שלום.नमस्ते.สมาธ.Pax.سلام.Peace.साटीनाम.صلح.Kwey.Amani.Udo.Barış.ειρήνη.Pace.Paz.Paix.Fred.
Frieden.Vrede.Siochana.мир.امن.和平.平和.평화.Ingatka.Wominjeka.Aloha.
.
.
.
...
ૐ.אמן
Holy Scriptures
Study, Week 12; Vayechi; 118.4.24
Torah
Bereshit
47:28 – 50:26
Israel
commands Yosef to bury him within his ancestors
Israel
proclaims Yosef’s 2 sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, as his own.
Israel
blesses Manasseh and Ephraim, favouring the younger Ephraim.
Israel
prophesies for each of his sons: Reuven,
Shimon, Levi, Yudah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Yosef, and
Benyamin.
Israel
repeats the command to be buried with his ancestors.
Israel
passes.
Yosef,
the sons of Israel, and Egypt mourn for Yosef.
Yosef
solicits Pharaoh to allow Yosef to return Israel’s remains to the Cave of
Machpelah.
Yosef
and his brothers transport Israel’s remains to Machpelah.
Yosef’s
brothers solicit him for forgiveness;
Yosef and his brothers are reconciled.
Yosef
reaches point of death and communicates to his children the eventual return to
Eretz Israel.
Yosef
commands his children to eventually bring his remains back to join with his
ancestors.
--
Amidst
the respective blessings that Israel provides, and amidst the aggregate of the
stories involving Yudah and Yosef, which one is understood as having the favour
of Israel? And which one is understood
as having the favour of Adonai? What are
the arguments that can be made for either case?
Why
does Israel communicate the blessings out of chronological order?
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
12
Arjuna
asks who are the most establish in yoga
The
path to the Unrevealed is hazardous and slow
Those
who renounce self for Brahman and meditate on Brahman with Brahman as the
supreme goal receive union with Brahman
Instruction
is provided: still mind/intellect in
Brahman; if unable, meditate; if unable, perform selfless service; if unable, renounce results of action
Detachment
from results > meditation > knowledge > mechanical practice; Peace follows
Love
is provided to a person who is incapable of ill will, who is friendly and
compassionate (beyond I and mine; beyond
elation, competition, and fear)
There
is the guidance for indifference to pain and pleasure; equanimity amidst friend and foe
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapters 12
“Of those steadfast devotees who love (You)
and those who seek (You) as the eternal formless Reality, who are the more
established in yoga?” (v1).
“Those who set their hearts on (Me) and
worship (Me) with unfailing devotion and faith are more established in yoga.
“As for those who seek the transcendental
Reality, without name, without form, contemplating the Unmanifested, beyond the
reach of thought and of feeling,
“with senses subdued and mind serene and
striving for the (benefit) of all beings, they too will verily come unto (Me).
“Yet hazardous and slow is the path to the
Unrevealed, difficult for physical man to tread.
“But they for whom I am the supreme goal, who
do all work renouncing self for (Me) and meditate on (Me) with single-hearted
devotion,
“these I will swiftly rescue from the
fragment’s cycle of birth and death, for their consciousness has entered into
(Me).” (v2-7).
“Still your mind in (Me), still your intellect
in (Me), and without doubt you will be united with (Me) forever.
“If you cannot still your mind in (Me), learn
to do so through the regular practice of meditation.
“If you lack the will for such
self-discipline, engage yourself in (My) work, for selfless service can lead
you at last to complete fulfilment.
“If you are unable to do even this, surrender
yourself to (Me), disciplining yourself and renouncing the results of all your
actions.” (v8-11).
“Better indeed is knowledge than mechanical
practice. Better than knowledge is meditation. But better still is
surrender of attachment to results, because there follows immediate
peace.” (v12).
“That one I love who is incapable of ill
will, who is friendly and compassionate. Living beyond the reach of ‘I’
and ‘mine’ and of pleasure and pain,
“patient, contented, self-controlled, firm in
faith, with all his heart and all his mind given to (Me)—with such a one I am
in love.
“Not agitating the world or by it agitated,
he stands above the sway of elation, competition, and fear: he is (My)
beloved.
“He is detached, pure, efficient, impartial,
never anxious, selfless in all his undertakings; he is (My) devotee, very
dear to (Me).
“He is dear to (Me) who runs not after the
pleasant or away from the painful, grieves not, lusts not but lets things come
and go as they happen.
“That devotee who looks upon friend and foe
with equal regard, who is not buoyed up by praise nor cast down by blame, alike
in heat and cold, pleasure and pain, free from selfish attachments,
“the same in honor and dishonour, quiet, ever
full, in harmony everywhere, firm in faith—such a one is dear to (Me).
“Those who meditate upon this immortal
(Dharma) as I have declared it, full of faith and seeking (Me) as life’s
supreme goal, are (Truly) (My) devotees, and (My) love for them is very
great.” (v13-20).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 11 – 12
What
are some tangible examples of action in inaction and inaction in action? How does Jesus’ drawing in the sand and
abstaining from condemning the adulteress (inaction), compare with the vitriol
of the crowd wanting to condemn her (action)?
How does Gandhi’s walk to the ocean to cultivate salt (action), compare
with the ordinary householder’s status quo of colonisation? How might all of these actions be considered
as synonymous action, or inaction?
Amidst
the consideration of the senses, matter, and the biological systems that exist
within each human being (respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous, digestive,
muscular-skeletal, reproductive, and additionally), what may be some
metaphysical considerations regarding this teaching, within chapter 5,
regarding action simply being the movement of senses around sense objects? Why does the “matrix” seem “real,” and how do
we respectively maintain a semblance of an understanding of Reality, Brahman,
beyond our utilisation of the senses?
How
does one effectively “hold the Self by means of the Self,” or in other words,
cultivate the presence of the Spirit of God within an individual by manifesting
the Spirit of God within an individual?
It seems that to do such, this necessitates that the Self already exists
and thus it is simply a manner of enhancing that existence: perhaps experiencing compassion and harmony
by genuinely practising compassion and harmony.
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 11 – 12
What is the nature of capital letters within
the English language and additional Latin-based, and additional
languages? What are the implications when placing a capital letter,
particularly at the beginning of the sentence, when utilising the 1st person
direct pronoun, with proper names, and when referencing Brahman (and additional
linguist terms similarly communicating “Brahman”)? How does the
respective nature of these phenomena (the beginning of creation, the personal
self, and the identities of others) compare and contrast with the phenomenon of
Brahman, and the manner in which these respective phenomena are perceived
amidst Brahman? How does this compare and contrast with additional
languages that abstain from the practise of utilising “capital letters” (such
as Hebrew, and presumably Arabic, Sanskrit, Pali, and additionally)? How
does the practise of adjusted final letters (such as the “nun” and the “mem,”
within Hebrew) compare and contrast with this practise of the capitalised
letters?
How does the description of the visual
experience of Brahman (amidst Sri Krishna) compare with the belief that Brahman
exists beyond such temporality? What is the nature of attempting to
convey the massive awesome nature of Brahman through utilising the most
grandiose metaphors and adjectives? How does Arjuna’s vision, and this
description, compare with similar narratives between Moshe and Adonai, Jesus
and Deus, and the Buddha and Nirvana (as well as the Buddha and additional
celestial beings)? What is the legitimacy and the deficiency within such
communication; how does this inspire religious adherents into
compassionate behaviour, and how does this discourage religious adherents into
doubt and transgressive behaviour?
What is the dynamic nature of the phrase,
“deities enter Your being”; comparing and contrasting the “amalgamating”
tendency of Hinduism, to incorporate all thought and phenomena within the
Ultimate Reality of Brahman, with the respective approaches of additional
religious traditions; also considering the nature of the implied and
explicit interaction between “deities” and Brahman; and considering the
notion of “deities” entering into the unity (and the “being”) of Brahman?
What is the nature of that “being” (“existence”)?
How does Arjuna’s vision compare with Moshe’s
curse and blessing?
Whilst Arjuna is experiencing his vision,
does the battle between Dhritarashtra and the Kurus already begin? Is
Arjuna witnessing the actual carnage of the warfare; and if so, is Arjuna
actually participating within the carnage, or is he simply existing within
meditation as he experiences the vision? Amidst the potential
simultaneousness of Arjuna’s vision and the actual events (and the potential
distinctions regarding the nature of Arjuna’s direct involvement), what are the
implications regarding the instructions for Arjuna to participate within the
battle: is this, again, a direct order for violence, or esoteric guidance
for meditation and spiritual enlightenment, or both, or an absence of either,
or something else?
Is there any legitimacy within the notion of
“time” simply being an illusion describing the confluence of matter and energy
amidst the experience of the “Now” (the culmination of all intellectual
cognition, consciousness, spiritual awareness and additional intangible
experiences)? Amidst this consideration, how is the “passage of time,”
and the perception of “time” being a “destroyer” further understood? And
amidst this, what is the tangible and esoteric nature within the process of
decomposition?
On an additional occasion, Arjuna shies away
from the prospect of waging warfare; even amidst his established
reputation of being a courageous warrior, does this effectively communicate
cowardice on Arjuna’s part, and/or is this a description of his spiritual
striving? Amidst the perception of his cowardice, what implications does
such a perception have upon the very nature of spiritual aspiration
(particularly amidst the practise of ahimsa)?
When including Brahman within the English
first person plural pronoun, “we” (and similarly within additional, similarly
structured languages), is it appropriate to capitalise the “We,” or to keep the
term within the “lower letters”? What are the implications of both
methods, amidst the aggregate of the language’s alphabet, vocabulary, and
grammatical construct? What are appropriate lessons, regarding such
linguistic characteristics, that are gleaned from this consideration?
What is the nature of Arjuna’s contrition to
Sri Krishna? And what is the nature of Arjuna’s and Sri Krishna’s
interaction and relationship leading up to the battlefield? What changes
within Arjuna’s awareness, specifically regarding Sri Krishna, regarding the
nature of Brahman, and regarding Arjuna’s existence within the Universe and
interaction with additional beings therein? Does Sri Krishna actually
have four arms within a temporal form; and if so, is that considered
“normal” to Arjuna?
What is the tangible and esoteric nature of
submission; what are the similarities and distinctions within how this is
respectively practised within different religious traditions; and why does
submission (within thought, word, and deed) seem to be a significant factor
within religious traditions?
How do the different communicated
prioritisations communicated within Chapter 12 (regarding meditation, selfless
service, renunciation, knowledge, and additional spiritual practises), compare
and contrast with each other, as well as with similarly described
prioritisations elsewhere within the Bhagavad Gita? How do these compare
within similarly described (implicitly or explicitly) prioritisations within
Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam?
How do the specific characteristics espoused
within this Chapter compare with similarly grouped characteristics within the
Bhagavad Gita? How do these compare with similarly espoused
characteristics (implicitly or explicitly) communicated within additional
religious traditions?
How does Sri Krishna’s description of the
spiritual devotee of Brahman compare with Jesus’s Sermon of the Mount regarding
the blessed of Deus?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Potthapada
Sutta
The
Buddha stays at Savatthi in Anatha Pindika’s pleasuance in the Geta Wood.
Potthapada
dwells in Queen Mallika’s Park in the Hall.
The
Buddha visits the Hall where Potthapada is.
Potthapada
sees the Buddha and implores the crowd to be quiet to encourage the Buddha to
speak.
Potthapada
asks the question of how the “cessation of consciousness (is) brought about,”
and describes the previous explanations of other Samanas and Brahmins,
including: ideas arriving and departing
without reason, respectively affecting consciousness accordingly; consciousness being derived from a man’s
soul; and, consciousness being derived
from the will of other powerful Samanas and Brahmins.
The
Buddha discounts the first explanation and provides the standard doctrine of appropriate
training of ideas, including the silas (minor mere moralities), confidence,
guarding the door of the senses, mindfulness and being self-possessed,
solitude, and conquering the 5 hindrances.
The
Buddha then describes the 4 Jhanas:
1.) a state of joy and ease, born of detachment,
with reasoning and investigation;
2.) a state of joy and ease, born of serenity of
concentration, without reasoning and investigation;
3.) a state of equanimity: being aloof from joy, and being equable; mindful and self-possessed; the Arahats refer to as, “The man serene and
self-possessed is well at ease.”
4.) a state of self-possession and
equanimity: without pain, without ease,
and without the joy of equanimity:
considering the consciousness of the infinity of space; infinity of
cognition; the unreality of all phenomena;
inferiority of cognition, and thus facilitating cessation of conscious
ideas.
The
Buddha teaches there is both 1 and many summits of consciousness, based upon
where an individual exists.
The
Buddha teaches that the idea precedes knowledge.
The
Buddha challenges the notion of “a soul.”
The
Buddha communicates indifference to the opinions regarding the ultimate nature
of the Universe; citing that such
questions abstain from directly imparting the Dharma.
The
Buddha explains the doctrine of the 4 Noble Truths: pain, origin of pain, cessation of pain, and
the path to the cessation of pain.
Potthapada
assents to the Buddha, and the Buddha departs.
The
other mendicants criticise Potthapada for agreeing with the Buddha, yet
Potthapada is resilient.
Potthapada
and Kitta visit the Buddha and describe criticisms.
The
Buddha describes the limitations of other Samanas and Brahmins who ciriticise
his doctrine.
The
Buddha compares the proclamation of unattained wisdom to a man proclaiming love
to an unknown woman, and a man building a staircase to an unconstructed house.
The
Buddha describes his example as the house.
Kitta
asks which mode of personality (material, immaterial, or formless) is real.
The
Buddha poses a return question of which is the True nature of an individual’s
existence: the past, present, or future?
Kitta
describes that the past existence is the genuine at that time, yet rather than
within the present or future; that the
present is genuine at that time, and the other 2 different; and the future is genuine at that time,
rather than the present or past.
The
Buddha describes a similar comparativity towards the 3 modes of
personality; furthering comparing the
progressive existence of cow, milk, curds, butter, ghee, junket; with each having a distinct existence and
characteristic within this process.
Potthapada
and Kitta become members of the Sangha.
--
The
Buddha’s visit to Potthapada is rather uncustomary amidst the narratives of the
Digha Nikaya. Is there any significance
within this specific dialogue, and/or with the example of Potthapada?
Amidst
the different descriptions of previous Samanas and Brahmins regarding
consciousness, is it possible that each one describes a semblance of the
Truth? Amidst the Buddhist notion of
“Becoming,” is it accurate that we each are the manifestation of each other’s
own respective Karma, derived from our own respective thoughts, words, and
deeds? Is the Buddha simply a
manifestation of our own respective interest in attaining Nirvana?
What
does the Buddha’s teaching of equanimity compare with Sri Krishna’s teaching of
equanimity? Within the Buddha’s teaching
of equanimity, what is the difference between the “self-possession” (amidst the
joy and ease) that an Arahat experiences after conquering the 5 Hindrances, and
the “self-possession” (amidst an equanimity) that an Arahat experiences amidst
attaining the 3rd Jhana? Does
the attainment of such equanimity, beyond joy, intrinsically involve some form
of “positive,” “favourable” (or “joyful”) experience? Is there a distinction between a “favourable”
experience and a “joyful” experience, amidst the progression beyond the “door
of the senses”? And is the progression
of the Arahat linear, or is it possible for a spiritual aspirant to repeatedly
regress and progress through the Jhanas and stages? Does simply imagining one Jhana effectively
equate to actualising and attaining that Jhana?
The
Buddha describes a doctrine of others regarding the material, immaterial, and
formless phenomena; however, what is the
effective distinction between the immaterial and the formless phenomena?
Is
there any intentionality (amidst the Buddha’s practise of celibacy) in the
Buddha continuing the metaphor of “the house” by proclaiming his example as
“the house” to which the staircase is built, yet abstains from similarly
continuing the metaphor of “the woman” towards which such love is
proclaimed? What are the metaphysical
connexions and implications (and perhaps causes and effect, amidst the notion
of “Becoming” and circumstances being the manifestation of thought) between the
respective parables that are communicated by the Buddha, Jesus, and additional
Prophets, and the respective temporal circumstances wherein the Buddha, Jesus,
and the additional Prophets respectively exist?
--
Gospels
Matthew
23 – 24
Jesus
teaches to adhere to commands of Rabbis, because it is from Moshe, but to
abstain from behaving like Rabbis;
placing heavy burdens and performing conspicuous piety; prohibition from being called Rabbi, Father,
or Master
Jesus
proclaims woes against transgressions and hypocrisy of leaders of convention
Jesus
describes the circumstances and false Messiahs of the End of Days
--
Gospels
Matthew 23
“Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his
disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on (Moshe’s) seat; so
practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for
they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear,
and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them
with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for
they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the
place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations
in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to
be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And
call no man you father on earth, for you have (Creator), who is in
heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the
Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever
exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be
exalted.’” (v1-12).
Jesus upbraids the scribes, Pharisees, and
leaders.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets
and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered
your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you
would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell
you, you will not see me again, until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the
name of the Lord.’” (v37-39).
--
Gospels
Matthew 24
“Jesus left the temple
and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings
of the temple. But he answered them,
‘You see all these, do you not? Truly, I
say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not
be thrown down.’” (v1-2).
“And Jesus answered them,
‘Take heed that no one leads you astray.
For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will
lead many astray. And you will hear of
wars and rumors of wars; see that you
are not alarmed; for this must take
place, but the end is not yet. For
nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be
famines and earthquakes in various places;
all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.’” (v4-8).
“Then they will deliver
you up to tribulation, and put you to death;
and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one
another, and hate one another.” (v9-10).
“But he who endures to
the end will be saved. And this gospel
of the (Sovereignty) will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony
to all nations; and then the end will
come.” (v13-14).
“Immediately after the
tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give
its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the power of the heavens
will be shaken; then will appear the
sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will
mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory; and he will send
out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from
the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (v29-31).
“But of that day and hour
no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but (Deus)
only.” (v36).
Jesus tells the parable
of the Faithful servant.
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 22 – 24
Why
does the king treat the guest without a wedding garment so harshly? What is the significance of the wedding
garment? And how does that specific
scenario translate to the temporal circumstances of those who refuse the Word
of God?
“Render
unto Caesar,” “All are like Angels,” and “Love your neighbour as yourself,”
seem to be some of the most powerful and radical teachings that Jesus
provides. What are the tangible,
ordinary, day-to-day implications of these teachings? What are some additional, “radical love”
teachings that Jesus provides? Love thy
enemy?
How
do Jesus’ examples and teachings of compassion, humility, and righteousness
compare with his admonishment of conventional leaders and his prophesy for the
emergence of the Moshiach? What provides
the compulsion to his story?
Within
his prophesy, Jesus refers to the reading the sign of the fig tree. How is this contextualised amidst the
previous description of Jesus being “tricked” by the fig tree and cursing the
fig tree into shriveling?
A
general consideration: are the general
lifestyles of contemporary Christians increasingly similar to the Sunna
(example) of Jesus or Muhammad?
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 20 – 23
Amidst the notion of the master becoming as a
slave, what relevance does the practise of moderation have within such
interaction? How might such cooperation look, whereby people are servants
unto each other, without there emerging a “master servant”? Are there any
historic and/or contemporary examples of such cooperation within Judaism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and/or any additional traditions,
religious and otherwise?
Amidst the solicitation of the mor of James
and John, what is the nature of the connexion that the disciples maintain with
family and friends, whilst also existing as disciples of Jesus (including the
occasions spent with Peter’s mor-in-law, and additionally)? How does this
coincide with Jesus’s teachings regarding the renunciation of family and
friends?
When the wife of Zebedee states, “your
kingdom,” is she making reference to a kingdom belonging to Jesus or the
Sovereignty of Deus? Amidst the proclamation of the two being synonymous,
how can a kingdom be controlled by two sovereigns? And amidst the
proclamation of God existing as Jesus, does that mean that the wife of Zebedee
is actually, and ultimately, referring to the Sovereignty of Deus? How
does this proclamation compare with the Hindu explanation of the nature of
existence of Sri Krishna in relation to Brahman? Does such a proclamation
suggest Deus being absent from any additional phenomena, life within the
Universe? Is it possible for Deus to simultaneous exist within (or as)
Jesus, and also exist beyond Jesus? How does this coincide within the
notion of the Spirit of Deus simultaneously existing with all beings (or at
least some beings); and that Deus simultaneously exists within (as) every
being, and all life, phenomena, and circumstances? Does the notion of
Deus existing as Jesus eradicate the construct of the “personal self” and the
experience of the “ego”? How is this to be appropriately understood and
practised?
What is the significance of Prophesy (specifically, foretelling “future” events) and why is there a substantial amount of adherence of, and reliance upon, the “foretelling” of events? What is the difference between a “Prophetic voice” and the prognostication of circumstances? Amidst a proficient Prophetic voice what understanding about the nature of humanity and the Universe reveals certain expectation of approaching circumstances? What is the distinction between trusting within the proclamation of such prognostications and trusting within the behavioural example of righteousness that reveals such approaching circumstances? How might the reliance and adherence to the prognostication actually impede or negatively influence the righteous behaviour and the experience of the Prophetic voice? How might is help?
What is the significance of Prophesy (specifically, foretelling “future” events) and why is there a substantial amount of adherence of, and reliance upon, the “foretelling” of events? What is the difference between a “Prophetic voice” and the prognostication of circumstances? Amidst a proficient Prophetic voice what understanding about the nature of humanity and the Universe reveals certain expectation of approaching circumstances? What is the distinction between trusting within the proclamation of such prognostications and trusting within the behavioural example of righteousness that reveals such approaching circumstances? How might the reliance and adherence to the prognostication actually impede or negatively influence the righteous behaviour and the experience of the Prophetic voice? How might is help?
Amidst the proclamation of Jesus existing as
Deus or Deus existing as Jesus, why does much of traditional Christianity
abstain from proclaiming being disciples of Deus, and instead, proclaim being
disciples of the persona of Jesus? Why is the emphasis traditionally upon
the personage of Jesus, rather than the Ultimately Reality of Deus?
There is the explanation that the interaction
between Jesus and the fig tree is a metaphor for Jesus’s search for
righteousness within the House of Israel; one prima facie consideration
is: what harm does the fig tree cause to warrant be cursed to wither and
die? Also, how is Jesus actually “fooled” by the fig tree? Also,
amidst the explanation of the metaphor, does such suggest a comprehensive curse
of death for the entirety of the House of Israel? And if so, how does
this compare and contrast with the blessing and curse that Moshe communicates,
from Adonai, and the eventual return of Israelis into the covenant with
Adonai? Also, amidst Jesus’s described hunger, interest within figs,
ability to wither trees and move mountains, why does Jesus abstain from simply
commanding the fig tree to produce some fruit so that he can eat? And why
do Jesus’s disciples continue to be amazed with the miracles that are
performed?
Amidst the solicitation to identify the
authority of Jesus, Jesus responds with another challenge; amidst similar
endeavours that fundamentally challenge convention, what may be some
appropriate responses to such “pattyroller” questions (a reference to the
“Underground Railroad,” and the attempts of conventional authorities in denying
the liberation of slaves)?
Within the parable of the king who provides
the wedding feast (verses 22:1 – 14, unquoted in this iteration), why does the
king banish the guest without the wedding garment, after the guest complies
with the king’s (previously spurned) invitations to attend the wedding
dinner? What is meant by the significance placed upon the “wedding
garment;” and what is to be appropriately understood regarding this
specific component of the parable?
The mitzvah that Moshe teachings, and that
Jesus references, regarding loving Deus first: can this be understood as
overcoming the self-centred tendency of egotism to recognise the Ultimate
Reality that exists beyond the personal will of the individual? And the
“Golden Rule,” as the Jewish scholar, Hillel, and additional Prophets and
teachers from additional religious traditions share, to “love the other as one
love’s one’s self”: is this much the purpose of life, and what
facilitates the sustaining of life?
How does Jesus’s criticism of the leadership
of the Jewish community, within Chapter 23, compare with his previous teachings
to have increased righteousness than the leadership and to abstain from
“leading over” others? How do these criticisms of conventional authority
compare with Moshe’s response to convention, Avraham’s response, Muhammad’s
(PBUH) response, the Buddha’s response, Arjuna’s response, and the respective
responses of additional Prophetic and additional leaders throughout the Universe?
Amidst the teaching to abstain from calling
any man, “far” (father), why is there the tradition of referring to some
Christian priests and leaders as, “far”? How do historic and contemporary
forms of Christian leadership compare and contrast with the explicit teachings
that Jesus provides regarding such religious worship? What is the
symbiosis between the leadership of the servant and the leadership of the
benevolent shepherd?
What is the nature of the love that Jesus
provides to the Pharisees?
--
Discussion Questions From
Chapters 24 – 26
Do Jesus’s foretelling
teachings exhibit a susceptibility of a self-fulfilling prophesy? What is an appropriate balance between being
severely altruistic and maintaining a proficient livelihood amidst necessary
allegiances with people who exist within the building tumult that Jesus
describes? Do these teachings encourage
followers to search for (and perhaps, provoke) persecution; and if so, does this connote the provocation
of suffering within those who commit such persecution? Is there any additional means through which
the “Peacemakers” may be able to amicably manifest “Heaven on Earth”?
Is there any tangible,
appropriate intersection between Jesus’s “sheep from another fold” and the
“Gospel being told throughout the Earth”?
What exactly is the “Gospel” that Jesus references: is this exclusively Jesus’s teachings, or can
this be perceived simply as the Universal Gospel of Truth and love, as it is
respectively understood and taught within additional religious traditions and
communities?
What is the nature of
Jesus’s fulfilment of prophesy amidst such fulfilment being predicated upon the
further fulfilment of additional prophesy that is similar to the initial
prophesy?
What is the nature of
Jesus’s “ownership” of angels? How does
this compare and contrast with the belief that every individual has
angels? How does this compare/contrast,
and what is the confluence, with the belief of all phenomena, beings, and
angels ultimately belonging to Deus?
What harm does the
servant with only 1 talent (who hides the talent) cause, when his master admits
being an individual who transgress and behaves unrighteously? How applicable is a parable that is
predicated upon making money? And what
fallacy exists within the master (thus emphasising the imperfectness of
parables) in that the master initially provides the talents according to the
respective skills of each servant, yet the 1 talent servant behaves in a manner
that the master presumably abstains from perceiving?
Why does Jesus refer to
himself as, “King,” and then immediately subordinates himself to the
Sovereignty of Deus? What is the nature
of the distinction and the duality there?
Does Jesus’s description of the experience of Heaven connote certain division
and segregation within Heaven; does this
include the existence of numerous personal kingdoms within such a belief of
Heaven? And if so, what is the nature of
diplomacy and cooperation amongst such kingdoms, and how might this be
appropriately understood within different religious and additional, traditional
communities? What may be some additional
beliefs regarding an “Ultimately Reality” that exists beyond such
tangibilities?
Amidst Jesus’s teaching
of righteousness, does he find increasing favour with the individuals who are
tending to, or existing as, the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick,
imprisoned, and additionally?
How are the metaphysics
and teachings of Jesus’s bread and wine to be appropriately understood? How does this compare with similar
metaphysical teachings within the Upanishads of Hinduism, as well as
respectively within the Torah of Judaism and the Koran of Islam?
--
Sura
12: Yusuf (Yosef)
The
Koran is provided within the Arabic language.
Yosef
proclaims his vision of the 11 planets and the Sun and the Moon.
Yosef’s
brothers despise him and plot to remove him from Israel’s house.
Yosef
is sold into slavery and taken to Egypt.
Yosef
receives wisdom and the wife of his master attempts to seduce him.
Yosef
is proven to be honest because his shirt is torn from the back.
Yosef’
master’s wife admits her transgression, yet bids Yosef to prison, and Yosef
asks for reprieve from the circumstances by going to prison.
Fellow
prisoners communicate dreams to Yosef, and Yosef interprets both.
Pharaoh
has 2 dreams; Yosef interprets the 7
years of abundance and the 7 years of famine.
Pharaoh
investigates the previous dissonance between Yosef and his master’s wife before
raising Yosef to authority.
Yosef’s
brothers travel to Egypt; he recognises
his brothers, however, his brothers fail to recognise him.
Yosef
hides the brothers’ money in his brothers’ bags.
Yosef’s
brothers return with Benyamin, and Yosef hides his cup within Benyamin’s bag.
Yosef
accuses his brothers and threatens Benyamin.
Yosef
reveals himself to his brothers.
Israel
travels to Egypt and joins Yosef.
--
What
is the significance of the Koran being written within Arabic? Is it possible to exactly communicate the
Universal Truth within any specific, tangible, and historic human language?
How
does the Koran’s description of the narrative of Yosef compare with the
narrative provided by the Torah? It
seems interesting that, amidst the comparative length and detail of this
narrative within the Koran, there is an absence of the mention of any of the
respective names of Yosef’s brothers.
Within the tradition of Islam, is there any substantial significance
placed within the person of Yosef compared with the additional sons of Israel?
--
May Love, Peace, And Blessings Of
The Highest Authority We Respectively Recognise, Known By Many Names, Including
God, El Shaddai, Eloheinu, Elohim, Adonai, Hashem, Brahman, Nirvana, Dharma,
Karma, Tao, Gud, Dieu, Deus, Dios, Dominus, Jah, Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda,
Vaya Guru, The Divine, Infinity, Logic, Wakan Tanka, And Additionally Be Upon
The Rishis, Moshe, The Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah, Guru Nanak,
Zarathustra, Avraham, Yitzak, Yaakov, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Black Elk, Martin Luther, Gandhi, Bob Marley, The Respective
Indigenous Of Taínoterranea, Asia, Europe, Mediterranea, Africa, The Earth,
Galaxy, Universe, Our Families, Friends, And The Universe. Om.
Shanti. Shanti. Shantihi.
Amen.
שלום.नमस्ते.สมาธ.Pax.سلام.Peace.साटीनाम.صلح.Kwey.Amani.Udo.Barış.ειρήνη.Pace.Paz.Paix.Fred.
Frieden.Vrede.Siochana.мир.امن.和平.平和.평화.Ingatka.Wominjeka.Aloha.
.
.
.
...
ૐ.אמן
Shalom(Hebrew).Namaste(Sanskrit).Samadhi(Thai/Pali).Pax(Latin).Salaam(Arabic).Peace(English).
SatNam(Punjabi).Solh(Persian).Kwey(Algonquin).Amani(Swahili).Udo(Ibo).Barish(Turkish).Erieni(Greek).Pache(Italiano).Paz(Espanol).Paix(Francais).
Fred(Scandinavian).Frieden(Deutsch).Siochana(Irish).Mir(Russian).Amin(Urdu).Heping(Mandarin).Heiwa(Japanese).Pyeonghwa(Korean).
Ingatka(Tagolog).Wominjeka(Wurundjeri).Aloha(Hawai’ian).Peace(Common
Symbol).Peace(Common Sign).Peace(American Sign).Peace(American Braille).
Om. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment