Holy Scriptures Study (Week 16; Beshalach) 118.5.23

Holy Scriptures Study, Week 16 Beshalach, 118.5.23

Torah

Shemot 13:17 – 7:16

Adonai provides detour for Israelites, to abstain from frightening Israelites back to Egypt.

Moshe takes Yosef’s body from Egypt.

There are the pillar of cloud (during the day) and the pillar of fire (during the night).

Adonai tells Moshe to lead the Iraelites into backtracking, to entice the Egyptians to pursue and completely vanquish Pharaoh.

Pharaoh and his army pursue the Israelites.

Israelites see Egyptians, become fearful, and complain to Moshe.

“(Moshe replied to the people, ‘Do not be afraid. Be strong, and you will see that Adonai will rescue you. Today you see the Egyptians, but you will never see them again. Adonai will fight your battle, and you will not even lift a finger.” (v13-14)

The angel of Adonai goes between the Israelites and the Egyptians.

Moshe raises his hands and Adonai parts the Reed Sea.

The Israelites pass, and the Egyptians are crushed within the closing of the Reed Sea.

Moshe and the Israelites sing the Song of Victory.

Miriam sings Miriam’s song.

Moshe sweetens the water a bush, at Marah.

Adonai provides rules and laws at Marah.

Israelites find 12 springs and 70 dates at Elim.

Israelites complain about the lack of food.

Adonai promises to provide quails and manna.

Manna is provided on a daily basis, with a double amount arriving on Friday, and 0 arriving during Shabbat.

Moshe and Aaron preserve an omer of manna within a jar, to be placed within the Ark of the Covenant (that has yet to be built.

Israelites complain about lack of water at Rephidim.

Moshe strikes the rock with his staff, and water streams forth from this.

“Now the army of Amalek came and attacked the Israelites in Rephidim.” (v8)

Moshe holds out his arms; Aaron and Hur uphold Moshe’s arms; and the Israelites prevail.

Adonai vows to eradicate the memory of Amalek.

--

There seems to be something within the behaviour of the Israelites that is indicative of an intrinsic human characteristic: when the Israelites experience certain tangible adversity (slavery, increased hardships in tasks, thirst, hunger, and additionally), the Israelites seem very quick and demonstrative in complaining against Moshe, apparently ignoring the miracles that Adonai previously performs for the Israelites; however, whilst the plagues are imposed upon the Egyptians, the Israelites seem to be very quiet; with this in consideration, what is the nature of supplication within humanity? What makes it so difficult to maintain balance and patience amidst a diversity, and the severity of, experiences? Why does our memory of the blessings seem to become rather myopic amidst the experiences of the burdens, and vice versa? And how can we better facilitate such balance and patience within ourselves?

How does “Adonai will fight your battle” compare with Sri Krishna’s teaching to Arjuna about being the vehicle of Brahman? Is there validity within the interpretation of this being an instruction for ahimsa? Can this also be understood as guidance for responding to the comprehensive challenges within life, from the battlefield to the community square, to the marketplace, to the living room, to the sanctuary, and additionally? Is there any legitimacy within the notion of the “Egyptians” being the personification of general adversaries, or even simply one’s the karmic repercussions of one’s own previous transgressions towards others and/or selfishness? How does the practise of meditation and stillness (and particularly the notion, respectively emphasized within Buddhism and Hinduism, of action amidst inaction and inaction amidst action) influence this concept of the “battle”?

What is the esoteric, metaphysical significance of the bush that sweetens the water? How does this compare with the burning bush that Moshe previously finds? Is there any intrinsic and/or direct connexion?

What is actually meant within the notion of “blotting out the memory of Amalek”? It seems rather oxymoronic to write a memo to forget about something; is that actually what is meant?

--

Bhagavad Gita

Chapters 13 – 14

“The body is called a field, Arjuna; (that) who knows it is called the Knower of the field. This is the knowledge of those who know. I am the Knower of the field in everyone, Arjuna. Knowledge of the field and its Knower is true knowledge.” (v1-2)

“The field, Arjuna, is made up of the following: the five areas of sense perception; the five elements; the five sense organs and the five organs of action; the three components of the mind: manas, buddhi, and ahamkara; and the undifferentiated energy from which all these evolved.

“In this field arise desire and aversion, pleasure and pain, the body, intelligence, and will.” (v5-6)

“Those who know truly are free from pride and deceit. They are gentle, forgiving, upright, and pure, devoted to their spiritual teacher, filled with inner strength, and self-controlled.

“Detached from sense objects and self-will, they have learned the painful lesson of separate birth and suffering, old age, disease, and death.” (v7-8)

“Free from selfish attachment, they do not get compulsively entangled even in home and family. They are even-minded through good fortune and bad.” (v9)

“Their devotion to (Me) is undivided. Enjoying solitude and not following the crowd, they seek only (Me).” (v10)

“This is true knowledge, to seek the Self as the true end of wisdom always. To seek anything else is ignorance.” (v11)

Brahman exists within all beings, within all manners.

“In its subtlety (It) is beyond comprehension. It is indivisible, yet appears divided in separate creatures. Know (It) to be the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer.” (v16)

“Know that prakriti and Purusha are both without beginning, and that from prakiti come the gunas and all that changes.

“Prakiti is the agent, cause, and effect of every action, but it is Purusha that seems to experience pleasure and pain.” (v19-20)

“Purusha, resting in prakiti, witnesses the play of the gunas born of prakiti. But attachment to the gunas leads a person to be born for good or evil.” (v21)

“Within the body the supreme Purusha is called the witness, approver, supporter, enjoyer, the supreme Lord, the highest Self.” (v22)

People realise the Self through meditation, wisdom, selfless service; as through following illumined teacher.

“Whatever exists, Arjuna, animate or inanimate, is born through the union of the field and its Knower.” (v26)

“He alone sees truly who sees the Lord the same in every creature, who sees the Deathless in the hearts of all that die.

“Seeing the same Lord everywhere, he does not harm himself or others. Thus he attains the supreme goal.” (v27-28)

“They alone see truly who see that all actions are performed by prakiti, while the Self remains unmoved.” (v29)

“When they see the variety of (Creation) rooted in that unity and growing out of it, they attain fulfillment in Brahman.” (v30)

“As akasha pervades the cosmos but remains unstained, the Self can never be tainted though (It) dwells in every creature.” (v32)

“My womb is prakiti; in that I place the seed. Thus all created things are born.

“Everything born, Arjuna, comes from the womb of prakriti, and I am the seed-giving (progenerator).” (v3-4)

“It is the three gunas born of prakiti—sattva, rajas, and tamas—that bind the immortal Self to the body.” (5)

“Sattva—pure, luminous, and free from sorrow—binds us with attachment to happiness and wisdom.

“Rajas is passion, arising from selfish desire and attachment. These bind the Self with compulsive action.

“Tamas, born of ignorance, deludes all creatures through heedlessness, indolence, and sleep” (v6-8)

“The wise see clearly that all action is the work of the gunas. Knowing that which is above the gunas, they enter into union with (Me).

“Going beyond the three gunas which form the body, they leave behind the cycle of birth and death, decrepitude and sorrow, and attain to immortality.” (v19-20)

“What are the characteristics of those who have gone beyond the gunas, O Lord? How do they act? How have they passed beyond the gunas’ hold?

“They are unmoved by the harmony of sattva, the activity of rajas, or the delusion of tamas. They feel no aversion when these forces are active, nor do they crave for them when these forces subside.

“They remain impartial, undisturbed by the actions of the gunas. Knowing that it is the gunas which act, they abide within themselves and do not vacillate.

“Established within themselves, they are equal in pleasure and pain, praise and blame, kindness and unkindness. Clay, a rock, and gold are the same to them. Alike in honor and dishonor, alike to friend and foe, they have given up every selfish pursuit. Such are those who have gone beyond the gunas.” (v21-25)

“By serving (Me) with steadfast love, a man or woman goes beyond the gunas. Such a one is fit for union with Brahman. For I am the support of Brahman, the eternal, the unchanging, the deathless, the everlasting (Dharma), the source of all joy.” (v26)

--

What may be further metaphysical explanation of the “field” and the “Knower”? What is the confluence between this teaching at the traditional belief of Manu, and the metaphysical division of the body (head, torso and arms, legs, and feet) with the Hindu varnas of the Brahmins, Kshaitriyas, Vaisakas, and Shudras (and the unmentioned, untouchable Dalits)? Also, what is the confluence of all of this with the metaphysical teachings of the senses, found within the Upanishads, regarding the senses and the preeminence of the breath? And how does that compare with the teachings within the Torah regarding the “breath of life,” and particularly the flood of Noah? And how does that compare with the emphasis, within the Koran, of humanity being formed from clay, as well as from congealed blood, and Jinn (if I am correct) and Iblis being formed from fire?

“The creator, the preserver, and the destroyer”: is this a direct reference to, and explanation of, the “Hindu Trinity” of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? And if so, does this mean that the “Hindu Trinity” is ultimately monotheistic? And if so, why then is Sri Krishna traditionally described as an incarnation of Vishnu? Are similar proclamations made about Shiva and/or Brahma, within other Holy Scriptures and/or texts? And how do Rama and Indra and the Asuras and additional celestial beings figure into this equation? Rather than “deities” or rivals to Brahman, are these celestial beings increasingly similar to “angels” within an Abrahamic perspective? Is the recent (past few centuries or millennia) translation of Hindu celestial beings as deities simply a Hindu, Vedic, Karmic response to a potential egoistic tendency of personifying Adonai? How can this be proficiently explained within the respective contexts of each of the involved religious traditions?

What is the nature of akasha?

If “those who see Truly” see the same Self in all creations (and presumably the respective field/body of each creature), can it be similarly considered that all fields/bodies also exists as a single field/body? Is it simply the respective “ego” of the individual that is effectively differentiated (and what is the Sanskrit term/concept that is effectively equivalent to this notion of the individual ego)? And if so, what is the intrinsic, esoteric nature of the ego?

How can the teaching of prakiti, within the beginning of Chapter 14, be otherwise explained?

What is actually meant when Sri Krishna says that Sri Krishna is the “support” of Brahman? Are these two distinct beings? Does “support” simply mean a manifestation, and thus the intrinsic, partial distinction therein? And if so, does this mean that this same connexion similarly exists for all beings?

--

Digha Nikaya

Mahapadana Suttanta (Chapter 1)

“Thus have I heard. The Exalted One was once staying at Savatthi, in Anatha Pindika’s pleasuance in the Jeta Wood, at the Kareri tree cottage. Now among many bhikkhus who had returned from their alms tour and were assembled, sitting together after their meal, in the pavilion in the Kareri grounds, a religious conversation bearing on previous births arose, to the effect that thus and thus were previous births.” (v1)

“And the Exalted One, with clear and Heavenly Ear surpassing the hearing of men, overheard this conversation among the bhikkus. And arising from his seat he came to the pavilion in the Kareri grounds, and took his seat on the mat spread out for him.” (v2)

The Buddha asks about the nature of the conversation; the assembly explains; the Buddha asks if the assembly is interested within his discourse; and the assembly requests to hear the Buddha’s discourse.

The Buddha proclaims the respective, previous arrivals of previous Buddhas.

The Sangha celebrate the Buddha’s proclamation and discuss whether this is the Buddha’s first-hand knowledge or whether it is revealed through inspiration from celestial beings.

The Buddha returns and asks the discourse, with a similar sequence.

The Buddha answers the question by effectively saying both are applicable.

“IT is the rule, brethren, that, when the Bodhisat ceases to belong to the hosts of the (Heaven) of Delight, and enters a mother’s womb, there is made manifest throughout the (Universe)—including the worlds above of the (deities), the Maras and the Brahmas, and the world below with its recluses and brahmins, its princes and peoples—an infinite and splendid radiance, passing the glory of the deities. Even in those spaces which are between the worlds, baseless, murky and dark, and where even moon and sun, so wondrous and mighty, cannot prevail to give light, even there is made manifest this infinite and splendid radiance, passing the glory of the (deities). And those beings who happen to be existing there, perceiving each other by that radiance, say:-- “Verily there be other beings living here!” And the ten thousand worlds of the (Universe) tremble and shudder and quake. And that this infinite splendid radiance is made manifest in the world, passing the glory of the (deities)—that, in such a case, is the rule.” (v16)

“It is the rule, brethren, that, when the Bodhisat is descending into a mother’s womb, the mother of the Bodhisat is a woman virtuous through her own nature:-- aversion from taking life, aversion from taking what is not given, averse from unchastity, averse from lying speech, averse from indulgence in strong drinks. That, in such a case, is the rule.” (v18)

Additional characteristics regarding the Bodhisat’s mother include: enjoyment of the 5 senses; alleviation of all ailments; death 7 days after giving birth; 10-month pregnancy; delivery of Bodhisat to celestial beings before being received by men; stainless delivery; and 2 showers of water upon delivery.

The Bodhisat declares himself immediately upon birth.

The Buddha describes the birth of Vipassi.

Brahmins proclaim 32 signs within Vipassi.

“If he live the life of the House, he becomes (leader) of the Wheel, a righteous (leader) of the Right, ruler of the four quarters, conqueror, guardian of the people’s good, owner of the Seven Treasures…But if such a boy forth from the life of the House into the Homeless state, he becomes an Arahant, a Buddha Supreme, rolling back the veil from the world.” (v31)

The 32 signs are specifically described.

Bandhuman coddles his son, Vipassi, with comfort.

Further proclamations are made about Vipassi.

--

What is the distinction between the different volumes (perhaps at least within the English translations) of the Digha Nikaya? Are the translations, from the Pali Text Society, written by different authors and/or at different points in history? The format of the narratives also seems somewhat distinct; what is the background story of the origination of the Digha Nikayas, and how does this compare with additional Holy Scriptures within the Pali Canon, and within the Tripitaka? And is there any hierarchy amidst the different Suttas, amidst the 3 volumes of the Digha Nikaya?

Does the Buddha become susceptible to the same challenge apparently experienced within science of proclaiming incomprehensibly large time frames of history and geography, yet abstaining from explaining what precedes, extends beyond, those boundaries: what exists before the “Big Bang” and the intellect (or the will to exist/”become”) of the Tathagata?

Does the reference to “Brahmas” actually mean “Brahman,” and how is this to be understood within a plural context? Is this simply a reference to general celestial beings, within a Buddhist context?

The Buddha describes the 5 prohibitions (against killing, stealing, adultery, lying, and intoxicants) being prescribed for the mothers of Bodhisattvas. What are the implications of this with respect to the manner in which these prohibitions are generally maintained within Buddhism, as well as within additional religious traditions (such as within the 10 Commandments, particularly of Judaism and Christianity, with the exception of permitting intoxicants)?

Do the descriptions regarding the Bodhisattva’s mother make this Buddhist teaching susceptible to the same criticism that the Buddha provides, elsewhere within the Digha Nikaya, towards the reputations stati of families being judged, to facilitate socio, economic, political, and additional hierarchy, particularly concerning marriage arrangements (which seems even further ironic)?

How does the Buddha’s description of the birth of a Bodhisattva compare with the narrative of the birth of Jesus (and Jesus ascending to Heaven after being baptised), and the narrative of the birth of Moshe? How does any egoistic element within the description of such a birth compare with the egotistic nature within Hinduism, and the narratives of the respective births of Prophets (or the absence therefrom) within Hinduism?

What is the esoteric, metaphysical significance within the 32 signs?

There seems to be a strong symmetry between the respective narratives of the Buddha and Vipassi, and this seems to be intentional; what is to be understood from this? Can Buddhahood exist beyond this construct of the narrative and the 32 signs? And from where are these 32 signs and this narrative derived?

--

Gospels

Luke 8 – 10

“Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the (Sovereignty) of God.” (v1)

The 12 disciples, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and additional people follow Jesus.

Jesus tells the parable of the sower of seed amidst the path, on the rock, amidst thorns, and within good soil.

Jesus further explains the parable to the disciples.

“No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, that those who enter may see the light.” (v16)

But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (v21)

Jesus calms the winds and the sea.

Jesus heals Legion; Legion asks do join Jesus, however, Jesus instructs him to return home and proclaim the Glory of God.

“As he went, the people pressed round him. And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one, came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased.” (v42-44)

Jesus heal Jarius’s dotter, when she is asleep amidst people’s perceptions of her being dead.

“And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the (Sovereignty) of God and to heal.” (v1-2)

“And he said to them, ‘Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.” (v3)

Herod questions whether Jesus is a return of John the Baptist.

Jesus and his disciples retreat to Bethsaida and heal people in this location.

Jesus feeds 5,000 men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, with 12 baskets left over.

“Now it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him; and he asked them, “Who do the people say that I am?”… And he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (v18-20)

Jesus proclaims his destiny and instruction for those who follow after him.

Moshe and Eliyahu appear before Jesus, Peter, James, and John, atop the mountain.

Jesus heals a boy whom his disciples are unable to heal.

“And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side, and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives (God) who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great.’” (v46-50)

Jesus sends out his out his disciples; Jesus is refused accommodations; and Jesus critises an uncommitted follower.

“After this (Jesus) appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into (God’s) harvest. Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house. Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The (Sovereignty) of God has come near to you.’’” (v1-9)

Jesus upbraids cities that refuse to reform from transgressions.

Jesus’s disciples return, exclaiming achievements.

“And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’

“But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (v25-29)

Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan.

--

Why does Jesus refuse Legion? And conversely, elsewhere within the Gospels, why does Jesus invite the rich man who finds it to difficult to leave his wealth (precipitating the parable of the camel travelling through the eye of the needle)? Is this evidence of a bias against socioeconomically and/or medically/psychologically/spiritually challenged individuals?

Within the 8^th chapter of Luke, there is the description of the woman being healed after touching the fringe of Jesus’s garment; previously, there is the narrative of the centurion asking Jesus to heal his slave without even entering the centurion’s house; what is the intrinsic nature of the Faith involved within this healing process? If it substantially relies upon Faith rather than tangible healing, then why is it necessary to rely upon Jesus as a “conduit” or facilitator of such healing? What “quality” does Jesus maintain, and what “service” does Jesus tangibly provide to facilitate such healing?

Within the Gospels, Jesus sends out his disciples on a number of occasions and charges his disciples with some different instructions each time; and much of contemporary Christianity seems to abstain from practicing the actual tenets and/or lifestyles that are specifically and directly charged to Jesus’s, including “carrying two tunics, taking nothing for the journey, give without taking, turning the other cheek, and additionally; although emphasis seems to be placed upon latter charges to preach the Gospel to the whole of the Earth/Universe, as well as upon the prophesy within Revelations (and that of the return of Jesus and Armageddon); will the “actual Jesus doctrine” please stand up? What is the tangible, direct teaching/charge that disciples of Jesus are supposed to practise, presumably in a continual, contemporary, sustainable manner?

Why does Jesus care who people think he is? Is this simply a solicitation for Peter and his disciples to make a proclamation of Faith? This also provides the consideration of who each of us are within each others’ own respective lives? Within the perception of simply existing with the dreams of others, what role are we each playing?

How does Jesus’s “listening to the thoughts of his disciples hearts” compare with the Buddha hearing with the “Heavenly Ear” described within the Digha Nikaya during this week’s study and recitation?

--

Koran

Sura 17. Bani Isra’il; The Israelites

“Glory to (Allah) Who carried (Allah’s) servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Remote Mosque, whose precincts We blessed, that We might show him of Our signs! Surely (Allah) is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (v1)

Moshe and Noah are referenced.

Warning is provided to the Israelites; with reference to 2 instances of transgressions.

“It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you. And if you return (to mischief), We will return (to punishment). And We have made hell a prison for the disbelievers.

“Surely this Quran guides to that which is most upright, and gives good news to the believers who do good that theirs is a great reward.” (v8-9)

“And man prays for evil as he ought to pray for good; and man is ever hasty.” (v11)

Day and night are provided to discern the passage of events (time).

“Read thy book. Thine own soul is sufficient as a reckoner against thee this day.” (14)

“Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray. And no bearer of a burden can bear the burden of another. Nor do We chastise until We raise a messenger.” (v15)

“Whoso desires this transitory life, We hasten to him therein what We please for whomsoever We desire, then We assign to him the hell; he will enter it despised, driven away.” (v18)

There is the command for respecting one’s parents.

“Your Lord knows best what is in your minds. If you are righteous, (Allah) is surely Forgiving to those who turn to (Allah).” (v25)

“And if thou turn away from them to seek mercy from thy Lord, which thou hopest for, speak to them a gentle word.” (v28)

“And give full measure when you measre out, and weigh with a true balance. This is fair and better in the end.” (v35)

“And follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge. Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked.” (v36)

“And go not about in the land exultingly, for thou canst not rent the earth, nor reach the mountains in height.” (v37)

Unbelievers doubt resurrection.

“Your Lord knows you best. (Allah) will have mercy on you if (Allah) please, or (Allah) will chastise you, if (Allah) please. And We have not sent thee as being in charge of them.” (v54)

Iblis rebels.

“And when distress afflicts you in the sea, away go those whom you call on except (Allah); but when (Allah) brings you safe to the land, you turn away. And man is ever ungrateful.” (v67)

“”And he whom (Allah) guides, he is on the right way; and he whom (Allah) leaves in error, for them thou wilt find no guardians besides (Allah). And We shall gather htem together on the day of Resurrection on their faces, blind and dumb and deaf. Their abode is hell. Whenever it abates, We make them burn the more.” (v97)

There is the story of Moshe and Pharaoh.

“Say: Call on Allah or call on the Beneficent. By whatever (name) you call on (Allah), (Allah) has the best names. And utter not thy prayer loudly nor be silent in it, and seek a way between these.” (v110)

--

Is there a specific, historic event that is being referenced within verse 1?

Based from the passage of verse 8, can it be that “hell” is simply the temporal experience of selfishness and transgression, within this temporal realm?

What is actually meant within the passage of “Thine own soul is sufficient as a reckoner against thee this day.”? Is this suggest a form of autonomous imposition of justice, karma? And does this coincidingly suggest the abstinence from passing judgment upon others?

When conventional authority and society impose justice and punishment upon others (and the necessary transgressions that exist therein), do conventional authority and society become similarly susceptible to the consequences of such transgressions? If otherwise, how are judgment and justice objectively facilitated?

How does the Koran’s “bearer of one’s own burden” compare with Jesus’s “bearer of one’s own cross,” within this week’s portion from the Gospel of Luke?

Is there any intrinsic connexion between verse 28 and Tupac’s cut, “I ain’t mad atcha.”?

Is the “follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge” command similar to that provided within the Torah commanding the Israelites to abstain from following the unknown Pagan customs of foreign nations? And if so, how does these commands respectively coincide within the intrinsic transformative and “convertive” characteristics within both Islam and Judaism whereby the initial respective practitioners are solicited to abandon the “known”/familiar spiritual practises of the practitioners’ fathers and ancestors and to adopt a new ideology, Theology, and vision of the Universe that is previously unknown to the practitioners (at least in a direct, tangible, traditional manner)?

Where exists the appropriate balance between allowing for the judgment of Allah to be manifested (without presumption and intervention) and assuming the responsibility for directly alleviating injustices and suffering?

How does the teaching of ungratefulness, within verse 67, compare with the complaining of the Israelites after leaving Egypt?

Does the description, within verse 97, of all people conforming to the Will of Allah, substantiate or repudiate the concept of free will? If people involuntarily (or robotically) commit transgressions because it is exactly the Will of Allah, do such people actually deserve to suffer in hell? And is this experience maintained by each individual, in some way or another, as the Buddha might suggest through the concept of Dukkha (suffering intrinsically and inevitably existing within the phenomenon of life)?

Expanding the teaching within verse 110 (regarding calling upon the Name of Allah) into a comprehensive notion of practicing one’s spirituality in a similarly moderate manner, how does this compare with the “lion’s roar” of the Buddha, and with other doctrines regarding moderation from additional Prophets?