confirm Arjuna’s initial proclamations); how is all this appropriately understood?
Arjuna’s reference to the lifestyle of a beggar has a negative connotation; how does this compare with the practise of asceticism that is eventually described within the Bhagavad Gita?
Arjuna comments that, even amidst winning and enjoying the “spoils of victory,” such spoils are tainted by the transgressions required to acquire such; this speaks to an intrinsic paradox within life: that sustaining one’s life necessarily requires some diminishment within the lives of others; how do the Bhagavad Gita and additional Holy Scriptures resolve this intrinsic paradox of life?
In consoling Arjuna (in Chapter 2, Verse 12), Sri Krishna communicates directly through the aesthetic façade of Arjuna’s material existence, his persona, and his ego, and connects directly with the Universal Divine presence that exists within Arjuna; what are some examples of such communication within additional Holy Scriptures, and what are some anecdotes in how you experience such communication?
Within Chapter 2, Sri Krishna begins to communicate a doctrine of equanimity and Divine indifference; how does this compare with the instruction to fight? The practise of absolute indifference seems to lead quickly to death by dehydration; what is an appropriate balance, moderation of such a principle?
--
Digha Nikaya
Maha Nidana Suttanta
“Thus have I heard. The Exalted One was once dwelling among the Kurus. Now a township of that country is named Kammassadamma. And the venerable Ananda came to where the Exalted One was, bowed in salutation before him, and took a seat on one side. And so seated he said to the Exalted One:-- ‘Wonderful, ‘leader,’ and marvellous it is, that whereas this doctrine of events as arising from causes is so deep and looks so deep, to me it seems as clear as clear can be!’” (v1).
The Buddha upbraids Ananda’s proclamation, rebuking the ignorance of Ananda’s generation.
The Buddha describes: old age is caused by birth; birth is caused by becoming; becoming is caused by grasping; grasping is caused by craving; craving is caused by sensation; sensation is caused by contact; contact is caused by name and form; name and form are caused by cognition.
“Thus then is it, Ananda, that cognition, with name and form as its cause; name and form, with cognition as its cause; contact, with name and form as its cause; sensation with contact as its cause; craving with sensation as its cause; grasping, with craving as its cause; becoming, with grasping as it cause; birth, with becoming as its cause; old age and death, with birth as its cause; grief, lamentation, ill, sorrow and despair, all come into being. Such is the coming to pass of this whole body of Ill.” (v3).
The Buddha reaffirms the doctrine of Becoming/Causation, with additional detail.
“I have said that sensation is the cause of craving. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be understood after this manner. Were there no sensation of any sort or kind whatever in any one for anything, that is to say, no sensations born of impressions received by way of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, or imagination,--then there being no sensation whatever, would there, owing to this cessation of sensation, be any appearance of craving?” (v8).
The Buddha additionally explains: death and old age is caused by birth is caused by becoming is caused by grasping is caused by craving is caused by sensation.
“Thus is it, Ananda, that craving comes into being because of sensation, pursuit because of craving, gain because of pursuit, decision because of gain, desire and passion because of decision, tenacity because of desire and passion, possession because of tenacity, avarice because of possession, watch and ward because of avarice, and many a bad and wicked state of things arising from keeping watch and ward over possessions:--blows and wounds, strife, contradiction and retort, quarrelling, slander and lies.” (v9).
“So now, Ananda, these two aspects of craving from being dual become united through the sensation which conditions them.” (v18).
The Buddha describes sensation resulting from contact; and contact resulting from name and form.
“I have said that name and form is the cause of contact. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be understood after this manner. Those modes, features, characters, exponents, by which the aggregate called ‘name’ manifests itself,--if all these were absent, would there be any manifestation of a corresponding verbal impression in the aggregate called bodily form?” (v20).
“ ‘I have said that cognition is the cause of name and form. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be understood after this manner. Were cognition not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name and form become constituted therein?’
“ ‘It would not, (leader).’
“ ‘Were cognition, after having descended into the mother’s womb, to become extinct, would name and form come to birth in this state of being?’
“ ‘It would not, (leader).’
“ ‘Were cognition to be extirpated from one yet young, youth or maiden, would name and form attain to growth, development, expansion?’
“ ‘It would not, (leader).’
“ ‘Wherefore, Ananda, just that is the ground, the basis, the genesis, the cause of name and form, to wit, cognition.’” (v21).
The Buddha expounds upon the declarations regarding the existence of the soul: 4 combinations regarding form/formlessness and minuteness/boundlessness; and regarding present life, future life, or refashioned life.
The Buddha expounds upon the abstinence from making declarations regarding the soul: antithetically to previous proclamations, including regarding life.
The Buddha expounds upon the proclaimed characteristics of the soul: feeling/unfeeling; sentient/unsentient.
The Buddha poses challenge regarding soul as feeling: does it feel happiness, unhappiness, or neutrality; proclaims temporariness of feeling.
The Buddha poses challenge regarding soul as without feeling: that without feeling abstains from existing.
“Now when a brother, Ananda, does not regard soul under these aspect,--either as feeling, or as non-sentient, or as having feeling,--then he, thus refraining from such views, grasps at nothing whatever in the world; and not grasping he trembles not; and trembling not, he by himself attains to perfect peace. And he knows that birth is at an end, that the higher life has been fulfilled, that what had to be done had been accomplished, and that after this present world there is no beyond!” (v32).
“There are seven resting places for Cognition, Ananda, and two Spheres. Which are the seven?” (v33).
The 7 resting places are: beings of different form and different intelligence; beings of different form and same intelligence; beings uniform in body and different in intelligence; beings uniform in body and uniform in intelligence; beings conscious only of infinite space; beings conscious only of infinite cognition; beings conscious only of nothingness.
The 2 spheres are: beings without consciousness; beings without either having or abstaining from having consciousness.
“But, Ananda, when once a brother has understood as they really are the coming to be and the passing away, the pleasures and the miseries of, and the way of escape from, these seven resting places for Cognition, and these two Spheres, that brother, by being purged of grasping, becomes free. And then, Ananda, he is called Freed by Reason.” (v34).
“Now these, Ananda, are the eight stages of Deliverance.” (v35).
The 8 stages of deliverance are: 1.) having an external form and seeing forms; 2.) unaware of one’s own external form, and seeing forms external to one’s self; 3.) one becoming content with the thought, “Lovely!”; 4.) progressing beyond all form, perceiving space as infinite; 5.) progressing beyond all space, perceiving reason as infinite; 6.) progressing beyond all reason, perceiving nothingness; 7.) progressing beyond nothingness, perceiving realm of absence of consciousness and unconsciousness; 8.) progressing beyond such absence (of duality), perceiving state of suspended perception and feeling.
“Now when once a brother, Ananda, has mastered these eight stages of Deliverance in order, and has also mastered them in reverse order, and again, in both orders consecutively, so that he is able to lose himself in, as well as to emerge from, any one of them, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and for as long as he chooses—when too, by rooting out the Taints, he enters into and abides in that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of intellect which he by himself, here in this present world, has come to know and realize—then such a brother, Ananda, is called ‘Free in both ways.’ And, Ananda, any other Freedom in both ways higher and loftier than this Freedom in both ways there is not!” (v36).
--
Within the opening verse of this Sutta, there is reference to the Kurus (presumably the same Kurus described within the Bhagavad Gita); how does this narrative of lineage (amidst Hinduism and Buddhism), compare with the narrative of the lineage of the Israelites (amidst Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)?
Within the initial description of “Causation,” the Buddha provides a rather strict line of rationalisation; and this process of logic seems to conclude within the circular envelopment of cognition and “names and form,” with each causing the other; is this a limitation within the logical process, that may otherwise be communicated, within additional religious traditions and doctrines, as the realm of inexplicability, a realm of Faith and belief in Brahman? This rational process seems to be susceptible to the same tendencies of contemporary science, in communicating the vast age of the Universe, and utilising incalculable numbers, yet being unable to explain what precedes the “Big Bang,” or the furthest realm of measurement; within such logical processes, how is such explained?
Within Verse 8, the Buddha lists the senses, and includes: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, as well as, “imagination;” whilst the first 5 described coincide with the 5 senses seemingly Universally experienced within humanity, the 6th of “imagination,” seems to be somewhat distinct; how is this to be understood; what is the nature of the sense of imagination, how does it compare with cognition and additional mental processes, and how does this fit within traditional Hindu doctrine? How does the sense of imagination compare with the “6th sense” of intuitive spirituality that is communicated within contemporary society?
In Verses 20 – 22, the Buddha connects the abstraction of sensations and cognition with the material manifestation of life and conception, literally referencing such conception occurring within the womb of a mor (mother); how is this teaching to be appropriately understood and what are the metaphysical dynamics of this teaching? How does this compare with the respective narratives of Creation provided by additional religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? How does the gender neutral description of “manifesting itself” coincide with the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita regarding the Self, and how does this compare with the teachings of Creation, and procreation, specifically within Hinduism? Amidst the apparent origination of causation, what prompts an individual to “become” even before experiencing such cognition or sensation; what precedes such an experience?
What can be understood from the Buddha’s teaching regarding cognition existing within the womb of a mor (mother)? How does this compare within the very notion of “conceiving” a child? And how does this compare with the narrative of Jesus, and the teachings of procreation within the Koran?
Within Verse 21, the Buddha seems to personify cognition within the form of the embryonic child; what are the implications of perceiving the child as cognition? Does this mean the cognition of the far (father), or the joint cognition of the far and mor? How does this compare with the teachings with Bereshit, as well as within the Gospels, regarding a man and woman becoming one flesh and conceiving a child?
Considering the Buddha’s exposition regarding bodies, cognition, and consciousness, there is the consideration of each person existing within a body, yet simultaneously maintaining a consciousness that is derived, and extends much beyond each individual’s own respective body: as if the body is simply the “remote controlled” flesh and bones that receive messages from the individual’s consciousness that exists in a realm countless light years away, and each person’s body is simply working to be reconciled within this temporal realm of Earth; with that in consideration, what are the circumstances that exist within your realm of consciousness that exists light years away? Is it a utopian Peace; is it a vast empire controlled by your will; is it a realm that exists beyond matter and energy and is incomprehensible and inexplicable within this realm of Earth; is it all of the above, or an absence thereof? How does that distant realm inform your decisions within this realm of Earth? And, what may the respective, distant realms of additional individuals look like?
How does the equanimity prescribed by the Buddha compare with the equanimity prescribed by Sri Krishna?
Within Verse 36, is the Buddha communicating a doctrine that extends beyond the phenomenon of life? Is proceeding “both ways” referring to progressing from the realm of birth, as well as from the realm of death? If so, how does this compare with the teachings of Resurrection within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
--
Gospels
Luke 17 – 19
“And he said to his disciples, ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.’” (v1-4).
Jesus heals 10 lepers and only one, a Samaritan, turns back and praises God.
“Being asked by the Pharisees when the (Sovereignty) of God was coming, he answered them, ‘The (Sovereignty) of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the (Sovereignty) of God is in the midst of you.’” (v20-21).
Jesus provides a prophesy and references the narrative of Noach and Lot.
Jesus tells the parable of the judge acquiescing to the relentless widow.
“He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: ‘Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank (Thee) that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.’” (v9-14).
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the (Sovereignty) of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the (Sovereignty) of God like a child shall not enter it.’” (v15-17).
“And a ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’’ And he said, ‘All these I have observed from my youth.’ And when Jesus hear it, he said to him, ‘One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. Jesus looking at him said, ‘How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the (Sovereignty) of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the (Sovereignty) of God.’” (v18-25).
Jesus prophesies his crucifixion and resurrection.
Jesus heals a blind man.
Jesus enters Jericho, calls Zacchaeus from the tree, and rests within his house.
Jesus tells the parable of the 3 servants, each given 1 pound: 1 making 10 pounds, 1 making 5 pounds, and 1 simply storing the 1 pound.
Jesus sends 2 disciples to retrieve a colt upon which to enter Jerusalem.
Jesus’ disciples celebrate Jesus; the Pharisees solicit Jesus to discipline his disciples; and Jesus proclaims that the silence of his disciples prompts the stones to shout.
Jesus mourns the impending devastation of Jerusalem.
“And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, ‘It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.’” (v45-46).
--
How does the teaching that Jesus provides regarding temptation compare with the Buddha’s teaching regarding the “Taints,” and overcoming the defilements within life? From addressing the susceptibility towards temptation (within this chapter and elsewhere within the Gospels), where does Jesus subsequently place concentration and emphasis, and where does the Buddha place concentration and emphasis?
Within the first verses of Chapter 17, Jesus curses those who lead others into temptation, and yet Jesus immediately teaches a doctrine of providing immediate and repeated forgiveness for those who previously transgress and repent; what is the appropriate balance in providing such forgiveness? How does one genuinely provide such forgiveness without becoming subordinated to the selfish tendencies of others? Is forgiveness actually a path to such liberation?
Whilst it may be perceived that Jesus’ teaching regarding the Sovereignty of God being within the midst of us is simply a metaphor or parable, it seems as though Jesus is rather intentional and literal within this statement; how is the Sovereignty of God within our midst to be appropriately understood? How can we better appreciate the infinite miracles that exist within the smallest fragment of progression within this Universe? And what are the implications of perceiving the Divine within the temporal?
How does Jesus’s teaching regarding “humility being exalted” compare with the guidance from the Bhagavad Gita to transcend the rajasic tendencies of finding favour, and even the sattvic inclination towards wisdom? What are the characteristics of a “knowledgeable” society where everyone champions humility and everyone is trying to be “last”? Within such a “bizarro” society, is the person, who is willing to accept a gift from another person, actually the person who is doing the favour and showing the generosity? How does this compare with the example of the Buddha, and the practise of asceticism within Buddhism and Hinduism?
Why does Jesus refuse to accept the leper with the “Legion,” and yet invites the rich man who refuses the invitation? Does Jesus show favour to one over the other? And amidst Jesus’ teaching of the “eye of the needle,” does this change the implications and perceptions regarding the value within the leper and the value within the rich man? Also considering Jesus’ previous teaching regarding the Sovereignty of God existing within our midst, what implication does the “eye of the needle” have towards the temporal life of a materially affluent person? What is the poverty that exists within affluence, and the affluence that exists within poverty?
Within a biographical depiction of Mohandas Gandhi, he provides a “path out of hell” to a Hindu man who previously murders a Muslim boy, because the man’s own son is previously murdered by Muslims: for the Hindu man to find a Muslim boy whose parents are murdered, and to raise the boy as his own son, and as a Muslim; what is the confluence between this instruction and Jesus’ teachings regarding forgiveness and the “eye of the needle”?
In addressing the rich ruler, Jesus references 5 of the 10 Commandments; 4 of these 10 are also included within the 5 basic rules of conduct purported by the Buddha: abstinence from violence, abstinence from sexual immorality, abstinence from theft, and abstinence from false speech (with the fifth being abstinence from intoxicants, whilst the fifth that Jesus communicated is: honouring far and mor; and the fifth within the 10 Commandments provide to Moshe is: abstinence from covetousness); can these 4 symmetrical principles be considered as core, Universal principles of righteousness within humanity? How is this affected by the recent assertion, within the Parliament of the World’s Religions of the “Welt Ethos” of: ahimsa, Truthfulness, sexual morality, and socioeconomic balance? Are there any additional core, Universal principles that may be considered, as well?
What is to be understood from the parable of the servants and the pounds/talents? The master is described as severe and harsh, yet the only servant to acknowledge this is punished; whilst this may be perceived as the “master” being God, and the servants being the servants of God during this life, and a rebuking of slothfulness and timidity, does the money-making and harsh context of the parable establish an “inverse” effect: rebuking the servant who refuses to add to the despot’s material wealth?
--
Koran
Sura 20. Ta Ha (O Man)
“O man,
“We have not revealed the Quran to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful;
“But it is a reminder to him who fears:
“A revelation from (Allah) Who created the earth and the high heavens.
“The Beneficent is established on the Throne of Power.
“To (Allah) belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth and whatever is between them and whatever is beneath the soil.
“And if thou utter the saying aloud, surely, (Allah) knows the secret, and what is yet more hidden.
“Allah – there is no (Deity) but (Allah). (Allah’s) are the most beautiful names.” (v1-8).
There is the narrative of Moshe: seeing the burning bush, receiving the rod into a snake, and being commanded to confront Paraoh.
Moshe solicits Aaron’s help, and Allah permits such.
There is reference to Moshe being put into a vessel on the Nile; and Moshe killing an Egyptian.
Moshe and Aaron confront Paraoh and proclaim the works of Allah.
Paraoh rebukes Moshe and Aaron, and denies Allah.
Moshe and Aaron compete against the priests of Paraoh.
Moshe and Aaron defeat the priests and the priests proclaim Allah.
“So the enchanters fell down prostrate, saying: We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses.
“Pharaoh said: You believe in him before I give you leave! Surely he is your chief who taught you enchantment. So I shall cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides and I shall crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and you shall certainly know which of us can give the severer and the more abiding chastisement.’” (v70-71).
“Whoso comes guilty to his Lord, for him is surely hell. He will neither die therein, nor live.
“And whoso comes to (Allah) a believer, having done good deeds, for them are high ranks--” (v74-75).
Allah delivers the Israelites from Egypt.
“And surely I am Forgiving toward him who repents and believes and does good, then walks aright.” (v82).
The Israelites worship the golden calf.
“He said: O son of my mother, seize me not by my beard, nor by my head. Surely I was afraid lest thou shouldst say: Thou hast caused division among the Children of Israel and not waited for my word.” (v94).
“(Allah) knows what is before them and what is behind them, while they cannot comprehend it in knowledge.” (v110).
“And whoever does good works and he is a believer, he has no fear of injustice, nor of the withholding of his due.” (v112).
“Supremely exalted then is Allah, the (Sovereign), the Truth. And make not haste with the Quran before its revelation is made complete to thee, and say: My Lord, increase me in knowledge.” (v114).
There is the narrative of Adam.
“And enjoin prayer on thy people, and steadily adhere to it. We ask not of thee a sustenance. We provide for thee. And the good end is for guarding against evil.” (v132).
“And they say: Why dos he not bring us a sign from his Lord? Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous Books?
“And if We had destroyed them with chastisement before it, they would have said: Our Lord, why didst Thou not send to us a messenger, so that we might have followed Thy messages before we met disgrace and shame?” (v133-134).
“Say: Everyone of us is waiting, so wait. Soon you will come to know who is the follower of the even path and who goes aright.” (v135).
--
Within the opening proclamations of Sura Ta Ha, there is the teaching of the omnipotence of Allah; what is the tangible, metaphysical, and esoteric nature of the submission of an individual that is established through these proclamations? What are the intentions and the implications of such proclamations, and how do these proclamations coincide with the respective understandings of the Universe that are held by additional religious communities? Does such submission increasingly avail a believer to the whims of an unbeliever (such as a generous person distributing food and being approached by a selfish and greedy person)? How might such dissonance be effectively reconciled?
What is the nature of the teachings that are revealed through the parables within the Koran; what priority and significance do these intrinsic lessons maintain amidst the explicit teachings and commands that are provided within the Koran? How does the significance and priority of these parable teachings compare with that of the parable teachings provided by Jesus, from which it seems much of the traditional Christian lessons are derived? What are the respective natures of the respective parables within the Torah and the Digha Nikaya? What is the purpose and the priority of the parable within each of these respective Holy Scriptures?
Within Verses 70 – 71, the priests of Paraoh proclaim belief in Allah, however, Paraoh seems to reference the priests’ belief in Moshe (utilising the terms, “him” and “he”); is this simply a distinction within the English translation, with the intended reference being to Allah, or is this an intentional reference to Moshe? If intended as Moshe, what is the nature of an individual’s connexion with an individual’s “Lord;” is this, perhaps, substantially perceived as an extension of a man’s ego, thus precipitating such aversion towards submission? Does the utilisation of the third person singular contribute to such dissonance and inaccuracy?
Within Verse 75, there is reference to the reward of those who do good deeds; is it possible to genuinely do good deeds without a specific or satisfactory proclamation of Faith in Allah or Muhammad? Is a good deed simply a good deed, or is it necessary for a good deed to be manifested from an intentional, and Faithful heart and mind, and within a context of intentional righteous living? What fallacy exists within the propensity of a believer to commit transgressions against an unbeliever who maintains a self-perception of doing good deeds (and perhaps performing the mechanics of zakat, chesed, tzedakah, and additional righteous acts), specifically because that unbeliever abstains from making a satisfactory proclamation of Faith?
What is the nature of the forgiveness provided from Allah? What are the requirements for such, and what is the extent of such? Does the propensity of Allah to forgive surpass the comprehension of humanity; and if so, how can any human impose persecution on another?
Within Verse 94, Aaron provides the explanation, for the golden calf, that he is interested in keeping the children of Israel united, within the absence of Moshe on Mount Sinai, rather than having the Israelites become separated; how does this compare with the explanation that is provided within the Torah? What is the nature of Aaron’s leadership, and what may be additional reasons for such permissions, during Moshe’s absence? What is the significance of the form of the calf, particularly considering the significance that cows maintain within Hinduism; is this some form of telepathic, subliminal karma being manifested or avoided?
Who is the Samiri?
Within Verse 114, there is the command for patience in learning the Koran; this seems to be wise guidance for a spiritual aspirant; how does this guidance compare with the teaching that Sri Krishna provides to Arjuna, and the guidance that Yitro provides to Moshe, and Jesus’ parable of the seeds withering in the Sun, and additional guidance for moderation even within religious study?
Amidst the experience of suffering within life, what is the appropriate balance between 1.) maintaining Faith and stillness, and 2.) directly acting to change the behaviour of others? Similar to the relational dialectics that Confucius provides, what may be some appropriate, distinguishing contexts wherein such a balance can be appropriate and respectively identified?
--
Blessings upon the Prophets:
May Peace and Blessings of the Highest Authority we respectively recognise, known by many names, including God, El Shaddai, Elohim, Adonai, Hashem, Brahman, Nirvana, Dharma, Karma, Tao, Gud, Dieu, Dios, Deus Dominus, Jah, Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Infinity, Logic, Wakan Tanka, Ultimate Reality, and additionally, be upon the Rishis, Moshe, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Universe, Baha’u’llah, Guru Nanak, Zarathustra, Avraham, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Indigenous, Tainoterranea, Asia, Europe, Mediterranea, and Africa.
ૐ. אמן.
שלום.नमस्ते.สมาธิ.Pax.سلم.Peace.Sat Nam.صلح.Kwey.Amani.ειρήνη.Pace.Paz.Paix.Fred.Frieden.Vrede.Siochana.мир.امن.和平.平和.평화.Aloha.
