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 16 Beshalach, 118.5.23
Torah
Shemot
13:17 – 7:16
Adonai
provides detour for Israelites, to abstain from frightening Israelites back to
Egypt.
Moshe
takes Yosef’s body from Egypt.
There
are the pillar of cloud (during the day) and the pillar of fire (during the
night).
Adonai
tells Moshe to lead the Iraelites into backtracking, to entice the Egyptians to
pursue and completely vanquish Pharaoh.
Pharaoh
and his army pursue the Israelites.
Israelites
see Egyptians, become fearful, and complain to Moshe.
“(Moshe
replied to the people, ‘Do not be afraid.
Be strong, and you will see that Adonai will rescue you. Today you see the Egyptians, but you will
never see them again. Adonai will fight
your battle, and you will not even lift a finger.” (v13-14)
The
angel of Adonai goes between the Israelites and the Egyptians.
Moshe
raises his hands and Adonai parts the Reed Sea.
The
Israelites pass, and the Egyptians are crushed within the closing of the Reed
Sea.
Moshe
and the Israelites sing the Song of Victory.
Miriam
sings Miriam’s song.
Moshe
sweetens the water a bush, at Marah.
Adonai
provides rules and laws at Marah.
Israelites
find 12 springs and 70 dates at Elim.
Israelites
complain about the lack of food.
Adonai
promises to provide quails and manna.
Manna
is provided on a daily basis, with a double amount arriving on Friday, and 0
arriving during Shabbat.
Moshe
and Aaron preserve an omer of manna within a jar, to be placed within the Ark
of the Covenant (that has yet to be built.
Israelites
complain about lack of water at Rephidim.
Moshe
strikes the rock with his staff, and water streams forth from this.
“Now
the army of Amalek came and attacked the Israelites in Rephidim.” (v8)
Moshe
holds out his arms; Aaron and Hur uphold
Moshe’s arms; and the Israelites
prevail.
Adonai
vows to eradicate the memory of Amalek.
--
There
seems to be something within the behaviour of the Israelites that is indicative
of an intrinsic human characteristic:
when the Israelites experience certain tangible adversity (slavery,
increased hardships in tasks, thirst, hunger, and additionally), the Israelites
seem very quick and demonstrative in complaining against Moshe, apparently
ignoring the miracles that Adonai previously performs for the Israelites; however, whilst the plagues are imposed upon
the Egyptians, the Israelites seem to be very quiet; with this in consideration, what is the
nature of supplication within humanity?
What makes it so difficult to maintain balance and patience amidst a
diversity, and the severity of, experiences?
Why does our memory of the blessings seem to become rather myopic amidst
the experiences of the burdens, and vice versa?
And how can we better facilitate such balance and patience within
ourselves?
How
does “Adonai will fight your battle” compare with Sri Krishna’s teaching to
Arjuna about being the vehicle of Brahman?
Is there validity within the interpretation of this being an instruction
for ahimsa? Can this also be understood
as guidance for responding to the comprehensive challenges within life, from
the battlefield to the community square, to the marketplace, to the living
room, to the sanctuary, and additionally?
Is there any legitimacy within the notion of the “Egyptians” being the
personification of general adversaries, or even simply one’s the karmic
repercussions of one’s own previous transgressions towards others and/or
selfishness? How does the practise of
meditation and stillness (and particularly the notion, respectively emphasized
within Buddhism and Hinduism, of action amidst inaction and inaction amidst
action) influence this concept of the “battle”?
What
is the esoteric, metaphysical significance of the bush that sweetens the
water? How does this compare with the
burning bush that Moshe previously finds?
Is there any intrinsic and/or direct connexion?
What
is actually meant within the notion of “blotting out the memory of
Amalek”? It seems rather oxymoronic to
write a memo to forget about something;
is that actually what is meant?
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
16
Sri
Krishna commands Arjuna to be self-controlled, sincere, Truthful, loving, and
full of desire to serve; to study the
Holy Scriptures; to be detached and take
joy in renunciation; to abstain from
anger and harming any living creature;
to be gentle and compassionate;
to show good will to all; to
cultivate vigour, patience, will, purity;
and to avoid malice and pride.
Inhuman
qualities are hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, cruelty, and ignorance.
Divine
qualities (leading to freedom) are doing what should be avoided, and avoiding
what should be done; denial of God; causing suffering and destruction; proclaiming gratification of lusts as the
ultimate.
Evilness
is amassing hoards of money for cravings
Evilness
proclaims likeness to God.
Evil
characteristics are: self-important,
obstinate, swept away by pride of wealth, ostentatious sacrifices, egotistical,
violent, arrogant, lustful, angry, and envious.
Evil
abuses presence of Brahman in own bodies and within others
Evil
experiences Karmic consequences with continuation of existence.
There
are 3 gates to self-destructive hell:
lust, anger, and greed.
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 16
“Be fearless and
pure; never waver in your determination
or your dedication to the spiritual life.
Give freely. Be self-controlled,
sincere, (Truthful), loving, and full of the desire to serve. Realize the (Truth) of the scriptures; learn to be detached and to take joy in
renunciation.
“Do not get angry or harm
any living creature, but be compassionate and gentle; show (benevolence) to all.
“Cultivate vigor, patience,
will, purity; avoid malice and
pride. Then, Arjuna, you will achieve
your divine destiny.
“Other qualities, Arjuna,
make a person more and more inhuman:
hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, cruelty, ignorance.
“The divine qualities
lead to freedom; the demonic, to
bondage. But do not grive, Arjuna; you were born with divine attributes.” (1-5).
“The demonic do things
they should avoid and avoid the things they should do. They have no sense of uprightness, purity, or
(Truth).” (v7).
“Holding such distorted
views, possessing scant discrimination, they become enemies of the world,
causing suffering and destruction.”
“Hypocritical, proud, and
arrogant, living in delusion and clinging to deluded ideas, insatiable in their
desires, they pursue their unclean ends.
“Although burdened with
fears that end only with death, they still maintain with complete assurance,
‘Gratification of lust is the highest that life can offer.
“Bound on all sides by
scheming and anxiety, driven by anger and greed, they amass by any means they
can a hoard of money for the satisfaction of their cravings.” (v9-12).
“Self-important,
obstinate, swept away by the pride of wealth, they ostentatiously perform
sacrifices without any regard for their purpose.
“Egotistical, violent, arrogant,
lustful, angry, envious of everyone, they abuse (My) presence within their own
bodies and in the bodies of others.”
(v17-18).
“There are three gates to
this self-destructive hell: lust, anger,
and greed. Renounce these three.” (v21).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 15 – 16
The
principle of progressing beyond duality is again communicated within Chapter
15. Is this the same as
“nonduality”? How the different
references/teachings, regarding progressing beyond pleasure and pain, compare
with each other; where are some
additional examples of this?
What
is the distinction between Brahman, Sri Krishna, and the Self? Is the Self, as described within this
chapter, essentially Atman? How can
English translations overcome the “Lord” syndrome and appropriate interpret and
utilise the Name of God? Can the concept
of God be accurately communicated, in a transgendered (neutral, beyond gender)
manner, within a language that relies upon the intrinsic and fundamental
masculinity and femininity within every noun within that language?
“All
Holy Scriptures lead to Me” seems to reinforce the practise of amalgamating the
Dharma of Hinduism. Does this mean,
particularly considering skin complexion and the prevalence of the Hindu caste
system specifically predicated upon a limited spectrum of these complexions,
that the tradition of Hinduism is effectively a microcosm of the Universe, and
intrinsically prone to the inaccuracies of being such a microcosm?
How
do the concepts and teachings of Atman, Gunas, Prakriti, Purusha, Senses, and
additionally, compare and interact with the “Western” concepts of the ego, free
will, senses, the soul, spirit, and additionally?
Amidst
the proclamation of anything being “evil,” it seems rather critical to identify
behaviour as “evil,” rather than people as “evil;” because people are continually changing and
maintain the propensity to become righteous.
“Evil” behaviour remains the same.
The
consideration of “abusing the Self within” one’s own body and the body of others
is interesting. What is an example of
this? And amidst the belief in the
omnipotence of Brahman, how can anything contradict the Will of Brahman?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 15 – 16
How does the “ashvattha
tree” compare with the “etz hayim” (the “Tree of Life”) within Judaism? How do both compare with the Bodhi tree,
within Buddhism? And how does each
compare with Jesus’s fig tree (both the one that tricks him, and the one that
reveals the signs), as well as Jesus’s parables regarding the mustard seed
bush, and the seeds sown in fertile soil?
How do each of these compare with the “Tree of Knowledge” of Adam and
Chavah, within the Torah? And how do
these compare with respective lessons regarding trees and plants within the
Koran? How do each of these compare with
the cedar and acacia trees that are referenced within the Torah (including
amidst the building of Noach’s Ark and Moshe’s Ark), and the kusha grass that
is spared within the Buddha’s quintessential sacrifice? What are the intrinsic characteristics of
healing and generosity that exist within plants? How do each of these teachings compare with
the description of “the giving tree,” and, “the secret lives of plants”?
What exists within the
nature of the Self that propels It to want to experience the senses within the
body of an individual self? Amidst the
consideration of the Self being an “extension,” “manifestation,” or other
“phenomenon” of Brahman, what purpose exists within the connexion between the
Self and the self; and what guidance is
the self to appropriate glean from this purpose?
Amidst the cognitive
process of an individual, there is the consideration of how such cognitive
processes are influenced within the individual:
previous teachings from parents, family, and teachers; previous experiences with friends and
family; previous studies from historic
Prophets, authors, and thinkers;
previous thoughts and meditations;
and additionally; amidst this
consideration, what legitimacy exists within the phenomenon of telepathy? How might the thoughts, words, and actions of
others simultaneously influence the cognitive process of an individual, and
vice versa? Amidst the expansive possibilities
within the phenomenon of telepathy, how can an individual appropriately discern
the actual source of an influence or idea:
whether it is from a family member, a friend, or a perceived adversary
imitating such, or an enigmatic sentient alien?
How does the revelation of Truth, and the experience of the Self, factor
within this cognitive process? What are
some beneficial methods/practises that an individual can utilise to enhance an
individual’s concentration upon this Truth and Self, whilst also being able to
reconcile immediate, tangible circumstances within an individual’s ordinary
life?
How does Sri Krishna’s
description of existence within the breath of creatures compare with the
similar description within the beginning of the Torah? How does this compare with lessons regarding
breathing within the Upanishads? And
what does this teach regarding the significance of breath? What is the applicability of these teachings
to fish and additional beings and life that exist without breath? Does this have any relevance to the fish
during the flood during the period of Noach, and/or the miracles of the fish
that Jesus performs (in feeding others, in filling people’s nets, and in
providing Peter with a coin to pay taxes)?
Amidst the confluence of
the 2 considerations: “All scriptures
lead to Me,” and the historic adage, “All roads lead to Rome,” what legitimacy
exists within the proclamation: “All
paths lead to Nirvana”?
Within the first clause
of Verse 19, there is the statement:
“Those who see in (Me) that supreme Self…”; the speaker communicates an identity that the
speaker seems to presume that others may perceive as other than the supreme
Self; amidst any accuracy of this
observation, is this to be understood as a communication from Brahman, or part
of the nature of the existence of Sri Krishna as a conduit of Brahman, or as
Sri Krishna as a distinct entity, or within another manner?
How do the adjectives and
characteristics, within the opening of Chapter 16, compare with personal
characteristics described elsewhere within the Bhagavad Gita? What are some characteristics that are
explicitly communicated, in a similar manner, within the respective Holy
Scriptures of additional religious traditions?
What are some implicit characteristics, within the respective narratives
and examples of Prophets, that are similarly championed within additional
religious traditions? And what are
adjectives and personal characteristics that are similarly, and respectively,
admonished within the Bhagavad Gita and within additional religious traditions?
How are the teachings, of
equanimity and “seeing the Self in all,” reconciled with the description of the
“demonic”?
Ultimately, what is the
difference between “selflessness” and “self-destruction”? What exists within the irony of
“self-indulgence” and “self-destruction”?
And what is an appropriate balance amongst the respective selves of
others?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Tevigga
Sutta
“Thus
have I heard. When the Exalted One was
once journeying through Kosala with a great company of the brethren, with about
five hundred brethren, he came to the (Brahmin) village in Kosala which is
called Manasakata. And there at
Manasakata the Exalted One stayed in the mango grove, on the bank of the river
Akiravati, to the north of Manasakata.”
(v1)
An
argument arises between Vasettha and Bharadvaga; Vasetha suggests visiting the Buddha and
Bharadvaga agrees.
“Various
(Brahmins), Gotama, teach various paths.
The Addhariya (Brahmins), the Tittiriya (Brahmins), the Khandoka
(Brahmins), the Khandava (Brahmins), the Bavhariga (Brahmins). Are all those saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who
acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahma?”
The
Buddha asks Vasettha whether each one is meritous; Vasettha affirms.
The
Buddha asks whether any of the espousing teachers ever reaches Brahma; Vasettha denies.
The
Buddha affirms same circumstance for the Rishis.
The
Buddha compares all teachers as blind men.
The
Buddha questions the Brahmins’ ability to be united with the Sun and Moon, and
makes similar conclusions.
The
Buddha makes the comparison of proclamations to that of a man professing love
for a woman that he has yet to meet.
The
Buddha makes same comparison to a man building a staircase to an absent
mansion.
The
Buddha makes same comparison to a man invoking a river bank to come to him; with Brahmins having yet to adopt virtuous qualities.
The
Buddha makes same comparison to a man attempting to cross a river whilst his
arms are bound by chains; with chains
compared to 5 lusts alleviated by Arahats:
forms perceptible to the eye;
sounds of the same kind; odours
of the same kind; tastes of the same
kind; substances of the same kind.
The
Buddha makes same comparison to man wanting to leap across river, yet sleeping
on the bank.
The
Buddha describes the 5 Hindrances:
worldly lusts, illwill, torpor and sloth of heart and mind, flurry and
worry, and suspense.
The
Buddha describes characteristics of Brahma.
“Is
Brahma in possession of wives and wealth, or is (Brahma) not?”
“(Brahma)
is not, Gotama.”
“Is
(Brahma’s) mind full of anger, or free from anger?”
“Free
from anger, Gotama.”
“Is
(Brahma’s) mind full of malice, or free from malice?”
“Free
from malice, Gotama.”
“Is
(Brahma’s) mind tarnished, or is it pure?”
“It
is pure, Gotama.”
“Has
(Brahma) self-mastery, or has (Brahma) not?”
“(Brahma)
has, Gotama.” (v31)
The
Buddha affirms that the Brahmins are without such qualities.
Vasettha
asks whether the Buddha knows the path to Brahma; the Buddha affirms.
The
Buddha provides some of his standard teaching:
appearance of the Tathagata;
conversion of the householder;
confidence of heart; guarding the
door of the senses; content with little,
simplicity of life; conquest of 5
Hindrances; joy and peace; adherent fills realm with thoughts of Love,
Pity, Sympathy, Equanimity.
The
Buddha explains this as the path to Brahma.
--
Why
does the Buddha eat?
Within
the Buddha’s criticism of proclaiming love for an unknown woman, does this
simply include the careless fawning over an imaginary woman, or does it include
increasingly pragmatic practises of marriage arrangements and additional
circumstances between eventual, respective husbands and wives?
The
teaching that the Buddha provides to Vasettha, with specific respect to the
path towards Brahma, is somewhat different from the standard teaching that the
Buddha provides to other students; what
is the reason for this difference? Is
there an intrinsic difference between attaining Nirvana and the path to Brahma,
according to the Buddha? It seems that
by answering this question, the Buddha intrinsically legitimates the pursuit of
the path towards Brahma, even whilst elsewhere within the Digha Nikaya, the
Buddha severely ridicules the belief in the Brahma; how is this distinction reconciled?
The
Tevigga Sutta is also the final sutta within the first volume of the Digha
Nikaya; is there any significance to
this?
--
Gospels
Mark
3
Jesus
asks whether it is lawful to heal during Shabbat, and heals the man with a
withered hand.
Jesus
climbs mountain and identifies his 12 disciples: Simon (Peter), James (Boanerges) and John
(sons of Zebedee), Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of
Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the Cananaean), and Judas Iscariot.
Jesus
is accused of being possessed and replies:
evil is unable to cast out evil.
Mother
and brothers approach to be with Jesus and Jesus proclaims: Everyone who does the Will of God is my
mother, brother, sister.
--
Gospels
Mark
4
Jesus
teaches the parable of the sower with seeds:
some on path, eaten by birds;
some on rocky ground, scorched by Sun;
some on thorns, choked therein;
and some in good soil, producing fruit therefrom.
Jesus
further explains the parable to his disciples:
sower sows “the word;” those who
receive it on the path, Satan takes the word;
those on rocky ground, receive it with joy yet fall away amidst
tribulation because of lack of roots;
those amongst thorns, are consumed by the “cares of the World;” those in good soil, accept word and bear
fruit.
A
lamp is to be set atop of a stand.
“…the
measure you give will be the measure you get…” (v24)
Jesus
compares the Sovereignty of God to seed on the ground that grows without
people’s knowledge of how.
Jesus
compares the Sovereignty of God to the small mustard seed that sprouts into the
mightiest of shrubs.
Jesus
rebukes the wind and Sea and it becomes quiet.
--
Gospels
Mark 3
Jesus heals a man during
Shabbat.
Jesus heals many
additional people.
“And he went up on the
mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and
to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons: Simon whom he surnamed Peter; James the son of Zebedee and John the brother
of James, whom he surname Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder; Andrew, and Philip, and Batholomew, and
Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the
Canaanaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” (v13-19).
Jesus is accused of being
possessed.
“And he called them to
him, and said to them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast our Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that
kingdom cannot stand.’” (v23-24).
“Truly, I say to you, all
sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemies against the Holy
Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’” (v28-29).
“And his mother and his
brothers came; and standing outside they
sent to him and called him. And a crowd
was sitting about him; and they said to
him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my
brothers?’ And looking around on those
who sat about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother,
and sister, and mother.’” (v31-35).
--
Gospels
Mark 4
“Again he began to teach
beside the sea. And a very large crowd
gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea; and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the
land. And he taught them many things in
parables, and in his teaching he said to them:
‘Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the
path, and the birds came and devoured it.
Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it had not much soil, and
immediately it sprang up, since it had not depth of soil; and when the sun rose it was scorched, and
since it had not root it withered away.
Other seed fell among thorns and the thorns grew up and choked it, and
it yielded no grain. And other seeds
fell into (beneficial) soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing
and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.’ And he said, ‘He who has ears to hear, let
him hear.’” (v1-9).
Jesus explains the
parable to his disciples.
“And he said to them, ‘Is
a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not on a
stand? For there is nothing hid, except
to be made manifest; nor is anything secret,
except to come to light.’” (v21-22).
“The measure you give
will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has
will be taken away.” (v24-25).
Jesus tells the parable
of the mustard seed.
Jesus calms the seas.
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 1 – 3
There
seems to be some significance within the description of Jesus teaching “with
authority.” This seems to imply that the
scholars, with the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, are perceived as being
subordinates, and that the conventional power-holders are the governours or
political leaders who may have less knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Is this accurate? Or are people simply astonished because
wisdom is being communicated in a manner that is defiant of convention? It seems like the physical act of studying
inside for a lifetime precludes a man from becoming an authoritative soldier
and military leader; is this
accurate? And if so, what are the power
dynamics regarding this? And how does
this compare to contemporary circumstances where much of the socially elite are
predominantly “paper pushers,” and the political authorities are often “speech
readers”? From where is power and
authority derived, and how is this recognized by “ordinary people”?
Citing
the example of the leper who is told to make the offering that Moshe
prescribes, why do the people who are healed by Jesus abstain from abiding by
his command?
What
are the “Talmudic” stories of the Gospel?
Why are Jesus’ disciples provided with different names (such as
“Matthew” in Matthew, and “Levi” in Mark);
are these 2 names referring to the same individual (the tax collector)
or to different individuals? What is the
traditional significance and the interpretations regarding these
differences? What do these differences
intrinsically teach regarding how Holy Scriptures should be read, studied,
understood, and practiced (from literal adherence to comparatively
rationalised, or inspired, interpretation)?
What
may be some explanations regarding the nature of the healing that Jesus
provides? Is there an intrinsic
connexion between past transgressions (sins) and physical ailment; a connexion that is alleviated through
proficient forgiveness? Is physical
health substantially a psychosomatic experience that is influenced through the
suggestion of others? Is it possible to
be healed simply through forgiveness?
What actually occurs within the person being healed; what is the metaphysical phenomenon within
the transformation of Faith that facilitates such healing?
How
should Jesus’ reference to the prohibitions and permisions during Shabbat be
interpreted? Does Jesus categorically
alleviate the entire observance of Shabbat?
Is there any significance in that it is Jesus’ disciples who are
plucking the grain, rather than Jesus, specifically? If Jesus teaches the alleviation of Shabbat,
why is there weekly Sunday worship (also predicated upon the 7-day story told
in Bereshit)? And how does this compare
with a seemingly similar teaching within Islam regarding the practise of Jumuah
and Salat every Friday, yet without recognition of the prohibition that exist
with Shabbat (and the fundamental principle of resting during Shabbat)? What are the ontological implications of this
absence of observance with respect to the story of Creation and the metaphysical
implications and practises that exist therein?
Regarding
the man with the withered hand: is it
necessary for Jesus to heal him specifically during Shabbat, or can he wait
until later that night or the next day to heal the man? Is Jesus perhaps concerned about having a
tight schedule that may preclude him from healing everyone, or is he perhaps
being intentionally defiant simply to challenge the Pharisees?
What
are the intrinsic teachings that Jesus provides regarding familial
relationships, when proclaiming everyone as an immediate relative? This seems to be a practise of Universal
familiality, and this is frequently included throughout the Gospels; however, Jesus also explicitly refers to the
teachings of Moshe for people to honour father and mother, and presumably abide
by the distinctions of familial relationships.
How does this coincide with additional teachings regarding marriage and
sexual relations within Christianity (particularly considering teachings Jesus
provides for men to be celibate and abstain from marriage and sexual
relations), and considering the traditional practice of celibacy within
Christianity (and specifically, Catholicism)?
What are the explicit guidelines regarding the family construct within
Christianity? And what implications does
Jesus’ implicit denial of his biological mother and brothers have on the
profundity of the example of Mary?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 4 – 6
How
does “the meaure you give…” doctrine of Jesus compare with the equanimity
taught within the Bhagavad Gita and by the Buddha?
What
are the metaphysics involved within Jesus’ healing of others, particularly
considering the case of Legion? Why is
it necessary to send the spirits into the swine (what do the swine previously,
presumably, do to deserve that)? Why do
the spirits vehemently ask to be sent into the swine, only for the swine to
rush into, and drown within, the Sea? Is
the drowning the consequence of the spirits’ presumed will (as such spirits are
described as previously, transgressively inhabiting the man), or is the
drowning a subsequent act of Divine will against the transgressiveness of the
spirits?
Why
does Jesus refuse to accept the healed man as a disciple, when the man
emphatically asks to join Jesus, yet Jesus later makes an offer to the rich
man to join Jesus, and the rich man
despairs at the thought of relinquishing his material wealth? What apparent deficiency does the healed man
have; and does the distinction of
material wealth (and perhaps, presumably, social status, education, and
additional characteristics) have any influence within this decision?
--
Discussion Questions From
Chapters 1 – 3
There is a film that
depicts 2 brothers competing against each other by racing into the open ocean
and seeing who can stay ahead of the other until the other quits; the elder brother always wins the
competition, until one evening, the younger brother pulls ahead of the elder
brother, and the elder brother wonders how that happens; years later, the younger brother explains
that he is able to defeat his elder brother because the younger brother, during
that point, swims into the ocean without the intention of returning; how might this narrative be applicable to the
example of Jesus, and Jesus’s progression beyond this temporal Realm? Is this an appropriate lifestyle to
maintain; what is a desirable balance
between competitiveness and connexion?
How does, “And he said to
them,” compare with, “Thus have I heard;”
compare with, “And Adonai spoke to Moshe;” and compare with, “We…;” compare with, “Arjuna,…”?
What is exactly intended
within Jesus’s proclamation of being leader on Shabbat; what does this mean? What is Jesus’s attempting, and/or
effectively, undermining through such proclamation? How does the historic and contemporary
Christian practise of Sunday worship factor within this?
At the close of Chapter
3, there is the reference to Jesus’s mor and brothers; does Jesus actually have biological brothers
whom Mary conceived through intercourse with Joseph, or are these brother
similarly “Divinely” inspired? Amidst
the notion of procreation between Mary and Joseph, how does this affect the
belief within, and the characteristic of, Mary being “pure” and “untouched”?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 4 – 6
Within the parable of the
sower of seeds, what relevance exists within the notion that each person become
like the sower of the seeds? And amidst
that, what relevance exists within the notion that amidst the path, the thorns,
and rocky ground, the sower also sows seeds in beneficial soil, and there is
beneficial harvest that is reaped from this?
For even the most ardent Christian, is it appropriate to consider that
some of that Christian’s seeds may fall within the path, the thorns, and rocky
ground? Whilst we strive to plant our
seed within beneficial soil, is it appropriate to be reconciled with the
prospect of some seed falling unto infertile soil, or even being planted within
beneficial soil and without producing?
If so, what is the effect of such a notion upon the very parable itself?
How does Jesus’s teaching
regarding “additional will be given to those who have,” intersect with Jesus’s
additional teachings that advocate for the materially impoverished? Does this suggest that the meagre “possessions”
of the materially impoverished are taken away;
and/or perhaps that the spiritually “destitute” experience increasing
malaise? How is the notion of moderation
and balance appropriately understood within this context?
What is the physical,
metaphysical, and esoteric nature of healing?
How much of healing can be facilitated by an individual’s own
concentration of will, how much is subject to the aggregate influences of
others, and how much is determined by additional phenomena? How does the nature of interdependence
influence an individual’s experience of wellbeing; and amidst such interdependence, how can an
individual improve an individual’s own wellbeing, as well as the wellbeing of
all others? If the woman has sufficient
Faith to be healed simply by touching Jesus’s clothing, what prevents her from
simply healing herself (what element/characteristic within herself prevents her
from having that same sufficient Faith within herself)? What is the physical, metaphysical, esoteric
quality/phenomena that transfers from Jesus to the woman to make her well? Is there a coinciding negative/malaise that
Jesus incurs through providing her with such healing? And if so, is it this negative
phenomena/malaise that Jesus inflicts upon the Pharisees and conventional
leaders of his era, which eventually leads to his own crucifixion? Is there a 0-sum gain with respect to
wellbeing within the Universe; and does
increased wellbeing for 1 individual necessitate decreased wellbeing for
another individual? Is there any
variance within such malaise wherein an appropriate balance of wellbeing can be
experienced by all individuals? How does
Faith facilitate such?
Within the retelling of
the woman who experiences the healing form the flow of blood, there is a
considerable amount of reliance upon the woman’s rendering of that
narrative; and indeed, within the
Christian Gospels, there are a number of women who play prominent roles within
facilitating the narrative and teachings of Jesus, from Mary (his mor), to Mary
Magdalene, to the woman with the flow of blood, to the adulteress, to the woman
at the well, and additionally; what
effect does this female influence have upon the conveyance of the Christian
doctrine? How does this compare with the
presence of woman respectively within the Torah (such as with Chavah, Sara,
Hagar, Rivkah, Rachel, Leah, Miriam, and additionally); the Bhagavad Gita (particularly regarding the
virtue of women affecting society); the
Digha Nikaya (perhaps regarding the female ascetic who transcends the
righteousness of her colleagues); and
the Koran (particularly concerning the teachings regarding wives, families,
widows, and specifically the wives of Muhammad [PBUH])?
Within the description of
Jesus walking atop the water of the sea, there is the description that his
disciples are immediately afraid of him and perceive him as a ghost (even after
spending a considerable amount of episodes with him and even going out and
healing others based upon his teachings);
what does this reveal about the nature of fear: how an individual can even be afraid of that
which is extremely close to, and benevolent towards, an individual? What relevance exists within the notion that
all phenomena can exist in a similar manner:
causing an initial fear, yet ultimately existing within a benevolent and
intimate manner? How does this
experience of fear compare with respective experiences of fear that are
described within the Torah (by Israelis);
the Bhavagad Gita (by Arjuna);
within the Koran (by both believers and unbelievers); and within the Digha Nikaya (perhaps by the
wanderers and additional individuals who have difficulty with the Buddha’s
teachings)?
--
Koran
Sura
17. Bani Isra’il; The Israelites
“Glory
to (Allah) Who carried (Allah’s) servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the
Remote Mosque, whose precincts We blessed, that We might show him of Our
signs! Surely (Allah) is the Hearing,
the Seeing.” (v1)
Moshe
and Noah are referenced.
Warning
is provided to the Israelites; with
reference to 2 instances of transgressions.
“It
may be that your Lord will have mercy on you.
And if you return (to mischief), We will return (to punishment). And We have made hell a prison for the
disbelievers.
“Surely
this Quran guides to that which is most upright, and gives good news to the
believers who do good that theirs is a great reward.” (v8-9)
“And
man prays for evil as he ought to pray for good; and man is ever hasty.” (v11)
Day
and night are provided to discern the passage of events (time).
“Read
thy book. Thine own soul is sufficient
as a reckoner against thee this day.”
(14)
“Whoever
goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment
only does he go astray. And no bearer of
a burden can bear the burden of another.
Nor do We chastise until We raise a messenger.” (v15)
“Whoso
desires this transitory life, We hasten to him therein what We please for
whomsoever We desire, then We assign to him the hell; he will enter it despised, driven away.” (v18)
There
is the command for respecting one’s parents.
“Your
Lord knows best what is in your minds.
If you are righteous, (Allah) is surely Forgiving to those who turn to
(Allah).” (v25)
“And
if thou turn away from them to seek mercy from thy Lord, which thou hopest for,
speak to them a gentle word.” (v28)
“And
give full measure when you measre out, and weigh with a true balance. This is fair and better in the end.” (v35)
“And
follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge. Surely the hearing and the sight and the
heart, of all of these it will be asked.”
(v36)
“And
go not about in the land exultingly, for thou canst not rent the earth, nor
reach the mountains in height.” (v37)
Unbelievers
doubt resurrection.
“Your
Lord knows you best. (Allah) will have
mercy on you if (Allah) please, or (Allah) will chastise you, if (Allah)
please. And We have not sent thee as
being in charge of them.” (v54)
Iblis
rebels.
“And
when distress afflicts you in the sea, away go those whom you call on except
(Allah); but when (Allah) brings you
safe to the land, you turn away. And man
is ever ungrateful.” (v67)
“”And
he whom (Allah) guides, he is on the right way;
and he whom (Allah) leaves in error, for them thou wilt find no
guardians besides (Allah). And We shall
gather htem together on the day of Resurrection on their faces, blind and dumb
and deaf. Their abode is hell. Whenever it abates, We make them burn the
more.” (v97)
There
is the story of Moshe and Pharaoh.
“Say: Call on Allah or call on the Beneficent. By whatever (name) you call on (Allah),
(Allah) has the best names. And utter
not thy prayer loudly nor be silent in it, and seek a way between these.” (v110)
--
Is
there a specific, historic event that is being referenced within verse 1?
Based
from the passage of verse 8, can it be that “hell” is simply the temporal
experience of selfishness and transgression, within this temporal realm?
What
is actually meant within the passage of “Thine own soul is sufficient as a
reckoner against thee this day.”? Is
this suggest a form of autonomous imposition of justice, karma? And does this coincidingly suggest the
abstinence from passing judgment upon others?
When
conventional authority and society impose justice and punishment upon others
(and the necessary transgressions that exist therein), do conventional
authority and society become similarly susceptible to the consequences of such
transgressions? If otherwise, how are
judgment and justice objectively facilitated?
How
does the Koran’s “bearer of one’s own burden” compare with Jesus’s “bearer of
one’s own cross,” within this week’s portion from the Gospel of Luke?
Is
there any intrinsic connexion between verse 28 and Tupac’s cut, “I ain’t mad
atcha.”?
Is
the “follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge” command similar to that
provided within the Torah commanding the Israelites to abstain from following
the unknown Pagan customs of foreign nations?
And if so, how does these commands respectively coincide within the
intrinsic transformative and “convertive” characteristics within both Islam and
Judaism whereby the initial respective practitioners are solicited to abandon
the “known”/familiar spiritual practises of the practitioners’ fathers and
ancestors and to adopt a new ideology, Theology, and vision of the Universe
that is previously unknown to the practitioners (at least in a direct,
tangible, traditional manner)?
Where
exists the appropriate balance between allowing for the judgment of Allah to be
manifested (without presumption and intervention) and assuming the
responsibility for directly alleviating injustices and suffering?
How
does the teaching of ungratefulness, within verse 67, compare with the
complaining of the Israelites after leaving Egypt?
Does
the description, within verse 97, of all people conforming to the Will of
Allah, substantiate or repudiate the concept of free will? If people involuntarily (or robotically) commit
transgressions because it is exactly the Will of Allah, do such people actually
deserve to suffer in hell? And is this
experience maintained by each individual, in some way or another, as the Buddha
might suggest through the concept of Dukkha (suffering intrinsically and
inevitably existing within the phenomenon of life)?
Expanding
the teaching within verse 110 (regarding calling upon the Name of Allah) into a
comprehensive notion of practicing one’s spirituality in a similarly moderate
manner, how does this compare with the “lion’s roar” of the Buddha, and with
other doctrines regarding moderation from additional Prophets?
--
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