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 35 Naso; 118.9.27
Torah
B’midbar
4:21 – 7:89
“Adonai
instructed (Moshe), saying:
“Take a
census of Gershon’s two Levite families, the Gershonites and Meraris.
“Count
everyone from thirty to fifty years old who is able to work in the service of
the Meeting Tent.” (v21-23).
“Ithamar
son of Aaron the priest shall supervise the duties of the Gershonites at the
Meeting Tent.” (v28).
“All
the duties of the Meraris in the Meeting Tent shall be under the direction of
Ithamar son of Aaron the priest.” (v33).
The
census provides the proceeding results:
Kohathis: 2,750; Gershonis:
2,630; Meraris: 3,200.
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe), and said:
“Command
the Israelites to send away anyone in the camp who has a skin disease or an
infection, and anyone who is ritually unclean from touching a dead person.
“You must
remove all sick persons, male and female, from the camp so that they will not
contaminate the camp where I live among you.”
(v1-3).
“Adonai
instructed (Moshe), and told him to speak to the Israelites:
“If a
man or a woman has committed a sin against his fellow man, thereby being
unfaithful to Adonai and becoming guilty of a crime, that person must confess
the crime that he has committed and must repay what he has stolen. He must also pay one-fifth extra to the victim
of his crime. But if there is no relative
to whom the money can be repaid, then the money belongs to Adonai and must be
given to the priest. This payment is in
addition to the ram of the atonement, and only then is the sin forgiven.
“All
the offerings that the Israelis present as elevated gifts shall belong to the
priest.
“The
offerings are given to the priest and belong to him.” (v5-10).
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe) and told him: Speak to
the Israelites and say to them: This is
the law if any man’s wife is suspected of committing adultery and being
unfaithful to her husband.” (v11-12).
The
rules for the “sato” (the trial of bitter water are described): the priest writes a curse and commands the
wife to drink water, mixed with the Mishkan’s dust and the ink from the curse,
and recite the curse, to determine whether she is being honest.
“If the
woman has been (untrue) to her husband, the curse-bearing water will enter her
body and make her sick and cause her belly to swell and she will become
infertile, and she will lose her reputation and will become a curse among her
people.
“However,
if the woman is innocent and has not been unfaithful to her husband, she will
remain healthy and she will be able to give birth to children.” (v27-28).
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe) and told him to speak to the Israelites and say to them: This is the law when a man or a woman wishes
to take a Nazirite vow to Adonai. He
must not drink wine and liquor. He must
not even use vinegar made from wine. He
must not drink any grape juice or eat any grapes or raisins. As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat
anything made from grapes, including their seeds and skin.
“As
long as he is a Nazirite, he must never cut the hair on his head. During the entire Nazirite period he is holy
to Adonai and he must let his hair on his head grow long. As long as he is a Nazirite to Adonai, he
must not have any contact with the dead.”
(v1-6).
Rules
are provided for the resanctification of a Nazri, and the conclusion of a Nazri
vow.
“Adonai
said to (Moshe), telling him to instruct Aaron and his sons:
“You
will bless the Israelites with this special blessing:
“ ‘May
Adonai bless you and keep watch over you.
“ ‘May
Adonai bless you and protect you.
“ ‘May
Adonai smile on you and be kind to you.
“ ‘May
Adonai be (benevolent) to you and give you peace.’
“With
this special blessing I link My name with the people of Israel. And I Myself bless them.” (v22-27).
“On the
day that (Moshe) finished erecting the Tabernacle, he anointed all its
furniture and made each item holy. He
also anointed the altar and all its utensils and made them holy.” (v1).
“The
leaders of Israel, all of them the heads of their tribes, then came
forward. They were the leaders of the
tribes and the ones who had organized the census.
“The
offerings they presented to Adonai consisted of six covered wagons and twelve
oxen. There was one wagon for each two
leaders, and one ox for each one. They
presented the gifts in front of the Tabernacle.” (v2-3).
“The
leaders presented their dedication offerings for the altar. They placed their offerings before the altar
on the day that it was anointed. Adonai
said to (Moshe), ‘Let each leader present his offerings on a different
day.’” (v10-11).
“Nachshon
son of Aminadav, leader of the tribe of (Yudah), brought his offering on the
first day. His offering consisted of one
silver bowl weighing 3.5 pounds, and one silver basin weighing 1.75 pounds,
both filled with fine flour mixed with olive oil for a meal offering; one gold bowl weighing 4 ounces filled with
incense; one young bull, one lamb for a
burnt offering; one goat for a sin
offering; and two oxen, five rams, five
male goats, and five lambs for the peace offering. This was the offering of Nachshon son of
Aminidav.” (v12-17).
The
exact same offerings are provided by: Nethanel son of Tzuar, from the tribe of
Issachar; Eliav son Helon, from the
tribe of Zebulun; Elitzur son of
Shedeur, from the tribe of Reuven;
Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai, from the tribe of Shimon; Eliassaf son of Deuel, from the tribe of
Gad; Elishama son of Amihud, from the
tribe of Ephraim; Gamliel son of
Pedahzur, from the tribe of Manasseh;
Avidan so of Gidoni, from the tribe of Benyamin; Achiezer son of Amishaddai, from the tribe of
Dan; Pagiel son of Okhran, from the
tribe of Asher; and Achira son of Eynan,
from the tribe of Naphtali.
“Whenever
(Moshe) went into the Meeting Tent to speak with Adonai, he heard the Voice
speaking to him from between the two cherubs on the cover of the ark with the
Ten Commandments. That was how Adonai
communicated with (Moshe).” (v89).
--
The
opening of Parashah Naso furthers the distinction and responsibilities of the
Levis, the Kohathis (the family line of Moshe and Aaron), and Aaron and his
sons (the Kohanim), with Ithamar supervising the additional Levi families
(Gershonis and Meraris), and Eleazar previously described as supervising the
Kohathis; what is the nature of the
hierarchy amongst the kohanim, the Levis, and Israelis? In what manner do these distinctions (caste
duties) contemporarily exist? What is
the applicability of Jesus’s teaching regarding the common person needing to
have increasing righteousness compared to that of the Pharisees (and presumably
the kohanim, and additional conventional authority)? How might this be applied to the tangible
emergence of Moshiach, and Moshiachs?
What specific acts of righteousness and duties, within the kohanim, are
required within such Moshiach(s)?
What
are the implications and logistics involved within the notion of removing
unclean people from the camp when the camp is in migration; in what order, within the procession, do the
unclean people march?
Amidst
all the offerings that are made to Israeli Priests, for many different reasons,
what intrinsic responsibility exists within receiving and utilising such
offerings? Do such Israeli Priests
maintain a subsequent responsibility for providing charity to others (the
impoverished, the orphan, the widow, the ger [stranger], and additionally? If so, how does this fit within the context
of the general mitzvot for Israelis to perform such generosity? If otherwise, what protocols exist to prevent
the woeful accumulation of material wealth amongst the Israeli Priests?
Is the
“sato” ritual substantially a “placebo” to allay the fears and insecurities of
men? If so, how much such a process be
applicable to additional circumstances:
such as concerns about a fair business deal, or rumours within a
community, or perceived betrayal from a friend?
How might this potential “placebo” be applied even amidst an admitted
offender? What is the connexion between
this “sato” ritual and the commands for forgiveness?
What is
the nature of the Nazri vow? What is the
tradition, the practise, and the purpose?
How does the specific prohibition from intoxicants compare with the same
prohibition within Buddhism; and how
does the tradition of the Nazri compare with the tradition of asceticism within
Hinduism and Buddhism?
Is
there any significance/intentionality within the immediate sequence of the
descriptions of the “sato” trial, the Nazri vows, and the blessings conferred
upon Israelis?
What is
the Universal applicability of the blessing that is shared within the
conclusion of Chapter 6? How might
similar, Universally applicable, blessings be evidenced within additional
religious traditions? How does this
connect with: “Om. Shanti.
Shanti. Shantihi.”
Levis
are described as the Priestly leaders of Israelis, and the name, “Yudah,” is
generally (and contemporarily) utilised to describe those who identify as
descendants from Israel (recognising the continuing identity of tribe of Yudah,
and the militaristic characteristic associated with Yudah, amidst the historic
transgressions against Israelis); what
is the nature of the direct, and perhaps exclusive, connexion between Levi and
Yudah, particularly considering that Eleazar, the son of Aaron (of the Kohath
family of Levi) inherits the authority of the High Priesthood, and is a
descendant of both Levi and Yudah (with his mor being the sister of Nachshon,
the leader of the tribe of Yudah)? Is
there any intentionality within this union?
Amidst
the description of the respective leaders of the tribes of Israeli, there is
emphasis of the significance that Israel places upon familial bonds and
lineages; what is the nature of the
confluence between this strength of familial identity, and the inter-tribal
marriages that many descendants of Israel historically maintain with spouses
outside of the tribe of Israel? What are
some challenges that such inter-tribal marriages pose both towards Israelis, as
well as additional tribes? And what are
some benefits that such inter-tribal marriages provide to Israelis and
additional tribes? How does marriage with
another tribe historically help Israelis?
And how does marriage with Israelis, amidst the emphasis upon familial
bonds, help additional tribes?
What
may be a tangible description of the “Voice of Adonai” that Moshe hears? Is such a Voice gender-specific, or does it
exist beyond such a binary (and even androgynous ambiguity)? How does this notion of the Voice influence
contemporary psychiatric practises and diagnoses attributing psychosis to
individuals who describe the experience of “hearing Voices”? What are some additional means through which
the Divine is manifested to additional Prophets, within Judaism as well as
within additional religious traditions?
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 17
“Every creature is born of faith of some kind,
either sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic.
Listen, and I will describe each to you.” (v2).
“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.” (v4).
“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.” (v5-6).
“To offer service to the (deities), to the good,
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.
Sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic distinctions are
described for types of food and performing sacrifices.
“Calmness, gentleness, silence, self-restraint,
and purity: these are the disciplines of
the mind.” (v14-16).
Sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic distinctions are
described for motivations in providing such service and giving.
“Om Tat Sat:
these three words represent Brahman, from which come priests and
scriptures and sacrifice.” (v23).
“Those who follow the Vedas, therefore, always
repeat the word Om when offering sacrifices, performing spiritual disciplines,
or giving gifts.” (v24).
“Those seeking liberation and not any personal
benefit add the word Tat when performing these acts of worship, discipline, and
charity.
“Sat means ‘that which is’; it also indicates goodness. Therefore it is used to describe a worthy
deed.” (v25-26).
“To be steadfast in self sacrifice, self
discipline, and giving is sat. To act in
accordance with these three is sat as well.
“But to engage in sacrifice, self discipline,
and giving without good faith is asat, without worth or goodness, either in
this life or in the next.” (v27-28).
--
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 king, either sattvic, rajasic, or
tamasic. Listen, and I wil 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.” (v2-4).
“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.” (v5-6).
“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
regarding food and sacrifices are described.
“To
offer service to the (angels), 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
regarding disciplines and giving are described.
“Om Tat
Sat: these three words represent
Brahman, from which come priests and scriptures and sacrifice.
“Those
who follow the Vedas, therefore, always repeat the word Om when offering
sacrifices, performing spiritual disciplines, or giving gifts.
“Those
(searching for) liberation and not any personal benefit add the word Tat when
performing these acts of worship, discipline, and charity.
“Sat
means ‘that which is;’ it also indicates
(benevolence). Therefore it is used to
describe a worthy deed.” (v23-26).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 17 – 18
How does the Hindu (and perhaps Buddhist) notion
of service and charity compare with that of Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam? How do the teachings for service
and equanimity shared within these chapters (and additional chapters) of the
Bhagavad Gita compare with the mitzvot of righteousness (specifically regarding
servitude, foreigners, judgment, and economic interaction) shared within this
week’s passage from the Torah of Judaism?
What are the core, fundamental principles that are being addressed and
cultivated within each; and where is there
synonymity?
How is the perspective of multiple deities
reconciled with the belief in an Ultimate Reality that is Brahman? How can the “personification” of the Divine,
within different religious traditions and communities, be proficiently
reconciled so that such religious communities may be able to coexist,
cohabitate, coincide, and even cooperate with each other, and prosper, without
imposing one’s beliefs on the other?
Whilst delving within extremities, there is the
consideration of what actually is a “selfless act;” and a coinciding consideration with this
is: what actually is a “selfish act,”
recognising that every act has some type of benefit for someone else other than
the actor? Amidst this, and returning
into the gray area of regular life, there is the consideration of how to balance
such “selfless” and “selfish” actions (and speech and thought) to enhance what
seems to be intended within such “selflessness” (and perhaps even the
“selfishness”): wellbeing of all
beings; yet what is that wellbeing; what is an appropriate balance of such
wellbeing, particularly with respect to the respective intentionalities of
beings?
How does the description of “though he slays
these people, he does not slay,” compare with the description from the Torah
regarding the angel of Adonai driving out the previous inhabitants of Eretz Israel? What is being communicated within these
messages?
Amidst the described distinctions between
sattvic and tamasic knowledge, can it be considered that each individual
maintains some form of tamasic tendency (even whilst being sattvic); that even the Bhagavad Gita guides a
spiritual aspirant beyond the pursuit of such wisdom to transcend the gunas and
attain Nirvana?
How do the Hindu varnas (caste system) compare
with the code of righteousness within Judaism (considering the distinctions
made for foreigners, Levites, Kohanim, and additionally)? Are such distinctions simply self-serving to
the “priestly caste,” and/or is there some validity to the structure that such
segregation establishes?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 17 – 18
How
does the notion of “sattvic giving,” without any intention of receiving benefit
in return, compare with the Koranic teachings regarding “secret giving”?
Does
the mere discernment of whether an individual is worthy of a gift intrinsically
involve some sort of intention for receiving benefit when giving to a “worthy”
person?
What
actually, literally happens to the ego during the course of a “selfless” act of
giving? What happens to the ego during
the course of a selfish transgression?
What additional factors influence the nature of existence of the ego?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Payasi
Suttanta
“Thus
have I heard.
“The
venerable Kumara Kassapa was once walking on tour in Kosala together with a
great company of bhikkhus, to the number of about five hundred, and coming to
the Kosalese city named Setavya, he there abode. And there the venerable Kumara Kassapa dwelt
to the north of Setavya, in the Simsapa-tree Grove. Now at that time the chieftain Payasi was
residing at Setavya, a spot teeming with life, with much grass-land and
wood-land, with water and corn, on a royal domain granted him by King Pasenadi
of Kosala, as a royal gift, with power over it as if he were the king.
“Now at
that time there came over Payasi an evil view of things to this effect:--
‘Neither is there any other world, nor are there beings reborn otherwise than
from parents, nor is there fruit or result of deeds well done or ill done.’
“Now
the Brahmins and householders of Setavya heard the news:-- ‘They say that the
wanderer Master Kassapa, disciple of the wanderer Gotama, walking on tour with
a great company of bhikkhus, to the number of about five hundred, has arrived
at Setavya and is staying there to the north of the town, in the Simsapa-tree
Grove. Now regarding that Master
Kassapa, such is the excellent reputation that has been raised abroad:-- ‘Wise
and expert is he, abounding in knowledge and learning, eloquent and excellent
in discourse, venerable too and an Arahant.
And (beneficial) is it to interview Arahants like him.’ Then the Brahmins and householders of
Setavya, coming out from the town in companies and bands from each district so
that they could be counted, went by the north gate, to the Simsapa-tree
Grove.” (v1-2).
Payasi
goes to visit Kassapa, and explains his beliefs.
“ ‘I,
Prince, have neither seen or heard of any one holding such a view, such an
opinion. How then can you declare, as
you do, that ‘there neither is another world, nor rebirth as inheritor of the
highest heavens, nor fruit or result of deeds well-done or ill-done’? Wherefore, Prince, I will cross-question you
herein, and do you reply in what way you may approve. What think you, yon moon and sun, are they in
this world or in another world, are they divine or human?’
“ ‘This
moon and sun, Master Kassapa, are in another world, not in this, they are
(deities), not human.’
“
‘Then, Prince, let this be taken as evidence that there is both another world,
and rebirth as inheritor of the highest heavens, and fruit and result of deeds
done well or ill.’” (v5).
Payasi
remains unconvinced and shares additional anecdotal argumentation.
“ ‘Here
it is, Master Kassapa. I have had
friends, companions, relatives, men of the same blood as myself, who have taken
life, committed thefts, or fornication, have uttered lying, slanderous,
abusive, gossiping speech, have been covetous, of malign thoughts, of evil
opinions. They anon have fallen ill of
mortal suffering and disease. When I had
understood that they would not recover from that illness, I have gone to them
and said:-- ‘According to the views and opinions held, sirs, by certain
wanderers and brahmins, they who break the precepts of morality, when the body
breaks up after death, are reborn into the Waste, the Woeful Way, the Fallen
Place, the Pit. Now you, sirs, have
broken these precepts. If what those
reverent wanderers and Brahmins say is (True), this, sirs, will be your
fate. If these things should befall you,
sirs, come to me and tell me, saying:-- ‘There is another world, there is
rebirth not of parents, there is fruit and result of deeds well-done and
ill-done.’ You, sirs, are for me
trustworthy and reliable, and what you say you have seen, will be even so, just
as if I myself had seen it.’ They have
consented to do this, saying, ‘Very (well),’ but they have neither come
themselves, nor dispatched a messenger.
Now this, Master Kassapa, is evidence for me that there is neither
another world, nor rebirth not by human parents, nor fruit or result of deeds
well done and ill.’” (v6).
“Well
then, prince, I will yet ask you this, and do you answer even as you think
fit. What think you? Take the case of men who have taken a felon
redhanded and bring him up saying:-- ‘My lord, this felon was caught in the
act; inflict what penalty you
wish.’ He replies:-- ‘Well then, sirs, bind
this man securely, his arms behind him, with a strong cord; shave his head; lead him around, to the sound of a sharp
drum, from street to street, from cross-road to cross-road, and out at the
southern gate; there, south of the town
in the place of execution, cut off his head.’
They, assenting with ‘Very (well),’ proceed to carry out these orders,
and, in the place of execution, make him sit down. Now would the felon gain permission of this
sort from his executioners: ‘Let my
masters, the executioners, wait till I have visited my friends and advisers, my
kinsmen by blood, in this or that village or town, and come back’? Or would the executioners cut off the head of
this vain talker?’
“ ‘They
would not grant the permission, Master Kassapa;
they would cut off his head.’”
(v7).
Payasi
communicates continuing doubts.
“Here
it is, Master Kassapa. I have had
friends and companions, kinsmen, men of the same blood as myself, who have
abstained from taking life, from committing thefts, or fornication, from lying,
slandering, rude, or frivolous speech, who have not coveted, or had malign
thoughts or evil opinions. They anon
have fallen ill of mortal suffering and disease. When I had understood that they would not
recover from that illness, I have gone to them and said: ‘According, sirs, to the views and opinions
held by some Wanderers and Brahmins, they who keep the precepts of morality,
when the body breaks up, are after death reborn into the bright and happy world. Now you, sirs, have kept those precepts. If what those reverend samanas and Brahmins
say is (True), this, sirs, will be your fate.
If these things should befall you, sirs, when you have been there
reborn, come to me and let me know that there is both another world, rebirth
other than of parents, and fruit and result of deeds well-done and
ill-done. You, sirs, are for me
trustworthy and reliable, and what you say you have seen, will be even so, just
as if I myself had seen it.’ They have
consented to do this, saying ‘Very (well)’;
but they have not come and let me know, nor have they dispatched a
messenger. Now this again, Master
Kassapa, is evidence to me that there is neither another world, nor rebirth
other than of parentage, nor fruit and result of deeds well-done and
ill-done.’” (v8).
“Well
then, Prince, I will make you a simile, for by a simile some intelligent
persons will recognize the meaning of what is said. Just as if a man were plunged head-under in a
pit of mire. And you were to order men
saying:-- ‘Well now, masters, pull the out of that pit.’ They, saying ‘Very (well),’ were to comply
and pull him out. You were then to say
to them:-- ‘Well now, masters, brush the mire smearing him from off his body
with split bamboo.’ And they were to
obey you. And you were to say to them:--
‘Well now, masters, shampoo this man’s body a treble massage with yellow
shampoo powder.’ And they were to do
so. And you were to say to them:-- ‘Now,
masters, rub him with oil, and bathe him three times using fine chunam.’ And they were to do so. And you were to say to them:-- ‘Well,
masters, now dress his hair.’ And they
were to do so. And you were to say to
them:-- ‘Now, masters, deck him with a costly garland and costly unguent and
costly garments.’ And they were to do
so. And you were to say to them:--
‘Well, masters, take him up on to the palace and amuse him with the pleasures
of the five sense.’ And they were to do
so. Now what think you, O chieftain? Would this man, well bathed, well anointed,
shaved and combed, dressed, wreathed and adorned, clad in clean raiment, taken
to the upper palace, and indulging in, surrounded by, treated to, the five
pleasures of sense, be desirous of being plunged once more into that put of
mire?’
“No
indeed, Master Kassapa.’” (v9).
Payasi
continues to communicate doubts.
“Here
it is, Master Kassapa. I have had
friends, companions, kinsmen, men of the same blood as myself, who kept the
precepts, abstaining from taking life;
from taking what was not given, from inchastity, lying speech and strong
intoxicating liquors. They anon have
fallen mortally ill; and I, having told
them how some samanas and Brahmins say that, after such a life, one would be
reborn in the communion of the Three-and-Thirty (Deities), have asked them, if
they were so reborn, to come and let me know hat there was another
world,’” (v10).
Kassapa
explains the difference of the passage of motion between this temporal Realm
and the Realm of the Three-and-Thirty.
“ ‘But
who lets Master Kassapa know all these things:--that there are Three-and Thirty
(Deities), or that the Three-and-Thirty (Deities) live so many years? We do not believe him when he says these
things.’
“That,
Prince, is just as if there were a man born blind who could not see objects as
dark or bright, as blue, yellow, red or brown;
who could not see things as smooth or rough, nor the stars, nor moon,
nor sun. And he were to say:-- ‘There
are none of these things, nor any one capable of seeing them. I don’t know them, I don’t see them; therefore they don’t exist.’ Would one so speaking, speak rightly,
Prince?’” (v11).
Payasi
asks why ethical people, destined to a better life (amidst the knowledge of the
eventual attainment of an ultimately benevolent after-life), abstain from
committing suicide.
Kassapa
describes a parable of a pregnant 2nd wife who cuts open her womb to
attempt to bring forth her child to establish an inheritance claim.
“Moral
and virtuous Wanderers and Brahmins do not force maturity on that which is
unripe; they, being wise, wait for that
maturity. The virtuous have need of
their life.” (v13).
“Here
it is, Master Kassapa. Take the case of
men who having taken a felon red-handed bring him up, saying:-- ‘This felon, my
(leader), was caught in the act. Inflict
on him what penalty you wish.’ And I should
say:-- ‘Well then, my masters, throw this man alive into a jar; close the mouth of it and cover it over with
wet leather, put over that a thick cement of moist clay, put it on to a furnace
and kindle a fire.’ They saying ‘Very
(well) would obey me and… kindle a fire.
When we knew that the man was dead, we should take down the jar, unbind
and open the mouth, and quickly observe it, with the idea:-- ‘Perhaps we may se
the soul of him coming out!’ We don’t
see the soul of him coming out! This,
master Kassapa, is for me evidence that there neither is another world, nor
rebirth other than by parentage, nor fruit or result of deeds well done or
ill-done.’” (v14).
Kassapa
provides the example of Payasi existing within his dreams, being attended by
servants, who abstain from observing the passing of Payasi’s soul.
Payasi
describes weighing a convict before and after he is killed; and amidst the corpse being heavier and
stiffer, concluding an absence of a soul departing from the convict.
Kassapa
compares the weight of a heated iron ball and a cooled iron ball.
Payasi
provides another scepticism, involving previous experience with a convict.
“And I
say:-- ‘Well, my masters, kill this man by stripping off cuticle and skin and
flesh and sinews and bones and marrow.’
They do so. And when he is half
dead, I say:-- ‘Lay him on his back, and perhaps we may see the soul of him
pass out.’” (v18).
Kassapa
provides the parable of a trumpeter who visits another land, and after hearing
its sound, the people command the trumpet to make a sound, without success.
Payasi
provides another similar example of scepticism.
Kassapa
shares the parable of an inexperienced boy attempting to start a fire by
chopping the fire drill that is given to him to start the fire.
“Even
so, Prince, have you, silly and unintelligent, sought after another world. Renounce, Prince, this evil set of
opinions. Let them not involve you for
long in bale and sorrow!’
“ ‘Even
though Master Kassapa says this, I still cannot bring myself to renounce this
evil set of opinions. King Pasenadi the
Kosalan knows me, and so do foreign kings, as holding to the creed and the
opinion that there is neither another world nor rebirth other than of parents,
nor fruit or result of deeds well and ill-done.
If I, Master Kassapa, renounce these opinions, people will say of me:--
‘How silly is Prince Payasi, how unintelligent, how badly he grasps
anything!’ In wrath thereat will I keep
to it. In guile will I keep to it. In self-respect will I keep to it!’” (v21-22).
Kassapa
tells the parable of a “yakkha” who deceives the 1st division of a
caravan into thinking there is recent rains ahead along the path, and the 1st
division discards its provisions (to traveller lighter) and perishes amidst the
dry lands that are actually ahead; the 2nd
division refuses to believe the yakkha because he is unrelated and is without
previous friendship, retains its provisions, and continues successfully along
the path (also observing the remains of the 1st division).
Payasi
communicates similar difficulties.
Kassapa
shares the parable of a man who finds a pile of dry dung, and decides to carry
it home; yet it rains, and the dung
becomes runny, yet he continues to try to bring the dung to his house.
Payasi
communicates additional difficulties.
Kassapa
shares a parable of a gambler who observes his opponent cheating by swallowing
dice, and then poisons the dice, and his opponent experiences certain
adversity.
Payasi
communicates additional difficulties.
Kassapa
tells the parable of 2 friends who find a pile of discarded hemp and each grab
a load to bring home; along the way
back, the 2 friends find a pile of hempen thread, 1 friend grabs the pile of
thread and 1 friend holds unto the hemp;
then the 2 find hempen cloth, and the 1 takes the cloth and the 1 keeps
the hemp; the 2 further find flax, iron,
copper, tin, lead, silver, and gold, all in the similar manner; 1 friend returns with a load of gold (to
celebration), and 1 friend returns with a load of hemp (without celebration).
Payasi
proclaims the doctrine of the Buddha and solicits becoming a disciple of
Kassapa.
“So is
it, Prince, with that sort of sacrifice.
But where, Prince, neither oxen are slain, nor goats, nor fowls and
pigs, nor are divers creatures put an end to, and those that partake of the
sacrifice have right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right
livelihood, right endeavour, right mindfulness, right rapture, such a sacrifice
is of great fruitfulness, of great profit, of great renown, of widespread
effect.” (v31).
“Then
Prince Payasi instituted a gift to Wanderers and Brahmins, the poor, wayfarers,
beggars and petitioners. In that gift
such food was given as gruel and scraps of food, and coarse robes with
ball-fringes. And at that gift a young
Brahmin named Uttara was passed over.
When the largesse had been distributed he mocked, saying: ‘By this largesse I have met Prince Payasi in
this world, but how about the next?’”
(v32).
“Now
prince Payasi, inasmuch as he had bestowed his gift without thoroughness, not
with his own hands, without due thought, as something discarded, was, after his
death, reborn into the communion of the Four Great Kings, in the empty mansion
of the Acacia. But the youth Uttara, who
had objected to that gift and had bestowed his gift thoroughly, with his own
hands, with due thought, not as something discarded, was, after his death,
reborn in a bright and happy world, into the communion of the Three-and-Thirty
(Deities).” (v32).
--
What is
the distinction or synonymity between the “spiritual ascension” that the Buddha
attains with that which Kassapa attains?
What is the nature of the authority of the disciples of the Buddha,
particularly after the Buddha’s attainment of Nirvana? Amidst the teaching of only 1 Buddha emerging
within a certain duration of motion (an aeon or lacs of aeons), what
implications does this have regarding the respective attainment of Nirvana of
the disciples of the Buddha? And how might
any such distinction therein affect the nature of the recognised authority and
“spiritual ascension” that the Buddha’s disciples maintain before attaining
Nirvana?
In
describing his transgressive family members and friends, Payasi references 4 of
the 5 basic behavioural disciplines that the Buddha teaches: ahimsa, appropriate speech, celibacy (or
abstinence from fornication), and abstinence from stealing (with the 5th
being: abstinence from
intoxication); is this an intentional
reinforcement of this doctrine, and/or does this correspond with general
ethical precepts that exist during the temporal period of the Buddha; how does this correspond with the “Welt
Ethos,” the “Universal Principles of Faith,” and the respective doctrines of
basic behaviour within additional religious traditions?
In
soliciting his transgressive family members and friends to inform him of the
“afterlife,” Payasi explicitly communicates his trust and reliance upon such
individuals; what is the nature of the
duality and similitude between such transgressions, from some individuals, and
the affinity that others maintain towards such individuals (whilst recognising
the depravity within the transgressions)?
What is the nature of the connexion between that affinity and the
transgression? Does such an affinity
connote some intrinsic responsibility, also, for the transgression (and perhaps
some intrinsic benefit that is gained from the transgression)? Is each person intrinsically (and perhaps
inevitably) subjected to maintaining such association; is transgression an innate factor within the
maintenance of life? And if so, how can
the process of forgiveness and reconciliation be appropriately facilitated
amidst such an understanding?
What is
the nature of the parables that Kassapa communicates, as well as the nature of
the entire Payasi Sutta and it emphasis upon such parables (particularly in
comparison to the parables that the Buddha provides, and the additional Suttas
within the Digha Nikaya)?
Is
there a connexion between Kassapa’s initial description of the binding and
punishment of a prisoner, and Payasi’s subsequent description of having
personal experience of conducting similar transgressions? Might this be considered as a manifestation
of Becoming (and or the influence of suggestion)? What is the nature of the influence that a
religious/spiritual teacher/leader has within simply speaking and/or
interacting with another person, and implicitly and/or explicitly sharing
suggestion? Amidst the consideration of
such influence, what may be some techniques for a spiritual/religious leader to
impart unto others positive, affirmative suggestions (perhaps through positive,
affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, and deeds)?
And how might this be appropriately achieved, particularly when genuinely
addressing circumstances of severe suffering?
Are
there any intentional and/or intrinsic metaphysical factors within Kassapa’s
parable involving the retrievable of the man from the muck, particularly
considering the “yellow shampoo powder” as the yellow robes that a new
renunciant is issued upon becoming an ascetic, as well as similar implications
regarding the 3-part washing (perhaps referencing meditation or alms), the hair
(perhaps referencing the cutting of the hair), the costly garlands (perhaps
ironically referencing the lifestyle of austerity), the sensual amusements
(again, perhaps ironically referencing the practise of Samadhi to ascend beyond
such experiences)? Amidst such a
consideration, what is the comparison of the notion of the afterlife with the
renouncing of the Universe and adopting the spiritual life of asceticism? How might this compare and contrast within
the Christian notion of being “reborn”?
What
are the implications regarding the distinction between Payasi’s 1st
set of ethical family members and friends and 2nd set of ethical
family members and friends (who additionally abstain from intoxicants), amidst
the description of the 2nd set attain to the level of the
“Three-and-Thirty”?
How
does Kassapa’s reference to the blind man compare with respective references to
blind people within the Gospels and within the Koran? How does one “prove” the existence of a
phenomenon to someone who is otherwise unable to evidence it through the senses
(such as the Stars to a person without sight, or the scent of spices to one who
is without the sense of smell and perhaps taste)?
What
are some appropriate descriptions regarding the intrinsic paradox within the
belief that the purpose of life involves being benevolent, loving, and giving
to others, yet that maintaining life necessitates taking, and thus maintained
perceived malevolence and hatefulness (within one context or another)? What is the nature within the apparent
distinctions within this paradox: that
the necessity of taking (consuming matter and energy from the Universe) is a
tangible actuality; whilst the notion
that the purpose of life involves benevolence, compassion, and altruism, is an
intangible phenomena of Faith, belief, instinct?
How do
the graphic descriptions that Payasi communicates, regarding the punishment of
the prisoners, compare with the graphic descriptions shared within the Torah
regarding animal sacrifices?
In
sharing the explanation involving Payasi’s dream, does Kassapa affirm that
beings each have a soul?
What
makes it so difficult for Payasi to renounce his previous beliefs? How does this compare with the examples of
Avraham (leaving his far’s land), Muhammad (PBUH), Jesus, Paraoh, Caesar, the
Pharisees, Arjuna, Siddharta Gautama, and additional religious, Prophetic, and
conventional leaders?
The
parable that Kassapa shares (regarding the yakkha, within Verse 23) seems to
actually argue against asceticism, as it emphasises the retention of material
possessions and trusting only within familial relations and historic friendship
ties; is this an appropriate
observation?
What
are the implications of Kassapa’s parable (of the 2 friends and the hemp and
gold) regarding the relationships that an individual builds during the course
of an individual’s life? What is an
appropriate balance of loyalty, equanimity, and continual improvement?
--
Gospels
John 1 – 2
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. He was
in the beginning with God; all things
were made through (God), and without (God) was not anything made that was
made. In (God) was life, and the life
was the light of men. The light shines
in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (v1-5).
John the Baptists is sent to witness Jesus.
Jesus is described as being derived from God.
John the Baptist admits his abstinence from
being Moshiach (the Christ).
“They said to him then, ‘Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent
us. What do you say about
yourself?’ He said, ‘I am the voice of
one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the
prophet Isaiah said.’” (v22-23).
“John answered them, ‘I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not
know, even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to
untie.’” (v26-27).
“The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him,
and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” (v29).
“And John bore witness, ‘I saw the Spirit
descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.” (v32).
Disciples from John the Baptist begin to follow
Jesus.
“And they said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which means
Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ He
said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came
and saw where he was staying; and they
stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.” (v38-39).
Andrew introduces Peter to Jesus.
Philip and Nathanael follow Jesus.
“On the third day there was a marriage at Cana
in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus
said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And
Jesus said to her, ‘O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.’” (v1-4).
Jesus turns the water into wine.
“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he
found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money changers
at their business. And making a whip of
cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the
money-changers and overturned their tables.
And he told those who sold the pigeons, ‘Take these things away; you shall not make my (God’s) house a house
of trade.” (v13-16).
--
Gospels
John 1 –
2
“In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(The Word) was in the beginning with God; all things were made through
(Deus), and without (Deus) was not anything made that was made. In (Deus)
was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the
darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (v1-5).
“There was a
man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear
witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the
light, but came to bear witness to the light.” (v6-8).
“The (True)
light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the
world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He
came to his own home, and his won people received him not. But to all who
received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of
God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the
will of man, but of God.” (v9-14).
“And the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and (Truth); we have
beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from (Deus).” (v14).
Priests and
Levis are sent to inquire of John the Baptist; John the Baptist denies
being Moshiach.
“He said, ‘I
am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the
Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.’” (v23).
“The next day
he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who take
away the sin of the world!’” (v29).
“And John bore
witness, ‘I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on
him. I myself did not know him; but (Deus) who sent me to baptize
with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this
is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’” (v32-33).
“Jesus
turned, and saw them following, and said to them, ‘What do you (search
for)?’ And they said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which means Teacher), ‘where are
you staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came and saw
where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about
the tenth hour.” (v38-39).
Peter tells
Andrew of find Moshiach within Jesus.
Philip and
Nathanael follow Jesus.
“Nathanael
said to him, ‘Can anything (benevolent) come our of Nazareth?’” (v46).
“Jesus saw
Nathanael coming to him, and said oh him, ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom
is no guile!’ Nathanel said to him, ‘How do you know me?’ Jesus
answered him, ‘Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I
saw you.’” (v47-48).
“On the third
day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was
there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.”
(v1-2).
“When the
wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus
said to her, ‘O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet
come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells
you.’” (v3-5).
Jesus turns
the water into wine.
“After this
he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his
disciples; and there they stayed for a few days.” (v12).
“The (Pesach)
of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to (Yerushalayim). In the
(Temple) he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the
money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove
them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the (Temple); and he poured out
the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told
those who sold the pigeons, ‘Take these things away; you shall not make
my (Deus’s) house a house of trade.” (v13-16).
The people
challenge Jesus’s authority, and Jesus references his crucifixion.
“The Jews
then said to him, ‘What sign have you to show us for doing this?’ Jesus
answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this
temple, and will you raise it upon in three days. But he spoke of the
temple of his body.” (v18-21).
“Now when he
was in (Yerushalayim) at the (Pesach) feast, many believed in his name when
they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them,
because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he
himself knew what was in man.” (v23-25).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 1 – 4
The opening within the Gospel according to John
is distinct from the respective openings within the respective Gospels
according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke;
what is the reason, significance for this? Is John’s rendering of the Gospel intended to
rival the story of Creation, which its reference to the origins of the “Word”
and Jesus?
The opening within the Gospel according to John
also involves a substantial amount of circular references between God, Jesus,
and the Word; are these circular
references intended to blur the distinctions between these three phenomena, or
to emphasise the uniformity amidst these 3?
How does Christian Theology account for entirety of the infinity of God
being encapsulated within a material individual, and how does this compare with
the Bhagavad Gita’s teaching regarding the adhyatma of Brahman existing
synonymously within each individual?
Within Verse 1, does the Gospel according to
John, which exists first: God, or “the
Word”? Is there actually a distinction?
How do the descriptions regarding Jesus (the
proclamations of Faith from both the narrator and John the Baptist, within the
Gospel according to John) compare with the respective descriptions of
proclamations of Faith within the additional Gospels?
Within the description of the initial
interaction between Jesus and his disciples, there is the description of the
tangible, pragmatic, economic circumstances surrounding Jesus’s presumed
ascetic lifestyle; how does this compare
with that of the Buddha? And what are
the implications and guidance of how such circumstances are to understood,
and/or practised, within a contemporary manner?
Within this Gospel, Andrew is described as
introducing his brother, Peter, to Jesus;
why is this distinct from the narratives within additional Gospels?
Within the beginning of Chapter 2, Jesus seems
to respond to his mor’s request with a certain amount of disdain; what is the nature of the relationship
between Jesus and his mor, Mary? How is
this further evidenced through additional interactions (such as when Joseph and
Mary take the child Jesus to the pilgrimage in Jerusalem, and when Jesus later
describes all righteous people as his mor’s, brothers, and sisters)?
Within Chapter 2, the reference to “the Jews”
seems to come from the perspective of someone outside the fold of Judaism; is this a consequence of iterations of
translations into English versions of the Gospels, and/or is this a factor of
the original authorship of the Gospels?
If it is the latter of the 2, does the author communicate from the
perspective of a man of Jewish heritage establishing distance from Judaism, or
as a man who is raised outside of Judaism, altogether?
How does Jesus’s rebuking the money-changers and
traders within the Temple compare with contemporary economic practises within
Christian Churches and additional Houses of Worship within additional religious
traditions? Is there to be absolute
distinction between spiritual worship and material pursuits; and if so, how do such material pursuits
maintain appropriate guidance of righteousness and adherence to spiritual and
religious doctrine? How does a religious
community prevent the tendency of becoming a transgressive community outside of
the House of Worship, whilst maintain righteous pretenses and practises within
the House of Worship? What is an
appropriate balance; and what are some
examples of how this balance is sustained?
What is the nature within the proclamation of
Jesus being the “only” child of God;
from what basis, teaching is this derived, and how does this compare to
the segment of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount that proclaims descendancy from God
to all those who are righteous and cultivate Peace? How does this doctrine compare with the
historic beliefs, within Greek mythology and additionally, regarding the
procreation between humans and celestial beings? Why is belief in Jesus emphasised, rather
than belief directly in God?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 1 – 4
What is the
intentionality within the bold introduction of the Gospel according to
John? How does this compare with the respective openings of the Gospels
according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Is there an intention of
supplanting the significance, at least within Christian practise, of the
opening of Beresheit (the Book of Genesis within the opening of the Torah and
the Christian Bible)? Is there any excess within the proclamations that
are made within the opening of this Gospel; and what Truth is revealed
through the opening of this Gospel?
What is the
significance within believing in the “name” of Jesus? And does the power,
described as being possessed by Jesus to become children of Deus, actually
originate from Deus?
How does the
proclamation within Verse 14 compare and contrast with Jesus’s teachings that
essentially all beings existing as the children of Deus?
How does the
John’s Gospel’s introduction of Saint Mary (within Chapter 2, as “the mor of
Jesus”) compare with the respective introductions of Saint Mary, and the
narrative of the birth of Jesus, within the additional Gospels? What
distinction and influence does this within the narrative of the Gospel
according to John?
What does the
initial conversation and interaction between Jesus and Saint Mary establish,
and reveal, concerning a Christian mor’s expectations, interactions, and
relationship with her son? How does this compare with additional
religious traditions?
Verse 12
describes that Jesus’s family travels with him; what are the logistics
regarding Jesus’s travels and the maintenance of his familial relations amidst
these travels?
How does the
comparatively violent description of Jesus driving out the money-changers and
additional individuals outside of the Temple compare with Jesus’s teachings
regarding Peace and forgiveness?
Does Jesus
intentionally provoke Israel specifically within the plan to be persecuted?
How does
Jesus’s teaching, regarding Spirit and flesh, compare with the Bhagavad Gita’s
teaching regarding the Atman?
Does the
passage amidst Verse 18 suggest that, rather than simply denying Jesus, the
transgression of an individual who refuses to proclaim Jesus actually exists in
a precipitating manner that leads to such an act, rather than the act
itself? How does the “surface” concentration upon the proclamation
compare with the previously described tendency of concentrating upon the
appearances of blessings and curses (pertaining to this week’s readings from
the Torah)?
According to
the Christian Gospels, what is the distinction between a Samaritan and a Jew,
particularly as the Samaritan women proclaims Yaakov as a forebear?
--
Koran
Sura
43: Zukhruf: Gold
“Beneficent
God!
“By the
Book that makes manifest!
“Surely
We have made it an Arabic Quran that you may understand.
“And it
is in the Original of the Book with Us, (Truly) elevated, full of wisdom.
“Shall
We then turn away the Reminder from you altogether because you are a prodigal
people?
“And
how many a prophet did We send among the ancients!
“And no
prophet came to them but they mocked him.
“Then
We destroyed those stronger than these in prowess, and the example of the
ancients has gone before.” (v1-8).
“And
when one of them is given news of that of which he sets up a likeness for the
Beneficent, his face becomes black and he is full of rage.” (v17).
“And
they say: If the Beneficent had pleased,
we should not have worshipped them. They
have no knowledge of this; they only
lie.” (v20).
There
is the narrative of Avraham.
“And of
gold. And all this is naught but a
provision of this world’s life; and the
Hereafter is with thy Lord only for the dutiful.” (v35).
There
is the narrative of Moshe.
“Wait
they for aught but the Hour, that it should come on them all of a sudden, while
they perceive not?
“Friends
on that day will be foes one to another, except those who keep their
duty?” (v66-67).
There
is the description of Heaven.
--
Discussion
Questions From Sura 42 Al Shura (The Counsel) And Sura 43 Zukhruf (Gold)
The
explicit proclamation of the ultimate authority of Allah, within the opening of
Sura Al Shura, seems to provide a stark contrast to the proclamation of Jesus
at the conclusion of the Gospel according to Matthew (both specifically
referencing authority of Heaven and Earth); what is the nature of (some characteristics
within) the apparent dissonance between these respective proclamations? What are the similitudes between these
respective proclamations? What are the
temporal political manifestations/practises that are respectively derived from
these 2 basic proclamations? How can
these proclamations be genuinely and traditionally perceived as
synonymous? And what are some temporal
political manifestations/practises (insight and teachings) that can be
increasingly applied to enhance the perception and actuality of such
synonymity?
Within
the Koran there is the emphasis upon the revelation of the Koran existing
within the Arabic language, with additional emphasis that the Koran is provided
within the Arabic language so that the Koran may be appropriately understood by
the community whose natural language is Arabic;
yet there is also the description of additional revelations being
provided to additional Prophets, perhaps also within communities that speak
languages other than Arabic; thus, is it
appropriate for such revelations to be initiated and promulgated within a
language different from Arabic? How does
such a consideration influence the manner in which the Koran is contemporarily
taught, particularly within communities whose natural language is different
from Arabic? Is the original language of
Adam, Noach, Avraham, Moshe, David, and Solomon actually Hebrew and/or
Aramaic? What guidance does this
provide?
What is
the nature of the balance of free will and Omnipotence amidst the teaching
within Verse 13, regarding turning to Allah and being chosen by Allah?
Within
Verse 14, there is the description of dissension emerging within a community
only after knowledge is provided to the community, and individuals subsequently
become jealous; how does the Bhagavad
Gita’s teachings, regarding the 3 gunas of sattva, rajas, and tamas, factor
within this Koranic teaching? What are
some additional teachings, respectively within additional religious traditions,
regarding the nature of this confluence of wisdom, power, selfishness, and
righteousness?
What is
to be appropriately understood by the proclamation of similitude that, “Allah
is our Lord and your Lord”? Within
Islamic perspective and belief (and additional perspective and belief), what is
the nature of that commonality amidst the apparent continuing distinction
between a Muslim and someone outside of “the Ummah”? How does this compare with Jesus’s “sheep of
another fold” and “baptising;” with
Balak’s communication with Adonai; with
the Bhagavad Gita’s teachings regarding equanimity; and the general approach of the Buddhas
towards individuals outside of the Sangha?
What is the tangible unity amidst the many binaries?
Verse
20 seems to admonish the pursuit of material wealth and temporal
experiences; how does this compare with
the teachings regarding Heaven, and the bounties that is exist therein, which
are described within temporal/material terms?
What
lessons can the teaching of modesty and moderation, within Verse 27, provide
within contemporary economic policies and practises? How does this moderation of provisions from
Allah compare with the manna that Adonai provides within B’midbar (the
Wilderness)?
How
does the teachings of consequence, within Verses 30 – 31, compare with the
Hindu and Buddhist belief within Karma?
How is
the principle of, “meeting evil with evil,” reconciled with the practise and
teachings of forgiveness?
How
does the teachings within Verse 51, regarding the manner in which Allah is
revealed to a person, compare with the “Voice” described within the Torah? What is the nature (and perhaps,
intentionality) within the exclusivity of the identification of being a
Prophet? Does each person have the
propensity (and perhaps even the responsibility) of Prophesying?
What is
revealed, regarding the confluence of free will and Omnipotence, amidst the
teaching within Verse 20?
Amidst
the description of the competition between Moshe and Paraoh, does Paraoh’s
vehemence in disproving the existence of Adonai (Allah) actually provide
evidence of Paraoh’s belief in Adonai (Allah):
that otherwise, Paraoh might simply work to bribe and dissuade Moshe?
Within
Verse 67, there is the description of friends becoming enemies, amidst (Al Yom
Qayimah (the Day of Judgment); what does
this also reveal regarding the nature of free will and Omnipotence?
--
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