Holy Scriptures Study (Week 6; Toldot) 118.3.13

Holy Scriptures Study, Week 6; Toldot; 118.3.13

Toldot

Bereshit 25:19 – 28:9

Rivkah gives birth to Esau and Yaakov

Esau sells his birthright to Yaakov for red lentil stew

Famine arrives, and Yitzak travels to Abimelech, King of the Philistines, in Gerar

Adonai tells Yitzak to abstain from making Egypt his home; promises numerous descendants

Yitzak calls Rivkah his sister; Abimelech discovers actuality

Yitzak prospers and Abimelech bids him to leave Gerar; Yitzak goes to Gerar Valley

Disputes emerge over wells

Adonai appears to Yitzak at Beer-Sheva; Yitzak builds altar

Abimelech and Pikhol visit Yitzak to make Peace treaty

Esau marries 2 Hittite women

Yitzak commands Esau to hunt deer and prepare meal to receive a blessing; Rivkah and Yaakov deceive Yitzak; Yitzak provides blessing to Yaakov; Esau becomes enraged; Rivkah and Yitzak tell Yaakov to travel to Haran in Padan Aram

Yaakov leaves

Esau marries Machlath, daughter of Ishmael

--

There seems to be an interesting comparison between the property negotiations with Avraham (with Lot and with the Hittites) and with Yitzak (concerning the wells)? What are some of the lessons/principles that we can learn from these examples?

Why do Abimelech and Pikhol travel to Beer-Sheva to find Yitzak to make a Peace treaty with him, after Yitzak already leaves Gerar? What does Abimelech experience that prompts him to do this? Why is there an absence of a dispute over the 3^rd new well that is dug?

It seems as though the episode of the meal and the blessing (presumably with only a duration of a few hours) is the most detailed rendering within the Torah of such a specific set of events. There is also the consideration of additional episodes, similarly detailed and of similar duration, such as: the splitting of the Reed Sea, the provision Ten Commandments and the golden calf (in addition to the conferring of blessings). How do these episodes compare? Is there any significance within each, and/or within the similarities/distinctions?

--

Mahabarata

Bhagavad Gita 11 - 12

Arjuna asks to see Brahman

Arjuna is provided with spiritual vision

Arjuna is awed by vision and bows to Brahman

Arjuna describes the vision that he experiences; infinity

Arjuna describes all the warriors being consumed within vision of Brahman

Sri Krishna proclaims being time, destroyer of all; describes inevitable death of all warriors, and Arjuna simply as an instrument of what already happens

Arjuna proclaims greatness of Brahman; makes apology to Sri Krishna for past transgressions/disrespect

Arjuna asks to retain his ordinary vision

Arjuna’s ordinary vision is returned to him

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

--

How does Arjuna’s vision compare with that of Moshe, the vision of the Spirit of God descending upon Jesus and Jesus being visited by Moshe and Eliyahu, the traditional story of Muhammad being visited by the angel, Gabriel, and with the Buddha’s description of the Heavenly Eye?

What is the actual distinction between Brahman and Sri Krishna and other celestial beings, such as Rama, described within Hinduism? How can the nature of Sri Krishna be authentically described (according to Hindu tradition and Theology) within a Western (Abrahamic) context and language? Is Sri Krishna like an Angel? Are celestial beings within Hinduism, other than Brahman, described with the G- word in English, and within a Western context, because of the Abrahamic tendency of personifying God, and because of the Paganist traditions historically associated with the English language (and the reference to numerous deities within the English language, as well as that with both Greek and Roman mythology)? It seems as though the same belief of the Ultimate Reality is shared amongst Hinduism and the Abrahamic Faiths, yet, there seems to be the necessity for increased, enhanced communication and understanding between these respective traditions to be able to proficiently understand what each actually believes (particularly before presuming that there may be any potential disagreements).

Does Sri Krishna actually have 4 arms? If so, is this a regular occurrence within the historic tradition of Hinduism? How does the experience of the Universe (particularly the intersection of the Heavenly realm and this temporal realm) compare between Hinduism and Buddhism and with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? How can the “timelessness” and “nonduality” from the East be effectively perceived and communicated within the linear concepts and language of the West?

Within Chapter 12, there is the teaching of equanimity. How can this principle be argued within a Western/Abrahamic context?

--

Digha Nikaya

Ambattha Sutta Chapter 2

Ambattha asks what is that righteousness and what is that wisdom

Buddha describes that only wisdom and righteousness are significant; issues of birth, lineage, pride only emerge amidst marital arrangements

There is reference to previous teaching on morality

There is reference to previous teachings of confidence, through guarding the door of the senses, through the 5 hindrances, through the Wondrous Gift, through destruction of the deadly floods

The Buddha describes 4 Leakages (having yet attained the wisdom and conduct): living only on fallen fruit, living only on roots and bulbs, building a fire shrine, constructing 4-doored almshouse

The Buddha asks Ambattha whether Ambattha previously attains to any of these levels; Ambattha denies

The Buddha describes the subordination of Ambattha’s teacher, Pokkharasadi, to King Pasenadi

The Buddha describes difference between Rishis and the Brahmins

Ambattha sees 32 signs within the Buddha (with 2 signs through Wondrous Gift by the Buddha)

Ambattha returns to Pokkharasadi and tells him the story of the interaction; Pokkharasadi upbraids Ambattha

Pokkharasadi visits, with food, the Buddha, and asks forgiveness for Ambattha; the Buddha forgives

Pokkharasadi provide the Buddha with another meal, and the Buddha discourses

Pokkharasadi joins the Sangha and becomes a disciple of the Buddha

--

In many of his parables, the Buddha reverts to previous, perceivably antiquated social structures and Theological notions to communicate his lesson. Within this chapter of this Sutta, the Buddha effectively says: Brahmins are as incapable of being Rishis as much as a Sudra is incapable of being a Kshatriya. In the first chapter of the Ambattha Sutta, the Buddha responds to Ambattha’s devaluation of the Kshatriya caste to the Brahmin caste (and Ambattha’s derogatory references to skin colour) by similarly devaluing the Brahmin caste to the Kshatriya caste (from which the Buddha, Siddharta Gautama, originates) and similarly making derogatory references to the skin colour of Ambattha’s ancestors. In another Sutta, the Buddha proclaims, effectively: lightness of skin is inconsequential, and I am the lightest skinned person here. How does a Prophet communicate a message, beyond the confines of the temporal contexts and concepts of the Prophet’s time, in a manner that the contemporaries of the Prophet are able to understand?

What is the significance of the 2 “concealed” signs?

--

Gospels

Matthew 22 – 24

Jesus tells the parable of the king and the wedding feast for his son; destroys those who refuse his invitation and casts out the guest with inappropriate clothing

Pharisees ask whether law to pay taxes; Jesus replies: “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and render unto God that which belongs to God.”

Sadducees ask a question about the Resurrection and woman with 7 brothers as husbands; Jesus replies: “All are like Angels in Heaven.”

A lawyer asks a question: “What is the great commandment?” Jesus replies: “You shall love God with all your heart, soul, mind; and love your neighbour as yourself.”

Jesus asks how David can call Moshiach his leader

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

--

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?

--

Koran

Sura Al Anam; The Cattle

Allah is proclaimed as the Creator of Heaven and Earth

Rejectors of Truth receive consequences; doubt proclamation of human believers

The Day of Judgment is described

There is the Proclamation of Allah as the only God

The behaviour of the disbelievers is described

Animals form communities similar to humans

All challenges and respite are provide by Allah

Each person is only accountable for each person’s own acts

Description of Allah’s intervention within dreams and death

Some take religion as an idle endeavour

Avraham challenges idol worshippers; denies Stars, Moon, Sun as objects of worship

There is the description of additional Prophets

Allah brings the dead from the living and the living from the dead

There is the description of Creation from Allah

It is difficult for disbelievers to believe

There is the direction to eat all lawful food

Open sins and secret sins are prohibited

There is the description between the “expansion of breast” in Islam, and the haughtiness of disbelief

There is the description of specific, transgressive practices prohibited by Allah

Child sacrifice is prohibited

Righteous deeds of guardianship and trade are described

Each person receives what each person is due

--

There is the description of how Allah responds to the impiety of disbelievers, and how disbelievers eventually receive the consequence of such impiety. There is also the description that all phenomena are derived from Allah. So, then there is the consideration of why Allah even creates disbelievers. Can the phenomenon of “disbelievers” be understood as the intrinsic existence of impiety, selfishness, and transgression that exists within each individual (including believers), and that the ultimate destruction of the “disbelievers” is simply a description of the ultimate destruction of “disbelief” within our own respective selves? Is all of this simply a test of our own respective egos and consciousness?

Within the description of the communities of animals, is there any intrinsic, esoteric significance that can be understood as existing within animals, all sentient beings?

When the Koran denotes “Say:”, is that a command for the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, or is it a command for the reader, recitor, audience of the Koran? Is this meant as a figurative command, or are these passages meant to be read aloud?

It seems as though some of the challenges in reading the Koran is that each verse often communicates a distinct message, often upon different topics; additionally, there seem to be only a few, extended anecdotal narratives through which to learn through the examples of the Prophets and teachers being described.