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 10; Miketz; 118.4.12
Miketz
Bereshit
41:1 – 44:17
Pharaoh
dreams of the 7 fat cows being eaten by the 7 gaunt cows; the 7 ears of grain being eaten by the 7
burnt ears of grain.
The
cupbearer remembers Yosef and Pharaoh summons him.
Yosef
interprets the dream as 7 years of surplus proceeded by 7 years of famine; and suggests that Pharaoh make preparations.
Pharaoh
gives Yosef 2nd command of Egypt and additional gifts.
Yosef
marries Asenath and the 2 have 2 sons:
Manasseh and Ephraim.
The
famine arrives and Yaakov sends his sons, less Benyamin, to Egypt for food.
Yosef
recognises his brothers, however, his brothers fail to recognise him.
Yosef
accuses his brothers of being spies;
provides the food and commands that his brothers return with
Benyamin; and keeps Simeon as a hostage
until his brothers return; Yosef also
returns the money as a pretense for maintaining leverage in dealing with his
brothes.
The
brothers return to Yaakov and communicate the story of events.
Yaakov
refuses to send Benyamin.
The
famine worsens, and Yaakov is compelled to send Benyamin, with his remaining
sons, to acquire additional food from Egypt.
Yosef
receives his brothers, restores Simeon, and convenes a lunch feast for
everyone.
The
brothers depart and Yosef plants his divining cup amidst Benyamin’s packs.
Yosef’s
servants hault his brothers and find the divining cup and accuse his brothers,
and capture his brothers to return to Yosef’s palace.
--
There
is an interesting comparison between the way Pharaoh treats Yosef and the
stereotypical ascension of a commercial hip hop artist, literally: status recognition, bling bling with the
ring, new clothes, the obligatory gold chain, a new ride, a stage name, and a
woman as wife. What credibility does
this comparison have, and what are some of the implications/lessons that can be
drawn from this?
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
10
Brahman
is without beginning or end
Numerous
characteristics, specifically described, are derived from Brahman
Arjuna
reveres Sri Krishna and solicits description of attributes of Brahman, and
guidance for meditation
“I
am the True Self in the heart of every creature”
Sri
Krishna describes deities, Vedas, senses, nature, sages, weapons, sex, death,
animals, logic, letters, seasons, and Om
Brahman
describes futility in considering all attributes and simply being appeased with
understanding of Omni existence
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapters 10
“Whoever knows (Me) are the Lord of all creation,
without birth or beginning, knows the (Truth) and frees himself from all evil.”
(v1-3).
“Discrimination, wisdom, understanding,
forgiveness, (Truth), self-control, and peace of ind; pleasure and pain, birth
and death, fear and courage, honor and infamy;
“non-violence, charity, equanimity,
contentment, and perseverance in spiritual disciplines—all the different
qualities found in living creatures have their source in (Me).” (v4-5).
“The seven great sages and the four ancient
ancestors were born from (My) mind and received (My) power.
“From them came all the creatures of this
world. Whoever understand (My) power and the mystery of (My) manifestation
comes without doubt to be united with (Me).” (v6-7)
“I am the source from which all creatures
evolve. The wise remember this and worship (Me) with loving devotion.
“Their thoughts are all absorbed in (Me), and
all their vitality flows to (Me). Teaching one another, talking about (Me)
always, they are happy and fulfilled.
“To those steadfast in love and devotion I
give spiritual wisdom, so that they may come to (Me).
“Out of compassion I destroy the darkness of
their ignorance. From within them I light the lamp of wisdom and dispel all
darkness from their lives.” (v8-11).
“All right, Arjuna, I will tell you of (My
Divine) powers. I will mention only the most glorious; for there is no end to
them.” (v19).
“I am the (True) Self in the heart of every
creature, Arjuna, and the beginning, middle, and end of their existence.”
(v20).
Additional attributes of Brahman are
described.
“But there is no end to (My Divine)
attributes, Arjuna; these I have mentioned are only a few.
“Wherever you find strength, or beauty, or
spiritual power, you may be sure that these have sprung from a spark of (My)
essence.
“But of what use is it to you to know all
this, Arjuna? Just remember that I am, and that I support the entire cosmos
with only a fragment of (My) being.” (v40-42).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 9 – 10
How
does the communication between Arjuna and Brahman, via Sri Krishna, compare
with the communications of Avraham, Yaakov, Moshe, Jesus, Muhammad, and
additional Prophets, with God, amidst the Angels, Gabriel, Michael, and
additionally?
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 9 – 10
How does the “secrecy” described within
Chapter 9 compare with the elusive oral tradition of the Torah within Judaism,
and the striving for authentic Hadith and explanation within Islam, and the
oral tradition of learning directly from (and through the example of) a Monk
particularly within a traditional lineage in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition,
as well as with the proclamations of Jesus regarding, “he who has ears to
hear”? What purpose does this notion of secrecy serve amidst the conveyance of
esoteric knowledge? What self-serving tendency might this have in simply
“marketing” and establishing mystique and appeal for the knowledge being
shared; and what legitimate characteristic of esotericism, exclusivity, and
even elitism exists within such knowledge? Is there any legitimacy within the
notion of ultimate Truth being Universally experienced by each being, and that
each being has the capacity to understand (in some way) the fundamental Truth
that exists within all phenomena and circumstances? And if so, how might this
be conveyed within a simple and basic manner (particularly with the
consideration of facilitating reconciliation, cooperation, understanding, and
Peace, within humanity)?
How might the Ultimate unity of Brahman be
appropriately perceived within a tangible manner? How does such a “supreme
consciousness” exist amidst the numerous sentient being simultaneously existing
within the Universe? What applicability does the Buddha’s teaching, regarding
transcending even thought, have regarding the nature of this Universality? Are
“supreme intellects” ultimately joined within
synonymity with each other, and how might this phenomena coincide with the
egoistic tendency that seems to exist within the intellect? And how is this
balanced with spiritual awareness and practises of benevolence and compassion?
Does the notion of “exhausting merit” through
the enjoyment of “pleasures” affirm the perception of there existing an
intrinsic “quid pro quo” “zero sum gain” arrangement for all beings regarding
the respective experiences of pain and pleasure? How does this compare with the
“blessing” and the “curse” from Moshe; with the Day of Judgment (Al Yom
Qayimah) and the Pleasures of Heaven, from the Koran; with the concepts of
Heaven and hell, within Christianity; and similar notions regarding Karma
within Buddhism? Can previous malfeasance genuinely be evidenced within the
current experience of adversity within an individual? How do respective
teachings regarding having compassion, benevolence, and empathy for individuals
experiencing such hardships (such as poverty, disease, oppression, and
additionally) factor within such a notion? How does “transcending pleasure and
pain” actually look within a temporal realm where mere existence seems to
predicate an intrinsic necessity to behave in a manner that favours one’s own
existence (and the continuance thereof), even if simply to promote the
wellbeing of others?
How does being “the object of all worship”
compare with Jesus’s teaching regarding “those who abstain from being against
us are with us” (in response to his disciples’ concerns about others healing
people in the name of Jesus, without being actual disciples of Jesus)?
Amidst “looking upon all creatures equally,”
what is the nature of the distinctions that exist amidst such creatures? What
is the nature of the synonymity? How does an individual’s perception of other
creatures, and the Universe, change amidst becoming increasingly united with
Brahman (and this phenomenon of equanimity)?
How does the Bhagavad Gita’s teachings of
deities (essentially that all deities are derived from the Ultimate Reality of
Brahman) compare and contrast with the respective teachings of deities within
both Judaism and Islam (both, similarly summarily rejecting the notion of other
deities, and forbidding any praise thereof); and with the Buddha’s teachings
(essentially acknowledging such deities, yet placing extreme insignificance
with the existence thereof, and actually proclaiming the Buddha as superior to
such deities whilst existing, presumably, subordinate to the Ultimate phenomena
of Nirvana); as well as with the Trinity of Christianity?
How do the characteristics described within
Verse 5 compare with the “feminine qualities” described later within the
Bhagavad Gita? Are these to be understood as “masculine” or “Universal”
characteristics” If Universal, does the Bhagavad Gita implicitly describe any
characteristics that are effectively masculine?
Who are the “7 sages” and the “4 ancient
ancestors”?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Jaliya
Sutta
--
Gospels
Matthew
19 – 20
Jesus
explains fallacy of divorce; teaches
implicit doctrine of celibacy
Jesus
reaffirms mitzvot communicated by Moshe:
abstinence from killing, adultery, stealing, false witnessing, as well
as honouring father and mother, and loving one’s neighbour as one’s self
Jesus: it is easier for a camel to travel through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven
Jesus
teaches parable of the generous householder who provides same wage to all
workers
First
as last and last as first
James
and John attempt to gain status; other
disciples become indignant; Jesus
teaches doctrine of the teachers being servants
Jesus
heals 2 blind men
--
Gospels
Matthew 19
“Now when Jesus had finished these sayings,
he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the
Jordan; and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.”
(v1-2).
“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him
by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He
answered, ‘Have you not read that (Deus) who made them from the beginning made
them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father
and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one
flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God
has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why
then did (Moshe) command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her
away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart (Moshe) allowed you
to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to
you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries
another, commits adultery.’
“The disciples said to him, ‘If such is the
case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.’ But he said
to them, ‘Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is
given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the (Sovereignty) of heaven. He who is
able to receive this, let him receive it.’” (v3-12).
“Then children were brought to him that he
might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the
people; but Jesus said, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder
them; for to such belongs the (Sovereignty) of heaven.’ And he laid
his hands on them and went away.” (v13-15).
“And behold, one came up to him, saying,
‘Teacher, what (benevolent) deed must I do, to have eternal life?’ And he
said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is (benevolent)? One there is
(Who) is (benevolent). If you would enter life, keep the
commandments.’ He said to him, ‘Which?’ And Jesus said, ‘You shall
not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not
bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your
neighbour as yourself.’ The young man said to him, ‘All these I have
observed; what do I still lack? Jesus said to him, ‘If you would be
perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heave; and come, follow me.’ When the young man heard
this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
“And Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Truly, I
say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the (Sovereignty) of
heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the (Sovereignty) of God.’”
(v16-24).
“And every one who has left houses or
brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s
sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. But many that
are first will be last, and the last first.” (v29-30).
--
Gospels
Matthew 20
“For the (Sovereignty) of heaven is like a
householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his
vineyard.”
Jesus tells the parable of the servants hired
at different hours each receiving the same compensation.
“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came
up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for
something. And he said to her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to him,
‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at
your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what
you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?’
They said to him, ‘We are able.’ He said to them, ‘You will drink my cup,
but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for
those for whom it has been prepared by my (Deus).’ And when the ten heard
it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him
and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles (lead) it over them, and
their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among
you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and
whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of
man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many.’” (v20-28).
Jesus heals 2 blind men.
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 18 – 21
Does
Jesus effectively teach a doctrine of celibacy for his disciples? What is the meaning of, “He who has ears to
hear, let him hear,” and “men who become eunuchs for the sake of Heaven”?
What
are the implications of the “first being last” and the “last being first” when
a proficient number of people share this doctrine and are all striving to be
the servant? Does this mean that amidst
such transcendent awareness, the ones who allow others to serve those ones
become the first again? Where does the
cycle stop? What is an appropriate
balance of moderation?
The
anecdote of Jesus and the fig tree seems to reveal some human-ness within
Jesus; how is it that he is “fooled” by
a fig tree, and then how is it that he becomes so hostile that he curses the
fig tree into shriveling; and why is
this described as an amazing feat?
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 16 – 19
Amidst an awareness of the infinity of
miracles that exist within each second of this temporal realm, does the
necessity for “signs of Heaven” dissipate, in order to perceive the
manifestation of the Divine?
How may the teaching of the “leaven” of
conventional authority be applied to contemporary circumstances? How does this
compare with the mitzvot for Israelis to abstain from delving into the
religious practises of foreign tribes; with the Buddha’s emphasis upon
independent self-investigation; how does this compare with the Bhagavad Gita’s
emphasis for an individual to remain within one’s own Varna? And how does this
compare within the Koranic teachings regarding the relationship between
believers and unbelievers?
Why does Jesus initially revert from
explicitly proclaiming himself as the Moshiach? What is the purpose within the
secrecy?
What is the extent to which individual
contemporarily follow the exact example of Jesus? How does this compare with
contemporary following of the respectively exact examples of Avraham, Moshe,
Israel, Arjuna, the Buddha, and Muhammad?
How does Jesus’s, Peter’s, John’s, and
James’s encounter with Moshe, Eliyahu, and Deus compare and contrast with the
Buddha’s conversation with Sakka, and with Arjuna’s encounter with Sri Krishna?
Amidst the description of the disciples
“falling on the faces” when hearing the voice of Deus, what is the nature of
act of submission? Does bowing the head signifying a humbling of the ego,
perceiving the epitome of an individual’s will exists within the mind? How does
this compare with the practise within additional cultures and traditions
whereby the bowing of the head is regularly conducted within the similar
implications of such religious submission, but as a gesture of respect and even
love? What does the “bowing of the heart” look like? How does refusing to bow
to an aggressor’s will or command, compare and contrast with regularly bowing
(within warfare) to escape from danger, and as part of the strategy for
attacking an aggressor’s will or command?
Does Jesus provide Peter with the shekel
simply to keep Peter honest amidst his previous declaration? What is the
nature of the pressure that Peter experiences when being approached by the tax
collectors? And what is the nature of the provision of the shekel from
the mouth of the fish? The tax collectors’ initial question seems to be
unresolved: amidst Jesus’s teaching regarding “rendering unto Caesar,”
and the very example of effective asceticism from Jesus, is it appropriate to
refuse to pay the tax or to pay the tax?
Amidst the teaching regarding humility, and
the additional teaching of “the last being first,” does this establish a
practise of people striving (and even competing) to be “last”? Within the
contemporary practise of charity, tzedekah, Zakat, the Saddhu, and asceticism,
who is the “first” and who is the “last”? How does “moderation” factor
within these practises; what are some appropriate methodologies for
implementing, facilitating, practising, and inspiring such moderation;
and what are some historic and contemporary examples of such proficient
moderation?
Whilst rebuking temptation, Jesus also
affirms the necessity of temptation; how is this paradox appropriately
reconciled? How does this compare with the teachings regarding the senses
and Maya respectively within the Bhagavad Gita and the Digha Nikaya?
Jesus also teaches that it is what comes out of man that is
transgressive; so whilst a man’s hand, foot, or eye, may cause a transgression,
is it accurate to conclude that such actions emanate from the mind and the
thought of the man, and that it is the “mind” of the man that should be “cut
out”? What might “cutting out the mind” look like; and is there any
similarity of this with the notion of “relinquishing the ego”? How might
“cutting out the mind” compare with the selflessness also respectively taught
within Hinduism and Buddhism? And again, what is an appropriate balance,
presuming that some form of selfishness (and/or temptation) is necessary simply
to sustain life?
What is the nature of the confluence between
the “Gentile” treatment that Jesus prescribes, and the “70 x 7” forgiveness
that Jesus also prescribes? What is the appropriate balance between
forgiveness, reconciliation, and inspiring reformation?
Does Jesus teach a doctrine of celibacy to
his disciples (to become “eunuchs for the sake of Heaven”)? What
implications does this have regarding the historic and contemporary practise of
Christianity; and amidst the institution of marriage within Christianity,
upon what teachings are such practises, and such an institution,
established? And how does that affect the actual adherence to the
teachings of Jesus?
Are there any additional examples, from the
respective Prophets of any religion, whereby certain “allowances” are provided
because of the “hardness of heart” of the religious followers?
Judaism and Hinduism are respectively,
substantially predicated upon familial lineages, whereby there emerge certain
systems of caste affiliation, tribal duties and allegiances that are
facilitated through marriage and inherited by progeny; Christianity and
Buddhism respective emerge from Judaism and Hinduism (respectively) and
respectively (and similarly) share doctrines that alleviate the oppressive
nature of the historic adherence to these caste affiliations, tribal duties,
and allegiances; yet Christianity and Buddhism also respectively (and
coinciding with the alleviation of caste) call upon adherents to effectively renounce
all familial allegiances, and to abstain from marriage and the procreation of
progeny (this being arguable within much of Christianity); is it possible
to alleviate such “caste oppression,” whilst maintaining the practise and
institution of marriage and the procreation of progeny? If so, how might
such a practise look like? How do subsequently emerging religious
traditions (including Islam, Sikhism, and the Baha’i Faith) factor within this
consideration?
--
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?
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?
--
Koran
Sura
10 Yunus (Jonah)
People
have difficulty believing in an ordinary man being a Prophet.
The
Koran proclaims Allah as the Creator and regenerator.
The
Koran references the Moon and the Sun and the cycles of time; with night and day.
“And
they say: Why is not a sign sent to him
from his Lord? Say: The unseen is only for Allah, so wait; surely I too with you am of those who wait.”
(v20)
Disbelievers
pray to Allah during adversity and turn back when adversity is alleviated.
Belief
in multiple deities is admonished.
The
authenticity of the Koran is proclaimed.
“And
if they reject thee, say: My work is for
me and your work for you. You are clear
of what I do and I am clear of what you do.” (v41)
The
Omnipotence of Allah is proclaimed.
“But
if you turn back, I ask for no reward from you.
My reward is only with Allah, and I am commanded to be of those who
submit.” (v72)
The
stories of Noach and Moshe are referenced.
Amidst
doubts, new believers solicited to gain guidance from established believers.
“Say: O people, the Truth has indeed come to you
from your Lord; so whoever goes aright,
goes aright only for the good of his own soul;
and whoever errs, errs only against it.
And I am not a custodian over you.” (v108)
“And
follow what is revealed to thee and be patient till Allah give judgment, and
Allah is the Best of the judges.” (v109)
--
Within
the beginning of this Sura, there is the command for the speaker to wait along
with those who challenge his Prophesy;
and this notion of simply being a warner and waiting for the
response/sign/Judgment from Allah is repeatedly taught throughout the
Koran. How are these teachings
contextualised amidst the commands to fight oppression? There is an understanding that fighting is
only permitted amidst the experience of oppression and that it is forbidden
once that oppression is alleviated; so
then there is the question of: what
constitutes oppression? Or, what
constitutes sufficient oppression so as to warrant conflict? How does disbelief in Allah factor into this
concept of oppression? Is it possible to
abstain from believing in Allah and/or abstaining from proclaiming the Shehadah
without inflicting oppression amongst believers? And with Allah making the Final Judgment from
the maintenance of Omniscience and Rahmani Raheem, (Most Benevolent and Most
Merciful), upon what authority does any man make such a decision of sufficient
oppression and/or disbelief such to enact violence?
--
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