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 Yitro, 118.5.30
Torah
Shemot
18:1 – 20:23
Yitro
arrives from Midian with Moshe’s wife, Tzipporah, and his sons, Gershom and
Eliezer.
“Yitro
was happy for all the good things Adonai had done for Israel by rescuing them
from Egypt. Yitro said, ‘Blessed be
Adonai, who rescued you from the power of Egypt and from Pharaoh. Now I know that Adonai is greater than any
other deity.’” (v9-11).
Yitro
provides a sacrifice to Adonai.
Yitro
observes Moshe’s judging over the disputes amongst the Israelites.
“(Moshe’s)
father-in-law said to him, ‘What you are doing is not right. The responsibility will exhaust you and will
harm the nation. You are going to wear
yourself out. You cannot do it all alone.’” (v17-18).
Yitro
advises for Moshe to delegate responsibility to other Israelite leaders; Moshe follows Yitro’s suggestions.
The
Israelites arrive at the mountain in the wilderness of Sinai.
Moshe
ascends mountain and Adonai promises the special designation of Israel amidst
Israel’s compliance with Adonai’s commands.
“In
one loud voice, all the people answered and said, ‘Everything that Adonai has
spoken, we will do.’” (v8)
Adonai
communicates to Moshe the intent of returning to address the Israelites in 3
days, and directs the Israelites to prepare and be clean for Adonai’s arrival.
A
boundary is set around the mountain to prevent the Israelites from approaching
too near to Adonai.
Adonai
arrives with smoke, fire, and shofar blasts;
Moshe ascends the mountain.
Adonai
confers the 10 commandments.
“I
am Adonai, who brought you out of Egypt, from the land of slavery.” (v2)
“You
shall not have any other (deities) except Me.
Do not make carved statues or pictures of anything in the heavens above,
or on the earth below, or in the water below.
Do not bow down to such idols or pray to them. I, Adonai, am jealous, and I demand total
loyalty. As for My enemies, I will
remember the sins of the fathers up to the third and fourth generations. But for those who love Me and keep My
commandments, I will show them kindness for thousands of generations.” (v3-6).
“Do
not misuse the name of Adonai. (Adonai)
will not allow anyone who misuses (Adonai’s) name to go unpunished.” (v7).
“Remember
to observe the Sabbath and keep it holy.
You shall do all your regular work during the six days of the week. But the seventh day is the Sabbath to Adonai,
your Lord. Do not do any kind of work. This includes you, your son, your daughter,
your slave, your maid, your animal, and the strangers in your country. It was during the six weekdays that Adonai
created the cosmos, which includes planet earth, the sea, and everything that
is in them, but (Adonai) rested on the Sabbath.
Therefore Adonai blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.” (v8-11).
“Honor
your father and your mother. If you do,
you will live long on the land that Adonai is giving you.” (v12).
“You
must not murder.” (v13).
“You
must not commit adultery.” (v13).
“You
must not steal.” (v13).
“You
must not act as a false witness against your neighbor.” (v13).
“You
must not be jealous of your neighbor’s wealth.
You must not be jealous of your neighbor’s wife, his slave, his maid,
his ox, his donkey, or anything belonging to your neighbor.” (v14).
The
Israelites are fearful of Adonai, and solicit Moshe to be the interceder.
Moshe
assures the Israelites.
Adonai
commands the prohibition from making statues of deities and restrictions regarding
altars.
--
What
is the connexion and the significance between Yitro’s arrival and advice to
Moshe, and the immediately subsequent provision of the 10 commandments? What lessons does this provide regarding the
propensity for Gentiles to provide guidance for Israel? What are the implications of the Prophet of
Israel being so substantially involved with foreigners (by having a wife,
children, and family outside of Israel)?
Even
amidst the substantial “downplaying” of the 10 commandments within the contemporary
practise of Judaism (attributing the specific designation of the 10
commandments to Christian tradition), the 10 commandments seem to maintain a
considerable distinction and significance specifically within Judaism; what is the nature of the 10 commandments
amidst the 613 mitzvot, why do Jews stand during the recitation of the 10
commandments, and what are the interreligious “political” implications
regarding this designation?
--
Bhagavd
Gita
Chapter
17
All
creatures possess some characteristic, either sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic.
The
different forms of worship of the gunas is described: sattvic:
God; rajas: power, wealth; tamasic:
spirits, ghosts.
The
different forms of food of the gunas is described: sattvic:
mild, nourishing, healthy;
rajasic: salty, spicy,
painful; tamasic: overcooked, stale, leftovers.
The
different forms of sacrifice of the gunas is described: sattvic:
mindful; rajasic: consideration of reward; tamasic:
lack of regard.
Service
is the discipline of the body; kind,
Truthful words are the discipline of speech;
calmness, gentleness, silence, self restraint, and purity are the
discipline of the mind.
The
sattvic perform this discipline without attachment to results; the rajasic perform this discipline to gain
status, thus it is undependable and transitory in effect; the tamasic perform this discipline to gain
power over others or for self-torture.
Giving
for compassion’s sake is sattvic; giving
for returned reward is rajasic; giving
in an in appropriate manner to unworthy person is tamasic.
Om
Tat Sat: Om is communicated during
offering, practicing discipline, and offering gifts; Tat is communicated when striving for
liberation when performing such acts;
Sat (“that which is”) indicates goodness.
Sat
is steadiness of righteousness;
sacrifice without good Faith is “asat.”
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 17
“O Krishna, what is the
state of those who disregard the scriptures but still worship with faith? Do they act from sattva, rajas, or
tamas?” (v1).
“Every creature is born
with faith of some kind, either sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic. Listen, and I will describe each to you.
“Our faith conforms to
our nature, Arjuna. Human nature is made
of faith. Indeed, a person is his faith.
“Those who are sattvic worship
the forms of God; those who are rajasic
worship power and wealth. Those who are
tamasic worship spirits and ghosts.
“Some invent harsh
penances. Motivated by hypocrisy and
egotism,
“they torture their
innocent bodies and (Me) (Who) dwells within.
Blinded by their strength and passion, they act and think like
demons.” (v2-6).
“The three kinds of faith
express themselves in the habits of those who hold them: in the food they like, the work they do, the
disciplines they practice, the gifts they give.
Listen, and I will describe their different ways.” (v7)
Differences are described
for food preferences and sacrifices.
“To offer service to the
(deities), to the (benevolent), to the wise, and to your spiritual
teacher; purity, honesty, continence, and
nonviolence: these are the disciplines
of the body.
“To offer soothing words,
to speak (Truly), kindly, and helpfully, and to study the scriptures: these are the disciplines of speech.
“Calmness, gentleness,
silence, self-restraint, and purity:
these are the disciplines of the mind.”
(v14-16).
Differences are described
for providing service and giving.
“Om Tat Sat: these three words represent Brahman, from
which come priests and scriptures and sacrifice.” (v23).
“To be steadfast in
self-sacrifice, self-discipline, and giving is sat. To act in accordance with these three is sat
as well.” (v27).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 17 – 18
There
seems to be a fine line between the spiritual pursuits of sattva (and its
indifference to the tangible pursuits of rajas) with the delusions described
within tamas (and the perceivably self-involved practise of confusion). How does one appropriately deviate from
convention (perceivably rajasic pursuits) whilst ensuring that such deviation
is sattvic rather than tamasic?
Amidst
the description of tamasic “mistaking one part for the whole,” are there any
similarly microcosmic tendencies within the rigidly segregated caste system
within Hinduism (particularly considering that the spectrum of skin tone of
people indigenous to the Indian subcontinent exists within a larger spectrum,
both lighter and darker, of the aggregate of humanity)? Does that mean that fair-skinned Brahmins intrinsically
have less stature than other ethnicities with even lighter skin, and that
dark-skinned Dalits intrinsically have less oppression than other ethnicities
with even darker skin? And how is the
proceeding irony reconciled: as an
individual’s skin is increasingly exposed to the light, it becomes increasingly
dark?
Throughout
the Bhagavad Gita, there is the teaching of equanimity and to be indifferent to
the results of actions; to simply behave
in a manner that benefits all beings, irregardless of what benefits may result. Yet, tamasic sacrifice is described as having
a certain lack of regard. How does one
ensure that such giving is genuine whilst still abstaining from soliciting
reward? How can an individual provide a
gift to someone who is “unworthy”?
The
description of the tamasic performing the discipline of mind, speech, and body
for “power over others” actually seems to be a rajasic tendency. How is this distinction explained?
Within
the Bhagavad Gita, there is the continual teaching that emphasises the pursuit
of sattvic behaviour; yet, eventually,
there is the description to progress (transcend) even beyond the pursuit of
sattva (wisdom). How does an individual
transcend the intrinsic self-involved intentions (the intrinsically selfish
motivations) within pursuing wisdom, compassion, and righteous?
There
is the reference to “abstaining from slaying people” when actually slaying
people. This may be perceived in an
esoteric Karmic sense of simply being the vehicle of Karma; however, amidst an individual’s awareness of
ego, and the intention and concentration that is involved therein, how is an
individual supposed to respond to this teaching? Is killing ultimately inconsequential, as all
favourable and unfavourable acts are ultimately the result of the omnipotent
will of God (and by maintaining this doctrine does an individual simply submit
to the potential of similarly being killed) or is there some intrinsic
principle of benevolence that is fundamentally involved within such evaporation
of ego? Where does compassion, and the
alleviation of suffering, fit into this equation? If one is genuinely free of one’s ego, then
how is that individual compelled to do any action at all (whether it is killing
another individual, eating a bowl of rice, or simply even breathing)? And within that spectrum of activity (of
homicide, eating, and breathing) what is the balance of compulsion and free
will within each act? Presumably, an
individual maintains substantial control amidst a decision to commit
homicide; and whilst an individual may
be severely influenced to eat, presumably an individual can transcend that urge
to abstain from ever eating again;
however, it seems as though breathing is a compulsion that escapes an
individual’s direct control (understanding that an individual eventually
becomes unconscious after holding one’s breath whereby the body automatically
resumes the process of breathing), unless the individual establishes certain
circumstances that substantially prevent the continuation of breathing (such as
jumping into the ocean).
It
seems ironic, and perhaps revealing, that the occupation designated for the
Shudra is “service.” What is the actual
Sanskrit term utilised to describe this, and is there any intrinsic or ultimate
factor of equanimity that is communicated within this distinction? What is the historic development of the Dalit
caste?
Amidst
the perceivable microcosmic characteristic of the Hindu caste system within the
aggregate of humanity, what are the implications of this tangible,
inter-generational social, political, and economic system amidst confluence
with additional traditions? How does
this compare with the “wrestling” that Judaism maintains with additional
civilisations through numerous millennia?
How might this be understood as being manifested within the temporal
events of the second “World War,” particularly with Hitler being the grandson
of a Jewish woman, and the Nazi party utilising the swastika as a prominent
organizational symbol whilst proclaiming the superiority of the “Aryan” race? What is appropriate guidance for humanity in
the proceeding generations, particularly the next 7?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 17 – 18
Does the description of
the existence of demons intrinsically exhibit a limitation of equanimity, and
thos perhaps exist as a tamasic characteristic (the very likes of which such a
description is admonishing)? Is there
any legitimacy within the notion that all communication of criticisms are acts
of projection (of one’s own characteristics and transgressions)?
Is there any legitimacy
within the notion that each being possesses a portion of each characteristic
whilst existing within this life? Amidst
a spiritual aspirant’s continuing existence within this temporal realm, and the
necessary consumption of material resources therein, might this qualify as a
“rajasic” characteristic? Or is it
possible to acquire material resources within a sattvic manner? If so, and amidst a perspective of equanimity,
is there any fundamental distinction between rajas and sattva, if both
facilitate the same actions? Also,
amidst the limited knowledge of each being, does the proclamation of
maintaining omniscience necessarily exist as a delusion, and thus tamasic; and without the maintenance of omniscience,
is any other proclamation of knowledge intrinsically limited, and thus only a
microcosm, and thus tamasic?
Is the rajasic tendency
of perceiving beings and phenomena as separate a means of facilitating the
accumulation of such?
How can one excel within
another person’s duty when such duties are proclaimed as being predicated upon
the intrinsic, inevitable nature of such duty?
How do they caste distinctions compare with those fond amongst
Israelis? Understanding the pragmatism
within caste duties (particularly facilitating the conference of trade
occupations amongst children), understanding the pragmatic benefits that exist
within duties that directly facilitate the maintenance of “cleanliness” and
ability to practise religious rituals (and thus maintaining certain influence
within society), and understanding the manner in which these characteristics
are influential within, and perpetuated by, the arrangement of marriages: how might humanity transcend beyond the
confines of “uncleanliness,” with each accepting a certain propensity for
experiencing such uncleanliness in order to maintain certain egalitarianism
within society? What does a person lose
by doing such; and what does a person
gain? What does society lose/gain? Is the righteousness of society determined by
the most righteous person within that society, or is the righteousness of a
society determined by the prevalent righteousness amongst all of its members
(the mode or mean or median righteousness of that society)?
What legitimacy exists
within the notion that everyone is a dalit before it drops?
Amidst the description of
a shudra performing service, as an occupation, how does this exist within the
context of the Bhagavad Gita’s teachings regarding the service provided by a
spiritual aspirant?
Amidst the “fire, smoke”
parable, is there the suggestion that “defects” are intrinsically caused by
duty?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Mahapadana
Suttanta (Chapter 1)
“Thus
have I heard. The Exalted One was once
staying at Savatthi, in Anatha Pindika’s pleasuance in the Jeta Wood, at the
Kareri tree cottage. Now among many
bhikkhus who had returned from their alms tour and were assembled, sitting
together after their meal, in the pavilion in the Kareri grounds, a religious
conversation bearing on previous births arose, to the effect that thus and thus
were previous births.” (v1)
“And
the Exalted One, with clear and Heavenly Ear surpassing the hearing of men,
overheard this conversation among the bhikkus.
And arising from his seat he came to the pavilion in the Kareri grounds,
and took his seat on the mat spread out for him.” (v2)
The
Buddha asks about the nature of the conversation; the assembly explains; the Buddha asks if the assembly is interested
within his discourse; and the assembly
requests to hear the Buddha’s discourse.
The
Buddha proclaims the respective, previous arrivals of previous Buddhas.
The
Sangha celebrate the Buddha’s proclamation and discuss whether this is the
Buddha’s first-hand knowledge or whether it is revealed through inspiration
from celestial beings.
The
Buddha returns and asks the discourse, with a similar sequence.
The
Buddha answers the question by effectively saying both are applicable.
“IT
is the rule, brethren, that, when the Bodhisat ceases to belong to the hosts of
the (Heaven) of Delight, and enters a mother’s womb, there is made manifest
throughout the (Universe)—including the worlds above of the (deities), the
Maras and the Brahmas, and the world below with its recluses and brahmins, its
princes and peoples—an infinite and splendid radiance, passing the glory of the
deities. Even in those spaces which are
between the worlds, baseless, murky and dark, and where even moon and sun, so
wondrous and mighty, cannot prevail to give light, even there is made manifest
this infinite and splendid radiance, passing the glory of the (deities). And those beings who happen to be existing
there, perceiving each other by that radiance, say:-- “Verily there be other
beings living here!” And the ten
thousand worlds of the (Universe) tremble and shudder and quake. And that this infinite splendid radiance is
made manifest in the world, passing the glory of the (deities)—that, in such a
case, is the rule.” (v16)
“It
is the rule, brethren, that, when the Bodhisat is descending into a mother’s
womb, the mother of the Bodhisat is a woman virtuous through her own nature:--
aversion from taking life, aversion from taking what is not given, averse from
unchastity, averse from lying speech, averse from indulgence in strong
drinks. That, in such a case, is the
rule.” (v18)
Additional
characteristics regarding the Bodhisat’s mother include: enjoyment of the 5 senses; alleviation of all ailments; death 7 days after giving birth; 10-month pregnancy; delivery of Bodhisat to celestial beings
before being received by men; stainless
delivery; and 2 showers of water upon
delivery.
The
Bodhisat declares himself immediately upon birth.
The
Buddha describes the birth of Vipassi.
Brahmins
proclaim 32 signs within Vipassi.
“If
he live the life of the House, he becomes (leader) of the Wheel, a righteous
(leader) of the Right, ruler of the four quarters, conqueror, guardian of the
people’s good, owner of the Seven Treasures…But if such a boy forth from the
life of the House into the Homeless state, he becomes an Arahant, a Buddha
Supreme, rolling back the veil from the world.”
(v31)
The
32 signs are specifically described.
Bandhuman
coddles his son, Vipassi, with comfort.
Further
proclamations are made about Vipassi.
--
What
is the distinction between the different volumes (perhaps at least within the
English translations) of the Digha Nikaya?
Are the translations, from the Pali Text Society, written by different
authors and/or at different points in history?
The format of the narratives also seems somewhat distinct; what is the background story of the
origination of the Digha Nikayas, and how does this compare with additional
Holy Scriptures within the Pali Canon, and within the Tripitaka? And is there any hierarchy amidst the
different Suttas, amidst the 3 volumes of the Digha Nikaya?
Does
the Buddha become susceptible to the same challenge apparently experienced
within science of proclaiming incomprehensibly large time frames of history and
geography, yet abstaining from explaining what precedes, extends beyond, those
boundaries: what exists before the “Big
Bang” and the intellect (or the will to exist/”become”) of the Tathagata?
Does
the reference to “Brahmas” actually mean “Brahman,” and how is this to be
understood within a plural context? Is
this simply a reference to general celestial beings, within a Buddhist context?
The
Buddha describes the 5 prohibitions (against killing, stealing, adultery,
lying, and intoxicants) being prescribed for the mothers of Bodhisattvas. What are the implications of this with
respect to the manner in which these prohibitions are generally maintained
within Buddhism, as well as within additional religious traditions (such as
within the 10 Commandments, particularly of Judaism and Christianity, with the
exception of permitting intoxicants)?
Do
the descriptions regarding the Bodhisattva’s mother make this Buddhist teaching
susceptible to the same criticism that the Buddha provides, elsewhere within
the Digha Nikaya, towards the reputations stati of families being judged, to
facilitate socio, economic, political, and additional hierarchy, particularly
concerning marriage arrangements (which seems even further ironic)?
How
does the Buddha’s description of the birth of a Bodhisattva compare with the
narrative of the birth of Jesus (and Jesus ascending to Heaven after being
baptised), and the narrative of the birth of Moshe? How does any egoistic element within the
description of such a birth compare with the egotistic nature within Hinduism,
and the narratives of the respective births of Prophets (or the absence
therefrom) within Hinduism?
What
is the esoteric, metaphysical significance within the 32 signs?
There
seems to be a strong symmetry between the respective narratives of the Buddha
and Vipassi, and this seems to be intentional;
what is to be understood from this?
Can Buddhahood exist beyond this construct of the narrative and the 32
signs? And from where are these 32 signs
and this narrative derived?
--
Gospels
Mark
5 – 6
Jesus
encounters “Legion,” and heals him, sending the spirits into nearby swine that
rush into the Sea and are drowned.
Jesus
leaves to heal Jairus’ daughter.
A
woman with a flow of blood is healed after touching Jesus’ garment.
People
proclaim Jairus’ daughter as dead; Jesus
says she is sleeping; people laugh at
Jesus; Jesus heals Jairus’ daughter.
Jesus
returns to his own country and teaches during Shabbat.
The
local residents question Jesus; “A
prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin,
and in his own house.” (v4)
Jesus
assembles his 12 disciples and sends his disciples to heal people; “He charged them to take nothing for their
journey except a staff; no bread, no
bag, no money in their belts; but to
wear sandals and not put on two tunics.” (v8 – 9)
King
Herod perceives Jesus as the incarnate of John the Baptist, whom King Herod
previously beheads per the request of his wife’s, and his brother’s wife’s,
daughter (his niece).
Jesus’
apostles return to him.
Jesus
feeds 5,000 men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, with 12 baskets of
leftovers.
Jesus
walks on the water.
Jesus
heals additional people.
--
Gospels
Mark 5 – 6
Jesus heals Legion.
Jairus asks Jesus to heal
his daughter.
“And a great crowd
followed him and thronged about him. And
there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had
suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no
better but rather grew worse. She had
heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched
his garment. For she said, ‘If I touch
even his garments, I shall be made well.’
And immediately the haemorrhage ceased;
and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power
had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, ‘Who
touched my garments?’ And his disciples
said to him, ‘You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who
touched me?’’ And he looked around to see
who had done it. But the woman, knowing
what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him,
and told him the whole (Truth). And he
said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’” (v24-34).
People perceive Jairus’s
daughter as dead, and Jesus restores her.
“He went away from there
and came to his own country; and his
disciples followed him. And on (Shabbat)
he began to teach in the synagogue; and
many who heard him were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this man get all
this? What is the wisdom given to
him? What mighty works are wrought by
his hands! Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not
his sisters here with us?’ And they took
offense at him. And Jesus said to them,
‘A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own
kin, and in his own house.’ And he could
do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people
and healed them.” (v1-5).
“And he called to him the
twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the
unclean spirits. He charged them to take
nothing for their journey except a staff;
no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two
tunics. And he said to them, ‘Where you
enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. And if any place will not receive you and
they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your
feet for a testimony against them.’ So
they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed
with oil many that were sick and healed them.”
(v7-13).
There is the description
of Herod beheading John the Baptist.
Jesus feeds 5,000 men
with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish.
“Immediately he made his
disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida,
while he dismissed the crowd. And after
he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. And when evening came, the boat was out on
the sea, and he was alone on the land.
And hw saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was
against them. And about the fourth watch
of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw
him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw him, and were
terrified. But immediately he spoke to
them and said, ‘Take hear, it is I; have
no fear.’ And he got into the boat with
them and the wind ceased. And they were
utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their
hearts were hardened.” (v45-52).
Jesus heals additional
people at Gennesaret.
--
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 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
18: Al Kahf (The Cave)
“Surely
We have made whatever is on the earth an embellishment for it, so that We may
try which of them is best in works.”
(v7).
There
is the story of the 2 youths who are trapped in the cave for 300 years.
“…This
is of the signs of Allah. He whom Allah
guides, he is on the right way; and whom
(Allah) leaves in error, thou wilt not find for him a friend to guide aright.” (v17).
“And
say not of anything: I will do that
tomorrow,
“Unless
Allah please. And remember thy Lord when
thou forgettest and say: Maybe my Lord
will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this.” (v23-24)
“And
recite that which has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord. There is none who can alter (Allah’s)
words. And thou wilt find no refuge
beside (Allah).” (v27).
Molten
brass is provided to transgressors, and gardens of bounty are provided to
believers.
There
is the parable of the 2 men with gardens, one with increasing bounty and
becoming arrogant, and the other maintaining modesty and praising Allah; with the garden of the first eventually being
destroyed.
“And
set forth to them the parable of the life of this world as water which We send
down from the cloud, so the herbage of the earth becomes luxuriant thereby,
then it becomes dry, broken into pieces which the winds scatter. And Allah is the Holder of power over all
things.” (v45).
“Wealth
and children are an adornment of the life of this world; but the ever-abiding, the good works, are
better with thy Lord in reward and better in hope.” (v46).
Iblis
refuses to submit to Adam.
There
is the narrative of Moshe and one of the servants from Allah.
There
is reference to Dhu-l-Qarnain.
“He
said: AS for him who is unjust, we shall
chastise him, then he will be returned to his Lord, and (Allah) will chastise
him with an exemplary chastisement.
“And
as for him who believes and does good, for him is a good reward, and We shall
speak to him an easy word of Our command.”
(v87-88).
“Say: If the seas were ink for the words of my
Lord, the sea would surely be exhausted before the words of my Lord were
exhausted, though We brought the like of it to add (thereto).” (v109).
“Say: I am only a mortal like you—it is revealed to
me that your God is one God. So whoever
hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and join no one in the service
of his Lord.” (v110).
--
The
“literary” nature of the Koran is rather different from the linear and
narrative nature of the Torah, the Gospels, and the Suttas within the Digha
Nikaya, and is also distinct from the alinear nature of the Vedas, and the
Upanishads; within the Koran, there is a
confluence of direct commands, poetic allegories, and narratives, each of which
are often included within one sura and interposed amidst the verses within a
sura; and much like the geographic
nature of Mecca and Medina, between Eretz Israel and the Indus and the Ganges
rivers, the Koran seems to include the respective “literary” natures from these
civilisations as well, the linear/narrative form and the alinear/esoteric
form; is there any legitimacy within
this observation?
How
does the teaching within verse 7 compare with Jesus’s teaching regarding
“treasures in Heaven,” within this week’s passage within the Gospel of Luke?
Within
verse 17, there is the teaching regarding, “He whom Allah guides…,” which seems
to suggest a certain inevitability and futility within interceding in the
affairs of another individual; is this
an accurate interpretation of this passage?
Does this affirm the Omnipotent nature of Allah? And if so, what are some traditional Islamic
beliefs and teachings regarding the nature of absolute Omnipotence amidst the
perception of free will? Amidst a belief
within the absolute Omnipotence of Allah, do individuals actually have the free
will to commit transgressions/sins; or
are all of these acts necessarily the manifestation of the Will of Allah? And if so, amidst such Omnipotence and amidst
Allah being the Most Gracious and Most Merciful, why does suffering exist, at
all, within life? How might the Buddha
respond? And what relevance exists
within the previously described consideration (in response to this week’s
passage from the Digha Nikaya) regarding the intrinsic purpose that exists
within suffering, and suffering existing as a “university course” to prepare
individuals to teach others the solutions and reconciliation of such suffering?
What
insight from verses 23 – 24 can be placed upon the practise of saying,
“En’sh’Allah,” as well as that of, “B’ezrat Hashem,” and, “God Willing”? Are there similarly practiced sayings within
additional religious traditions, including Hinduism and Buddhism?
Picking
up from verse 27, what is the nature of the ultimate revelation being
experienced by a Prophet, being constrained by the inevitable limitations and
biases within any language, including Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Pali, Latin,
Greek, English, and additionally? Whilst
the revelation may be Divine, how can humanity fully perceive, let alone
communicate, such perfect Divinity, amidst the confines of the intrinsic
imperfection of this temporal realm?
What is the nature of the Presence of Allah existing within each
individual, and through that Presence, each individual being able to
intuitively, innately recognise the Truth when it is observed and experienced
within this temporal realm of the Universe;
and perhaps how such intuitive/innate recognition may be impaired as one
becomes increasingly enveloped within the sensual pursuits and material gains
within this temporal realm? How do the
proceeding teachings inform us regarding this phenomenon: within the Mahapananda Suttanta regarding the
notion of becoming (and the alleviation of the 5 intoxicants); the teachings of Jesus regarding “treasures
in Heaven;” the guidance from the
Bhagavad Gita regarding rajas and the equanimity amidst spiritual
transcendence; and the pragmatic,
structural doctrine of the 10 commandments?
Presuming that part of the purpose of life is the propagation of life,
how is this to be pursued without becoming enveloped within this pursuit itself
(whilst maintaining proficient spiritual ascension)?
What
is the further story and significance of Dhu-l-Qarnain; similarly, is there any symbolic significance
within the building and destruction of the wall; and how does this narrative compare with the
circumstances around the wall in China, the wall amidst Israel and Palestine,
the wall in Berlin, and even the tower of Babel, the Temple built by Solomon,
the Kaba and Masjid in Mecca, and any additional edifice constructed by
humanity? And how does this compare with
the command that Adonai provides to the Israelites after the conveyance of the 10
commandments?
--
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