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 18 Mishpatim, 118.6.7
Torah
Shemot
21:1 – 24:18
“These
are the laws that the Israelites must obey.”
(v1)
“If
you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh year
he is to be set free without paying for his freedom.” (v2)
Wife
and children gained within slavery to slave remain property of master.
Slave
has option to remain for life with master, with piercing of his ear.
Rules
are prescribed for relationships with female slaves.
“If
one person deliberately strikes another and the victim dies, the murderer must
be put to death.” (v12).
Respite
is given for manslaughter.
The
death penalty is proscribed for specific offences.
Rules
are prescribed amidst injuries to slaves.
“Compensation
must be paid for the loss of an eye, a tooth, a hand, or a foot. Compensation must also be paid for a burn, a
wound, or a bruise.” (v24-25).
Rules
are proscribed for an ox goring a person.
Rules
are proscribed for responses towards thievery.
Rules
are proscribed for agricultural interaction.
Rules
are proscribed for safeguarding and entrusting material to another person.
“If
a man sleeps with a virgin who is not engaged to anyone, he must pay a dowry
and must marry her.” (v15).
The
death penalty is proscribed for additional offences.
“Do
not abuse a foreigner or oppress him, for you must remember that you were
foreigners in Egypt.” (v20).
“Do
not abuse a widow or an orphan. If you
abuse them, and they cry to Me for help, I will hear their cry.” (v21).
Generosity
and patience is proscribed in lending to indigent people.
People
are obliged to judge in fairness, without favouring the rich or poor.
Additional
law of Kashrut are proscribed.
Transgressive
speech is admonished.
“If
you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey that has wandered away, you must
bring it back to him.” (v4).
“If
you see an overloaded donkey that belongs to someone who hates you, you may not
want to help him unload it, but nevertheless you must do so.” (v5).
“You
shall not accept bribes.” (v8).
“You
shall not oppress a foreigner. You know
how it feels to be a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of
Egypt.” (v9).
Shabbat
is proscribed for land and for all people, including servants.
Feasts
of Matzot (Pesach), Harvest (Shavuot), and Ingathering (Sukkot) are proscribed.
“Be
aware that I will send an angel to safeguard you on your journey and bring you
to the land I have prepared for you.”
(v20).
Adonai
describes the clearing away of the previous inhabitants of Eretz Israel.
Praying
to other deities is forbidden.
“(Moshe)
came and repeated to the people all of Adonai’s teachings and laws. The Israelites responded with a single
voice: “We will treasure and obey every
word that Adonai has spoken.” (v3).
Moshe
writes down the mitzvot.
Sacrifices
are made to Adonai.
“(Moshe),
along with Aaron, Nadav, and Avihu, and the seventy leaders, went up the
mountain, and there they saw a vision of Adonai, and under (Adonai’s) feet
there was a floor decorated with sapphire jewels as clear as the heavenly
skies.” (v10).
Moshe
ascends the mountain with Yoshua.
--
What
is the intrinsic and esoteric connexion between the respective rules for
servitude, for violence, for the “ger” (stranger), for the orphan and widow,
and for the enemy? What is being taught
about the intrinsic responsibilities that each person has within life, and perhaps
the intrinsic value and legitimacy that each person also has?
How
do the rules for the servitude of, and lending towards, foreigners compare with
the servitude of, and lending towards, an Israelite?
What
is the metaphysical and tangible benefit within observing a Shabbat for the
land, and how does this compare with the respective ecological principles,
teachings, and stories within additional religious traditions, including within
indigenous communities?
What
is the nature of the angel of Adonai, as well as that of Adonai’s protection
and preceding the children of Israel?
How
can the “clearing away” of Eretz Israel be understood in an esoteric and
metaphysical manner, as well as within an actual manner? And what are the contemporary implications
and relevance of this guidance amidst the current circumstances involving Eretz
Israel? Is it necessary to even wage
violence against transgressors amidst proficient Faith in Adonai?
Within
Chapter 24, Verse 4, of Shemot, it is written that Moshe writes all these rules
down; amidst this, why is it necessary
to ascend the mountain to receive the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments?
How
does the vision that the children of Israel have of Adonai compare with the
vision that Arjuna has of Sri Krishna, the Heavenly Eye of the Buddha, the
experience that Peter, James, and John have with Jesus, Moshe, Eliyahu and God,
and the experience that Muhammad has with the angel, Gabriel (Jibril)?
--
Bhagavd
Gita
Chapter
18
Sannyasa
is restraint from selfish actions.
Tyaga
is renouncing the fruit of action.
Some
wise people proclaim that all action should be renounced as transgressive; some wise people proclaim that certain action
(self-sacrifice, giving, self-discipline) should be practised; Sri Krishna confirms this.
3
types of tyaga are explained:
self-sacrifice, giving, and self-discipline should be practised without
thought of reward.
Renouncing
responsibilities is tamasic; avoiding
action because of fear is rajasic;
fulfilling responsibilities is sattvic.
“As
long as one has a body, one cannot renounce action altogether. True renunciation is giving up all desire for
personal reward.” (v11)
Indifference
to reward propels one beyond Karma.
5
elements in action (right or wrong) are explained: body, means, ego, performance of act, Divine
will.
Without
grasping this, an individual perceives one’s self as having a separate
existence.
Knowledge,
the object to be known, and the knower, all promote action; the means, the act itself, and the doer, are
all the totality of action; knowledge,
action, and the doer can be explained within the gunas.
Sattvic
knowledge sees one Being in all beings;
rajasic knowledge sees all objects and creatures as separate and
distinct; tamasic knowledge sees one
small part and mistakes it for the whole.
Sattvic
work is to fulfill obligation, without
thought of reward or un/pleasantness;
rajasic work is selfishly motivated;
tamasic work is blindly undertaken without thought of consequences.
A
sattvic worker is free from ego and full of enthusiasm; a rajasic worker has strong personal desires
and is covetous and infatuated; a
tamasic worker is undisciplined, vulgar, stubborn, deceitful, dishonest, lazy,
easily depressed, and procrastinating.
Sattvic
intellect knows when to act and ethical balance of action; rajasic intellect confuses right and
wrong; tamasic intellect reverses right
and wrong.
Sattvic
will, through meditation, keeps prana, mind, and senses in vital harmony; rajasic will, through selfish desire, pursues
wealth, pleasure, responsibility;
tamasic will is immersed within obstinate ignorance, sloth, fear, grief,
depression, and conceit.
Poison
at first and nectar at the end is sattvic happiness; pleasure at first and poison at the end is
rajasic happiness; sleep, indolence,
intoxication is delusion of tamasic happiness.
The
Hindu caste system is described:
Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra;
and the qualities of each are described, respectively: self control, tranquility, purity of heart,
patience, humility, learning, austerity, wisdom, and Faith; courage, strength, fortitude, dexterity,
generosity, leadership, resolve to abstain from retreat; agriculture, dairying, and trade; service.
Everyone
can attain perfection through devotion to one’s own duty; performing one’s own duty is preferable to
performing the duty of another.
The
path to unity with Brahman is described:
unerring discrimination, sovereign of senses and passions, free from
distraction of likes and dislikes, such an individual leads a simple,
self-reliant life based upon meditation, controlling the person’s mind, speech,
and body; reaching a Peace within one’s
self and the Universe, and attaining the unitive state.
Sri
Krishna concludes his talk with Arjuna.
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 18
“O Krishna, destroyer of
evil, please explain to me sannyasa and tyaga and how one kind of renunciation
differs from another.” (v1).
“To refrain from selfish
acts is one kind of renunciation, called sannyasa; to renounce the fruit of action is another,
called tyaga.
“Among the wise, some say
that all action should be renounced as evil.
Others say that certain kinds of action—self-sacrifice, giving, and
self-discipline—should be continued.
“Listen, Arjuna, and I
will explain three kinds of tyaga and (My) conclusions concerning them.
“Self sacrifice, giving,
and self-discipline should not be renounced, for they purify the thoughtful.
“Yet even these, Arjuna,
should be performed without desire for selfish rewards. This is essential.” (v2-6).
Difference regarding
renunciation are described.
“As long as one has a
body, one cannot renounce action altogether.
True renunciation is giving up all desire for personal reward.
“Those who are attached
to personal reward will reap the consequences of their actions: some pleasant, some unpleasant, some
mixed. But those who renounce every
desire for personal reward go beyond the reach of karma.” (v11-12).
“Listen, Arjuna, and I
will explain the five elements necessary for the accomplishment of every
action, as taught by the wisdom of Sankhya.
“The body, the means, the
ego, the performance of the act, and the divine will:
“these are the five
factors in all actions, right or wrong, in thought, word, or deed.
“Those who do not
understand this think of themselves as separate agents. With their crude intellects they fail to see
the (Truth).
“The person who is free
from ego, who has attained purity of heart, though he slays these people, he
does not slay and is not bound by his actions.”
(v13-17).
“Knowledge, the thing to
be known, and the knower: these three
promote action. The means, the act
itself, and the doer: these three are the
totality of action.
“Knowledge, action, and
the doer can be described according to the gunas. Listen, and I will explain their distinctions
to you.” (v18-19).
“Sattvic knowledge sees
the one indestructible Being in all beings, the unity underlying the
multiplicity of creation.
“Rajasic knowledge sees
all things and creatures as separate and distinct.
“Tamasic knowledge,
lacking any sense of perspective, sees one small part and mistakes it for the
whole.” (v20-22).
Distinctions are
described regarding work, workers, understanding, will, and happiness.
“No creature, whether
born on earth or among the (deities) in heaven, is free from the conditioning
of the three gunas.
“The different
responsibilities found in the social order—distinguishing brahmin, Kshatriya,
vaishya, and shudra—have their roots in this conditioning.” (v40-41).
“The responsibilities to
which a brahmin is born, based on his nature, are self-control, tranquillity,
purity of heart, patience, humility, learning, austerity, wisdom, and faith.
“The qualities of a
Kshatriya, based on his nature, are courage, strength, fortitude, dexterity,
generosity, leadership, and the firm resolve never to retreat from battle.
“The occupations suitable
for a vaishya are agriculture, dairying, and trade. The proper work of a shudra is service.” (v42-44).
“It is better to perform
one’s own duties imperfectly than to master the duties of another. By fulfilling the obligations he is born
with, a person never comes to grief.
“No one should abandon
duties because he sees defects in them.
Every action, every activity, is surround by defects as a fire is
surrounded by smoke.” (v47-48).
“Unerring in his
discrimination, sovereign of his senses and passions, free from the clamor of
likes and dislikes,
“he leads a simple,
self-reliant life based on meditation, controlling his speech, body, and mind.
“Free from self-will,
aggressiveness, arrogance, anger, and the lust to possess people or things, he
is at peace with himself and others and enters into the unitive state.
“United with Brahman,
ever joyful, beyond the reach of desire and sorrow, he has equal regard for
every living creature and attains supreme devotion to (Me).” (v51-54).
“Make every act an
offering to (Me); regard (Me) as your
only protector. Relying on interior
discipline, meditate on (Me) always.
“Remembering (Me), you
shall overcome all difficulties through (My) grace. But if you will not heed (Me) in your
self-will, nothing will avail you.
“If you, egotistically
say, ‘I will not fight this battle,’ your resolve will be useless; your own nature will drive you into it.
“Your own karma, born of
your own nature, will drive you to do even that which you do not wish to do,
because of your delusion.” (v57-60).
--
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 2)
“Now
the young (leader) Vipassi, brethren, when many years, many centuries, many
thousands of years had passed by, bade his charioteer make ready the state
carriages, saying:--‘Get ready the carriages, good charioteer, and let us go
through the park to inspect the pleasuance.’
‘Yea, my (leader),’ replied the charioteer, and harnessed the state
carriages and sent word to Vipassi:-- ‘The carriages are ready, my
(leader); do now what you deem to be
fit.’ Then Vipassi mounted a state
carriage, and drove out in state into the park.” (v1).
“Now
the young (leader) Vipassi saw, brethren, as he was driving to the park, an
aged man as bent as a roof gable, decrepit, leaning on a staff, tottering as he
walked, afflicted and long past his prime.
And seeing him Vipassi said:-- ‘That man, good charioteer, what has he
done, that his hair is not like that of other men, nor his body?’
“‘He
is what is called an aged man, my (leader).’
“
‘But why is he called aged?’
“
‘He is called aged, my (leader), because he has not much longer to live.’
“
‘But then, good charioteer, am I too subject to old age, one who has not got
past old age?’
“
‘You, my (leader), and we too, we all are of a kind to grow old, we have not
got past old age.’
“
‘Why then, good charioteer, enough of the park for to-day! Drive me back hence to my rooms.’
“
‘Yea, my (leader),’ answered the charioteer, and drove him back. And he, brethren, going to his rooms sat
brooding sorrowful and depressed, thinking:-- ‘Shame then verily be upon this
thing called birth, since to one born old age shows itself like that!’” (v2).
Bandhuman
learns of Vipassi’s experience and orders additional sensual pleasures for
Vipassi to dissuade him from the homeless state.
“Now
after many years, many centuries, many thousands of years had passed by, the
young (leader) Vipassi, brethren, again bade his charioteer make ready, and
drove forth as once before.” (v5).
Vipassi
witnesses sickness, and a similar response results.
Vipassi
witnesses death, and a similar response results.
Vipassi
visits the park for a 4th time.
“And
he saw, brethren, as he was driving to the park, a shaven-headed man, a
Wanderer, wearing the yellow robe. And
seeing him he asked the charioteer;-- ‘That man, good charioteer, what has he
done, that his head is unlike other men’s heads and his clothes too are unlike
those of others?’
“
‘That is what they call a Wanderer, because, my (leader), he is one who has
gone forth.’
“
‘What is that, to have gone forth?’
“
‘To have gone forth, my (leader), means being thorough in the religious life,
thorough in the peaceful life, thorough in good actions, thorough in
meritorious conduct, thorough in harmlessness, thorough in kindness to all
creatures.’
“Excellent
indeed, friend charioteer, is what they call a Wanderer, since so thorough is
his conduct in all those respects.
Wherefore drive up to that forthgone man.’” (v14).
Vipassi
speaks with the ascetic.
Vipassi
decides to become an ascetic.
84,000
people in Bandhumati hear of Vipassi becoming an ascetic and make the same
decision.
Vipassi
decides to live in solitude.
Vipassi
perceives the proceeding process of causation:
suffering, decay, and death being caused by birth; birth being caused by becoming; becoming being caused by grasping; grasping being caused by craving; craving being caused by feeling; feeling being caused by contact; contact being caused by the six-fold
field; the six-fold field being caused
by name and form; name and form being
caused by cognition;
Vipassi
proceeds through a similar process of reasoning regarding the “causal absence”
of each of these phenomena.
“Then
to Vipassi the Bodhisat, brethren, this occurred:-- ‘Lo! I have won to this, the Way to enlightenment
through insight. And it is this, that
from name-and-form ceasing, cognition ceases, and conversely; that from name-and-form ceasing, the sixfold
field ceases; from the sixfold field
ceasing, contact ceases; from contact
ceasing, feeling ceases; from feeling
ceasing, craving ceases; from craving
ceasing, grasping ceases; from grasping
ceasing, becoming ceases; from becoming
ceasing, birth ceases; from birth
ceasing, decay and dying, grief, lamentation, ill, sorrow and despair
cease. Such is the ceasing of this
entire body of Ill.” (v21).
Vipassi
is liberated from the Intoxicants.
--
What
is the connexion between the narrative that the Buddha provides in this sutta
and the actual, temporal biography of Siddharta Gautama? Is this intended to communicate that such
experience is intrinsic within the temporal life of a Buddha (perhaps
corresponding with the 32 signs)?
How
does Bandhuman’s reaction of providing additional sensual pleasures compare
with conventional practises within the conventional hierarchies of contemporary
industrial and post-industrial societies:
conspicuous consumption, sexual promiscuity, obesity, intoxications, and
additional indulgences, particularly amongst “higher socioeconomic” communities,
particularly amongst university and graduate students who are being trained to
assume positions of authority, and particularly as a means of establishing
proficient relationships and influence within such hierarchy and simultaneously
financially obligating “upwardly mobile” professionals into making acquisitions
that further entrench such individuals within such lifestyles, all whilst
substantially ignoring the tangible and immediate suffering experienced within
“lower socioeconomic” communities, and even exactly within “higher
socioeconomic” communities?
Similarly,
or conversely, there is also the consideration that Bandhuman abstains from
imprisoning or confining Vipassi, and instead, simply attempts to deter Vipassi
through sensual gratification; what
lessons does this provide for those who are dissatisfied with conventional
authority and the practises of “higher socioeconomic” communities? How can an individual progress very being
envious of “higher socioeconomic” communities towards becoming increasingly
autonomous and independent from “higher socioeconomic” communities through
living within one’s means (and abstaining from incurring financial debt [and
enslavement] for the acquisition of material resources and services], directly
challenging the constructs of convention that directly facilitate such
suffering, and/or even adopting an ascetic lifestyle?
Seeing
the ascetic in the park after old age, sickness, and death, seems to provide a
natural solution to the challenges that Vipassi experiences; how might circumstances be different if Vipassi
actually sees the ascetic first? Might
this have less impact than it does after seeing old age, sickness, and
death? Is it necessary to experience the
challenge (and the suffering) before experiencing the solution (and the
healing)? What legitimacy exists within
the notion of each experience of suffering simply being a lesson (like a
university course) in that form of suffering and its solutions, with the direct
and specific purpose of being prepared to share those lessons of solution and
healing with additional people who experience such suffering (and perhaps to
alleviate the Universal nature of the experience of suffering)? Is it possible that ascetics are present
during the previous 3 trips that Vipassi and his charioteer make to the park,
yet it is only on the 4th occasion that Vipassi is able to see the
ascetic? What lesson might this provide
regarding the intrinsic connexion between awareness and sensual gratification?
How
does the process of causation perceived by Vipassi exist amidst the 4 Noble
Truths of the Buddha: Dukkha
(Suffering), Desire, Cessation, and the Noble 8-Fold Path? There seems to be emphasis upon the connexion
between desire and dukkha; is this an
accurate assessment? And how does the
Buddha overcome the experience of “craving” or “grasping,” when the Buddha is
described as eating and engaging within additional “ordinary” human behaviour
that seems to involve some form of grasping or craving or additionally similar
intentionality (and/or insufficiency)?
Is the aspiration of attaining Nirvana, in and of itself, an intrinsic
form of craving or grasping (albeit within a manner that is other than
necessarily sensory-based)? Does the
experience of suffering (and the perceivable personal insufficiency therein)
connote a deficiency within an individual’s spiritual practise?
What
is the nature of the recurring emergence of the Buddhas? What implication does such a phenomena have
upon the respective nature of existence and karma of all additional beings and
life within the Universe; is the
Universe destined to experience the continual emergence of the Buddha, and is
this the karma of all those who exist within the many different realms of this
Universe? Are there beings that
currently exist as inevitable Buddhas;
and if so, what prevents such beings from immediately attaining Nirvana?
--
Gospels
Mark
7 – 8
The
Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples eat without washed hands; Jesus responds by citing Isaiah as well as
the subverting of additional principles, such as honouring an individual’s
parents.
Jesus
explains that defilements come from out the body rather than by what goes
inside the body.
A
woman begs Jesus to heal her daughter and Jesus refuses, referring to her as a
dog; the woman responds by saying that
the dogs eat the crumbs from that table;
and Jesus heals her dotter.
Jesus
heals a mute and deaf man.
Jesus
feeds crowds with 7 loaves of bread.
The
Pharisees ask to see a sign; Jesus
refuses.
Jesus
warns: “Beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees.”
Jesus
heals a blind man.
Jesus
asks his disciples who his disciples think he is; his disciples proclaim him as Moshiach; Jesus prophesies his destiny, and commands
his followers to renounce the temporal realm.
--
Gospels
Mark 7 – 8
“Now when the Pharisees gathered
together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, they
saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.” (v1-2).
“And he said to them,
‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“ ‘This people honors
(Me) with their lips, but their heart is far from (Me); in vain do they worship (Me), teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men.’” (v6-7).
“And he called the people
to him, again, and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going
into him can defile him; but the things
which come out of a man are what defile him.’”
(v14-16).
“And he said, ‘What comes
out of a man is what defiles a man. For
from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft,
murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander,
pride, foolishness. All these evil
things come from within, and they defile a man.’” (v20-23).
A Greek, Syrophoenician
woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter.
“And he said to her, ‘Let
the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and
throw it to the dogs.’ But she answered
him, ‘Yes, (Leader); yet even the dogs
under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’
And he said to her, ‘For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.’” (v27-29).
“And taking him aside
from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and
touched his tongue; and looking up to
heaven, he sighed, and said to him, ‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened.’ And his ears were opened, his tongue was
released, and he spoke plainly. And he
charged them to tell no one; but the
more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.” (v33-36).
“In those days, when
again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his
disciples to him, and said to them, ‘I have compassion on the crowd, because
they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to their
homes, they will faint on the way; and
some of them have come a long way.’”
(v1-3).
Jesus feeds the crowd of
4,000 with 7 loaves of bread and a few small fish, with 7 baskets remaining.
“Now they had forgotten
to bring bread; and they had only one
loaf with them in the boat. And he
cautioned them, saying, ‘Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
the leaven of Herod.’ And they discussed
it with one another, saying, ‘We have no bread.’ And being aware of it, Jesus said to them,
‘Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears
do you not hear? And do you not
remember? When I broke the five loaves
for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take
up?’ They said to him, ‘Twelve.’ And the seven for the four thousand, how many
baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?’
And they said to him, ‘Seven.’
And he said to them, ‘Do you not yet understand?’” (v14-21).
Jesus heals a blind man.
“And he looked up and
said, ‘I see men; but they look like
trees, walking.’ Then again he laid his
hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently
and was restored, and saw everything clearly.”
(v24-25).
“And Jesus went on with
his disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked
his disciples, ‘Who do men say that I am?’
And they told him, ‘John the Baptist;
and others say, (Eliyahu); and
others one of the prophets.’ And he
asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’
Peter answered him, ‘You are the
Christ.’ And he charged them to tell no
one about him.” (v27-30).
Jesus describes the
approach of his crucifixion.
“And Peter took him, and
began to rebuke him. But turning and
seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of
men.’” (v32-33).
“And he called to him the
multitude with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any man would come after
me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’” (v34).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 7 – 10
The
story of the woman with the daughter seems rather harsh. What is actually meant when Jesus compares
her to a dog? And when the woman accepts
the apparently derogatory comparison and continues to beg for healing, is Jesus
simply rewarding her acceptance of such apparent subjugation? Is this a rewarding of genuine Faith, and
what are the implications for contemporary circumstances?
The
narrative of the 7 loaves of bread is rather interesting. There is the metaphysical and scientific
consideration of how this miracle may be performed. There is the consideration of the power of
suggestion and the people being strengthened by the power of Jesus’s suggestion,
to sufficiently continue until eating at another juncture. There is also the consideration of the crowd
being inspired by Jesus’ teachings and experiencing the Spirit of God until
eating at another time. Perhaps the 2
are the same. There is also the
consideration of whether this practise of living without food may be maintained
in perpetuity? Is it possible to sustain
life without material, and exclusively upon thought (and/or love, compassion,
and additionally)?
The
notion of the first being last and the teacher being the servant seems to
communicate a benevolent doctrine of equality and equanimity. However, is there any relevant propensity of
this doctrine being manipulated into an adverse political, social, and economic
hierarchy: whereby an individual, or
group of individuals, maintains certain comforts and temporal subjugation over
others whilst proclaiming that the others are actually superior (according to
this doctrine), such that the others should appreciate receiving such subjugation
and comparative material poverty? Amidst
any such propensity, does this cultivate a culture of retro-righteousness/piety
within the apparent subjugated/material impoverished group? And/or does this doctrine facilitate a “race
to be last” where adherents refuse to accept the help of others for fear of
becoming less righteous? Are there any
contemporary examples of such tendencies?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 7 – 10
Amidst Jesus’s teaching
regarding defilement, what is the connexion between the intrinsic
“unrighteousness” of a certain object (the manner in which it is killed, it
being stolen, and/or additionally) and the manner in which this
“unrighteousness” may defile a person?
What responsibility does a person maintain for that which a person is
consuming? Does Jesus’s teaching
actually declare all foods clean, or to be increasingly mindful of what is done
to provide the food?
Jesus’s response to the
woman asking for her daughter’s healing seems rather condescending and even
insulting; how does this compare with
the Buddha’s criticisms towards the inadvisable tenets and practises of his
challengers and disciples? What are
appropriate manners in which a teacher should “correct” the wayward
presumptions, conclusions, and practises of disciples and additional
challengers? What is the appropriateness
within, and the appropriate limits of, “tough love”?
What is the nature (and
compulsion) of the “disobedience” of Jesus’s followers in proclaiming his deeds
after he commands the abstinence from such?
And what is the reasoning within Jesus’s response, or lack thereof?
What is the nature of the
propensity for relying upon “the leaven of leaders” when one is without
bread? And what is the nature of the
propensity for satisfying thousands with only a few loaves of bread? What is the nature of hunger, and the nature
of satisfaction of hunger? How does each
affect the manner in which a person behaves and believes? And how does the manner in which a person
behaves and believes affect the experience of hunger and satisfaction? Can material sustenance and nutrition be
considered simply as psycho-somatic (and perhaps esoteric) phenomena?
In breaking the bread, is
there a factor of multiplicity that suspends people’s perceptions to be able to
eat and be satisfied from only a few loaves (compared to eating directly from
the loaves)? What might this example
provide regarding the tenets of sharing?
And is there any intentional connexion between the breaking of this
bread and the emergence of the Christian Communion that begins with the Peschal
Seder?
What makes it so
difficult for a rich man to enter Heaven?
And might this even be understood within a temporal manner: a rich man’s worries of material wealth
depriving the rich man from genuine Happiness?
--
Koran
Sura
19: Maryam (Mary)
There
is the story of Zechariah.
“Sufficient,
Guide, Blessed, Knowing, Truthful God.”
(v1).
“He
said: My Lord, my bones are weakened,
and my head flares with hoariness, and I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer
to Thee, my Lord.” (v4).
“He
said: So it will be. Thy Lord says: It is easy to Me, and indeed I created thee
before, when thou wast nothing.” (v9).
There
is the story of Mary.
“Surely
We inherit the earth and those thereon, and to Us they are returned.” (v40).
“And
mention Abraham in the Book. Surely he
was a truthful man, a prophet.
“When
he said to his sire: O my sire, why
worshippest thou that which hears not, nor sees, nor can it avail thee aught?
“O
my sire, to me indeed has come the knowledge which has not come to thee; so follow me, I will guide thee on a right
path.” (v41-43).
“He
said: Peace be to thee! I shall pray my Lord to forgive thee. Surely (Allah) is ever Kind to me.
“And
I withdraw from you and that which you call on besides Allah, and I call upon
my Lord. Maybe I shall not remain
unblessed in calling upon my Lord.”
(v47-48).
“And
mention Moses in the Book. Surely he was
one purified, and was a messenger, a prophet.
“And
We called to him from the blessed side of the mountain, and We made him draw
nigh in communion.” (v51-52).
“And
mention Ishmael in the Book. Surely he
was truthful in promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet.” (v54).
“These
are they on whom Allah bestowed favours, from among the prophets, of the seed
of Adam, and of those whom We carried with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and
Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose.
When the messages of the Beneficient were recited to them, they fell
down in submission, weeping.” (v58).
“But
there came after them an evil generation, who wasted prayers and followed
lusts, so they will meet perdition,
“Except
those who repent and believe and do good—such will enter the Garden, and they
will not be wronged in aught.” (v59 -60).
“They
will hear therein no vain discourse, but only, Peace! And they have their sustenance therein,
morning and evening.” (v62).
“Lord
of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, so serve (Allah) and be
patient in (Allah’s) service. Knowest
thou any one equal to (Allah)?” (v65).
“And
Allah increases in guidance those who go aright. And deeds that endure, the good deeds, are,
with thy Lord, better in recompense and yield better return.” (v76).
There
is reference to the Day of Judgment.
“Those
who believe and do good deeds, for them the Beneficent will surely bring about
love.” (v96).
“So
We have made it easy in thy tongue that thou shouldst give good news thereby to
those who guard against evil, and shouldst warn thereby a contentious people.”
--
How
do the respective stories of Zechariah and Mary, within the Koran, compare with
the same narratives within the Christian Gospels?
How
do the respective narratives of Avraham and Moshe compare with those found
within the Torah?
What
are the implications regarding the Muslim beliefs regarding Israel? Does verse 58 affirm a lineage of inheritance
from Avraham and Yitzak through Yaakov (Israel); and does the dispute of perspectives between
Muslims and Jews exist regarding the circumstances of proceeding generations of
the children of Israel?
How
does the service referenced within verse 65 compare with that of tyaga
described within the Bhagavad Gita; and
how do the proscribed interactions and relationships between a servant and
Allah compare with that between a servant and Brahman?
How
does the “increasing of those who go aright,” described within verse 76 compare
with the “he who is Faithful in little is Faithful in much” described within
the Gospels?
Within
verse 96, there is a conspicuous utilisation of the word, “love;” what are the implications regarding this
specific passage, and does this maintain any significance that may be unique
within the Koran?
--
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