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 1; Beresheit) 118.6.27
Torah
Beresheit 1:1 – 6:8
“At
the beginning Elohim created the cosmos, which included planet Earth.
“The
earth was shapeless and empty, with darkness on the face of the waters, and
life-giving winds from Elohim whooshed over the surface of the water. Elohim said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there
was light.” (v1-3).
“Elohim
saw that the light was good, and Elohim separated the light from the
darkness. Elohim called the light “Day,”
and the darkness (Adonai) called “Night.”
And there was evening and there was morning, that very first day.” (v4-5).
“Elohim
said, ‘Let there be a sky in the middle of the water, to separate the waters
above from the waters below.’ (v6).
The
2nd day passes.
“Elohim
said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered to one place, and let the dry
land appear.’ And so it was.” (v9).
“Then
Elohim said, ‘Let the earth be filled with vegetation, and plants with seeds
and trees that grow all kinds of fruits.’
And so it happened.
The
3rd day passes.
“Elohim
said, ‘Let there be bright lights in the sky to separate the day from the night
and to mark the time of the holidays, the days, and the years.” (v14).
The
Sun, Moon, and Stars are created.
The
4th day passes.
“Elohim
said, ‘Now let the water be filled with schools of swimming fish. And let birds fly over the land and through
the air.’” (v20).
“Elohim
blessed them all, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the
oceans and let the birds fill the air.’”
(v22).
The
5th day passes.
“Elohim
said, ‘Now let the earth give birth to all kinds of tame and wild
animals.’ And so it happened.” (v24).
“Then
Elohim said, ‘Let us make a human being in (Our) image like (Ourselves). Let human beings be the masters of the fish
of the sea, the birds in the sky, the tame animals, and every creature that
lives on the earth.’” (v26).
“Elohim
now created a human being to be like (Adonai).
In the image of Elohim (Adonai) created them, male and female.” (v27).
“Elohim
blessed them. Elohim said to them,
“Be
fertile and multiply.
“Settle
the land and preserve it.
“Care
for the fish in the sea,
“the
birds of the sky,
“and
every creature
“that
lives on the earth.” (v28).
“Elohim
said, ‘I have given you all kinds of seed-producing plants, and trees that
produce seed-bearing fruit, for food.’”
(v29).
“And
also as food for every beast of the field, every bird of the air, and
everything that walks the land and has a living soul.’ And so it was.” (v30).
The
6th day passes.
“Heaven
and earth, and everything in them were successfully completed. On the seventh day Elohim completed all
(Adonai’s) work, and on the seventh day (Adonai) rested from all (Adonai’s)
work. Elohim blessed the seventh day,
and (Adonai) declared it to be holy, because on this day Adonai rested from the
work of creation.” (v1-3).
“This
is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
“All
the plants as yet had not emerged out of the ground, and the grasses had not
yet sprouted. This was so because Adonai
had not yet sent rain to water the soil, and there were no people to farm the
land. Then water flowed up from the
earth, and it watered the entire surface
of the ground. Now Elohim formed a man
from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life. This is how man became a living
person. Now Elohim planted a garden in
Eden in the east. There (Adonai) placed
the man that (Adonai) had created.
Elohim planted trees that were beautiful to look at and with fruit that
was good to eat, including the Tree of Life in the middle of the garden, and
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.”
(v4-9).
There
is the description of 4 rivers: Pishon,
Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates.
“Adonai
gave the man a warning, saying, ‘You may eat from every tree of the
garden. But you must not eat from the
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will
surely die.’” (v16-17).
“Elohim
said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone.
I will make a companion for him.’”
(v18).
“Elohim
then made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, (Adonai) took one
of his ribs and closed the place from which it was taken. Elohim made the rib that (Adonai) took from
the man into a woman, and (Adonai) brought her to the man.” (v21-22).
“The
man exclaimed,
“She
is bone from my bones
“and
flesh from my flesh:
“She
shall be called WoMan
“because
she was taken from Man.” (v23)
“This
is why a man leaves his father and mother and marries. So he and his wife can become united as one
family. The man and his wife were both
naked, but they were not ashamed by each other.” (v24-25).
“The
snake was the trickiest of all the wild animals hat Elohim had created. The snake asked the woman, ‘Did Elohim really
say that you may not eat from any of the trees of the garden?’” (v1).
The
snake convinces the woman to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; she gives the fruit to her husband and he
eats it.
“The
minds of both of them were opened, and they became ashamed because they were
naked. So they sewed together fig leaves
and made loincloths for themselves.”
(v7).
The
man and woman hide from Adonai, and Adonai summons both, asking whether both
eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
The
man and woman explain the circumstances.
Adonai
curses the snake, as well as the man and the woman.
“By
the sweat of your brow you will eat bread.
And in the end you will return to the earth dead; From the earth you were created. You are dust, and to dust you shall
return.” (v19).
“The
man named his wife Chavah, because she was the mother of all life.” (v20).
“Elohim
said, ‘Man has now become like one of (Us) in knowing good and evil. What if he decides to eat from the Tree of
Life and live forever?’ So Elohim drove
man from the Garden of Eden, to farm the earth from which he was created.” (v22-23).
Eve
(Chavah) gives birth to Cain and Abel.
“Abel
became a shepherd, while Cain became a farmer.
“One
time, Cain brought some of his crops as an offering to Adonai. But Abel brought some of the finest lambs in
his flock. Elohim was pleased with
Abel’s offering, but (Adonai) was not pleased with Cain’s offering. Cain became very angry and sad.” (v2-5).
Cain
becomes jealous of Abel, and Adonai warns Cain.
“One
day when they were in the field. Cain said something to his brother Abel. Cain became angry at this brother Abel, and
murdered him.” (v8).
Adonai
asks Cain where Abel is; Cain initially
avoids confession, and then confesses;
Adonai curses Cain.
Cain’s
wife gives birth to Enoch; the
descendants of Enoch are described.
Chavah
gives birth to Seth.
“This
is the book of the history of mankind.
“When
Elohim created man, (Adonai) made him in the likeness of Elohim. (Adonai) created them male and female. On the day they were created, (Adonai)
blessed them and named them humans.”
(v1-2).
The
descendants of Adam are described, including:
Seth to Enosh to Kenan to Mahalel to Yered to Enoch to Methuselah to
Lemech to Noach.
“He
named him (Noach), saying, ‘This one will relieve us from the drudgery and
labor of farming the soil that Adonai has cursed.” (v29).
“When
(Noach) was 500 years old, he had fathered three sons: Shem, Ham, Yefeth.” (v32).
“Humanity
began to increase on the face of the earth, and children were born to
them. The Nefilim appeared and saw that
the daughters of the humans were beautiful, so they married them. Adonai said, ‘From now on, I will not
tolerate man forever, since he is nothing but flesh. From now on his life span will be 120
years.’” (v1-3).
“Adonai
saw that the people on the earth were becoming more wicked. All day long they thought only of evil.
“Adonai
was angry and regretted that (Adonai) had created man, and (Adonai) was very
sad. Adonai said, ‘I will erase from the
face of the earth the humans, animals, beasts, and birds of the sky that I have
created. I am sorry that I ever created
them.’ However, (Noach) was a special
person in the eyes of Adonai.” (v5-8).
--
Whilst
the story of Creation, within Judaism, is also shared by Christianity, there is
also a distinct rendering of this narrative within the Gospel according to
John; how do these narratives compare
and contrast, and what significant Theological differences emerge from these
distinctions? How does the Creation
narrative within Beresheit compare with the Buddhist concept of origination
(Becoming and/or Dependent Origination), as well as with Hindu Theology briefly
referenced within the Bhagavad Gita, and further within additional Hindu Holy
Scriptures, such as the Upanishads and the Vedas (and presumably, particularly,
the Rig Veda)? What similarities and distinctions
exist between Beresheit and the numerous teachings regarding Creation within
the Koran?
Amidst
these respective Creation narratives and explanations, it seems necessary for
every belief system to effectively explain the perceivably incomprehensible
concept of infinity and the “Ultimate” origin of the Universe, and all life and
all phenomena; and it seems as though
some of these narratives include attributing Creation to an omnipotent, or
semi-omnipotent deity, (God), to an individual’s own desire to exist (and
perhaps ego), a “Big Bang,” and additionally;
how do each of these, and additional, approaches explain that concept of
the “Ultimate” beginning? Is there any
phenomenon or concept that may even precede any of these explanations?
What
is the esoteric and metaphysical significance of the Universe beginning as
darkness, and the “second” phenomena that is created is light? Is there any significance in light preceding
from darkness, and is it appropriate to perceive darkness being “created”? How does this binary compare with the concept
of yin and yang, within Taoism, as well as the notion of dualism and
“non-dualism” within Hinduism (and similarly within Buddhism)? And how does this translate, and influence,
into additional temporal binaries such as pleasure and pain? Is it possible to conceive of an existence
and/or phenomena without, or even perhaps beyond, darkness and light?
What
implications does the teaching of the “light being good” have with respect to
the temporal behaviour of individuals, particularly with respect to skin
complexion? Does the “light being good”
implicitly and conversely equate to the “darkness being bad”? How does this compare with the traditional
practise of caste distinction (frequently predicated upon skin complexion)
within Hinduism, with similar considerations within Buddhism? And how does such a potential inference of
“darkness being bad” compare with the Koranic teaching of night being a
blessing whereby individuals are provided rest and rejuvenation?
How
does the sky in the middle of the waters (as well as darkness/light, and the
subsequent portion of the “Creation Week”) compare with the actual process and
experience of a baby being born? Within
such an extended allegory, whilst the darkness and light may reference the
perceived circumstances within the mor’s womb, and the initial “waters” may be
the amniotic fluids of the mor’s womb, what may be some explanations regarding
the additional elements within this Creation story, such as the establishment
of land (perhaps becoming part of the tangible, temporal Universe), the
establishment of vegetation (perhaps being provided with nourishment), the
celestial lights (perhaps being people, the energy/spirit within others), the
establishment of fish and animals (perhaps becoming increasingly involved
within this temporal realm), the establishment of humanity (perhaps receiving
self-consciousness/awareness), and the Shabbat (perhaps practising meditation,
prayer, moderation amidst temporal pursuit;
a fundamental principle for all interaction within the Universe)? How does this “birth” allegory compare with the
Buddhist notion of Dependent Origination?
The
mitzvah to “be fruitful and multiply” is first communicated to fish and
birds; what significance and
implications may be derived from the fact that human beings essentially follow
this lead; and how does such a
consideration compare with the teachings to have compassion towards all
sentient beings, respectively provided within Hinduism and Buddhism?
Within
Verse 26 of Chapter 1, to whom is Adonai speaking, when utilising the 1st
person plural? Amidst the traditional
understanding of the direct audience being angels, how does this compare with
similar communication shared within the Koran and the Gospels, and how does
this compare with additional beliefs, regarding deities, respectively
maintained within additional religious traditions, including Hinduism and
Buddhism? Is there any significance
within the consideration that within this same verse, there is essentially the
simultaneous “creation” of “We,” the angels and humanity? Might this also communicate the phenomenon of
“God-consciousness,” and the intrinsic, absolute connexion that each individual
maintains with the Divine; and how does
this notion compare with Sri Krishna’s address to Arjuna’s Atman, describing,
“There has never been a time when we have ceased to exist.”?
What
is the intended nature of the relationship that human beings maintain with the
temporal realm, the Universe, described within the 6th day: dominion, ownership, stewardship,
coexistence, submission, all of the above?
What affect does such a conclusion have upon the maintenance and
development/progression of an individual’s ego?
What
is exactly meant by the notion of the “image” or “likeness” of Adonai? Does this inadvertently or intentionally
attribute the personification of that which exists beyond personification? And, again, what affect might this have on an
individual’s ego (in identifying Divinity within a similarly held experience of
personification)? How does this compare
with the respective beliefs of Brahman and Nirvana, within Hinduism and
Buddhism?
Does
the very initial utilisation of the 1st person singular, describing
Adonai, in and of itself establish the phenomenon of the ego? How might such a narrative of Creation be
shared without the existence of such a phenomenon as the ego?
Does
the address within Verses 29 - 30 of Chapter 1 establish the mitzvah for
vegetarianism, and perhaps even veganism, for all individuals, including
animals?
What
are the distinctions and symmetries between the 1st and 2nd
story of Creation (shared within Chapter 2), and what is the respective
significance of each of these?
How
does the prohibition, within Judaism, from pronouncing Hashem compare with the
respective abstinences, within Hinduism and Buddhism, from personifying the
Ultimate Divinity (Brahman or Nirvana)?
What synonymous deference and ego-suppression exists within these
respective practises?
What
is the intrinsic, esoteric purpose and significance within the first negative
mitzvot to abstain from eating from the Tree of Knowledge? Is the Tree of Knowledge an allegory for
sexual intercourse; and how does this
compare with Buddhist doctrine on “Becoming”?
Why is the prohibition regarding the Tree of Knowledge rather than the
Tree of Life (subsequently referenced)?
What
is the intrinsic nature of the connexion between man and woman, as communicated
through the story of Adam and Eve, and how does this compare with respective
teachings from within additional religious traditions?
Is
it ironic that knowledge leads to the awareness of nakedness? Is this what prompts the notion of ignorance
equaling bliss? How does this narrative
compare with the Christian doctrine of “original sin,” and additional
respective teachings, from additional religious traditions, regarding the
nature of interaction between man and woman, and the phenomenon of procreation?
Adonai
condemns Adam into being a cultivator of land, yet Abel is a herder and
provides animal sacrifices that are described as pleasing Adonai further than
the vegetation offerings from Cain; why
is that?
How
does Lemech’s comment, regarding being relieved from the curse upon growing
crops, compare with the subsequent description of the wicked behaviour of
humans and animals particularly through the consumption of flesh?
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 1
“O
Sanjaya, tell me what happened at Kurukshetra, the field of (Dharma), where my
family and the Pandavas gathered to fight.”
(v1).
“Having
surveyed the forces of the Pandavas arrayed for battle, prince Durodhana
approached his teacher, Drona, and spoke.”
(v2).
“
‘O my teacher, look at this might army of the Pandavas, assembled by your own
gifted disciple, Yudhishthira.
“
‘These are heroic warriors and great archers who are the equals of Bhima and
Arjuna: Yuydhana, Virata,
“
‘the mighty Drupada, Dhrishtaketu, Chekitana, the valiant king of Kashi,
Purujit, Kuntibhoja,
“
‘the great leader Shaibya, the powerful Yudhamanyu, the valiant Uttamaujas, and
the son of Subhadra, in addition to the sons of Draupadi. All these command mighty chariots.” (v3-6).
“
‘O best of Brahmins, listen to the names of those who are distinguished among
our own forces:
“
‘Bhishma, Karna, and the victorious Kripa;
Ashvatthama, Vikarna, and the son of Somadatta.
“There
are many others, too, heroes giving up their lives for my sake, all proficient
in war and armed with a variety of weapons.
“
‘Our army is unlimited and commanded by Bhishma; theirs is small and commanded by Bhima.
“
‘Let everyone take his proper place and stand firm supporting Bhishma!’” (v7-11).
Bhishma,
and the Kurus, blow the conches.
“Then
Sri Krishna and Arjuna, who were standing in a mighty chariot yoked with white
horses, blew their divine conchs.”
(v14).
“and
the noise tore through the heart of Duryodhana’s army. Indeed, the sound was tumultuous, echoing
throughout heaven and earth.” (v19).
“
‘Then, O Dhritarashtra, (leader) of the earth, having seen your son’s forces
set in their places and the fighting about to begin, Arjuna spoke these words
to Sri Krishna:
“
‘O Krishna, drive my chariot between the two armies.
“
‘I want to see those who desire to fight with me. With whom will this battle be fought?
“
‘I want to see those assembled to fight for Duryodhana, those who seek to
please the evil-minded son of Dhritarashtra by engaging in war.’” (20-23).
“And
Arjuna, standing between the two armies, saw fathers and grandfathers,
teachers, uncles, and brothers, sons and grandsons, in-laws and friends.
“Seeing
his kinsman established in opposition, Arjuna was overcome by sorrow. Despairing, he spoke these words:” (v26-27).
“O
Krishna, I see my own relations here anxious to fight, and my limbs grow
weak; my mouth is dry, my body shakes,
and my hair is standing on end.
“My
skin burns, and the bow Gandiva has slipped from my hand. I am unable to stand; my mind seems to be whirling.
“These
signs bode evil for us. I do not see
that any good can come from killing our relations in battle.
“O
Krishna, I have no desire for victory, or for a kingdom or pleasures.
“Of
what use is a kingdom or pleasure or even life, if those for whose sake we
desire these things—
“teachers,
fathers, sons, grandfathers, uncles, in-laws, grandsons, and others with family
ties—are engaging in this battle, renouncing their wealth and their lives?
“Even
if they were to kill me, I would not want to kill them, not even to become
ruler of the three worlds. How much less
for the earth alone?” (v28-35).
“O
Krishna, what satisfaction could we find in killing Dhritarashtra’s sons? We would become sinners by slaying these men,
even though they are evil.
“The
sons of Dhritarashtra are related to us;
therefore, we should not kill them.
How can we gain happiness by killing members of our own family?” (v36-37).
“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.
“It
is said that those whose family dharma has been destroyed dwell in hell.
“This
is a great sin! We are prepared to kill
our own relations out of greed for the pleasures of a kingdom.
“Better
for me if the sons of Dhritarashtra, weapons in hand, were to attach me in
battle and kill me unarmed and unresisting.”
(v40-46).
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
1
“O Sanjaya, tell me what happened at Kurukshetra, the field of (Dharma),
where my family and the Pandavas gathered to fight.” (v1)
“Having surveyed the forces of the Pandavas arrayed for battle, prince
Duryodhana approached his teacher, Drona, and spoke.
“ ‘O my teacher, look at this mighty army of the Pandavas, assembled by
your own gifted disciple, Yudhishthira.
“ ‘There are heroic warriors and great archers who are the equals of Bhima
and Arjuna: Yuyudhana, Virata,
“ ‘the mighty Drupada, Dhrishtaketu, Chekitana, the valien king of Kashi,
Purijit, Kintibhoja, the great leader Shaibya, the powerful Yudhamanyu, the
valiant Uttamaujas, and the son of Subhadra in addition to the sons of
Draupadi. All these command mighty
chariots.” (v2-6).
“ ‘O best of Brahmins, listen to the names of those who are distinguished
among our own forces:
“ ‘Bhishma, Karna, and the victorious Kripa; Ashvatthama, Vikarna, and the son of
Somadatta.
“ ‘There are many others, too, heroes giving up their lives for my sake,
all proficient in war and armed with a variety of weapons.” (v7-9).
“ ‘Our army is unlimited and commanded by Bhishma; theirs is small and commanded by Bhima.
“ ‘Let everyone take his proper place and stand firm supporting
Bhishma!’” (v10-11).
“Then the powerful Bhishma, the grandsire, oldest of all the Kurus, in
order to cheer Duryodhana, roared like a lion and blew his conch horn.
“And after Bhishma, a tremendous noise arose of conchs and cowhorns and
pounding on drums.” (v12-13).
“Then Sri Krishna and Arjuna, who were standing in a mighty chariot yoked
with white horses, blew their divine conchs.”
(v14).
“O Krishna, drive my chariot between the two armies.
“I want to see those who desire to fight with me. With whom will this battle be fought?
“I want to see those assembled to fight for Dur-yodhana, those who seek to
please the evil-minded son of Dhritarashtra by engaging in war.” (v21-23).
“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).
“O Krishna, I see my own relations here anxious to fight,
“and my limbs grow weak; my mouth is
dry, my body shakes, and my hair is standing on end.
“My skin burns, and bow Gandiva has slipped from my hand. I am unable to stand; my mind seems to be whirling.
“These signs bode evil for us. I do
not see that any (benefit) can come from killing our relations in battle.
“O Krishna, I have no desire for victory, or for a kingdom or pleasures.
“Of what use is a kingdom or pleasure or even life, if those for whose sake
we desire these things—
“teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, uncles, in-laws, grandson, and
others with family ties—are engaging in this battle, renouncing their wealth
and their lives?
“Even if they were to kill me, I would not want to kill them, not even to
become ruler of the three worlds. How
much less for the earth alone?”
(v28-35).
“The sons of Dhritarashtra are related to us; therefore, we should not kill them. How can we gain happiness by killing members
of our own family?” (v37).
“Though they are overpowered by greed and see no evil in destroying
families or injuring friends, we see these evils.
“Why shouldn’t we turn away from this sin?
“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.
“It is said that those whose family (Dharma) has been destroyed dwell in
hell.
“This is a great sin! We are
prepared to kill our own relations out of greed for the pleasures fo a kingdom.
“Better for me if the sons of Dhritarashtra, weapons in hand, were to
attack me in battle and kill me unarmed and unresisting.” (v38-46).
“Overwhelmed by sorrow, Arjuna spoke these words. And casting away his bow and his arrows, he
sat down in his chariot in the middle of the battlefield.” (v47).
--
Discussion Questions
From Chapters 1 – 2
What
intrinsic principles of altruism, and perhaps empathy and equanimity, exist
within the opening, and the continual progression of the narrative of the
Bhagavad Gita: that the narrative of the
protagonists, Arjuna and Sri Krishna, is actually told by the battle enemies of
Arjuna and Sri Krishna, that being Dhritarashtra and his advisor, Sanjaya? Does being honoured by one’s enemy
intrinsically establish a certain veracity within the principles that are being
communicated? How does this compare with
the narrative of Balaam and Balaak overlooking the camp of Israel? And how does this compare with the Koranic
teaching of each individual being told each individual’s sum of deeds at the
Day of Judgment? What similitude,
symmetry exists within the notion of every person’s biography of life being
written by each individual’s fiercest enemy?
And what validity exists within the teaching, also from the Bhagavad
Gita, of one’s fiercest enemy being one’s own self (ego and selfish
tendencies)?
How
does the theme of Creation, within the opening of the Torah, compare with the
theme of the battlefield, within the Bhagavad Gita; what intrinsic characteristics about life do each
of these narratives respectively share, and what similarities may be perceived
amidst these two respective beginnings?
How do these compare with the respective openings within the Gospels,
the Koran, and the Digha Nikaya?
How
does Arjuna’s despair at the prospect of fighting against his relatives, and
his coinciding description of the virtues of familial relationships, compare
with Jesus’s teaching regarding brother fighting against brother, and choosing
spiritual pursuits over familial allegiances? How does this compare with the example of the
Buddha, as well; and how might these
considerations be perceived amidst Moshe’s political circumstances amidst the
tribes of Israel, and the designation of Aaron, and his sons, as Priests? And amidst the emphasis of family, as well as
upon the Umma, what teachings does Islam have to provide in this respect?
Does
Arjuna’s soliloquy regarding the “decline of the family” have any merit? How
does this proclamation compare with the family dynamics amongst the children
and grandchildren of Avraham (and particularly the sons of Israel), within the
Torah? How does this family integrity
amongst the tribes of Israel compare to Arjuna’s sentiment?
Within
the Bhagavad Gita, there are conflicting commands for Arjuna to become a
spiritual aspirant and for Arjuna to abide by his warrior caste duties; and whilst explicit commands dictate fighting
against the enemy, the esoteric teachings describe this enemy as one’s own
selfishness; what is the tangible
guidance that is provided to Arjuna?
Also, within Verse 5 of Chapter 2, Arjuna specifically references the
traditional practise od asceticism, although this seems to be discouraged; what path does Sri Krishna ultimately teach,
and is this Universal for all individuals?
Arjuna
is described as a prominent and respected warrior, with prestige and confidence
when entering the battlefield described within the beginning of the Bhagavad
Gita; and such a description seems like
it might resonate with many young men, particularly those who experience some
early victories within life and then are subsequently confronted with an
existential crisis; how does this life
experience compare with the similar and respective narratives shared within the
Torah (intergenerational family storylines and exodus), the Gospels (Jesus
becoming a healer and challenging convention), the Koran (the respective
narratives of different Prophets, and the Digha Nikaya (the Buddha leaving the
princely life to become a Tathagata)?
What
is the nature of Arjuna’s and Sri Krishna’s relationship before entering the
battlefield; what actual physical form
does Sri Krishna maintain before Arjuna’s subsequent vision?
Within
Verse 12 of Chapter 2, Sri Krishna communicates through Arjuna’s ego and
directly into Arjuna’s spirit and the Divine quality that exists within
Arjuna; what are some additional manners
in which such communication can be described, and how might such communication
be evidenced within the narratives of additional religious traditions, such as
the Adonai speaking to Moshe at the burning bush, God proclaiming being pleased
with Jesus, Jibril visiting Muhammad, and the Buddha attaining Enlightenment
and experiencing Nirvana? What are
significant distinctions amidst this, and what may be a line of symmetry amidst
all these respective experiences?
Within
the reference to phenomenon of pleasure and pain, Sri Krishna intrinsically
introduces the doctrine of duality and “transcending duality;” how might this notion of the senses compare
within the sensual/carnal allegory of the Tree of Knowledge; and how might the Tree of Knowledge be
understood within the context of the duality of knowledge and abstinence of
knowledge? What may be some metaphysical
distinctions between the nature of the senses (as it is appropriately
understood within the Bhagavad Gita teachings), and the nature of Knowledge (as
it is appropriately understood within the Torah teachings)?
Further
within Chapter 2, Sri Krishna introduces the Hindu teachings regarding maya and
the impermanence of all phenomena that is evidenced by the senses; this notion of all “actuality” within the
Universe (all that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched) is
exactly unReal: all such phenomena is
impermanent and exists within a continual process of change; and that only that which exists beyond the
senses (Universal abstractions and concepts, such as “Truth” and “Love”) are
what is “Real;” how might such a doctrine
be appropriately perceived, understood, and practised within additional
religious traditions (including Science) wherein such teachings are
comparatively new; or can such teachings
be evidenced within additional religious traditions, as well?
How
might the concept/phenomenon of “the Self” be appropriately understood within a
“Western” context? Is the “Self”
equitable to the “Atman,” and what is the connexion between the Self and
Brahman? Can the Self be understood as
the “Spirit of God,” and how might the Western notions of an individual’s
“spirit” and an individual’s “soul” be appropriately explained and
distinguished, autonomously, as well as within the context of the Self and the
Atman?
Amidst
Sri Krishna’s teaching to Arjuna to practise indifference, why Arjuna care
about how others perceive his honour, and what would motivate Arjuna to
actually fight in the battle? And amidst
such “equanimity,” how does one genuinely and appropriately discern what is the
“wellbeing” of others? And how does this
compare with the teachings of Hillel (doing unto others as one would have
others do unto one’s self), and Jesus’s teaching, “Love thy enemies”? And how does this compare with the teachings
of the Buddha, as well as with the teachings of Muhammad?
What
similarities exist between these two teachings:
Sri Krishna’s description of those without resolution being enveloped
within individual pursuits of pleasure, and the Koran’s description of material
wealth being a test for humanity?
What
lessons may be learned from acknowledging that the Arabic word for the day of
the month in which “Shabbat” is observed is also similar to that word; and that the Francais word for this same day
(“Saturday” in English) is actually:
“Samedi”?
Amidst
the practise of complete indifference, there is the presumption that an
individual continues to eat and perform additional activities (and maintain
additional material and further requirements) in order to simply sustain one’s
life; therefore, can such a life
actually be completely indifferent? Does
the communicated indifference actually mean, “substantial indifference,” rather
than “absolute indifference”? Or, amidst
a proficiency within such practise, does an individual simply “go with the
flow,” perhaps like the Taoist teaching regarding water searching for the
lowest place, whilst simultaneously maintaining a sense of purpose and
direction in life that involves improving the wellbeing of others?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 1 – 2
Why is the Bhagavad Gita essentially a dialogue between Dhritarashtra and
Sanjaya (who shares the dialogue between Arjuna and Sri Krishna)? And why does the first chapter further begin
with the dialogue between Duryodhana and Drona, rather than Arjuna and Sri
Krishna?
What legitimacy exists within the arguments that Arjuna makes discouraging
the prospect of warring against his relatives?
How might this be considered amidst the notion of the participants of
the battlefield all being the children and descendants of the same
parents? What implications does this
have regarding the notion of raising children who are siblings to each
other? What purpose exists within the
raising of children amidst the perception of such children eventually warring
against each other? How might such
warfare be prevented? What insight do
the teachings of sattvic characteristics, equanimity, and spiritual aspiration
provide regarding such perpetual harmony?
Is “spiritual evolution” an inter-generational phenomenon, as Arjuna communicates? How does this compare with Sri Krishna’s
teaching regarding the Divine presence of Brahman existing within each
individual? Is there any legitimacy
within the notion of each individual being directly derived from Brahman; and if so, what is the nature of spiritual
evolution (inter-generationally and otherwise) amidst having such origins?
Is there any intrinsic or direct (metaphysical, esoteric, and/or
additional) connexion between Arjuna releasing his bow and arrow from his
grasp, and Arjuna subsequently receiving the spiritual teachings from Sri
Krishna?
Who is “the enemy” that Sri Krishna references within Verse 3?
What may be some examples, within additional religious traditions, of
Brahman communicating directly to (through) the soul of an individual, as Sri
Krishna does in responding to Arjuna’s plee?
How does the teaching of the Self existing “beyond all thought” compare
with the ascension through the 4 Jhanas, as described by the Buddha?
Amidst the consideration of “attaining a state beyond all evil,” is there
any legitimacy within the consideration of “evil,” itself, simply being an
illusion? Is there any legitimacy within
the consideration of all people and phenomena being exactly the manifestation
of an individual’s Karma, and thus even that which is perceived as “evil”
having some intrinsic purpose and redeeming quality within an individual’s
life? What lesson may exist within that
which is perceived as evil; and how
might such adversity simply be an exaggerated extension of an individual’s own
self?
What is an appropriate extent for an individual to consider the manner in
which an individual exists exactly as the Karma of all the beings that exist
around that individual?
Amidst the closing of Chapter 2, what is a tangible description of
progressing from existing as an individual “I” into existing as the Universal,
and absolute, “I”? Is it possible to
fully perceive such an existence whilst continuing to maintain a personal
identity; and if so, what semblance of
such an existence can be perceived whilst maintaining a personal identity, if
even simply the concept can be perceived?
--
Digha Nikaya
Brahma Gala Sutta
Chapter 1
“Thus
have I heard. The Blessed One was once
going along the high road between Rgagaha and Nalanda with a great company of
the brethren, with about five hundred brethren.
And Suppiya the mendicant too was going along the high road between
Ragagaha and Nalanda with his disciple the youth Brahmadatta. Now just then Suppiya the mendicant was speaking
in many ways in dispraise of the Buddha, in dispraise of the Doctrine, in
dispraise of the Order. But young
Brahmadatta, his pupil, gave utterance, in many ways, to praise of the Buddha,
to praise of the Doctrine, to praise of the Order. Thus they two, teacher and pupil, holding
opinions in direct contradiction one to the other, were following, step by
step, after the Blessed One and the company of the brethren.
“Now
the Blessed One put up at the royal rest-house in the Ambalatthika pleasuance
to pass the night, and with him the company of the brethren. And so also did Suppiya the mendicant, and
with him his young disciple Brahmadatta.
And there, at the rest-house, these two carried on the same discussion
as before.
“And
in the early dawn a number of the brethren assembled, as they rose up, in the
pavilion; and this was the trend of the
talk that sprang up among them, as they were seated there. ‘How wonderful a thing is it, brethren, and
how strange that the Blessed One, he who knows and sees, the Arahat, the Buddha
Supreme, should so clearly have perceived how various are the inclinations of
men! For see how while Suppiya the
mendicant speaks in many ways in dispraise of the Buddha, the Doctrine, and the
Order, his own disciple young Brahmadatta, speaks in as many ways, in praise of
them. So do these two, teacher and
pupil, follow step by step after the Blessed One and the company of the
brethren, giving utterance to views in direct contradiction one to the other.
“Now
the Blessed One, on perceiving what was the drift of their talk, went to the
pavilion, and took his seat on the mat spread out for him. And when he had sat down he said: ‘What is the talk on which you are engaged
sitting here, and what is the subject of the conversation between you?’ And they told him all. And he said:
“
‘Brethren, if outsiders should speak against me, or against the Doctrine, or
against the Order, you should not on that account either bear malice, or suffer
heart-burning, or feel illwill. If you,
on that account should be angry and hurt, that would stand in the way of your
own self-conquest. If, when others speak
against us, you feel angry at that, and displeased, would you then be able to
judge how far that speech of theirs is well said or ill?’
“
‘That would not be so, Sir.’
“
‘But when outsiders speak in dispraise of me, or of the Doctrine, or of the
Order, you should unravel what is false and point it out as wrong, saying: ‘For this or that reason this is not the
fact, that is not so, such a thing is not found among us, is not in us.’
“
‘But also, brethren, if outsiders should speak in praise of me, in praise of
the Doctrine, in praise of the Order, you should not, on that account, be
filled with pleasure or gladness, or be lifted up in heart. Were you to be so that also would stand in
the way of your self-conquest. When
outsiders speak in praise of me, or of the Doctrine, or of the Order, you
should acknowledge what is right to be the fact, saying: ‘For this or that reason this is the fact,
that is so, such a thing is found among us, is in us.’
“It
is in respect only of trifling things, of matters of little value, of mere
morality, that an unconverted man, when praising the Tathagata, would
speak. And what are such trifling, minor
details of mere morality that he would praise?’” (v1-7).
“
‘Putting away the killing of living things, Gotama the recluse holds aloof from
the destruction of life. He has laid the
cudgel and the sword aside, and ashamed of roughness, and full of mercy, he
dwells compassionate and kind to all creatures that have life.’ It is thus that the unconverted man, when
speaking in praise of the Tathagata might speak.
“Or
he might say: ‘Putting away the taking
of what has not been given, Gotama the recluse lived aloof from grasping what is
not his own. He takes only what is
given, and expecting that gifts will come, he passes his life in honesty and
purity of heart.’
“Or
he might say: ‘Putting away unchastity,
Gotama the recluse is chaste. He holds
himself aloof, far off, from the vulgar practice, from the sexual act.’
“Or
he might say: ‘Putting away lying words,
Gotama the recluse holds himself aloof from falsehood. He speaks truth, from the truth he never
swerves; faithful and trustworthy, he
breaks not his word to the world.’
“Or
he might say: ‘Putting away slander,
Gotama the recluse holds himself aloof from calumny. What he hears here he repeats not elsewhere
to raise a quarrel against the people here;
what he hears elsewhere he repeats not here to raise a quarrel against
the people there. Thus does he live as a
binder together of those who are divided, an encouragers of those who are
friends, a peacemaker, a lover of peace, impassioned for peace, a speaker of
words that make for peace.’
“Or
he might say: ‘Putting away rudeness of speech, Gotama the recluse holds
himself aloof from harsh language.
Whatsoever word is blameless, pleasant to the ear, lovely, reaching to
the heart, urbane, pleasing to the people, beloved of the people—such are words
he speaks.’
“Or
he might say: ‘Putting away frivolous
talk, Gotama the recluse holds himself aloof from vain conversation. In season he speaks, in accordance with the
facts, words full of meaning, on religion, on right time, words worthy to be laid
up in one’s heart, fitly illustrated, clearly divided, to the point.’” (v8-9).
The
Buddha describes additional economic and further disciplines.
The
Buddha describes additional disciplines specifically regarding entertainment,
recreation, house furniture, ornaments, gossip, arguments, relationships with
authority, prognostications and sorcery, reading signs, making charms,
practising medicine, and additionally.
“There
are, brethren, other things, profound, difficult to realize, hard to
understand, tranquillising, sweet, not to be grasped by mere logic, subtle,
comprehensible only by the wise. These
things the Tathagata, having himself (understood) them and seen them face to
face, hath set forth; and it is of them
that they, who would rightly praise the Tathagata in accordance with the
(Truth), should speak.” (v28).
The
Buddha describes 4 types of “Eternalists.”
“In
the first place, brethren, some recluse of (Brahmin) by means of ardour, of
exertion, of application, of earnestness, of careful thought, reaches up to
such rapture of heart that, rapt in heart, he calls to mind his various
dwelling-places in times gone by—in one birth, or in two, or three, or four, or
five, or ten, or twenty, or thirty, or forty, or fifty, or a hundred, or a
thousand, or in several hundreds or thousands or laks of births—to the effect
that ‘There I had such and such a name, was of such and such a lineage and
caste, lived on such and such food, experienced such and such pains and
pleasures, had such and such a span of years.
And when I fell from thence I was reborn in such and such a place under
such and such a name, in such and such a lineage and caste, living on such and
such food, experiencing such and such pains and pleasures, with such and such a
span of years. And when I fell from
thence I was reborn here.’ Thus does he
recollect, in full detail both of condition and of custom, his various
dwelling-places in times gone by. And he
says to himself: ‘Eternal is the
soul; and the world, giving birth to
nothing new, is stedfast as a mountain peak, as a pillar firmly fixed; and through these living creatures
transmigrate and pass away, fall from one state of existence and spring up in
another, yet they are for ever and ever.
And why must that be so? Because
I, by means of ardour of exertion of application of earnestness of careful
thought, can reach up to such rapture of heart that, rapt in heart, I can call
to mind, and in full detail both of condition and of custom, my various
dwelling-places in times gone by—by that is it that I know this—that the soul
is eternal; and that the world, giving
birth to nothing new, is stedfast as a mountain peak, as a pillar firmly fixed; and that though these living creatures
transmigrate and pass away, fall from one state of existence and spring up in
another, yet they are for ever and ever.’
“This,
brethren, is the first state of things on account of which, starting from
which, some recluses and (Brahmins) are Eternalists, and maintain that both the
soul and the world are eternal.” (v31).
The
Buddha similarly describes the additional 3 types of “Eternalists”: such conclusions derived upon 2.) travelling to 10 world aeons, 3.) travelling to 40 world aeons, and 4.) logical reasoning.
“In
this case, brethren, some recluse of Brahman is addicted to logic and
reasoning. He gives utterance to the
following conclusion of his own, beaten out by his argumentations and based on
his sophistry.” (v34).
“Now
of these, brethren, the Tathagata knows that these speculations thus arrived
at, thus insisted on, will have such and such a result, such and such an effect
on the future condition of those who trust in them. That does he know, and he knows also other
things far beyond (far better than those speculations); and having that knowledge he is not puffed
up, and thus untarnished he has, in his own heart, realised the way of escape
from them, has understood, as they really are, the rising up and passing away
of sensations, their sweet taste, their danger, how they cannot be relied
on; and not grasping after any of those
things men are eager for, he, the Tathagata, is quite set free.” (v36).
--
How
does the opening of the Digha Nikaya, with the beginning argument between a
teacher and his pupil about the teachings of the Buddha, compare with the
respective beginnings of the Torah (Creation), and the Bhagavad Gita
(Battlefield)? How might this argument
be understood in a Confucian-like manner, addressing the intrinsic relationship
between a teacher and a student, as well as the extended consideration of the
relationship between elder generations and proceeding generations? And how might this analogy be applied to
contemporary circumstances? Is there any
legitimacy within the notion of the teacher representing convention authority’s
aversion towards change, with the student representing youth’s increasing
affinity for acknowledging and/or practising “the Truth” (perhaps, in contrast
to conventional authority, amidst an absence of becoming entrenched within the
contradictions of convention)?
How
might this consideration of teacher-student, elder generation-youthful
generation, also be applied to the temporal and esoteric circumstances that exist
directly between the Digha Nikaya (and Buddhist doctrine) and the Bhagavad Gita
(and the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Hindu doctrine), and (within the
consideration of being comprehensive), as well as the Torah (and the Israel
doctrine)?
Amidst
the response of the Sangha to the argument between the teacher and the pupil,
there emerges the consideration: what is
the nature of the brethren within the Sangha, distinct from that of the Buddha? Whilst the brethren within the Sangha attain
certain spiritual/religious proficiency, and are often described as becoming
Tathagatas (ones who win the Truth) and becoming “once-returners” (eventually
attaining the ultimate achievement of Nirvana), it seems as though the brethren
continue to have something to learn from the Buddha; thus, what is the nature of that
“intermediate” existence between an Arahat and a Buddha?
The
first teaching that the Buddha explicitly provides within this first chapter is
maintaining indifference to the criticisms and complements of others; many traditions within humanity emphasis the
significance of spoken words, some even believing that the Will of God or the
Universe is determined and manifested through the spoken word of a man, whilst
many traditions emphasis the significance of written words, emphasising the
endurance of documentation and the formality of contracts; and, amidst these practises, it may be
understood why many men engage within severe disputes simply as a means of
speaking or writing the “last word;”
yet, apparently similar to the teaching of Sri Krishna, and apparently
similar to the historic experience of a slaves compelled to abandon an original
language and communicate in the language of the oppressor, the Buddha teaches
the principle of indifference to words; that the Tathagata maintains an understanding
of the Truth that exists beyond such words and beyond such criticisms and
complements, and that amidst such an understanding and practise of such a
Truth, the Tathagata remains tranquil amidst the tumult of words, providing
factual responses where appropriate; is
such an approach appropriate, and if so, how might one attain to such an
understanding and practise?
Is
there an intrinsic bias within the Buddha’s response to his brethren regarding
his teaching to maintain indifference:
in that the Buddha instructs his students to factually explain away
criticisms, and to factually affirm complements, seemingly presuming the
absence of the possibility of his brethren encountering an occasion whereby to
factually affirm a criticism, or to factually explain away a complement?
Within
Verses 8 and 9, the Buddha shares 4 of the 5 basic prohibitions (or behavioural
disciplines) within the Buddhist doctrine:
ahimsa (Peacefulness; abstinence
from violence), abstinence from stealing, celibacy, and Truthfulness; these 4 disciplines correspond with extreme
similarity to 4 of the 5 concluding mitzvot within the “10 Commandments”: abstinence from murder, abstinence from
stealing, abstinence from adultery, and abstinence from lying; and these 4 disciplines are reinforced
through the Welt Ethos shared during Parliament of the World’s Religions: ahimsa, honesty, sexual morality, and
socioeconomic balance; what validity
exists within this synonymity? Are there
any additional principles that may be considered as “Universal” within
humanity? What inferences may be
discerned from the distinction of the “5th discipline/mitzvot” between Buddhism
and Judaism: within Buddhism, the 5th
discipline being abstinence from intoxicants (inebriation), and within Judaism,
the 5th mitzvah being abstinence from covetousness? What are appropriate solutions (and historic
examples) to resolve cases where adherence to one of these disciplines/mitzvot
contradicts with adherence to another of these disciplines/mitzvot?
Amidst
the Buddha’s description of an aspirant meditating and recalling previous
births, what is the nature of that meditative experience (Samadhi,
concentration)? How does the experience
of dreams connect with this, as well?
Amidst these notions of distinct experiences of consciousness,
unconsciousness, and/or subconsciousness, what is the nature of the interaction
between the “actuality” of this temporal realm and the Ultimate Reality that
exists beyond the senses? And when being
immersed within such Samadhi, might such “recollections” result from an
enhanced, subconscious awareness of this Ultimate Reality and the manner in
which this Ultimate Reality exists within every individual, thereby conferring
a certain “trans-temporal” connexion between that individual and any and all
other individuals throughout the Universe, preceding and proceeding from the
temporal existence of the individual, that may be perceived as “previous
births” within the conscious state and awareness of the individual?
--
Gospels
Matthew 1 – 2
“The
book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
“Abraham
was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of
Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and
Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of
Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of
Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by
Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.
“And
David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of
Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa, and
Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram
the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of
Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father ofManasseh, and
Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the
father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
“And
after the deportation to Babylon:
Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of
Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of
Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and
Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father
of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob,
and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who
is called Christ.
“So
all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from
David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the
deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.” (v1-17).
“Now
the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to
Joseph, before they came together she was fond to be with child of the Holy
Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a
just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her
quietly. But as he considered this,
behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son
of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in
her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear
a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from
their sins.’ And all this took place to
fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“
‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
“
‘and his name shall be called Emmanu-el’
“which
means, God with us. When Joseph woke
from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she
had borne a son; and he called his name
Jesus.” (v18-25).
“Now
when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,
behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has
been born king of the Jews? For we have
seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.’” (v1-2).
Herod
becomes fearful of baby Jesus.
“When
they had heard the king they went their way;
and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till
it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced
exceedingly with great joy; and going
into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and
worshipped him. Then, opening their
treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” (v9-11).
Joseph
flees to Egypt to escape the threat of Herod.
“Then
Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious
rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that
region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had
ascertained from the wise men.” (v16).
When
Herod passes, Joseph and his family relocate to Nazareth, within Galilee.
--
Gospels
Matthew
1 – 2
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of
(Avraham).” (v1).
The genealogy of Jesus is listed, with emphasis upon 14 generations.
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to
Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy
Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a
just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her
quietly. But as he considered this,
behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son
of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in
her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear
a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from
their sins.’” (v18-21).
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the
king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,” (v1).
“When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; and going into the house they saw the child
with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him.” (v10-11).
The wise men depart without informing Herod of Jesus’s location.
“Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a
furious rage, and he send and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in
all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he
had ascertained from the wise men.”
(v16).
Joseph moves his family to Egypt, and then returns to Nazareth, upon the
death of Herod.
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 1 – 5
The
opening of the New Testament begins with the assertion of the biological
genealogy of Jesus; what is the
intention with this? Is this provided as
a transition from the Hebrew Tanackh (which is also included within the
Christian Bible), and/or is this a “stand-alone” affirmation? What comparisons might be made between this
opening and diplomatic introductions between leaders of nations, as well as
some of the described introductions that the contemporaries (and particularly
the Brahmins) of the Buddha assert when approaching the Buddha and listening to
his discourse; as well as with the
familial lineages that are described within the Book of Beresheit, within the
Torah? How does such an assertion
influence the first-time reader/audience towards listening to the subsequent
narrative and teachings? How does this
compare with the respective openings of the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, and the
Digha Nikaya?
Amidst
the assertion of the biological genealogy of Jesus within the tradition of
Judaism, and as a descendant of David and Avraham, there is also the
proclamation of Jesus as “Christ;” what
are some of the implications and effects of this duality? How might this compare with the Universal
experience amongst men: the eventual
necessity of a young man asserting his own manhood, amidst and distinct from,
that of his far (father) and fars?
Amidst
the description of Jesus being a descendant of Yudah, how does this influence
the intrinsic competition for authority amongst the sons of Israel,
particularly Yudah, Levi (and the respective sons of Moshe and Aaron), and
Yosef (and his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh)?
Is there any direct and/or esoteric significance within the fact that
Jesus is also born as the son of Yosef, whose father is also named Yaakov, and
who is the husband of Mary?
What
is the significance within the communicated symmetry of the 14 generations
(Abraham to David to Babylon to Jesus)?
Does this coincide with the traditional records amongst Israel?
What
is the nature of Joseph’s belief when learning of the pregnancy of his fiancé,
Mary, without actually sleeping with her, to perceive of Jesus’s conception
being Divine? Does this narrative
suggest for additional men to maintain similar affirmations of Faith, amidst
such difficult circumstances? And how
does this exist within the extended context of the seemingly unattainable
“Sunna” of Jesus; and how does that
compare with the “Sunna” of Muhammad, as well as with the respective teachings
of Moshe (respectively regarding the attainability of such practises of
righteousness), and the Buddha, and within the Bhagavad Gita?
Do
the wise men actually intend to “worship” the baby Jesus, or to effectively
“honour” the baby Jesus? Are these wise
men from the tribes of Israel (worshipping only Adonai), or are these wise men
from additional tribes that may previously conduct idol worship?
How
does Herod’s killing of the children born around Jesus compare with Paraoh’s
decree against all Hebrew male babies amidst the birth of Moshe? What significance and meaning exists within
the sacrifice made by these children;
and how does this compare with the sacrifice made by the Buddha’s mor
immediately upon his birth? How does all
this compare with the sacrifice made upon the battlefield described within the
Bhagavad Gita?
How
does John the Baptist’s lifestyle compare with that of Jesus, as well as those
respectively of Moshe, Arjuna, the Buddha, and Muhammad, and additional
Prophets?
Why
does Jesus solicit baptism from John, and what is meant by “fulfilling all
righteousness”? Is this baptism
necessary as part of a transition from traditional doctrine to the teachings
that Jesus introduces? How does this
compare with the Buddha’s practise of asceticism, and severe austerity, before
sitting at the Bodhi tree, attaining Enlightenment, experiencing Nirvana, and
teaching the Dharma?
How
does Jesus’s ascension and temptation compare with Moshe’s experience with the
burning bush and communing with Adonai atop Mount Sinai; with the Buddha’s sitting at the Bodhi Tree,
attaining Enlightenment, and learning Nirvana;
with Arjuna’s conversation with Sri Krishna amidst the battlefield
against the Kurus; and with Muhammad’s
seclusions and conversations with the angel, Jibril?
How
does Jesus’s conversation with “the devil” compare with Chavah’s (Eve’s)
conversation with the serpent? How does
the concept of “Knowledge” differ amidst these two narratives, and how is it
synonymous? What are some distinguishing
implications from the distinct responses of Chavah and Jesus; is such comparison (presuming “the devil” and
the serpent as the constant within these narratives) even accurate? Which is of increased significance: the assertion of Mary’s virginity or the
assertion of Jesus’s virginity; which
may be perceived as the mightier miracle?
How
does the temptations experienced by Jesus compare with the trial imposed upon
Avraham, as well as with the temptations of Mara towards the Buddha?
Amidst
the awareness of fishers eventually selling fish to be eaten, and shepherd
eventually slaughtering the cattle similarly to be eaten, how might the
metaphors and parables of the “fishers of men,” and the “good shepherd,” be
increasingly appropriately communicated and understood?
Within
Chapter 5, Jesus begins his “Sermon on the Mount;” how do the circumstances and the actual
teachings of this “Sermon” compare and contrast with the respective
circumstances and actual teachings of the Buddha sharing the Dharma with the
Sangha; with Moshe providing the mitzvot
from Mount Sinai and the wilderness;
with Muhammad revealing the Koran to the Umma amidst Mecca and
Medina; with Sanjaya narrating the
Bhagavad Gita to Dhritarashtra involving the battlefield between the Kurus and
the Pandavas; and additionall?
How
does the teaching regarding, “the merciful receiving mercy,” compare with the
teaching from the Bhagavad Gita regarding, “holding the Self by means of the
Self”?
Within
Chapter 5, Verse 20, Jesus tells his disciples to have increased righteousness
than the scribes and the Pharisees, also referencing certain legitimacy within
conventional doctrines; how does this
compare and contrast with the Buddha’s teachings amidst Brahmins and
Kshatriyas; with Moshe’s interaction
with Paraoh; with Muhammad’s interaction
with the conventional leaders of Arabia;
and with Sri Krishna’s teachings of obeisance to varna and spiritual
aspiration; and additionally? What are some additional, historic and
contemporary examples of radicals adhering closer to the Truth of conventional
laws to alleviate the transgressive control of previous conventional
authorities?
Within
Jesus’s teaching to leave the altar and first be reconciled with one’s brother,
how might this be applied within a comprehensive economic and additional
manner? How might the teachings and the
disciples of additional Prophets respond to such practises? What are the distinctions between, and what
are the confluences amidst, “serving God” and being reconciled with humanity
and the Universe?
How
do Jesus’s references to hell compare with those within the Koran, as well as
with Moshe’s curse towards the end of Devarim, and with the respective
description of rebirth in lower states both within the Digha Nikaya and the
Bhagavad Gita?
Amidst
the basic consideration that some form of lust is required to naturally facilitate
procreation, is Jesus teaching a doctrine of celibacy? How does this compare with respective
teachings from the Buddha, Moshe, Muhammad, and from the Bhagavad Gita?
Within
the middle portion of the “Sermon on the Mount” (towards the end of Chapter 5),
Jesus includes specific teachings regarding chastity, honest speech, and ahimsa
(abstinence from violence); how does
this compare with the basic 4 principles (ahimsa, Truthfulness, sexual
morality, and socioeconomic balance) found within the mitzvot of the “10
Commandments,” the 5 basic disciplines of the Buddha, and the contemporary Welt
Ethos? Jesus additionally includes
teachings regarding reconciliation and love;
how does this compare with the additional “Commandment” regarding
covetousness, and the additional “discipline” regarding intoxicants, and how do
these teachings compare with respective basic, core teachings within additional
religious traditions?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 1 – 5
Is there any significance within the consideration that Jesus is born to a man whose name is Yosef, whose far (father) is also named Yaakov, and who also experiences influential dreams, in a similar manner to Yosef, son of Yaakov, son of Yitzak, son of Avraham?
Why does “fulfilling all righteousness” require Jesus being baptised by
John?
How does Jesus’s teaching, regarding “letting your light shine” and
“benevolent works,” compare with the teaching within the Koran regarding the
competition for “benevolent works” with life?
How does Jesus’s teachings regarding forgiveness and “turning the other
cheek” compare with similar respective teachings within the Torah and the
Koran? How does this generosity compare
with the equanimity communicated within the respective traditions of Buddhism
and Hinduism? What is the nature of the
distinction between the act of forgiveness and pursuing forgiveness from
others; and how do the respective
teachings within Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam compare with the teachings
of Jesus to “leave the altar,” and pursue reconciliation?
What is the absolute nature of oppression, and how does the Koranic
teachings, regarding the duty to alleviate oppression, compare with Jesus’s
teaching to “turn the other cheek”?
--
Koran
Sura 1: Al Fatihah (The Opening)
“Praise
be to Allah, the Lord, of the worlds,
“The
Beneficent, the Merciful,
“Master
of the day of Requital.
“Thee
do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
“Guide
us on the right path,
“The
path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
“Not
those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.” (v1-7).
--
How
does Al Fatihah, a direct imploring unto Allah, compare with the respective
openings within the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Digha Nikaya, and the
Gospels?
Within
Al Fatihah, the language is communicated directly from the standpoint of the
reader/reciter directly to Allah; within
Beresheit, Moshe provides a narrative that includes a dialogue communicated
from Adonai, also in the 1st person plural; within the Bhagavad Gita, Dhritarasthra (the
enemy of Arjuna and Sri Krishna) solicits a description of the battlefield from
his advisor, Sanjaya (with a subsequent narrative between Sri Krishna and Arjuna
continuing within this context); within
the Digha Nikaya, the author describes a narrative involving an argument
between a teacher and his disciple, and a subsequent dialogue between the
Buddha and his disciples; and within the
Gospels, Matthew describes the genealogy of Jesus , leading eventually into
Jesus’s “Sermon on the Mount;” what are
the respective nuances, and esoteric significances within each of these
approaches; who are the speakers, and
who is the audience; and how do these
difference openings compare and contrast with each other?
How
does the proclamation within Al Fatihah compare with that of Al Shehadeh, and
how do these compare with the respective, similar proclamations of the Shema
(amongst Israel), the Lord’s Prayer (within Christianity), the Three Jewels
(within Buddhism), Varna and Dharma (with Hinduism) and additionally?
--
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