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 39 Chukkat; 118.10.27
Torah
B’midbar 19:1 – 22:1
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe) and Aaron, and told them:
This is the law of the Torah that Adonai has commanded the
Israelites. Speak to the Israelites and
have them bring a completely healthy red cow, one that has never done any farm
work.” (v1-2).
The
sacrifice of the cow is described.
“Those
who have any contact with a dead human being shall become ritually unclean for
seven days. They must purify themselves
on the third and seventh days by sprinkling themselves with the purification
water. Anyone who does not undergo
purification on the third and seventh days will remain ritually unclean even
after the seventh day.” (v11-12).
“Any
person who touches a dead human being and dos not have himself sprinkled shall
be cut of from the community of Israel if he desecrates Adonai’s Tabernacle by
entering it. Since the purification
water was not sprinkled on him, he remains unclean.” (v13).
Rules
are provided regarding cleanliness within the tent where someone passes.
The
purification process is described.
“Anyone
who sprinkles the purification water must bathe his body and wash his
clothing. If he merely touches the
purification water, however, he shall be unclean until evening.” (v21).
“In the
first month, the entire Israelite community reached the Wilderness of Zin, and
the people camped in Kadesh. It was
there that Miriam died and was buried.”
(v1).
“There
was no water to drink, and the Israelites blamed (Moshe) and Aaron.” (v2).
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe), ‘Take your miracle staff, and you and Aaron assemble the
community. Speak to the rock before
their eyes, and it will gush out water.
You will bring water from the rock, so that the Israelites and their
cattle can drink.” (v7-8).
“So
(Moshe) took his staff from before Adonai.
Then (Moshe) and Aaron assembled the Israelites in front of the rock.
“(Moshe)
shouted, ‘You rebels, listen to me now!
Now you will see water flow from this rock.’ With that, (Moshe) raised his hand, and
struck the rock twice with his staff. A
river of water gushed out, and the community and their cattle had plenty of
water to drink.” (v9-11).
“But
Adonai angrily said to (Moshe) and Aaron, ‘I told you to speak to the
rock. But neither of you trusted Me, and
instead you struck the rock in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not lead the Israelites
into the land that I have given you.”
(v12).
“That
is why the place was called Mai Meribah, because there the Israelites disputed
with Adonai, and there (Adonai) demonstrated (Adonai’s) power and gave them
water to drink.” (v13).
Moshe
sends ambassadors to Edom, requesting permission to cross through the land of
Edomites; the Edomite King refuses; Moshe offers to pay for any consumed
resources; the Edomite King assembles
his army; Israelis proceed in another
direction.
“The
Israelites proceeded from Kadesh to Mount Hor.
“When
they got there, Adonai said to (Moshe) and Aaron,
“ ‘The
time has come for Aaron to die and join his ancestors. He will not enter the land that I am giving
the Israelites because you both disobeyed (Me) at Mai Meribah.” (v22-24).
Moshe,
Aaron, and Eleazar climb Mount Hor, and Moshe provides Eleazar with Aaron’s
garments; Aaron passes, and Moshe and
Eleazar return down the mountain.
“When
the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that the Israelites
were moving along the Atharim highway, he mobilized his army and attacked them
and took some captives.” (v1).
Israelis
pray to Adonai for help and defeat the army.
“The
Israelites marched from Kadesh toward the Sea of Reeds so as to go around the
territory of Edom. The people became
impatient and complained.
“The
people spoke out against Adonai and (Moshe):
‘Did you take us out of Egypt to die in the desert? We have no bread to eat and no water to
drink! We hate our tasteless food.’” (v4-5).
“So
Adonai punished them and sent poisonous snakes that bit the people, and many of
the Israelites died.” (v6).
Israelis
repent and Moshe implores Adonai to remedy Israelis.
“Adonai
answer (Moshe), ‘Make a metal image of a poisonous snake and mount it on a tall
pole. Anyone who has been bitten can
just look at it and live.’” (v8).
Israelis
continue the migration of the camp.
“Israel
sent ambassadors to Sichon, king of the Amorites, with the following
message: ‘All us to pass through your
land. We promise to keep away from your
field and vineyards, and we will not drink any of your well water. We will stay on the King’s Highway until we
have passed through your territories.’”
(v21-22).
“But
Sichon refused to allow Israel to pass through his territories. Instead, he mobilized his army and marched
out to attack Israel in the desert.
“Sichon’s
army attacked the Israelites near the town of Yahaz.” (v23).
“Israel
captured all the Amorite cities. They
settled in Heshbon and its surrounding towns.”
(v25).
“Now
(Moshe) sent out scouts to explore the town of Yaazer, and later the Israelites
captured the villages in its vicinity, driving out the Amorites who lived
there.” (v32).
“From
there the Israelites marched northward toward the land of Bashan. Og, king of Bashan, deployed his entire army
at the town of Edrei to battle the Israelites.”
(v33).
“The
Israelites killed Og along with his sons and all his people, leaving no
survivors, and they took possession of his territory.” (v35).
--
Whilst
the rules for cleansing after contact with a corpse may be understood in a
hygienic and medical manner, what are is the esoteric significance of washing
with water after contact with a corpse?
What is the nature of the “uncleanliness” that must be remedied? And how is this distinguished from the
consumption of the flesh of dead animals?
Why
does a person become unclean after simply having contact with the purification
water?
How do
the complaints of Israelis to Moshe compare with the unbelief of Jesus’s
followers (and even his disciples)? How
does this compare with the contemporaries of the Buddha and Muhammad (PBUH)? How might such interaction be perceived
within the context of the narrative of the Bhagavad Gita and Arjuna?
How
does the copper snake compare and contrast with the golden calf?
How
does the contention between Israelis and Amorites differ from the contention
between Israelis and Edomites?
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 3
“O Krishna, you have said that knowledge is
greater than action; why then do you ask
me to wage this terrible war?
“Your advice seems inconsistent. Give me one path to follow to the supreme
good.” (v1-2).
“At the beginning of time I declared two paths
for the pure heart: jnana yoga, the
contemplative path of spiritual wisdom, and karma yoga, the active path of
selfless service.” (v3).
“He who shirks action does not attain
freedom; no one can gain perfection by
abstaining from work.
“Indeed, there is no one who rests for even an
instant; every creature is driven to
action by his own nature.” (v4-5).
“Those who abstain from action while allowing
the mind to dwell on sensual pleasure cannot be called sincere spiritual
aspirants.
“But they excel who control their senses through
the mind, using them for selfless service.”
(v6-7).
“Fulfill all your duties; action is better than inaction. Even to maintain your body, Arjuna, you are
obliged to act.
“Selfish action imprisons the world. Act selflessly, without any thought of
personal profit.” (v8-9).
There is connexion between service, pleasure,
and the devas.
“Every selfless act, Arjuna, is born from
Brahman, the eternal, infinite Godhead.
(Brahman) is present in every act of service.
“All life turns on this law, O Arjuna. Whoever violates it, indulging the needs of
others, has waster his life.
“But those who realize the Self are always
satisfied. Having found the source of
joy and fulfillment, they no longer seek happiness from the external world.
“They have nothing to gain or lose by any
action; neither people nor things can
affect their security.” (v15-18).
“Strive constantly to serve the welfare of the
world; by devotion to selfless work one
attains the supreme goal of life.”
(v19).
“What the outstanding person does, others will
try to do. The standards such people
create will be followed by the whole world.”
(v21).
“All actions are performed by the gunas of
prakriti. Deluded by his identification
with the ego, a person thinks, ‘I am the doer.’
“But the illumined man or woman understands the
domain of the gunas and is not attached.
Such people know that the gunas interact with each other; they do not claim to be the doer.” (27-28).
“Performing all actions for (My) sake, completely
absorbed in the Self, and without expectations, fight!—but stay free from the
fever of the ego.” (v30).
“Those who live in accordance with these divine
laws without complaining, firmly established in faith, are released from karma.
“Those who violate these laws, criticizing and
complaining, are utterly deluded, and are the cause of their own
suffering.” (v31-32).
“It is better to strive in one’s own dharma than
to succeed in the dharma of another.
Nothing is ever lost in following one’s own dharma, but competition in
another’s dharma breeds fear and insecurity.”
(v35).
“What is the force that binds us to selfish
deeds, O Krishna? What power moves us,
even against our will, as if forcing us?
“It is selfish desire and anger, arising from
the guna of rajas; these are the
appetites and evils which threaten a person in this life.” (v36-37).
Knowledge is hidden by desire.
“Selfish desire is found in the senses, mind,
and intellect, misleading them and burying the understanding in delusion.
“Fight with all your strength, Arjuna! Controlling your senses, conquer your enemy,
the destroyer of knowledge and realization.”
(v40-41).
“The senses are higher than the body, the mind
higher than the senses; above the mind
is the intellect, and above the intellect is the Atman.
“Thus, knowing that which is supreme, let the
Atman rule the ego. Use your mighty arms
to slay the fierce enemy that is selfish desire.” (v42-43).
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 3
“O Krishna,
(You) have said that knowledge is greater than action; why then do (You)
ask me to wage this terrible war?
“Your advice
seems inconsistent. Give me one path to follow to the supreme
(benevolence).” (v1-2).
“At the
beginning of time I declared two paths for the pure heart: jnana yoga,
the contemplative path of spiritual wisdom, and karma yoga, the active path of
selfless service.” (v3).
“He who
shirks action does not attain freedom; no one can gain perfection by
abstaining from work.
“Indeed,
there is no one who rests for even an instant; every creature is driven
to action by his own nature.” (v4 – 5).
“Those who
abstain from action while allowing the mind to dwell on sensual pleasure cannot
be called sincere spiritual aspirants.
“But they
excel who control their senses through the mind, using them for selfless
service.” (v6-7).
“Fulfill all
your duties; action is better than inaction. Even to maintain your
body, Arjuna, you are obliged to act.
“Selfish
action imprisons the world. Act selflessly, without any thought of personal
gift.” (v9).
“Every
selfless act, Arjuna, is born from Brahman, the eternal, infinite
Godhead. (Brahman) is present in every act of service.” (v15).
“Strive
constantly to serve the welfare of the world; by devotion to selfless
work one attains the supreme goal of life.” (v19).
“All actions
are performed by the gunas of prakriti. Deluded by his identification
with the ego, a person thinks, ‘I am the doer.’
“But the
illumined man or woman understands the domain of the gunas and is not
attached. Such people know that the gunas interact with each other;
they do not claim to be the doer.” (v27-28).
“Those who
are deluded by the operation of the gunas become attached to the results of
their action. Those who understand (this Truth) should not unsettle the
ignorant.” (v29).
“Even a wise
man acts within the limitations of his own nature. Every creature is
subject to prakriti; what is the use of repression?
“The senses
have been conditioned by attraction to the pleasant and aversion to the
unpleasant. Do not be ruled by them; they are obstacles in your
path.” (v33-34).
“Selfish
desire is found in the senses, mind, and intellect, misleading them and burying
the understanding in delusion.
“Fight with
all your strength, Arjuna! Controlling your senses, conquer your enemy,
the destroyer of knowledge and (Realisation).
“The senses
are higher than the body, the mind higher than the senses; above the mind
is the intellect, and above the intellect is the Atman.
“Thus,
knowing that which is supreme, let the Atman rule the ego. Use your
mighty arms to slay the fierce enemy that is selfish desire.” (v40-43).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 3 – 4
Is there such a phenomenon as an absolutely
“selfless” act, or is this simply an illusion;
similarly, is there such a phenomenon as an absolutely “selfish” act, or
is this also an illusion? What intrinsic
transgressions can exist within the most selfless of acts; and what intrinsic benefits to the Universe
can exist within the most selfish of acts?
How may such dynamics of selflessness and
selfishness be considered particularly amidst the notion of equanimity, and
being genuinely indifferent towards painful and pleasurable experiences?
Is “fighting the enemy of desire” to be
appropriately understood in a metaphorical, abstract manner, or as a tangible,
temporal manner? Does any individual
have an enemy that exists as another individual, or is desire and/or
selfishness, in and of itself, the enemy?
Is there actually a distinction between the temporal and the esoteric
battlefield; and is there any legitimacy
within the notion of the temporal battlefield simply existing as a mirror?
How does, “Fight with all your strength,
Arjuna!” compare with Jesus’s (and Moshe’s), “Love God with all your heart and
with all your strength and with all your mind and with all your soul”? How do these respective and/or simultaneous
battles look like within the temporal realm?
Within Sri Krishna’s description of being
manifested in finite form, does such assume the characteristic of a finiteness
to Divinity, as may be perceived within many Christian proclamations of Jesus
as being the manifestation of God, or is this appropriately understood as a
being maintaining Divinity whilst such Divinity existing beyond the individual?
How does the nature of action and inaction, as
described within Chapter 4 of the Bhagavad Gita, compare with the anecdote,
within the Gospel of John, of Jesus continuing to draw in the sand, whilst the
crowd prepares to stone the adulteress woman?
Amidst the teaching regarding indifference to
the results of action, how does this compare with the characteristics of the
guna of tamas; amidst such indifference,
how does an individual avoid the susceptibilities of tamas?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 3 – 4
What is/are
the appropriate balance(s) between selflessness and self-preservation?
And how is such a balance(s) effectively determined/established amidst the
responsibilities that a man has within the household life? How does the
interest of one’s own prosperity factor within the immediate wellbeing of
others? How do principles such as love, trust, modesty, honesty,
industriousness factor within this balance between the individual and the
community? How does a wife, and the household life, compare with the
ascetic life in determining a man’s “self-interestedness” and
“selflessness”? How does a husband’s relationship with his wife and
family compare with (and factor into) a man’s experience of “ego” and
“egocentricism”? How does this consideration of the man’s egocentric
household lifestyle factor within the manner in which this household lifestyle
propagates the livelihood and continuance of the ascetic lifestyle?
How does the
teaching regarding abstinence from “unsettling the ignorant” compare with the
Koran’s teaching with only being sent as a warner?
Are
“protecting benevolent,” “destroying evil,” and “re-establishing Dharma,” also
simply communications of the elements of the “Hindu Trinity” of Vishnu, Shiva,
and Brahma? And if so, is the speaker, as Sri Krishna, communicating
beyond the scope of exclusively 1 of these elements (specifically as the
incarnation of Vishnu), and actually speaking from the vantage of the Ultimate
Reality of Brahman? What are the nature of these layers, the simultaneousness
of such existences; and how are these to be appropriately understood (and
perhaps distinguished)?
How does the
“detachment from action” (and specifically the results therein) compare and
contrast within the tradition of mitzvot within Judaism? What is the
nature of the social dynamic (cohesion, cooperation, esoteric simpatico) amidst
those who similarly and intentionally practise the same principles/actions of
righteousness? What is the intrinsic nature of an individual’s connexion
with the Universe through the practise of such actions (how the individual
engages the Universe and how the individual perceives the Universe engaging the
individual)?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Agganna
Suttanta
“Thus
have I heard:
“The
Exalted One was once staying near Savatthi, in the East Park, at the mansion of
the Mother of Migara. Now at that time
Vasettha and Bharadvaja were passing their probation among the brethren,
desiring to become bhikkhus. Then at
eventide the Exalted One, having arisen from his meditations, had come down
from the house, and was walking to and fro in the open air, in the shade of the
house.
“Now
Vasettha saw this, and on seeing it he told Bharadvaja, adding: Let us go, friend Bharadvaja, let us approach
the Exalted One, for perchance we might have the (benevolent) fortune to hear
from the Exalted One a talk on matters of doctrine.” (v1-2).
Vasettha
and Bharadvaja visit the Buddha.
“Then
the Exalted One said to Vasettha: You,
Vasettha, being Brahmins by birth and family, have gone forth from a brahmin
family, your home, into the homeless life.
Do not the Brahmins blame and revile you?
“Yea,
verily, (leader), the Brahmins do blame and revile us with characteristic
abuse, copious, not at all stinted.
“But in
what words, Vasettha, do they so blame you?
“The
Brahmins, (leader), say thus: The
Brahmin class is the best.
“But in
what terms, Vasettha, do the Brahmins blame and censure you to this extent?
“The
Brahmins, (leader), say thus:
“Only a
Brahmin is of the best social grade;
other grades are low. Only a
Brahmin is of a clear complexion; other
complexions are swarthy. Only Brahmins
are of pure breed; not they that are not
of the Brahmins. Only Brahmins are
genuine children of Brahma, born of his mouth, offspring of Brahma, created by
Brahma, heirs of Brahma. As for you, you
have renounced the best rank, and have gone over to that low class—to shaven
recluses, to the vulgar rich, to them of swarthy skins, to the footborn
descendants. Such a course is not
(beneficial), such a course is not proper, even this, that you, having forsaken
that upper class, should associate with an inferior class, to wit, with
shaveling friar-folk, menials, swarthy of skin, the offscouring of our
kinsman’s heels. In these terms,
(leader), do the Brahmins blame and revile us with characteristic abuse,
copious, not at all stinted.” (v3).
The
Buddha states that brahmins are borne from brahmin women.
“There
are these four classes, Vasettha:
nobles, brahmins, tradesfolk, workpeople. Now here and there a noble deprives a living
being of life, is a thief, is unchaste, speaks lies, slanders, uses rough
words, is a gossip, or greedy, or malevolent, or holds wrong views. Thus we see that qualities which are immoral
and considered to be so, which are blameworthy and considered to be so, which
ought not to be sought after and are so considered, which are unworthy of an
Ariyan and are so considered, qualities sinister and of sinister effect,
discountenanced by the wise, are to be found here and there in such a
noble. And we may say as much concerning
brahmins, tradesfolk, and workpeople.”
(v5).
“Now,
just as the Sakiyans treat King Pasenadi of Kosala, so does the king treat the
Tathagata. For he thinks: Is not the Samana Gotama well born? Then I am not well born. The Samana Gotama is strong, I am weak. He is attractive, I am not comely; the Samana Gotama has great influence, I have
but little influence. Now it is because
the king honours a (Dharma), reveres a (Dharma), regards a (Dharma), does
homage to a (Dharma), holds sacred a (Dharma) that he renders homage and
respectful salutation to the Tathagata, rising and doing him obeisance, and
treating him with ceremony.” (v8).
“He,
Vasettha, whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established and
firm, a faith not to be dragged down by recluse or brahmin, by deva or Mara or
Brahma or anyone in the world, well may he say:
I am a veritable son of the Exalted One, born from his mouth, born of
the (Dharma), created by the (Dharma), heir of the (Dharma).” (v9).
“There
comes a time, Vasettha, when sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long
period, this world passes away. And when
this happens, beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding
on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period
of time. There comes also a time, Vasettha,
when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased
from the World of Radiance, usually come to life as humans. And they become made of mind, feeding on
rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory, and remain
thus for a long, long period of time.
“Now at
that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh
blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no
stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day,
neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor
male. Beings were reckoned just as
beings only. And to those beings,
Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savour was spread
out in the waters. Even as a scum forms
on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth
appear. It became endowed with colour,
with odour, and with taste. Even as well-made ghee or pure butter, so was its
colour; even as the flawless honey of
the bee, so sweet was it.
“Then,
Vasettha, some being of greedy disposition, said: Lo now!
What will this be? And tasted the
savoury earth with his finger. He thus,
tasting, became suffused with the savour, and craving entered into him. And other beings, following his example,
tasted the savoury earth with their finger.
They thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, a craving entered
into them. Then those beings began to
feast on the savoury earth, breaking off lumps of it with their hands. And from the doing thereof the self-luminance
of those beings faded away. As their
self-luminance faded away, the moon and the sun became manifest. Thereupon star-shapes and constellations
became manifest. Thereupon night and day
became manifest, months too and half-months, the seasons and the years. Thus far then, Vasettha, did the world evolve
again.” (v10-12).
Upon
continual feeding, bodies form, and thus, distinctions of appearance; favourable and unfavourable; amidst the pride of the favoured, the savoury
earth disappears.
“Then,
Vasettha, when the savoury earth had vanished for those beings, outgrowths
appeared in the soil. The manner of the
rising up thereof was as the springing up of the mushroom, it had colour,
odour, and taste.” (v14).
Beings
feast on this matter and become increasingly solid, with increasing
distinctions, and matter similarly disappears, and creeping plants appear; a similar cycle emerges.
“Then,
Vasettha, when the creepers had vanished for those beings, rice appeared
ripening in open spaces,
“No
powder had it and no husk.
“Pure,
fragrant, and clean grained.
“Where
of an evening they gathered and carried away for supper, there next morning the
rice stood ripe and grown again. Where
in the morning they gathered and carried away for breakfast, there in the
evening it stood ripe and grown again.
No break was to be seen where the husks had been broken off.
“Then
those beings feasting on this rice in the clearings, feeding on it, nourished
by it, so continued for a long long
while. And in measure as they, thus
feeding, went on existing, so did the bodies of those beings become even more
solid, and the divergence in their comeliness more pronounced. In the female appeared the distinctive
features of the female, in the male those of the male. Then (Truly) did woman contemplate man too
closely, and man, woman. In them
contemplating over much the one the other, passion arose and burning entered
their body. They in consequence thereof
followed their lusts. And beings seeing
them so doing threw, some, sand, some, ashes, some, cowdung, crying: Perish, foul one! Perish, foul one! How can a being treat a being so? Even so now when men, in certain districts,
when a bride is led away, throw either sand, or ashes, or cowdung, they do but
follow an ancient enduring primordial form, not recognizing the significance
thereof.
“That
which was reckoned immoral at that time, Vasettha, is now reckoned to be
moral. Those beings who at that time
followed their lusts, were not allowed to enter village or town either for a
whole month or even for two months. And
inasmuch as those beings at that time quickly incurred blame for immorality,
they set to work to make huts, to conceal just that immorality.” (v16-17).
“Then
Vasettha, this occurred to some being of a lazy disposition: Lo now!
Why do I wear myself out fetching rice for supper in the evening, and in
the morning for breakfast? What if I
were to fetch enough rice for supper and breakfast together? So he gathered at one journey enough rice for
the two meals together.
“Then
some being came to him and said: Come,
(benevolent) being, let us go rice-gathering.
That’s not wanted, (benevolent) being, I have fetched rice for the
evening and the morning meal. Then the
former followed his example and fetched rice for two days at once, saying: So much, they say, will about do. Then some other being came to this one and
said: Come, (benevolent) being, let us
go rice-gathering. And he: Never mind, (benevolent) being, I have
fetched rice enough for two days. And
so, in like manner, they stored up rice enough for four, and then for eight
days.
“Now
from the time, Vasettha, that those beings began to feed on hoarded rice,
powder enveloped the clean grain, and husk enveloped the grain, and the reaped
or cut stems did not grow again; a break
became manifest where the reaper had cut;
the rice-stubble stood in clumps.”
(v17).
The
beings contemplate the process of the degradation of existence of the beings,
and make a resolution.
“But
from evil and immoral customs becoming manifest among us, powder has enveloped
the clean grain, husk too has enveloped the clean grain, and where we have
reaped is no re-growth; a break has
come, and the rice-stubble stands in clumps.
Come now, let us divide off the rice fields and set boundaries
thereto! And so they divided off the
rice and set up boundaries round it.”
(v18).
“Now
some being, Vasettha, of greedy disposition, watching over his own plot, stole
another plot and made use of it. They
took him and holding him fast, said:
Truly, (benevolent) being, thou has wrought evil in that, while watching
thine one plot, thou has stolen another plot and made use of it. See, (benevolent) being, that thou do not
such a thing again! Ay, sirs, he
replied. And a second time he did
do. And yet a third. And again they took him and admonished
him. Some smote him with the hand, some
with clods, some with sticks. With such
a beginning, Vasettha, did stealing appear, and censure and lying and
punishment became known.
“Now
these beings, Vasettha, gathered themselves together, and bewailed these
things, saying: From our evil deeds,
sirs, becoming manifest, inasmuch as stealing censure, lying, punishment have
become known, what if we were to select a certain being, who should be wrathful
when indignation is right, who should censure that which should rightly be
censured and should banish him who deserves to be banished? But we will give him in return a proportion
of the rice.
“Then,
Vasettha, those being went to the being among them who was the handsomest, the
best favoured, the most attractive, the most capable and said to him: Come now, (benevolent) being, be indignant at
that whereat one should rightly be indignant, censure that which should rightly
be censured, banish him who deserves to be banished. And we will contribute to thee a proportion
of our rice..
“And he
consented, and did so, and they gave him a proportion of their rice.” (v19-20).
The
Buddha connects this appointment to the subsequent terms, Maha Sammata,
Khattiya, and Raja.
“Now it
occurred, Vasettha, to some of those beings, as follows: Evil deeds, sirs, have become manifst among
us, inasmuch as stealing, censure, lying, punishment can be noticed, and
banishment. Let us now put away from us
evil and immoral customs. And they put
away from them such customs. They put
away (bahenti) evil, immoral customs, Vasettha, is what is meant by Brahmins,
and thus was it that Brahmins became the earliest standing phrase for those who
did so. They, making leaf huts in
woodland spots, meditated therein.”
(v22).
“Now
certain of those beings, Vasettha, being incapable of enduring this meditation
in forest leafhuts, went down and settled on the outskirts of villages and
towns, making books.” (v23).
The
book makers are known as repeaters of the Vedas.
“Now,
Vasettha, there were some others of those beings who, adopting the married
state, set on foot various trades. That
they, adopting the married state, set on foot various trades is, Vasettha, the
meaning of vessa (tradesdfolk).” (v24).
“Now,
Vasettha, those of these beings that remained over took to hunting. But those that live on hunting, and suchlike
trifling pursuits, is what is meant by Suddha (the lowest grade of folk).” (v25).
“Now
there came a time, Vasettha, when some Khattiya, misprizing his own (Dharma),
went forth from home into the homeless life, saying: I will become a recluse. Some Brahmin too did the same, likewise some
Vessa and some Sudda, each finding some fault in his particular norm. Out of these four groups or circles,
Vasettha, the company of the recluses came into being. Their origin was from just these beings like
unto themselves, not different. And it
took place according to a (Dharma) (a fitness, justly), not unfittingly.” (v26).
--
Does
the Buddha reveal a certain bias in listing first the “nobles” (presumably the
caste from which he is temporally derived)?
And what is the meaning within utilising the term, “Ariyan;” is this a reference to the ethnic difference
amidst the different tribes who settle amidst the Indus River? And if so, what implications does this have regarding
the presumed teaching that the Buddha is providing regarding transcendence from
such divisions?
How
does the Buddha’s description of a follower being a son of the Buddha, compare
with the notion of being a son of God?
How
does the creation narrative within the Agganna Sutta compare and contrast with
the narrative of Creation within the Torah:
the 6 days of Creation and Shabbat;
the Garden of Eden, as well as the exodus from Egypt?
Within
the Buddha’s narrative of creation, what is the reasoning (what prompts) the
sequence of events that the Buddha describes:
why does the Universe dissolve and re-evolve, why do beings first
emerge, and additionally?
What
are contemporary, tangible socioeconomic lessons to be gleaned from Verse 17 of
the Agganna Sutta, and further, regarding the thought of gathering additional
rice for additional days, and delving into hoarding?
Amidst
the description of the effulgence of the Earth disappearing amidst the pride
and conceit that emerges within those who experience favour because of
attractive appearance, does the logic of selecting a man who has such an
appearance as a leader follow the same logic of selecting the man who
previously steals the rice of others?
How
does the Buddha’s narrative of Creation compare and contrast with some of the
additional traditional narratives of Creation within Hinduism, particularly the
divisions of caste being derived from the divisions of the different parts of
the body?
--
Gospels
John 6
Jesus feeds 5,000 people with 5 barley loaves
and 2 fish, with 12 baskets left over.
“Perceiving then that they were about to come
and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by
himself.” (v15).
Jesus walks on water.
“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of
life; he who comes to me shall not
hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” (v35).
“The Jews then disputed among themselves,
saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say
to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you.” (v52-53).
Some of Jesus’s followers leave, and Jesus’s
disciples remain with him.
--
Gospels
John 6
“After this
Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of
Tiberias. And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which
he did on those who were diseased.” (v1-2).
“Jesus went
up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples. Now the
(Pesach), the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Lifting up his eyes, then,
and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, ‘How are
we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?’ This he said to test him,
for he himself knew what he would do.” (v3-6).
“One of his
disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, ‘There is a lad here who
has five barley loaves and two fish: but what are they among so
many?’ Jesus said, ‘Make the people sit down.’ Now there was much
grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five
thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he
distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as
they wanted.” (v8-11).
“Perceiving
then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus
withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” (v15).
“When evening
came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across
the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to
them. The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing. When they had
rowed about three of four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing
near to the boat. They were frightened, but he said to them, ‘It is
I; do not be afraid.’ Then they were glad to take him into the
boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.”
(v16-21).
The crowd
searches for Jesus.
“When they
found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, ‘Rabbi, when did you
come here?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, (Truly), I say to you, you
(search for) me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of
the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food
which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for
on him has God the (Creator) set (Deus’s) seal.’” (v25-27).
“Then they
said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus
answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom (Deus)
has sent.’ So they said to him, ‘Then what sign do you do, that we may
see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the
manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from
heaven to eat.’’ Jesus then said to them, ‘Truly, (Truly), I say to you,
it was not (Moshe) who gave you the bread from heaven; my (Creator) gives
you the (True) bread from heave. For the bread of God is that which comes
down from heaven, and gives life to the world.’ They said to him,
‘(Leader), give us this bread always.’
“Jesus said
to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who come to me shall not hunger, and
he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” (v28-35).
“For this is
the will of my (Creator), that every one who sees the Son and believes in him
should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(v40).
“The Jews
then murmured at him, because he said, ‘I am the bread which came down from
heaven.’” (v41).
Jesus further
proclaims the necessity of eating from him.
“The Jews
then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to
eat?’” (v52).
“So Jesus
said to them, ‘Truly, (Truly), I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;” (v53).
“Many of his
disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can
listen to it?’” (v60).
“After this
many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus
said to the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered
him, ‘(Leader), to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal
life; and we have believed, and come to know, that you are the Holy One
of God.’” (v66-69).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 5 – 7
Amidst the invalid man being in such a condition
for over 38 years, is there a potential for Jesus to wait until after Shabbat
and heal the man?
Within the 5th chapter, Jesus nearly
equates himself to God, yet also distinguishes himself as a subordinate of God,
whereby God confers certain authority to Jesus;
what explanation is provided for God conferring such authority, and what
is the nature of such authority amidst the continuing Omnipotence of God (is
this arrangement predicated upon preceding Prophesies, or is this a
comparatively autonomous doctrine)? It
seems as though Jesus is being offered as an intercessor; is this observation accurate, and if so, what
are the implications of this? Amidst
such a belief, what is the nature of the direct connexion, and symbiosis, that
each individual maintains with God?
Within the Gospel according to John, there are
very strong, direct, and vehement proclamations of Jesus’s authority and
proximity to God; how does this compare
with the respective narratives within additional Gospels (particularly where
Jesus initially denies being the Moshiach, and when, upon healing other individuals,
Jesus instructs the individuals to praise God and provide the offering
according to the rules of Moshe)? How
does this also compare with Jesus’s subsequent teaching regarding the falsity
of one who makes self-proclamations?
Amidst the contemporary circumstance of much of
conventional society being governed by people who proclaim the Faith of
Christianity, and presumably the belief in the return of the Moshiach, does
this intrinsically mean that such authorities anticipate, if only
subconsciously, becoming the necessary antagonists of the Moshiach, and thereby
are immersed within a paradoxical duality (that may also be somewhat
symmetrical and uniform) whereby such authorities yearn for a Messianic
protagonist whom to persecute particularly as a means of manifesting the
Christian Prophesies of “Heaven on Earth”?
What lessons exist within the miracle of Jesus
feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish?
How does this compare with the manna that Adonai provides to the
Israelites? Is there a mass
psycho-spiritual experience whereby the hunger pangs of the respective groups
are satisfied wholly by the spiritual experience of being proximate with God?
How does Jesus’s utilisation of the first person
singular compare, and contrast, with Sri Krishna’s utilisation of the first
person singular? How do these compare
with the Koran’s utilisation of the first person plural? And how do these compare with the first
person singular, and plural, forms utilised within the Torah? And how does this compare with the Buddha’s
first person plural, as well as third person singular forms?
What does Jesus actually mean when instructing
his followers to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”? Is this meant literally, or is this meant as
a symbolic representation of living in the manner of Jesus? How does this compare with the Bhagavad
Gita’s teaching regarding the manner in which Brahman exists in all phenomena,
even within the sacrifices that are provided to Brahman?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 5 – 7
Within each
religious tradition, there seems to be a fundamental temporal contradiction
that challenges the integrity of each religion’s pragmatic doctrine: how
does Judaism overcome the contradiction of the “ger” (the stranger); how
does Islam overcome the command to follow the Sunna of Muhammad (PBUH), without
actually making the same claims of Prophesy as Muhammad (PBUH); how does
Christianity overcome the command to love as Jesus does without searching to be
killed or expecting someone else to be killed; how does Buddhism overcome
the implicit teaching of “Becoming” that the Buddha is effectively the
manifestation of 1’s own cognition; and how does Hinduism overcome the
tamasic (microcosmic) tendency of the varnas? Without challenging the
profound, esoteric wisdom and the benevolent pragmatic guidance that
respectively and commonly exists within Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,
Hinduism, and additional religious traditions, how do the teachings and
practises of any religion manifest the Universal consciousness of each
individual without simultaneously becoming susceptible to the apparent,
intrinsic contradictions (and subsequent hypocrisies) that exist within this
temporal life? Is there any validity within the notion that the only
fundamental distinction between beings is the respective nature of our energy,
and that humans simply tend to congregate with those who share a similar set of
hypocrisies, and effectively judge and condemn those whose hypocrisies are
considerably different? What is the appropriate level of love, altruism,
forgiveness, and self-interest that we are each to maintain?
Does the
man’s healing 1st rely upon him taking his pallet?
Considering this event occurs during Shabbat, is this an act of Faith and/or an
act of rebellion? What is the Truth that exists within healing, and what
is the Truth that exists beyond healing? What is the tangible point of
symbiosis between Faith and act? And how does “free will” figure within
this (amidst the notion of omnipotence)?
May it be
considered that Deus sends every being into life; and thus, that every
being is charged with a mission by Deus to complete within this life? How
does this compare with respective teachings from Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism,
and Islam, regarding this notion of derivation and purpose?
In the
passage of Verses 39 – 44, can Jesus be speaking as any being within the
Universe?
The manner in
which the Gospel according to John is written (particularly how Jews are
specifically referred to in the 3rd person, “the Jews”)
suggests that the author of the Gospel according to John (or at least the
Revised Standard Version English translation) is other than Jewish or
Israeli; is there accuracy within this consideration?
What is the
tendency of people to hoard sustenance from others, and then to subsequently
offer such sustenance to others as charity and kindness? What is an
appropriate genuine, balanced, and alTruistic economic system that
appropriately tends to the individual and the other?
How does
Jesus’s teaching to, as the “work of God,” simply proclaim Faith within Jesus
(from Verse 29) compare with Jesus’s additional teachings regarding loving
others and benevolence and righteousness as the “works of God”?
--
Koran
Sura 53: Al Najm, The Star
Sura 54: Al Qamar, The Moon
“By the
star when it sets!
“Your
companion errs not, nor does he deviate.
“Nor
does he speak out of desire.
“It is
naught but revelation that is revealed—
“One
Mighty in Power has taught him,
“The
Lord of Strength. So he attained to
perfection,
“And he
is in the highest part of the horizon.
“Then
he drew near, drew nearer yet,
“So he
was the measure of two bows or closer still.
“So
(Allah) revealed to (Allah’s) servant what (Allah) revealed.
“The
heart was not (unTrue) in seeing what he saw.
“Do you
then dispute with him as to what he saw?”
(v1-12).
“And
certainly he saw (Allah) in another descent.
“At the
farthest lote-tree.
“Near
it is the Garden of Abode.
“When
that which covers covered the lote-tree.
“The
eye turned not aside, nor did it exceed the limit.
“Certainly
he saw of the greatest signs of his Lord.”
(v13-18).
“And
how many angels are in the heavens, whose intercession avails naught except
after Allah gives permission to whom (Allah) pleases and chooses.” (v26).
“Surely
those who believe not in the Hereafter name the angels with female names.” (v27).
“So
shun him who turns his back upon Our Reminder, and desires nothing but this
world’s life.
“That
is their goal of knowledge. Surely thy
Lord knows best him who strays from (Allah’s) path and (Allah) knows best him
who goes aright.
“And
Allah’s is whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, that
(Allah) may reward those who do evil for that which they do, and reward those
who do (benevolence) with (benevolence).
“Those
who avoid the great sins and the indecencies, but the passing idea—surely thy
Lord is Liberal in Forgiving. (Allah)
knows you best when (Allah) brings you forth from the earth and when you are
embryos in the wombs of your mothers; so
ascribe not purity to yourselves. (Allah)
knows him best who guards against evil.”
(v29-32).
“That
no bearer of burden bears another’s burden:
“And
that man can have nothing but what he strives for:
“And
that his striving will soon be seen.
“Then
he will be rewarded for it with the fullest reward:
“And
that to thy Lord is the goal:
“And
that (Allah) it is Who makes men laugh and makes them weep:
“And
that (Allah) it is Who causes death and gives life:” (v38-44).
“And
that (Allah) creates pairs, the male and the female:
“From
the small life-germ when it is adapted:”
(v45-46).
“The
hour drew nigh and the moon was rent asunder.
“And if
they see a sign, they turn away and say:
Strong enchantment!
“And
they deny and follow their low desires;
and every affair is settled.
“And
certainly narratives have come to them, which should deter—
“Consummate
wisdom—but warnings avail not;” (v1-5).
“So
turn away from them. On the say when the
Inviter invites them to a hard task—“
(v6).
There
is the reference to Noach.
“And
certainly We have made the Quran easy to remember, but is there any one who
will mind?” (v17).
There
is reference to Ad, Thamud, Lot, and Paraoh.
“Surely
We have created everything according to a measure.
“And
Our command is but once, as the twinkling of an eye.” (v49-50).
--
What is
the propensity of exactly following the Sunna of Muhammad (PBUH), and
proclaiming direct communication and connexion with Allah, without being
considered an apostate? What is the
nature of the intrinsic gap between being following the Sunna and following the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? Amidst the
apparent paradox of being a proficient Muslim because of being unable to equal
the righteousness of Muhammad (PBUH), what is the propensity of unduly influencing
the beliefs, thoughts, words, and actions, of believers who are insufficient in
equalling the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (and thus, must presumably require
additional guidance)? Within Islam, does
each individual have a direct connexion with Allah? And if so, is there any limitation to that
direct connexion with Allah? And if such
direct connexion is unlimited, does this mean that each individual has the
propensity of attaining the righteousness of Muhammad (PBUH)? And further, does adhering to the Sunna of
Prophet Muhammad similarly involve severely challenging the precepts of the
conventional authority of one’s contemporary social construct?
Is the
opening of Sura Al Najm referencing an actual temporal experience of Muhammad
(PBUH); and if so, how does this
experience compare with that of Arjuna and Sri Krishna, with Moshe at the
burning bush, with Jesus after he is baptised, and with Buddha as he approaches
the Bodhi tree?
What
applicability does “Liberalness in Forgiving” having towards all individuals,
regarding us forgiving each other? How
does this compare with Jesus’s teaching regarding a person being forgiven by
Deus in that same manner that a person forgives others?
What
are the different methodologies through which a religious traditions is passed
from generation to generation (from teacher to student; through study of Holy Scriptures; through inspiration; through narratives; through rituals; and additionally)? How are these different methodologies
practised within different religious traditions, particularly Judaism, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam? What
are some advantages and challenges with each of these methodologies? If a person (within contemporary
circumstances) receives ministering and is instructed to proclaim a new,
specific religious doctrine, what may be some appropriate means through which
such an individual does this? Might this
notion of an individual teaching a new, specific religious doctrine be simply
perceived as each person exactly teaching the “new” religious doctrine that
each individual respectively, traditionally practises simply through being the
example of that religious doctrine and behaviour?
--
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