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 37 Shelach Lecha; 118.10.9
Torah
B’midbar
13:1 – 15:41
“Adonai
instructed (Moshe) and said, ‘Send out scouts as spies to explore the Canaanite
territory that I am about to give the Israelites. Choose one scout from each tribe. Make sure that each scout is a leader of his
tribe.’” (v1-2).
The
names of the scouts are listed.
“When
(Moshe) sent the scouts to explore the Canaanite territory, he said to them,
‘Head north to the Negev, and then continue to the hill country.
“ ‘See
what king of land it is. Are the people
who live there strong or weak, few or many?
Is the inhabited area (beneficial) or bad? Are the cities where they live open or
fortified? Is the soil rich or weak? Does the land have trees or not? Make a special effort to bring back samples
of the fruits.’” (v17-20).
The
scouts purvey the land and the people.
“When
they came to Nahal Eschkol, they cut a branch with a cluster of grapes. It was so large that it needed two men to
carry it on a pole.” (v23).
“At the
end of forty days they came back from exploring the land.” (v25).
“They gave
the following report: ‘We went to the
land where you sent us, and as you can see from its fruit, it is (actually)
flowing with milk and honey.
“
‘However, the people living in the land are powerful, and the cities are large
and well fortified. We also saw the
descendants of the Anakim. Amalek lives
in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites,
and Amorites live in the hills; and the
Canaanites live near the Mediterranean Sea and on the banks of the
(Yordan).’” (v27-29).
“Caleb
tried to encourage the people. Caleb
said ‘We must advance and occupy the land.
We can do it!’
“The
other scouts disagreed with Caleb. ‘We
cannot conquer them! They are much too
powerful for us!’” (v30-31).
“Then
they began to spread discouraging reports about the land they had
explored. They told the Israelites, ‘The
land we scouted is a land that will defeat invaders. All the men we saw there were huge! While we were there, we saw Anakim. Compared with them we looked and felt like
tiny grasshoppers.’” (v32-33).
“That night,
after the report of the scouts, the entire community began to shout and
cry.” (v1).
“Two of
the scouts, (Yoshua) son of Nun and Caleb son of Yefuneh, tore their clothes in
shame. They said to the whole Israelite
community, ‘The land that we explored is a very (beneficial) and fertile
land!’” (v6-7).
“Adonai
said to (Moshe), ‘How long will this people continue to anger Me? How long will they refuse to believe in Me
despite all the miracles that I have done for them? I will kill them with a plague. Then I will make you and your descendants
into a greater, more powerful nation.’”
(v11-12).
Moshe
pleads with Adonai and references one of the previous communications from
Adonai.
“ ‘
‘Adonai is slow to anger, rich in love, and forgiving of sin and
rebellion. But (Adonai) does not forgive
those who do not repent. (Adonai) does
not leave the guilty unpunished, (Adonai) punishes the children for the sins of
their parents to the third and fourth generation.’
“
‘Please, with Your great love, forgive the sins of this nation, just as You
have forgiven them from the time they left Egypt until now.’” (v18-19).
“Adonai
answered, ‘I will pardon them as you have requested. But as surely as I live, and as surely as My
glory fills all the world, I will punish all the people who have witnessed My
glory and the miracles I performed in Egypt and the wilderness but who still
test Me and refuse to obey Me. They will
never see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors. None of those who doubted Me will ever enter
the land.’” (v20-23).
“The
only two exceptions will be Caleb son of Yefuneh and (Yoshua) son of Nun.” (v30).
“Your
bodies will rot in the desert. Your
children will wander from place to place in the desert for forty years, and sudder
for your lack of faith until the last of your corpses drop here in the
desert.” (v32-33).
The
scouts die in a plague.
Israelis
try to invade Eretz Israel and are summarily chased away.
Adonai
command the provision of offerings.
“The
foreigner who lives among you and presents a fire offering as a thank you gift
to Adonai, he must follow the exact same procedure. The same rule shall apply both to you and to
the foreigner who lives among you. It is
a law for all generations that the foreigner and you are the same before
Adonai. You and the foreigner who lives
among you shall be judged by the exact same law.” (v13-16).
Adonai
commands offerings amidst the community’s violation of a mitzvah.
“If a
person unintentionally commits a sin, he must bring a young female goat for a
sin offering.” (v27).
“The
exact same law applies to Israelites and to the foreigners who live among
you.” (v29).
“But is
a person deliberately commits a sin, then it makes no difference whether he is
an Israelite or a foreigner, he has wilfully disobeyed Adonai and shall be cut
off from the community.” (30).
“While
the Israelites were in the desert, they found a man gathering firewood for
(Shabbat).” (v32).
“Adonai
instructed (Moshe), ‘Tell the people to take him outside the camp and execute
him.’” (v35).
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe), and told him: Tell the
Israelites to sew fringes on the corners of their garments and insert a blue
cord in each corner of the fringe.
“ ‘When
they see the fringes, they will be reminded to obey Adonai’s commandments and
not follow the evil in their heart and be blinded by the degraded sight of
their eyes. When they see the fringes,
they will remember and observe all My commandments and be faithful to Adonai.” (v37-40).
--
Beyond
the characteristics that Moshe explicitly solicits, what additional
characteristics are beneficial to know about a new land that people are going
to inhabit?
What is
the nature of the doubt that exists within the scouts? After successfully departing from Egypt, how
does such doubt re-emerge to discourage going into Eretz Israel? How is proficient Faith sustained for an
enduring duration?
Is
there any legitimacy within the connexion between the exaggerated
characteristics of the fruit and the people within Eretz Israel and with the
significant distance that people often seem to perceive between the temporal
actuality wherein people respectively exist and the experience of continual
Peace and prosperity (and/or of Heaven)?
What is
the nature of the relationship of Adonai between Moshe and Israelis, in that
there is conversation and a perceived “malleability” of the Will of
Adonai? Is such communication of
“malleability” simply a façade to encourage “ownership” on the part of Moshe
and Israelis? How does this compare to
the respective relationships between Arjuna, Sri Krishna, and Brahman; between Jesus and Deus; between the Buddha, Enlightenment, and
Nirvana; and between Muhammad (PBUH),
the Angel Gabriel, and Allah?
How can
the doubt of Israelis be appropriately understood as the “hardness of heart” or
fear that generally seems to exist within convention; and what lessons, from this passage, can be
appropriately shared to transform convention?
Is transformation even possible and/or desirable?
Amidst
the repeated and emphasised teachings regarding equanimity amongst native
Israelis and foreigners, how are such teachings reconciled within the
distinctions regarding enslavement, usury, and additional practises?
Whilst
the many of the distinctions regarding the treatment of the ger (foreigner) may
be perceived as archaic, there is the consideration that such laws are
revolutionarily compassionate when established a number of millennia ago; how might some of these commandments be
appropriate understood within a contemporary, global (Universal) context and
consciousness?
The
strings of the tzitzit are described as representing (or having some connexion
with) human hair; what
implications/limitations does this have amidst the awareness that the hair of
many people is wool-like, rather than string-like?
How do
the “corners with the tzitzit” compare with the “corners of the field”? How does this compare with the dresscode
respectively prescribed by the Buddha and Jesus? How does the concept of the reminder of the
tzitzit compare with the Buddha’s description of severe austerity being
conducted substantially as a means of gaining recognition (and perhaps economic
benefit) within a community?
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 1
Dhritarashtra solicits Sanjaya to describe the
battle scene between the Pandavas and the Kurus.
Sanjaya describes Duryohdhana’s conversation with
his teacher, Drona, observing the forces of the Pandavas.
“O my teacher, look at this mighty army of the
Pandavas, assembled by your own gifted disciple, Yudhishthira.” (v3).
Duryodhana admires the forces of the Pandavas and
proclaims the valour of his own forces, the Kurus.
Bhishma, of the Kurus, blows his conch horn.
Sri Krishna and Arjuna both blow conch horns.
Arjuna commands Sri Krishna to drive the chariot
within the middle of the battlefield.
“And Arjuna, standing between the two armies, saw
fathers and grandfathers, teachers, uncles, and brothers, sons and grandsons,
in-laws and friends.
“Seeing his kinsmen established in opposition,
Arjuna was overcome by sorrow. Despairing, he spoke these words:” (v26-27).
Arjuna becomes sorrowful with the prospect of
fighting his relatives.
“Though they are overpowered by greed and see no
evil in destroying families or injuring friends, we see these evils.” (v38).
“When a family declines, ancient traditions are
destroyed. With them are lost the spiritual foundations for life, and the
family loses its sense of unity.
“Where there is no sense of unity, the women of the
family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged
into chaos.
“Social chaos is hell for the family and for those
who have destroyed the family as well. It disrupts the process of spiritual
evolution begun by our ancestors.
“The timeless spiritual foundations of family and
society would be destroyed by these terrible deeds, which violate the unity of
life.” (v40-43).
Arjuna refuses to fight.
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapters 1
“O Sanjaya,
tell me what happened at Kurukshetra, the field of (Dharma), where my family
and the Pandavas gathered to fight.” (v1).
“Having
surveyed the forces of the Pandavas arrayed for battle, prince Duryodhana
approached his teacher, Drona, and spoke.
“ ‘O my
teacher, look at this mighty army of the Pandavas, assembled by your own gifted
disciple, Yudhishtira.’” (v2-3).
The soldiers
of the Pandavas are described.
The soldiers
of the Kurus are described.
“Our army is
unlimited and commanded by Bhishma; theirs is small and commanded by
Bhima.” (v10).
“Then the
powerful Bhishma, the grandsire, oldest of all the Kurus, in order to cheer
Duryodhana, roared like a lion and blew his conch horn.” (v12).
“Then Sri
Krishna and Arjuna, who were standing in a mighty chariot yoked with white
horses, blew their divine conchs.” (v14).
“…and the
noise tore through the heart of Duryodhana’s army. Indeed, the sound was
tumultuous, echoing throughout heaven and earth.” (v19).
“Then, O
Dhritarashtra, (leader) of the earth, having seen your son’s forces set in
their places and the fighting about to begin, Arjuna spoke theses words to Sri
Krishna:” (v20).
“O Krishna,
drive my chariot between the two armies.
“I want to
see those who desire to fight with me. With whom will this battle be
fought?” (v21-22).
“And Arjuna,
standing between the two armies, saw fathers and grandfathers, teachers,
uncles, and brothers, sons and grandsons, in-laws and friends.
“Seeing his
kinsmen established in opposition, Arjuna was overcome by sorrow.
Despairing, he spoke these words:” (v26-27).
Arjuna
explains his sorrow.
“When a
family declines, ancient traditions are destroyed. With them are lost the
spiritual foundations for life, and the family loses its sense of unity.
“Where there
is no sense of unity, the women of the family become corrupt; and with
the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos.
“Social chaos
is hell for the family and for those who have destroyed the family as
well. It disrupts the process of spiritual evolution begun by our
ancestors.
“The timeless
spiritual foundations of family and society would be destroyed by these
terrible deeds, which violate the unity of life.
“It is said
that those whose family (Dharma) has been destroyed dwell in hell.
“This is a
great sin! We are prepared to kill our own relations out of greed for the
pleasures of a kingdom.” (v40-45).
“Overwhelmed
by sorrow, Arjuna spoke these words. And casting away his bow and his
arrows, he sat down in his chariot in the middle of the battlefield.”
(v47).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 1 – 2
It seems interesting that the narrative of the
Bhagavad Gita is begun with a conversation between the antagonists of the
story, King Dhritarashtra and his disciple, Sanjaya, of the Kurus; and that the
entire narrative of the Bhagavad Gita is Sanjaya relaying to Dhritarashtra the
conversation between his “enemies,” Arjuna and Sri Krishna, of the Pandavas; is
this intentional? Is this an intrinsic illustration of the equanimity that is
explicitly taught within the Bhagavad Gita? And what lessons may this provide
with respect to “walking in another man’s moccasins;” understanding the
perspective of others, even one’s enemy?
How does this conversation, between Dhritarashtra
and Sanjaya, compare with the conversation, described within the Torah, that
Balaam and Balak have whilst looking over the camp of the Israelites before
attacking, as well as the provision of the blessing (paraphrasing), “How goodly
are your tents, Israel…”?
Is there any esoteric, metaphysical significance in
Arjuna’s command for Sri Krishna to drive the chariot into the middle of the
battlefield? Perhaps beyond, or rather than, a militaristic tactical maneuver,
does this interest of Arjuna signify an interest in mediation, searching for
the middle ground? Can this be considered as the tangible beginning, or
continuation, or Arjuna’s spiritual quest?
How does Arjuna’s reluctance to fight against the
Kurus compare with the command provided to the Israelites to abstain from
fighting against the descendants of Esau (Yaakov’s/Israel’s brother)?
There seems to be an intrinsic hypocrisy within the
prospect of fighting against one’s relatives: homicidally competing for
resources to sustain one’s progeny, yet understanding that one’s progeny are
eventually such relatives as well (suggesting the inevitability of such
continuing conflict); yet there is also the consideration of all humanity
existing as such “distant relatives;” and thus there is the consideration: how
do we appropriately facilitate balance amongst our respective communities and
relatives, to continually live prosperously and amicably?
The soliloquy that Arjuna provides seems rather
inspired and convincing; how does this compare to the nature of the Buddha’s
conversations with his contemporary brahmins, particularly regarding the
notions of family and asceticism? And, yet, Sri Krishna summarily rebukes
Arjuna’s comments, and eventually provides the crux of the Bhagavad Gita (the
teachings of which seem to actually confirm Arjuna’s initial proclamations);
how is all this appropriately understood?
Arjuna’s reference to the lifestyle of a beggar has
a negative connotation; how does this compare with the practise of asceticism
that is eventually described within the Bhagavad Gita?
Arjuna comments that, even amidst winning and
enjoying the “spoils of victory,” such spoils are tainted by the transgressions
required to acquire such; this speaks to an intrinsic paradox within life: that
sustaining one’s life necessarily requires some diminishment within the lives
of others; how do the Bhagavad Gita and additional Holy Scriptures resolve this
intrinsic paradox of life?
In consoling Arjuna (in Chapter 2, Verse 12), Sri
Krishna communicates directly through the aesthetic façade of Arjuna’s material
existence, his persona, and his ego, and connects directly with the Universal
Divine presence that exists within Arjuna; what are some examples of such
communication within additional Holy Scriptures, and what are some anecdotes in
how you experience such communication?
Within Chapter 2, Sri Krishna begins to communicate
a doctrine of equanimity and Divine indifference; how does this compare with
the instruction to fight? The practise of absolute indifference seems to lead
quickly to death by dehydration; what is an appropriate balance, moderation of
such a principle?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 1 – 2
Is there any
metaphysical, esoteric, and/or spiritual significance that is to be
appropriately gleaned from the description of the competition of conchs between
the Kurus and the Pandavas (including the “lion roars” and “tearing through
hearts”)?
Amidst seeing
his uncles and cousins prepared to fight against him on the battlefield, might
Arjuna, in some manner, also be considering the prospect of the eventual
interactions between his own progeny, even amidst his success upon the
battlefield? Within the history of humanity, is there validity within the
proclamations that are wars are committed by cousins and brothers against each
other?
Does Arjuna
begin meditating within the middle of the battlefield? Is his
conversation with Sri Krishna simply a process of his spiritual
meditation? Might even the entire battlefield be conjured through his
meditative process (and/or, perhaps the meditative process of the student of
the Bhagavad Gita)?
Within Sri
Krishna’s immediate response, Sri Krishna commands Arjuna to fight the enemy
(presuming the army of Dhritarastra); yet, later, Sri Krishna describes
the actual enemy as Arjuna’s own selfishness; and from that, there are
subsequent, alternating commands and descriptions of who the enemy is and what
tangible actions Arjuna is supposed to manifest (violence and war or meditation
and giving); what is the actual progression of these alternations, and
what is the ultimate guidance to be appropriately gleaned from the aggregate of
these commands and descriptions? How does this compare with additional
teachings within Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam?
How is it
possible to speak directly through another person’s ego into the Atman within
another individual? What is the nature of such communication, and the
connexion amongst such beings? Are there any additional descriptions of
similar communication within the narratives of additional religious traditions?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Udumbarika
Sihanada Suttanta
“Thus
have I heard:
“The
Exalted One was once staying near Rajagaha, on the Vulture’s Peak. Now at that time there was sojourning in
Queen Udumbarika’s Park assigned to the Wanderers the Wanderer Nigrodha,
together with a great company of Wanderers, even three thousand. Now the householder Sandhana went forth in
the afternoon from Rajagaha to call on the Exalted One. Then it occurred to him: It is not timely to call just now on the
Exalted One; he will be in
retirement. Nor is it the hour for
calling on the brethren who are practising mind-culture; they will be in retirement. What if I were to go to Udumbarika’s Park and
find our Nigrodha, the Wanderer? And
Sandhana did so.
“Now at
that time Nigrodha the Wanderer was seated with his large company, all talking
with loud voices, with noise and clamour, carrying on childish talk of various
kinds, to wit: tales of kings, robbers
and state officials; tales of armies,
panics, and battles; talk about foods
and drinks, and clothes, beds, garlands, and perfumes; talks about relatives; talks about carriages, villages, towns,
cities, and countries; talks about
women; talks of heroes; gossip from street-corners and the places for
drawing water; ghost-stories; desultory talk; speculative talk on the world and the
sea; on existence and non-existence.
“And
Nigrodha the Wanderer saw the householder Sandhana approaching in the distance,
and called his own company to order, saying:
Be still, sirs, and make no noise.
Here is a disciple of the Samana Gotama coming, the householder
Sandhana. Whatever white-robed lay
disciples of Gotama there be dwelling at Rajagaha, this Sandhana is one of
them. Now these (benevolent) gentlemen
delight in quiet; they are trained in
quiet; they speak in praise of
quiet. How well it were if, seeing how
quiet the assembly is, he should see fit to join us. And when he spake thus, the Wanderers kept
silence.” (v1-3).
Sandhana
criticises the loudness of Nigrodha and the assembly, and honours the example
of serenity of the Buddha.
Nigordha
rebukes Sandhana’s criticism, and challenges the example of the Buddha.
“The
Samana Gotama’s insight is ruined by his habit of seclusion. He is not at home in conducting an
assembly. He is not ready in
conversation. He is occupied only with
the fringes of things. Even as a
one-eyed cow that, walking in a circle, follows only the outskirts, so is the
Samana Gotama. Why forsooth,
householder, if the Samana Gotama were to come to this assembly, with a single
question only could we settle him; yea,
methinks we could roll him over like an empty pot.” (v5).
“Now
the Exalted One heard with his clair-audient sense of hearing, pure, and
surpassing that of man, this conversation between Sandhana the householder and
Nigrodha the Wanderer.” (v6).
The
Buddha immediately visits the vicinity of Nigrodha, and begins walking on
air; Nigrodha similarly addresses the
assembly to welcome the Buddha.
The
Buddha arrives, and Nigrodha poses a question.
“What,
(leader), is this religion of the Exalted One, wherein he trains his disciples,
and which those disciples, so trained by the Exalted One as to win comfort, acknowledge
to be their utmost support and the fundamental principle of
righteousness?” (v7).
“Difficult
is it, Nigrodha, for one of another view, of another persuasion, or another
confession, without practice and without teaching, to understand that wherein I
train my disciples, and which they, so trained as to win comfort, acknowledge
to their utmost support and the fundamental principle of righteousness. Come now, Nigrodha, ask me a question about
your own doctrine, about austere scrupulousness of life: in what dos the fulfilment, in what dos the
non-fulfilment of these self-mortifications consist?” (v7).
“When
he had said this, the Wanderers exclaimed loudly, with noise and clamour: Wonderful, sir! Marvellous is it, sir, the great gifts and
power of the Samana Gotama in withholding his own theories and inviting the
discussion of those of others!” (v7).
“Then
Nigrodha bade the Wanderers be quiet, and spake thus to the Exalted One: We, (leader), profess self-mortifying
austerities; we hold them to be
essential; we cleave to them.” (v8).
The
Buddha details examples of severe asceticism, and then criticises the practise
of such: self-complacency; despising others; inebriation, infatuation, carelessness; complacency after receiving fame, gifts; self-exaltation over others; inebriation, infatuation, and carelessness
after gifts; arrogance in selecting
food; searching for favour amongst
rajas; jealousy towards practises other
ascetics; jealousy towards gifts for
other ascetics; sitting in public; deception in receiving alms; unTruthfulness; unappreciation towards Tathagatas; temper and enmity; and, hypocrisy and additional malevolence.
The
Buddha describes a practise without such tendencies, and Nigrodha agrees with
merits.
The
Buddha teaches an increasingly righteous practise.
“Take
the case, Nigrodha, of an ascetic self-restrained by the Restraint of the
Fourfold Watch. What is the Restraint of
the Fourfold Watch? It is when an
ascetic inflicts injury on no living thing, nor causes injury to be inflicted
on any living thing, nor approves thereof.
He takes not what is not given, nor approves thereof. He utters no lies, nor causes lies to be
uttered, nor approves thereof. He craves
not for the pleasures of sense, nor leads others to crave for them, nor
approves thereof. Now it is thus,
Nigrodha, that the ascetic becomes self-restrained by the Restraint of the
Fourfold-Watch.” (v16).
The
Buddha describes the alleviation of the 5 Hindrances: hankering after the world, ill-will, sloth
and torpor, flurry and worry, and doubt.
The
Buddha describes pervading the entire world with the thought of love, pity, and
equanimity.
The
Buddha describes the recollection of previous states of existence.
The
Buddha describes the acquisition of deva-vision: being able to read the existences of other
beings.
The
Buddha describes this as the pinnacle.
The
wanderers celebrate the Buddha’s teachings;
and Sandhana reintroduces the previous criticisms that Nigrodha voices.
Nigrodha
apologises to the Buddha for such criticisms.
The
Buddha asks whether Nigrodha’s traditional teachers describe an Arahant as
talking loudly in assemblies or retreating quietly in solitude; Nigrodha affirms the latter.
Nigrodha
apologises again.
“But I,
Nigrodha, say this to you: Let a man of
intelligence come to me, who is honest, candid, straightforward—I will instruct
him, I will teach him the (Dharma). If
he practise according as he is taught, then to know himself and to (Realise)
even here an now that supreme religion and goal, for the sake of which clansmen
go forth from the household life into the homeless state, will take him seven
years. Nay, Nigrodha, let be the seven
years. If he practise according as he is
taught, then to know for himself and (Realise) even here and now that supreme
religion and goal, for the sake of which clansmen go forth from the household
life into the homeless state, will take him six years, five years, four years,
three years, two years, one year,…six months…five months, four, three, two months,
one month, half a month. Nay, Nigrodha,
let be half a month. Let a man of
intelligence come to me, honest, candid, straight-forward; I will instruct him, I will teach him the
(Dharma), and if he practise according as he is taught, then to know for himself
and to (Realise) that supreme religion and goal, for the sake of which clansmen
go forth form the household life into the homeless state, will take him seven
days.” (v22).
“Maybe,
Nigrodha, you will think: The Samana
Gotama has said this from a desire to get pupils; but you are not thus to explain my
words. Let him who is your teacher be
your teacher still. Maybe, Nigrodha, you
will think: the Samana Gotama has said
this from a desire to make us secede from our rule; but you are not thus to explain me
words. Let that which is your rule be
your rule still. Maybe, Nigrodha, you
will think: The Samana Gotama said this
from a desire to make us secede from our mode of livelihood; but you are not thus to explain my
words. Let that which is your mode of
livelihood be so still. Maybe, Nigrodha,
you will think: The Samana Gotama has
said this from a desire to confirm us as to such points of our doctrines as are
wrong, and reckoned as wrong by those in our community; but you are not thus to explain my
words. Let those points in your
doctrines which are wrong and reckoned as wrong by those in your community,
remain so still for you. Maybe,
Nigrodha, you will think: The Samana
Gotama has said this from a desire to detach us from such points in our doctrines
as are (benevolent), reckoned as (benevolent) by those in our community; but you are not thus to explain my
words. Let those points in your
doctrines which are (benevolent), reckoned to be (benevolent) by those in your
community, remain so still.” (v23).
“But, O
Nigrodha, there are bad things not put away, corrupting, entailing birth
renewal, bringing suffering, resulting in ill, making for birth, decay and
death in the future. And it is for the
putting away of these that I teach the (Dharma), according to which if ye do
walk, the things that corrupt shall be put away, the things that make for
purity shall grow and flourish, and ye shall attain to and abide in, each one
for himself even here and now, the understanding and the (Realisation) of full
and abounding insight.” (v23).
“When
he had thus said, the Wanderers sat silent and annoyed, with hunched back and
drooping head, brooding and dumbfounded, so were their hearts given over to
Mara.”
--
What is
the reason for this Sutta being named after the queen who provides the land to
the wanderers? How might this practise
of conventional support for asceticism be proficiently maintained within
“Western” “industrial” and “post-industrial” societies?
Is
there any relevance within the observation that Sandhana intends to visit
Nigrodha before Nigrodha even sees Sandhana and prepares the assembly to
receive Sandhana? Does Sandhana intend
to visit irregardless of Nigrodha’s preparation? Do Nigrodha and the assembly already generate
sufficient merit to warrant Sandhana’s initial intention of visiting
Nigrodha? Is this an extension of the
serenity that Sandhana cultivates within himself?
Amidst
the experience of substantial equanimity, and accepting all the experiences of
suffering as emanating from 1’s own previous thoughts, words, and deeds, how
does 1 appropriately reconcile the notion that the respective suffering that
all other beings experience (even that which is facilitated through the
thoughts, words, and deeds of the individual considering such) are similarly
the results of the respective thoughts, words, and deeds of each respective
being? What affect does this notion have
upon the phenomenon of the ego and the personal self (amidst the implicit
suggestion that an individual’s own thoughts, words, and actions are actually
the manifestation of the thoughts, words, and actions of others; whilst simultaneously, all the respective
thoughts, words, and actions of all other beings also being the manifestation
of the thoughts, words, and actions of the individual considering such)? What does this reveal about the ultimate
unity amidst the infinity of the Universe?
How may this be perceived within an increasingly temporal, tangible,
ordinary manner; what may be some
“everyday” examples of this awareness and unity? And how can this awareness be cultivated to
increasingly alleviate the experience of dukkha within this temporal Realm?
Whilst
the wanderers marvel at the Buddha’s solicitation of a question from Nigrodha’s
own practise, what relevance is there for the Buddha to be able to explain the
Buddhist Dharma in a manner that Nigrodha and the assembly are able to
comprehend? Or, is soliciting a question
regarding another’s Dharma actually a lesson of the Buddhist Dharma? How does this compare with Jesus’s teaching
regarding the “last being first,” and the subsequent notion of individuals
“racing to be last”?
What
skill is necessary in being able to prevent lies from being told by others?
Within
this Sutta, the Buddha briefly describes the experience of past lives; within additional Suttas, the Buddha
extensively describes a being exhausting merit within another Realm and
immediately appearing within this temporal Realm; however, there seems to be an absence of any
description regarding the “reverse” of this Becoming: whereby a being accumulates so much merit
that the being immediately exhausts the being’s “demerits” and is immediately
transferred into another, higher Realm of existence (whereby instead, there is
the description of beings, within this temporal Realm, only achieving ascension
into a higher Realm through a life of benevolence and eventually experiencing
death [the passing from life]); is there
any legitimacy within this notion of immediate “Reverse Becoming”? Also, within the Judaism, there is the
practise of kashrut and the intricate separation of the “clean” from the
“unclean;” and within this, Israelis are
commanded to be mindful about eating any material, and even eating from any
items (including one’s own hands) that are defiled in some manner; how might this notion of “Reverse Becoming,”
be appropriately considered within the context of “Reverse Kashrut”: whereby, in addition to ensuring the
“absolute” cleanliness of one’s nutrients and the items that provide such
nutrients, observers of kashrut are equally diligent in maintaining the
“cleanliness” that emits from such practitioners, ensuring that the aggregate
consequences of every thought, word, and deed that an individual commits are
similarly “clean” and “undefiled” for every additional being and all life that
experiences such consequences?
The
Buddha describes the duration of days required for adoption of the Buddhist
Dharma, from 7 years all the way down to 7 days; how does this description of numerics compare
with the conversation between Avraham and Adonai regarding the destruction of
Sodom (regarding the presence of 10 righteous men); with the conversation between Jesus and Peter
(regarding forgiving one’s brother 70 x 7 occasions); and with the Koranic teachings regarding the
number of wives a man is permitted to have (1, 2, 3, 4…)?
This
Sutta concludes within a rather dismal and atypical manner, whereby the
listeners are described as being discouraged and succumbing to baser
tendencies; what is the purpose for this
conclusion, and what are appropriate lessons to be gleaned from this?
--
Gospels
John 4
Jesus speaks with the woman from Samaria at the
well of Yaakov.
“Jesus said to her, ‘Every one who drinks of
this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give
him will never thirst; the water that I
shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal
life.” (v13-14).
“Just then his disciples came. They marveled that he was talking with a
woman, but none said, ‘What do you wish?’ or, ‘Why are you talking with
her?’” (v27).
“Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying,
‘Rabbi, eat.’ But he said to them, ‘I
have food to eat of which you do not know.’
So the disciples said to one another, ‘Has any one brought him
food?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is
to do the will of (God) who sent me, and to accomplish (God’s) work.’”
(v31-34).
“After the two days he departed to Galilee. For Jesus himself testified that a prophet
has no honor in his own country.”
(v43-44).
Jesus heals an official’s son.
--
Gospels
John 4
“Now when the
(Leader) knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing
more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his
disciples), he left (Yudea) and departed again to Galilee.” (v1-3).
“He had to
pass through Samaria. So he came to a city of Samaria, called Sychar,
near the field that (Yaakov) gave to his son (Yosef). (Yaakov’s) well was
there, and so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the
well. It was about the sixth hour.” (v4-6).
“There came a
woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a
drink.’ For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me,
a woman of Samaria?’” (v7-9).
“ ‘The woman
said to him, ‘Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep;
where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father
(Yaakov), who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and
his cattle?’” (v11-12).
Jesus tells
the Samaritan woman about herself, and she perceive Jesus to be a Prophet.
“After the
two days he departed to Galilee. For Jesus himself testified that a
prophet has no honor in his own country.” (v43-44).
“So he came
again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at
Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill.” (v46).
Jesus heals
the official’s son.
--
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 47: Muhammad
Sura
48: Al Fath; The Victory
Sura
49: Al Hujurat; The Apartments
Sura
50: Qaf
“Those who
disbelieve and turn men from Allah’s way, (Allah) will destroy their works.
“And
those who believe and do (benevolence), and believe in that which has been
revealed to Muhammad—and it is the Truth from their Lord—(Allah) will remove
their evil from them and improve their condition.
“That
is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow
the Truth from their Lord. Thus does
Allah set forth their descriptions for men.
“So
when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make them
prisoners, and afterwards set them free as a favour or for ransom till the war
lay down its burdens. That shall be so. And if Allah please, (Allah) would certainly
exact retribution from them, but that (Allah) may try some of you by means of
others. And those who are slain in the
way of Allah, (Allah) will never allow their deeds to perish.” (v1-4).
“Surely
Allah will make those who believe and do (benevolence) enter Gardens wherein
flow rivers. And those who disbelieve
enjoy themselves and eat as the cattle eat, and the Fire is their abode.” (v12).
“A
parable of the Garden which the dutiful are promised: Therein are rivers of water not altering for
the worse, and rivers of milk whereof the taste changes not, and rivers of wine
delicious to the drinkers, and rivers of honey clarified; and for them therein are all fruits and
protection from their Lord. Are these
like those who abide in the Fire and who are made to drink boiling water, so it
rends their bowels asunder?” (v15).
“And
there are those of them who (search) to listen to thee, till, when they go
forth from thee, they say to those who have been given knowledge: What was it that he said just now? These are they whose hearts Allah has sealed
and they follow their low desires.”
(v16).
“And
those who follow guidance, (Allah) increases them in guidance and grants them
their observance of duty.” (v17).
“Obedience
and a gentle word was proper. Then when
the affair is settled, it is better for htem if they remain (True) to
Allah.” (v21).
“Surely
those who turn back after guidance is manifest to them, the devil embellishes
it for them; and lengthens false hopes
for them.” (v25).
“That
is because they say to those who hate what Allah has revealed: We will obey you in some matters. And Allah knows their secrets.” (v26).
“And be
not slack so as to cry for peace—and you are the uppermost—and Allah is with
you, and (Allah) will not bring your deeds to naught.” (v35).
“The
life of this world is but idle sport and play, and, if you believe and keep
your duty, (Allah) will give you your reward, and (Allah) does not ask of you
your wealth.
“If
(Allah) should ask you for it and press you, you will be niggardly, and (Allah)
will bring forth your malice.
“Behold! You are those who are called to spend in
Allah’s way, but among you are those who are niggardly; and whoever is niggardly, s niggardly again
his own soul. And Allah is
Self-Suficient and you are needy. And if
you turn back (Allah) will bring in your place another people, then they will
not be like you.” (v36-38).
“Surely
We have granted thee a clear victory,
“That
Allah may cover for thee thy alleged shortcomings in the past and those to
come, and complete (Allah’s) favour to thee and guide thee on a right path.
“And
that Allah might help thee with a mighty help.
“(Allah)
it is Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they
might add faith to their faith. And
Allah’s are the hosts of the heavens and the earth, and Allah is ever Knowing,
Wise—
“That
(Allah) may cause the believing men and the believing women to enter Gardens
wherein flow rivers to abide therein and remove from them their evil. And that is a grand achievement with Allah.” (v1-5).
There
is the description of excuses provided from desert dwellers.
“Those
who lagged behind will say, when you set forth to acquire gains: Allow us to follow you. They desire to change the word of Allah. Say:
You shall not follow us. Thus did
Allah say before. But they will
say: Nay, you are jealous of us. Nay, they understand not but a little.” (v15).
“Allah
indeed was well pleased with the believers, when they swore allegiance to thee
under the tree, and (Allah) know what was in their hearts, so (Allah) sent down
tranquillity on them and rewarded them with a near victory.” (v18).
“And
(Allah) it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in
the valley of Makkah after (Allah) had give you victory over them. And Allah is ever Seer of what you do.” (v24).
“Muhammad
is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the
disbelievers, compassionate among themselves.
Thou seest them bowing down, prostrating themselves, (searchin for)
Allah’s grace and pleasure. Their marks
are on their faces in consequence of prostration. That is their description in the Torah—and
their description in the Gospel—like seed-produce that puts forth its sprout,
then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem,
delighting the sowers that (Allah) may enrage the disbelievers on account of
them. Allah has promised such of them as
believe and do (benevolence), forgiveness and a great reward.” (v29).
“O you
who believe, be not forward in the presence of Allah and (Allah’s) Messenger,
and keep your duty to Allah. Surely
Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
“O you
who believe, raise not your voices above the Prophet’s voice, nor speak loudly
to him as you speak loudly one to another, lest your deeds become null, while
you perceive not.
“Surely
those who lower their voices before Allah’s Messenger are they whose hearts
Allah has proved for dutifulness. For
them is forgiveness and a great reward.”
(v1-3).
“O you
who believe, if an unrighteous man brings you news, look carefully into it,
lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.” (v6).
“And if
two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them. Then if one of them does wrong to the other,
fight that which does wrong, till it return to Allah’s command. Then, if it returns, make peace between them
with justice and act equitably. Surely
Allah loves the equitable.” (v9).
“The
believers are brethren so make peace between your brethren, and keep your duty
to Allah that mercy may be had on you.”
(v10).
“O you
who believe, let not people laugh at people, perchance they may be better than
they; not let women laugh at women,
perchance they may be better than they.
Neither find fault with your won people, nor call one another by
nick-names. Evil is a bad name after
faith; and whoso turns not, these it is
that are iniquitous.” (v11).
“O you
who believe, avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is
sin; and spy not nor let some of you
backbite others. Does one of you like to
eat the flesh of his dead brother? You
abhor it! And keep your duty to Allah,
surely Allah is Oft-Returning to mercy, Merciful.” (v12).
“O
mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you
tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the
most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is
Knowing, Aware.
“The
believers are those only who believe in Allah and (Allah’s) Messenger, then
they doubt not, and struggle hard with their wealth and their lives in the way
of Allah. Such are the (Truthful)
ones.” (v15).
“Surely
Allah knows the unseen of the heavens and the earth. And Allah is Seer of what you do.” (v18).
“Almighty
God! By the glorious Qur’an!
“Nay,
they wonder that a warner has come to them from among themselves; so the disbelievers say: This is a wonderful thing!
“When
we die and become dust—that is a far return.
“We
know indeed what the earth diminishes of them and with Us is a book that
preserves.” (v1-4).
There
is the description of the Creation and the natural miracles provided from
Allah.
There
is the description of Al Yom Qayimah.
“And
certainly We created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six
periods, and no fatigue touched Us.”
(v38).
--
The
teaching of Allah removing “evil” from believers implies that believers
actually have “evil” that warrants removal;
does the possession of any type of evil necessarily connote a lack of
Faith within Allah? What is the
distinction between the “evil” maintained by believers amidst the “evil”
maintained by unbelievers?
How may
the teachings provided within Verse 4 be applied to chronic, socioeconomic
battles/conflict that may be waged without, necessarily, direct physical
violence, yet that may also have rather significant consequences? What are appropriate protocols for responding
to such conflict and for resolving such conflict?
How
does the Koranic description of the Garden of Heaven compare with the Torah’s
description of Eretz Israel, within Parashah Shelach Lecha, as the scouts enter
into it?
How
does the Koranic teaching regarding being “increased” within guidance compare
with Jesus’s teaching regarding those who have receiving an additional amount?
How
does the Koranic teachings regarding the influence of the “devil” compare with
the Digha Nikaya’s description of the wanderers being overcome by “Mara”?
--
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