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 11; Vayigash; 118.4.19
Torah
Bereshit
44:18 – 47:27
Yudah
pleads to Yosef on Benyamin’s behalf;
Yudah offers himself instead.
Yosef
bursts into tears and reveals himself to his brothers.
Yosef
directs his brothers to move to Goshen in Egypt.
Yosef
speaks with Pharaoh for the arrangements of his family’s arrival.
Yosef
sends gifts to Israel.
Yosef’s
brothers tell Israel the news of Yosef in Egypt.
Israel
leaves for Egypt and stops at Beer-Sheva to pray.
Adonai
tells Yaakov the destiny of Yaakov’s children.
The
children of Israel are listed.
Yaakov
sends Yudah ahead to make preparations in Goshen.
Yosef
approaches Pharaoh with his brothers.
Yosef’s
brothers solicit Pharaoh to provide the land of Goshen as a residence.
Israel
speaks with Pharaoh.
The
famine continues, and the Egyptians plead for food; the Egyptians sell all belongings, cattle,
land, and own bodies into slavery.
The
tribes of Israel prosper.
--
What
happens when Yosef abstains from enslaving the Egyptians, and instead, simply
provides the Egyptians with what the Egyptians need? Amidst such circumstances, do the Egyptians
better remember the Yosef and Yaakov and abstain from subsequently enslaving
the children of Israel? Why does Yosef
abstain from encouraging all the Egyptians to make similar preparations for the
famine; and, amidst observing Yosef’s
preparations, why do the Egyptians abstain from making similar
preparations? Why does Yosef abstain
from sending word to Israel and his brothers about the impending famine? And what might be the result if Yosef sends
word throughout the entire region to help all the people prepare for the
famine, rather than all the people subsequently depending upon Egypt during the
famine?
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
11
Arjuna
asks to see Brahman
Arjuna
is provided with spiritual vision
Arjuna
is awed by vision and bows to Brahman
Arjuna
describes the vision that he experiences;
infinity
Arjuna
describes all the warriors being consumed within vision of Brahman
Sri
Krishna proclaims being time, destroyer of all;
describes inevitable death of all warriors, and Arjuna simply as an
instrument of what already happens
Arjuna
proclaims greatness of Brahman; makes
apology to Sri Krishna for past transgressions/disrespect
Arjuna
asks to retain his ordinary vision
Arjuna’s
ordinary vision is returned to him
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 11
“Out of compassion (You) have taught me the
supreme mystery of the Self. Through (Your) words my delusion is gone.
“You have explained the origin and end of
every creature, O lotus-eyed one, and told me of (Your) own supreme, limitless
existence.
“Just as (You) have described (Your) infinite
glory, O Lord, now I long to see it. I want to see you as the supreme
ruler of creation.
“O Lord, master of yoga, if (You) think me
strong enough to behold it, show me (Your) immortal Self.” (v1-4).
“Behold, Arjuna, a million divine forms, with
an infinite variety of color and shape.
“Behold the (deities) of the natural world,
and many more wonders never revealed before.
“Behold the entire cosmos turning within (My)
body, and the other things you desire to see.
“But these things cannot be seen with your
physical eyes; therefore I give you spiritual vision to perceive (My)
majestic power.” (v5-8).
“Having spoken these words, Krishna, the
master of yoga, revealed to Arjuna (Brahman’s) most exalted, (Lordly)
form.” (v9).
“O Lord, I see within (Your) body all the
(deities) and every kind of living creature. I see Brahma, the Creator,
seated on a lotus; I see the ancient sages and the celestial serpents.
“I see infinite mouths and arms, stomachs and
eyes, and (You) are embodied in every form. I see (You) everywhere,
without beginning, middle, or end. You are the Lord of all creation, and
the cosmos is (Your) body.” (v15-16).
“You are the supreme, changeless Reality, the
one thing to be known. You are the refuge of all creation, the immortal
spirit, the eternal guardian of eternal (Dharma).
“You are without beginning, middle, or
end; (You) touch everything with (Your) infinite power. The sun and
moon are (Your) eyes, and (Your) mouth is fire; (Your) radiance warms the
cosmos.
“O Lord, (Your) presence fills the heavens
and the earth and reaches in every direction. I see the three worlds
trembling before this vision of (Your) wonderful and terrible form.
“The (deities) enter (Your) being, some
calling out and greeting (You) in fear. Great saints sing (Your) glory,
praying, ‘May all be well!’” (v18-21).
“O mighty Lord, at the sight of (Your) myriad
eyes and mouths, arms and legs, stomachs and fearful teeth, I and the entire
universe shake in terror.” (v23).
“When I see (Your) mouths with their fearful
teeth, mouths burning like the fires at the end of time, I forget where I am
and I have no place to go. O Lord, (You) are the support of the
universe; have mercy on me!
“I see all the sons of Dhritarashtra; I
see Bhishma, Drona, and Karna; I see our warriors and all the kings who
are here to fight.
“All are rushing into (Your) awful
jaws; I see some of them crushed by (Your) teeth.
“As rivers flow into the ocean, all the
warriors of this world are passing into (Your) fiery jaws;
“all creatures rush to their destruction like
moths into a flame.” (v25-29).
“Tell me who (You) are, O Lord of terrible
form. I bow before (You); have mercy! I want to know who
(You) are, (You Who) existed before all creation. Your nature and
workings confound me.” (v31).
“I am time, the destroyer of all; I
have come to consume the world. Even without (Your) participation, all
the warriors gathered here will die.
“Therefore arise, Arjuna; conquer your
enemies and enjoy the glory of sovereignty. I have already slain all
these warriors; you will only be (My) instrument.
“Bhishma, Drona, Jayadratha, Karna, and many
others are already slain. Kill those whom I have killed. Do not
hesitate. Fight in this battle and you will conquer your enemies.”
(v32-33).
“Having heard these words, Arjuna trembled in
fear. With joined palms he bowed before Krishna and addressed (Krishna)
stammering.” (v35).
“O Krishna, it is right that the world
delights and rejoices in (Your) praise, that all the saints and sages bow down
to (You) and all evil flees before (You) to the far corners of the
universe.” (v36).
“How could they not worship (You), O
Lord? You are the eternal spirit, Who existed before Brahma the Creator
and Who will never cease to be. Lord of the (deities), (You) are the
abode of the universe. Changeless, (You) are what is and what is not, and
beyond the duality of existence and nonexistence.” (v26-38).
“You are behind me and in front of me;
I bow to (You) on every side. Your power is immeasurable. You
pervade everything; (You) are everything.
“Sometimes, because we were friends, I rashly
said, ‘Oh, Krishna!’ ‘Say, friend!’—casual, careless remarks.
“Whatever I may have said lightly, whether we
were playing or resting, alone or in company, sitting together or eating, if it
was disrespectful, forgive me for it, O Krishna. I did not know the
greatness of (Your) nature, unchanging and imperishable.” (v40-42).
“I rejoice in seeing (You) as (You) have
never been seen before, yet I am filled with fear by this vision of (You) as
the abode of the universe. Please let me see (You) again as the shining
God of (deities).
“Though (You) are the embodiment of all
creation, let me see (You) again not with a thousand arms but with four,
carrying the mace and discus and wearing a crown.” (v45-46).
“Arjuna, through (My) grace you have been
united with (Me) and received this vision of (My) radiant, universal form,
without beginning or end, which no one else has ever seen.
“Not by knowledge of the Vedas, nor
sacrifice, nor charity, nor rituals, nor even by severe asceticism has any
other mortal seen what you have seen, O heroic Arjuna.
“Do not be troubled; do not fear (My)
terrible form. Let your heart be satisfied and your fears dispelled in
looking at (Me) as I was before.” (v47-49).
“Whoever makes (Me) the supreme goal of all
his work and acts without selfish attachment, who devotes himself to (Me)
completely and is free from ill will for any creature, enters into (Me).”
(v55).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 11 – 12
How
does Arjuna’s vision compare with that of Moshe, the vision of the Spirit of
God descending upon Jesus and Jesus being visited by Moshe and Eliyahu, the
traditional story of Muhammad being visited by the angel, Gabriel, and with the
Buddha’s description of the Heavenly Eye?
What
is the actual distinction between Brahman and Sri Krishna and other celestial
beings, such as Rama, described within Hinduism? How can the nature of Sri Krishna be
authentically described (according to Hindu tradition and Theology) within a
Western (Abrahamic) context and language?
Is Sri Krishna like an Angel? Are
celestial beings within Hinduism, other than Brahman, described with the G-
word in English, and within a Western context, because of the Abrahamic
tendency of personifying God, and because of the Paganist traditions
historically associated with the English language (and the reference to
numerous deities within the English language, as well as that with both Greek
and Roman mythology)? It seems as though
the same belief of the Ultimate Reality is shared amongst Hinduism and the
Abrahamic Faiths, yet, there seems to be the necessity for increased, enhanced
communication and understanding between these respective traditions to be able
to proficiently understand what each actually believes (particularly before
presuming that there may be any potential disagreements).
Does
Sri Krishna actually have 4 arms? If so,
is this a regular occurrence within the historic tradition of Hinduism? How does the experience of the Universe
(particularly the intersection of the Heavenly realm and this temporal realm)
compare between Hinduism and Buddhism and with Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam? How can the “timelessness” and
“nonduality” from the East be effectively perceived and communicated within the
linear concepts and language of the West?
Within
Chapter 12, there is the teaching of equanimity. How can this principle be argued within a
Western/Abrahamic context?
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 11 – 12
What is the nature of capital letters within
the English language and additional Latin-based, and additional
languages? What are the implications when placing a capital letter,
particularly at the beginning of the sentence, when utilising the 1st person
direct pronoun, with proper names, and when referencing Brahman (and additional
linguist terms similarly communicating “Brahman”)? How does the
respective nature of these phenomena (the beginning of creation, the personal
self, and the identities of others) compare and contrast with the phenomenon of
Brahman, and the manner in which these respective phenomena are perceived
amidst Brahman? How does this compare and contrast with additional
languages that abstain from the practise of utilising “capital letters” (such
as Hebrew, and presumably Arabic, Sanskrit, Pali, and additionally)? How
does the practise of adjusted final letters (such as the “nun” and the “mem,”
within Hebrew) compare and contrast with this practise of the capitalised letters?
How does the description of the visual
experience of Brahman (amidst Sri Krishna) compare with the belief that Brahman
exists beyond such temporality? What is the nature of attempting to
convey the massive awesome nature of Brahman through utilising the most
grandiose metaphors and adjectives? How does Arjuna’s vision, and this
description, compare with similar narratives between Moshe and Adonai, Jesus
and Deus, and the Buddha and Nirvana (as well as the Buddha and additional
celestial beings)? What is the legitimacy and the deficiency within such
communication; how does this inspire religious adherents into
compassionate behaviour, and how does this discourage religious adherents into
doubt and transgressive behaviour?
What is the dynamic nature of the phrase,
“deities enter Your being”; comparing and contrasting the “amalgamating”
tendency of Hinduism, to incorporate all thought and phenomena within the
Ultimate Reality of Brahman, with the respective approaches of additional
religious traditions; also considering the nature of the implied and
explicit interaction between “deities” and Brahman; and considering the
notion of “deities” entering into the unity (and the “being”) of Brahman?
What is the nature of that “being” (“existence”)?
How does Arjuna’s vision compare with Moshe’s
curse and blessing?
Whilst Arjuna is experiencing his vision,
does the battle between Dhritarashtra and the Kurus already begin? Is
Arjuna witnessing the actual carnage of the warfare; and if so, is Arjuna
actually participating within the carnage, or is he simply existing within
meditation as he experiences the vision? Amidst the potential
simultaneousness of Arjuna’s vision and the actual events (and the potential
distinctions regarding the nature of Arjuna’s direct involvement), what are the
implications regarding the instructions for Arjuna to participate within the
battle: is this, again, a direct order for violence, or esoteric guidance
for meditation and spiritual enlightenment, or both, or an absence of either,
or something else?
Is there any legitimacy within the notion of
“time” simply being an illusion describing the confluence of matter and energy
amidst the experience of the “Now” (the culmination of all intellectual
cognition, consciousness, spiritual awareness and additional intangible
experiences)? Amidst this consideration, how is the “passage of time,”
and the perception of “time” being a “destroyer” further understood? And
amidst this, what is the tangible and esoteric nature within the process of decomposition?
On an additional occasion, Arjuna shies away
from the prospect of waging warfare; even amidst his established
reputation of being a courageous warrior, does this effectively communicate
cowardice on Arjuna’s part, and/or is this a description of his spiritual
striving? Amidst the perception of his cowardice, what implications does
such a perception have upon the very nature of spiritual aspiration
(particularly amidst the practise of ahimsa)?
When including Brahman within the English
first person plural pronoun, “we” (and similarly within additional, similarly
structured languages), is it appropriate to capitalise the “We,” or to keep the
term within the “lower letters”? What are the implications of both
methods, amidst the aggregate of the language’s alphabet, vocabulary, and
grammatical construct? What are appropriate lessons, regarding such
linguistic characteristics, that are gleaned from this consideration?
What is the nature of Arjuna’s contrition to
Sri Krishna? And what is the nature of Arjuna’s and Sri Krishna’s
interaction and relationship leading up to the battlefield? What changes
within Arjuna’s awareness, specifically regarding Sri Krishna, regarding the
nature of Brahman, and regarding Arjuna’s existence within the Universe and
interaction with additional beings therein? Does Sri Krishna actually
have four arms within a temporal form; and if so, is that considered
“normal” to Arjuna?
What is the tangible and esoteric nature of
submission; what are the similarities and distinctions within how this is
respectively practised within different religious traditions; and why
does submission (within thought, word, and deed) seem to be a significant
factor within religious traditions?
How do the different communicated prioritisations
communicated within Chapter 12 (regarding meditation, selfless service,
renunciation, knowledge, and additional spiritual practises), compare and
contrast with each other, as well as with similarly described prioritisations
elsewhere within the Bhagavad Gita? How do these compare within similarly
described (implicitly or explicitly) prioritisations within Judaism, Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam?
How do the specific characteristics espoused
within this Chapter compare with similarly grouped characteristics within the
Bhagavad Gita? How do these compare with similarly espoused
characteristics (implicitly or explicitly) communicated within additional
religious traditions?
How does Sri Krishna’s description of the
spiritual devotee of Brahman compare with Jesus’s Sermon of the Mount regarding
the blessed of Deus?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Kassapa
Sihanada Sutta
The
Buddha rests at Uganna in the Kannakatthala deer park.
Kassapa,
a naked ascetic, visits the Buddha.
Kassapa
asks whether the reports of the Buddha’s categorical dismissal of asceticism
are accurate.
Buddha
proclaims such reports as inaccurate;
being aware that some ascetics continue unto Heaven and some ascetics
continue unto unpleasant existences, respectively.
The
Buddha describes his previous discussions with such ascetics; establishing a comparatively objective
process for analysing his practises and the practises of the ascetics: where all those topics wherein there is
disagreement are placed to the side; and
amidst those virtues that are commonly proclaimed, asking the respective wise
students which school lives in closer proximity to those virtues; and amidst those transgressions that are
commonly admonished, asking the respective wise and students which school lives
further from causing such transgressions.
The
Buddha proclaims the practise that is increasingly favourable on both accounts.
The
Buddha makes a similar proclamation regarding the practise of his disciples
compared with the disciples of others.
The
Buddha proclaims adherence to Dharma and Vinaya (law of self-restraint).
The
Buddha references the Noble Eightfold Path:
Right Belief, Right Aspiration, Right Speech, Right Action, Right
Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Thought, Right Meditation.
Kassapa
responds by proclaiming the practises of naked asceticism in detail, including
descriptions of bodily functions, acceptance of food, living soiled, clothing,
sleeping, bathing, and additionally.
The
Buddha responds by proclaiming that when a naked ascetic abides by all those
rules and abstains from living a righteous life, the naked ascetic has yet to
attain Samanaship.
“But
from the time, O Kassapa, when a Bhikku has cultivated the heart of love that
know no anger, that know no illwill- from the time when, by the destruction of
the deadly intoxications (the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life,
and the defilements of delusion and ignorance), he dwells in that emancipation
of heart, that emancipation of mind, that is free from those intoxications, and
that he, while yet in this visible world, has come to realize and know- from
that time, O Kassapa, is it that the Bhikku is called a Samana, is called a
Brahmina!” (v15)
Kassapa
responds by proclaiming that it must be difficult to gain Samanaship and
Brahminaship, and the Buddha agrees.
Kassapa
responds by proclaiming that it must be difficult to identify a Samana and a
Brahmina, and the Buddha agrees.
Kassapa
asks: “What then, Gotama, is that
blissful attainment in conduct, in heart, and in mind?” (v18)
The
Buddha describes the Silas (Conduct):
converting to the religious life and gaining confidence; the Kitta (Heart): guarding the door of the senses, being
content with simplicity, emancipation from the 5 Hindrances (covetousness,
ill-temper, laziness, worry, and perplexity), and the progression through the 4
Jhanas; and the Panna
(Intelligence): gaining insight, vision,
and hearing, thoughts of others, previous births, the previous births of
others, and the 4 Noble Truths with the destruction of the Intoxications,
attaining Arahatship.
The
Buddha proclaims being unaware of anyone equal to the Buddha in conduct, severe
asceticism, intelligence, and emancipation.
The
Buddha describes his “lion’s roar” in public and continually, convincing others
to behave similarly.
The
Kassapa proclaims the doctrine of the Buddha and solicits membership within the
Sangha, and the Buddha describes a probationary period of 4 orbits of the
Moon; Kassapa joins the Sangha and
becomes Enlightened.
--
There
is the interesting paradox within Buddhism regarding the notion of Becoming
being the most egocentric concept, yet that the coinciding notion of an
individual also being responsible for all the suffering that the individual
experiences being the most ego-destructive concept. How else is it possible to directly
communicate a doctrine of absolute selfishness without actually existing (as an
individual “self,” and thus undermining the very notion of being without a
self), and further utilising the temporal politics of language to impart such a
concept?
Is
there any additional, traditional explanation of the 4 Jhanas that can provide
further explanation of the actual, effective distinctions of the Jhanas,
particularly within the later stages?
Why
does the Buddha resort to proclamations of superiority within the
characteristics he previously communicates as being irrelevant? During the beginning portion of the Sutta,
the Buddha describes that the severe practises of naked ascetics is irrelevant; however, in concluding the Sutta, the Buddha
proclaims that all the naked ascetics have yet to practise as severe an
asceticism as he practises. Is that
egotistic?
There
seems to be an interesting correlation between the segments of the standard
teachings of the Buddha (Sila/Conduct, Kitta/Heart, Panna/Intelligence, and the
inclusion of emancipation), with the 4 categories of superiority that the
Buddha proclaims: conduct, severe
asceticism, intelligence, and emancipation, with one distinction being that of
“sila/heart” compared with “severe asceticism.”
Is this correlation accurate, intentional, and/or significant? And if so, what are some of the lessons that
may be learned from the apparent correlation between “sila/heart” and “severe
asceticism”? How does this compare
with the “heart” of Arjuna and the “heart” of Yudah, the “heart” of Levi, and
of Muhammad, and additional Prophets, and the ordinary individual?
The
description of the Buddha proclaiming his “lion’s roar” is rather
interesting. Is it appropriate to be
continually and identically assertive with one’s doctrine in an exact manner
with everyone? Is there any relevance
for nuance, and addressing people where people respectively exist at that juncture? Or is that actually an approach of exact
similitude? Can it be perceived that
that is how we intrinsically and inevitably interact with everyone, even if
unintentionally? And is it possible that
this is how all beings interact with us, respectively? And how does the process of learning and
adjusting, amidst lessons learned, influence this progression?
--
Gospels
Matthew
21
Jesus
instructs disciples to retrieve a colt and ass to bring him into
Jerusalem; people provide garments and
branches on the road
Jesus
rebukes money changers within the Temple
Jesus
curses the fig tree
Elders
challenge Jesus’ authority and Jesus bewilders elders by asking about the
authority of John the Baptist
Jesus
teaches parable of the obedient and disobedient sons
Jesus
teaches parable of the rebellious tenants
--
Gospels
Matthew
22
Jesus
tells the parable of the king and the wedding feast for his son; destroys those who refuse his invitation and
casts out the guest with inappropriate clothing
Pharisees
ask whether law to pay taxes; Jesus
replies: “Render unto Caesar that which
belongs to Caesar and render unto God that which belongs to God.”
Sadducees
ask a question about the Resurrection and woman with 7 brothers as
husbands; Jesus replies: “All are like Angels in Heaven.”
A
lawyer asks a question: “What is the
great commandment?” Jesus replies: “You shall love God with all your heart,
soul, mind; and love your neighbour as
yourself.”
Jesus
asks how David can call Moshiach his leader
--
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?
--
Gospels
Matthew 21 – 22
“And when they drew near to Jerusalem and
came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,
saying to them, ‘Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will
find an ass tied, and a cold with her; untie them and bring them to
me. If any one says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The (Leader) has
need of them,’ and he will send them immediately.’ This took place to
fulfil what was spoken by the prophet,” (v1-4)
“And Jesus entered the temple of God and
drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables
of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to
them, ‘It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer;’ but you
make it a den of robbers.’” (v12-13).
“In the morning, as he was returning to the
city, he as hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it,
and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, ‘May no fruit
ever come from you again!’ And the fig tree withered at once. When
the disciples saw it they marvelled, saying, ‘How did the fig tree wither at
once?’ And Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, I say to you, if you have faith
and never doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but
even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will
be done. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have
faith.’” (v18-22).
“And when he entered the temple, the chief
priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and
said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this
authority?’ Jesus answered them, ‘I also will ask you a question; and
if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do
these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or
from men?’ And they argued with one another, ‘If we say, ‘From heave,’ he
will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From
men,’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a
prophet.’ So they answered Jesus, ‘We do not know.’ And he said to
them, ‘Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.’”
(v23-27).
Jesus tells the parable of the obedient son
and the disobedient son.
Jesus tells the parable of the transgressive
servants.
Jesus tells the parable of the king’s wedding
dinner, the ungrateful invitees, and the guest without a wedding garment.
“Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how
to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along
with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that you are (True), and teach
the way of God (Truthfully), and care for no man; for you do not regard
the position of men. Tel us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to
pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said,
‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the
tax.’ And they brought him a coin. And Jesus said to them, ‘Whose
likeness and inscription is this?’ They said, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then he
said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to
God the things that are God’s.’ When they heard it, they marvelled;
and they left him and went away.” (v15-22).
Sadducees ask Jesus about seven brothers
marrying the same woman, and to whom does she belong within Heaven.
“Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because
you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the
resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels
in heaven.” (v29-30).
“But when the Pharisees heard that he had
silenced the Sadducees, they came together. And one of them, a lawyer,
asked him a question, to test him, ‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in
the law?’ And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the
great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your
neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and
the prophets.” (v34-40).
--
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
11: Hud
There
is the command to solicit forgiveness from Allah.
Allah
is Omniscient, knowing the actions of all animals and creatures.
Allah
creates the Heavens and Earth in 6 days.
Man
is ungrateful regarding respite from suffering and previous provisions of
prosperity.
There
is admonishment for those who lie against Allah.
There
is the story of Noach.
Noach
constructs the ark.
There
is the story of Hud of the Ad.
There
is the story of Salih of the Thamud, who hamstring the camel.
There
is the story of Avraham and the Angels.
Sarah
doubts the predilection of Yitzak’s birth.
The
Angels visit Lot.
There
is the story of Shu’aib and the Midianites.
There
is the story of Moshe and Pharaoh.
“And
be patient, for surely Allah wastes not the reward of the doers of good.” (v115)
“And
say to those who believe not: Act
according to your power, surely we too are acting;
“And
wait, surely we are waiting (also).
“And
Allah’s is the unseen in the (H)eavens and the (E)arth, and to (Allah) the
whole affair will be returned. So serve
(Allah) and put thy trust in (Allah).
And thy Lord is not heedless of what you do.” (v121-123)
--
What
is the distinction between the description, within the Koran, of the Universe
being created in 6 days, and the criticism of the Jewish observance of
Shabbat? It seems as though, within the
Koran, there is the admonishment of the children of Israel disobeying the
mitzvot of Shabbat, yet there also seems to be additional admonishment of the
perception of Allah resting on the 7th day, recognising that Allah
is without the need for rest. How is
this balance maintained, and what is the explanation of the weekly observance
(every 7 days) of Jumuah prayers? How
should the “resting” of Allah on the 7th day be appropriately
understood?
Within
this Sura, there is admonishment towards individuals who prioritise material
wealth rather than righteousness.
However, within the Koran, the descriptions of Heaven (with large-eyed
partners, rivers flowing, and abundance of produce) seem to revert to that
“primal,” “base” instinct of man, to indulge in sensual pleasure; to simply wait for something better. Is this notion of the “higher” carrot and
stick accurate? How does this compare
with other “ultimate destination,” “Heaven/hell” teachings from Judaism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and additionally? Does the equanimity of the Buddha also, intrinsically,
revert to this “primal,” “base” instinct of alleviation of pain; and what are the implications of the
intrinsic “primality” and “baseness” even within the “beggar’s bowl” (as even
that satisfies the urges of hunger and continuation of life)?
Whilst
the example of Noach may be a mild example, how can 2 or additional communities
be effectively reconciled whilst maintaining distinct versions of the same
events, and without having any tangible, Universally accepted source that
explains how the actual event occurs? Is
this intentional? And is this an
intrinsic characteristic of insatiability within life? Amidst such disagreement and ambiguity, what
may be some focal points (principles, practices, and additionally) that
facilitate amicability amongst such communities? And are these the “permanent” characteristics
of “Reality” that are communicated as existing beyond this temporal realm?
What
is the general story and temporal context surrounding Hud?
Within
what context does the story of Shua’ib and the Midianites exist amidst the
interaction of Yaakov and the Israelites with the Midianites?
--
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