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 41 Phinechas; 118.11.6
Torah
B’midbar 25:10 – 30:1
“Then
Adonai spoke to (Moshe), and said, ‘Pinchas son of Eleazar and grandson of
Aaron the priest was faithful to Me and turned My anger away from the
Israelites, so that I did not destroy them.
“Therefore,
tell him that I have made a covenant of peace with him.” (v10-11)
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe), saying, ‘Attack the Midianites and destroy them because they
tricked some Israelites into worshipping the idol Peor,’” (v16-18).
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe) and Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, and said, ‘Take a census
of the men in the Israelite community, and count every male over twenty years
old who is fit for military service.’”
(v1-2).
The
census is taken, and the families of each tribe are described.
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe), saying: ‘You shall
divide the land as an inheritance among the people, based on the number of
recorded names.
“To a
larger group you shall give a larger inheritance, whereas to a smaller group
you shall give a smaller inheritance.
Each group shall receive its inheritance according to the number of
people in it.
“Make
sure to allot the land to the tribes through a lottery system. The large tribal family will be assigned more
land, and the smaller tribal family will be assigned less land. Whether a group is large or small, its
hereditary property shall be divided by a lottery system.” (v52-56).
The
families of the Levis are listed.
“They
were not counted with the other Israelites because they were not allotted any
land when it was divided among the Israelite tribes.” (v62).
“The
above is the census that (Moshe) and Eleazar the priest took of the Israelites
on the Plains of Moab, across from the Jericho, near the (Yordan) River. Not a single person who was counted by
(Moshe) and Aaron forty years earlier in the Wilderness of Zin was still
alive. Adonai had told the Israelites
that they would all die in the desert, and that not a single person would
remain alive except for Caleb son of Yefuneh, and (Yoshua) son of Nun.” (v63-65).
“One
day a petition was presented by the daughters of Tzelafechad…” (v1).
“Our
father died in the wilderness. He was
not one of the members of Korach’s party who rebelled against Adonai, but he
died because of his own sin without leaving any sons. Why should our father’s family be penalized
because he did not have a son? Give us
an inheritance of land just like our father’s brothers.” (v3-4).
“Adonai
answered (Moshe), saying:
“ ‘The
daughters of Tzelafechad are right. Give
them a portion of land alongside their uncles.
Give them their father’s inheritance of land. Now speak to the Israelites and tell them
that if a man dies and has no sons, his
hereditary property shall pass over to his daughters. If he has no daughters, then his hereditary
land shall be given to his brothers. If
he has no brothers, you shall give his land to his father’s brothers. However, if his father had no brothers, then
you shall give his land to the nearest relative in his family. This shall be the law for the Israelites, as
Adonai has commanded (Moshe).’” (v6-11).
“Adonai
said to (Moshe), ‘Climb up to the top of Mount Avarim, where you will be able
to see the land that I am giving to the Israelites. After you see it, you will die and be
gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron was.’” (v12-13).
“(Moshe)
spoke to Adonai, saying, ‘Adonai, source of all living beings, appoint a new
leader over the community.
“ ‘Your
people need a strong leader to lead them in battle.
“ ‘Do
not let Adonai’s community wander like sheep without a shepherd.’” (v15-17).
“Adonai
said to (Moshe), ‘Choose (Yoshua) son of Nun, for he is a man of spirit. Place your hands on him. Present him to Eleazar the priest, and let
the entire community watch as he appoints him.’” (v18-19).
“Publicly
hand him your authority so that the entire Israelite community will obey
him.” (v20).
“Adonai
spoke to (Moshe), telling him to give the following instructions to the
Israelites and tell them: Make sure to
present My fire-offering food sacrifices, because they please Me.” (v1-2).
The
daily AM and PM offerings and the Shabbat offerings are described.
The
observances of Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Rosh Chodesh, Yom Kippur,
Sukkot, and Shemini Atzeret (as well as the respective offerings therein) are
prescribed.
--
Amidst
the transgression of Israeli men worshipping Peor, is the response of violence
somewhat excessive; and does such
violence demonstrate a comparatively limited ability to reconcile the
circumstances through increasingly compassionate and Peaceful means?
How
does Adonai’s command for Moshe and Israel to attack the Midianites compare
with the narrative of Arjuna, within the Bhagavad Gita? What may be some of the experienced
maintained by Moshe’s sons, whose mor is a Midianite woman? Are Moshe’s sons actually adults during the
point of the 1st census, and thus passed away at the point of
Parashah Phinechas, or are Moshe’s sons still alive?
Amidst
the aggregate of the Torah, through Parashah Phinechas, it seems as though the
prescribed principles governing ownership of land and property include: Divine ordination (through Adonai’s covenant
with Avraham), military conquest (directly by Adonai or through the Faith and
fighting of Israel), and the size of one’s family and random “chance” (as
described within Phinechas); however,
the Torah also contains numerous mitzvot regarding the sharing of property/wealth,
charity (chesed), and practises of piety, modesty, humility, moderation, and
righteousness; so given all these
teachings, what may be appropriately discerned as the most authoritative
principles governing the “ownership”/stewardship of land, resources, and
“property”? What principles (and
practises) may be identified that abstain from relying upon the utilisation (or
threat) of violence/force/coercion? How
do the proceeding considerations factor within establishing the legitimacy of
stewardship of land and resources: who
is here first; who is here
presently; who has the most urgent
need; who provides the most
productivity; who provides the highest
care; who is Divinely ordained? How do the principles and practises,
previously described within Phinechas and additionally, factor within these
considerations? How do the respective
principles and practises within Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity
(respectively such as “civilisational” Jihad, equanimity, the “beggar’s bowl,”
and “rendering unto Caesar”) factor within these considerations? How does Avraham’s negotiation for Machpelah
also factor within these considerations?
Does
the granting of large lands to large families effectively equate to the
prosperity of large families and the diminution of smaller families? How is the notion of permanent hereditary
land balanced with the promise of expanding generations of descendants? Does this equate to the effective expansion
of Eretz Israel; and if so, what are the
implications of this expansion and the relationship between Israelis and
additional nations? Is this perhaps why
there exists the historic expulsion of Israelis from Eretz Israel? What insight regarding this phenomenon may be
provided from the respective teachings of additional religious traditions
(particularly those of which have direct, historic interaction with Israel?
Amidst
Eleazar surviving the “40-year curse,” and Yoshua being an exception to the
“40-year curse,” there is the presumption that Eleazar may be considerably
younger than Yoshua (although technically, it may only be by a year or even a
few months); how does Eleazar’s age
compare with that of Yoshua?
What
are the implications of the solicitation (and decision) regarding the daughters
of Tzelafechad? What is the nature of
the grievance (and the characteristic of the women) with which to begin? How does this decision affect the traditional
hereditary lineage of land within Israel?
What may be favourable and unfavourable consequences? What is the intentionality within the
request: securing land claims for
daughters on behalf of fars (as it seems to simultaneously assert a
feminist-oriented doctrine of land “ownership,” but yet the premise of that
land “ownership” being predicated upon the traditional lineage of a woman’s
far)? Is this intrinsically
contradictory? What are the implications
of a woman being previously, or subsequently, married with a man with his own
hereditary lands?
What is
the need for an individual leader (or “super ego”) for a community? How does the description of sheep without a
shepherd coincide with the teaching of existing as a nation of Priests?
What is
the significance of the “laying of hands”?
What is
the actual cost, and the “sacrifice” being made within the daily
offerings? Particularly as such
offerings are other than in contemporary practise, how can the tangible,
material, and esoteric, and metaphysical relevance and significance of these
daily offerings be appropriately observed and manifested within a contemporary
manner? How can such offerings be appropriately
made without the sacrifice of life? How
does the Buddha’s teaching regarding the “quintessential sacrifice” compare
with this? How do teachings of
asceticism and piety from additional religious traditions (including Hinduism,
Christianity, Islam, as well as Buddhism and Judaism and additionally) inform
such practises?
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 5
“O Krishna, you have recommended both the path
of selfless action and sannyasa, the path of renunciation of action. Tell me definitely which is better.” (v1).
“Both renunciation of action and the selfless
performance of action lead to the supreme goal.
But the path of action is better than renunciation.” (v2).
“Those who have attained perfect renunciation
are free from any sense of duality; they
are unaffected by likes and dislikes, Arjuna, and are free from the bondage of
self-will.” (v3).
“The immature think that knowledge and action
are different, but the wise see them as the same. The person who is established in one path
will attain the rewards of both.
“The goal of knowledge and the goal of service
are the same; those who fail to see this
are blind.” (v4-5).
“Perfect renunciation is difficult to attain
without performing action. But the wise,
following the path of selfless service, quickly reach Brahman.” (v6).
“Those who follow the path of service, who have
completely purified themselves and conquered their senses and self-will, see
the Self in all creatures and are untouched by any action they perform.” (v7).
“Those who surrender to Brahman all selfish
attachments are like the leaf of a lotus floating clean and dry in water. Sin cannot touch them.
“Renouncing their selfish attachments, those who
follow the path of service work with body, senses, and mind for the sake of
self-purification.” (v10-11).
“Those whose consciousness is unified abandon
all attachment to the results of action and attain supreme peace. But those whose desires are fragmented, who
are selfishly attached to the results of their work, are bound in everything they
do.” (v12).
“Those who renounce attachment in all their
deeds live content in the ‘city of nine gates,’ the body, as its master. They are not driven to act, nor do they
involve others in action.” (v13).
“Neither the sense of acting, nor actions, nor
the connection of cause and effect comes from the Lord of this world. These three arise from nature.” (v14).
“Those who possess this wisdom have equal regard
for all. They see the same Self in a
spiritual aspirant and an outcaste, in an elephant, a cow, and a dog” (v18).
“Such people have mastered life. With even mind they rest in Brahman, (Who) is
perfect and is everywhere the same.
“They are not elated by good fortune nor
depressed by bad. With mind established
in Brahman, they are free from delusion.
“Not dependent on any external support, they
realize the joy of spiritual awareness.
With consciousness unified through meditation, they live in abiding
joy.” (19-21).
“Pleasures conceived in the world of the senses
have a beginning and an end and give birth to misery, Arjuna. The wise do not look for happiness in them.
“But those who overcome the impulses of lust and
anger which arise in the body are made whole and live in joy.
“They find their joy, their rest, and their
light completely within themselves.
United with the Lord, they attain (Nirvana) in Brahman.” (22-24).
“Healed of their sins and conflicts, working for
the good of al beings, the holy sages attain (Nirvana) in Brahman.
“Free from anger and selfish desire, unified in
mind, those who follow the path of yoga and realize the Self are established
forever in that supreme state.”
(v25–26).
“Closing their eyes, steadying their breathing,
and focusing their attention on the center of spiritual consciousness,
“the wise master their senses, mind, and
intellect through meditation.
Self-realization is their only goal.
Freed from selfish desire, fear, and anger, they live in freedom always.
“Knowing (Me) as the friend of all creatures,
the Lord of the universe, the end of all offerings and all spiritual
disciplines, they attain eternal peace.”
(v27-29).
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter
5
“O Krishna,
you have recommended both the path of selfless action and sannyasa, the path of
renunciation of action. Tell me definitely which is better.” (v1).
“Both
renunciation of action and the selfless performance of action lead to the
supreme goal. But the path of action is better than renunciation.”
(v2).
“Those who
have attained perfect renunciation are free from any sense of duality;
they are unaffected by likes and dislikes, Arjuna, and are free from the
bondage of self-will.
“The immature
think that knowledge and action are different, but the wise see them as the
same. The person who is established in one path will attain the rewards
of both.
“The goal of
knowledge and the goal of service are the same; those who fail to see
this are blind.” (v3-5).
“Perfect
renunciation is difficult to attain without performing action. But the
wise, following the path of selfless service, quickly reach Brahman.”
(v6).
“Those who
follow the path of service, who have completely purified themselves and
conquered their senses and self-will, see the Self in all creatures and are
untouched by any action they perform.” (v7).
“Those who
know this (Truth), whose consciousness is unified, think always, ‘I am not the
doer.’
“While seeing
or hearing, touching or smelling; eating, moving about, or
sleeping; breathing or speaking, letting go or holding on, even opening
or closing the eyes, they understand that these are only the movements of the
senses among sense objects.” (v8-9).
“Those whose
consciousness is unified abandon all attachment to the results of action and
attain supreme peace. But those whose desires are fragmented, who are
selfishly attached to the results of their work, are bound in everything they
do.” (v12).
“Neither the
sense of acting, nor actions, nor the connection of cause and effect comes from
the Lord of this world. These three arise from nature.” (v14).
“The Lord
does not partake in the (benevolent) and evil deeds of any person;
judgment is clouded when wisdom is obscured by ignorance.” (v15).
“But
ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of the Self within. The light of this
knowledge shines like the sun, revealing the supreme Brahman.” (v16).
“Those who
possess this wisdom have equal regard for all. They see the same Self in
a spiritual aspirant and an outcaste, in an elephant, a cow, and a dog.
“Such people
have mastered life. With even mind they rest in Brahman, (Who) is perfect
and is everywhere the same.
“They are not
elated by (benevolent) fortune nor depressed by bad. With mind
established in Brahman, they are free from delusion.
“Not
dependent on any external support, they (Realise) the joy of spiritual
awareness. With consciousness unified through meditation, they live in
abiding joy.” (v18-21).
“Pleasures
conceived in the world of the senses have a beginning and an end and give birth
to misery, Arjuna. The wise do not look for happiness in them.
“But those
who overcome the impulses of lust and anger which arise in the body are made
whole and live in joy.
“They find
their joy, their rest, and their light completely within themselves.
United with the Lord, they attain (Nirvana) in Brahman.
“Healed of
their sins and conflicts, working for the (benefit) of all beings, the holy
sages attain (Nirvana) in Brahman.
“Free from
anger and selfish desire, unified in mind, those who follow the path of yoga
and (Realise) the Self are established forever in that supreme state.”
(v22-26).
“Closing
their eyes, steadying their breathing, and focusing their attention on the
center of spiritual consciousness,
“the wise
master their senses, mind, and intellect through meditation.
(Self-Realisation) is their only goal. Freed from selfish desire, fear,
and anger, they live in freedom always.
“Knowing (Me)
as the friend of all creatures, the Lord of the universe, the end of all
offerings and spiritual disciplines, they attain eternal peace.” (v29).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 5 – 6
How genuine can the renunciation of action
actually be, if one intends to continue living?
There is the consideration of a perceived polarity of human existence,
between absolute altruism and absolute transgression: on the side of altruism, there is the consideration
of a man simply sitting quietly and breathing modestly, without consuming any
food, drink, or nourishment, and causing a minimalisation of transgression,
until that man eventually passes from life presumably due to dehydration; this may be considered the least “offensive”
existence that a man may assume within this temporal life (without committing
some form of suicide which may cause psychological harm to others); on the other end of the spectrum, a man may
plot with a small number of other men to conquer the entire temporal realm of
the Universe, and accumulating all the women and material riches within the
Universe, and having numerous children;
however, the man may then perceive his previous allies as enemies and
methodically plot and kill all his male competitors, and the sons of such men,
again, taking all the women and material riches whereby he becomes the one and
only man within the entire Universe;
yet, perhaps like Saul or even Arjuna, the man may then begin to
consider his own sons as eventual enemies, and arrange for his wives and
daughters to kill all his sons; and
being the only man within the Universe, many of the wives may begin to resent
the man because of his lack of attention towards the wives, and thus the man
begins to plot and annihilate all the rebellious women, until, he, again is the
only person left within the Universe;
whereby, despondent and fatigued from a lifetime of plotting and
killing, the man sits quietly by himself, breathing moderately, until he
similarly passes away from dehydration;
how might these 2 scenarios be considered amidst the principles of
selfless action and the renunciation of action?
What is the “city of nine gates,” referenced in
Verse 13?
Within Verse 14, what is meant by the “Lord of
this world”? Is this distinguished from
specifically, or aggregately referring to Brahman, and if so, how so?
Amidst the teachings for having equanimity
towards all beings, does this mean recognising an ultimate, synonymous Divine
existence within each being, whilst also being able to recognise differences
between beings: giving oranges to
someone who likes oranges, and apples to someone who likes apples, rather than
simply giving everyone an equal amount of grapes? If the recognition of temporal differences is
appropriate, what is the appropriate balance between attending to such
distinctions whilst simultaneously cultivating the synonymous Divine existence
within each being? And in this respect,
does an individual maintain certain responsibilities towards family members and
friends, compared to additional individuals (recognising how such family and
friends may have an increased dependency on a person, compared to additional
people and strangers)? What might be an
appropriate balance amidst the maintenance of such distinct relationships? Is it appropriate to recognise the distinct
benefits that dirt, stones, and gold each provide?
Amidst the equal disposition to both “good” and
“bad” beings, how does one abstain from becoming tamasic and confusing “good”
and “bad”? And within this respect, can
the proceeding statement actually be understood as an affirmative proclamation
of Faith and benevolence: “Nothing is
from Brahman,” or similarly, “Nothing is also from Brahman.”?
How does the instruction for meditation,
provided within Chapter 6, compare with Jesus’s teaching regarding “The Lord’s
Prayer,” and similar, explicit instructions of worship within Buddhism,
Judaism, and the sunna of Muhammad?
Can the teaching of “holding the Self by the
means of the Self” also be understood in a similar manner to “enhancing one’s
experience of compassion by becoming increasingly compassionate towards
others”?
How can one cultivate “self-control” within
one’s self? What is the nature of the
existence of self-control amidst the notion of free will, and its apparent
mutual exclusivity from omnipotence? And
how can these teachings be considered amidst the incident of the Israelites
becoming inpatient with Moshe’s absence and forming the golden calf?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 5 – 6
Amidst the
notion of action and renunciation, there is the consideration of a man who
considers the extremity of selflessness and selfishness: on the 1 side,
the man decides to abstain from causing the very least amount of harm towards
other beings; thus, he refuses to eat and drink anything (usurping
nourishment from others); he considers immediately killing himself,
however, he also considers this may cause others trauma; thus, he sits
quietly, alone, in a field, and meditates until he passes from dehydration and
starvation; on the other side, the man decides to conquer all of his
enemies and indulge in all the pleasures of the senses; he forms an allegiance
with other men and is successful in annihilating all his enemies;
however, he begins to become fearful of betrayal from his allies, and thus he
carefully plots to annihilate all his allies; he is successful, and there
only remains through his Realm of the Universe his family and wives; and
then he becomes fearful of his sons attempting to overthrow his authority, so
he annihilates all his sons; all that remain are his wives and
daughters; yet, he is unable to provide sufficient attention to all his
wives, and becomes fearful of lesbian factions emerging and overthrowing
him; so he carefully plots and annihilates all his wives; and upon
the prospect of all his daughters becoming his wives and similarly plotting
against him, he annihilates all his daughters; thus, he similarly becomes
alone, and he is feeble from his conquests, and thus unable to fend for
himself; and he similarly retires to a quiet field, sits, and passes away
from dehydration and starvation; do the extremities of selflessness and
selfishness extend further than these scenarios? Does the awareness of
these extremities effectively quell the, perhaps, subconscious initiative to
pursue such extremities? And what is an appropriate balance for people to
maintain amidst the spectrum of these extremities?
Amidst the
notion of the “senses amidst sense objects” teaching within Verses 8 – 9, how
does this affect the perception of the concept of “free will”?
Is the
reference to the “Lord,” within Verses 14 – 15, a reference to Brahman?
How does this teaching affect the concept of “Omnipotence”? Amidst the
absolute practise of equanimity and indifference, does this annihilate the very
existence of “benevolent” and “malevolent”: that all phenomena,
circumstances, and experiences simply “are”? And if so, how does an
individual maintain such equanimity and indifference whilst continuing to
maintain life and engage within “subject” and “self-interested” pursuits to
sustain one’s life (and thus demonstrating a lack of indifference [an specific
preference for life]), and abiding by intrinsic allegiances to sustain the
individual’s life? In contrast, how do individuals appropriately
transcend the presumption of “invincibility,” accepting the experience of
suffering as an intrinsic, inevitable, and purposeful phenomenon within life,
and abstain from unduly (transgressively) reacting to such experiences of
suffering? What is the legitimacy within the offering that suffering
provides the opportunity for compassion, and this is exactly the meaning of life
(and that all beings, in some form or another, provide such benefit to other
beings)?
Is it
accurate to perceive that the “self-Realisation that any 1 individual pursues
is the exact same “self-Realisation” that all individuals pursue, because
“self-Realisation” equates to “Self-Realisation,” with the “Ultimate Self”
existing the same within all beings?
Amidst the
teaching of meditation being superior to selfless service (and perhaps
contrarily, selfless service being superior to renunciation), what is the appropriate
balance between meditation and selfless service? There is the
consideration that when 1 thoroughly dedicates 1’s self to meditation, this
requires a change of lifestyle whereby all that 1 does is done to facilitate
that individual’s practise of meditation (maintaining a minimalist lifestyle to
facilitate continual meditation), and that seems to prevent 1 from engaging
within substantial selfless service (which requires energy, resources, and
heartbeats) which withdraw 1 from continually practising meditation;
thus, this seems to revisit the comparison between renunciation and selfless
service; and again, what is the appropriate balance?
--
Digha Nikaya
Pasadika Suttanta
“Thus
have I heard. The Exalted One was at one
time sojourning among the Sakyans, at the technical college in the Mango Grove
of the Sakyan family named The Archers.
Now at that time Nathaputta the Nigantha had just died at Pava. And at his death the Niganthas became disunited
and divided into two parties, in mutual strife and conflict, quarrelling and
wounding each other with wordy weapons;--Thou dost not understand this doctrine
and discipline; but I do understand it.” (v1).
“Now
Cunda the Novice, having passed the rainy season at Pava, came to see the
venerable Ananda at Samagama, and coming, saluted him and sat down beside
him.” (v2).
Cunda
references the dissonance amongst Nathaputta’s disciples.
“Then
said the venerable Ananda to Cunda the Novice:
Friend Cunda, this is a worthy subject to bring before the Exalted
One. Let’s go to him, and tell him about
it.” (v2).
“Here,
Cunda, we have a teacher who was not supremely enlightened, and a doctrine
badly set forth, badly imparted, ineffectual to guide, not conducing to peace,
imparted by one who was not supremely enlightened. In such a doctrine, moreover, the disciple
dos not come to master the lesser corollaries that follow from the larger
doctrine, nor to acquire correct conduct, nor to walk according to the precepts,
but is perpetually evading that doctrine.”
(v4).
The
Buddha admonishes those who encourage disciples to pursue the woeful guidance
of an errant teacher.
“But
consider, Cunda, where the teacher is supremely enlightened, and the doctrine
well set forth, well imparted, effectual for guidance, conducive to peace,
imparted by one supremely enlightened, but where the disciple in that norm has
not mastered the lesser corollaries flowing on the larger doctrine, nor learnt
to practise correct conduct, nor walks according to the precepts, but
perpetually evades that doctrine.” (v6).
The
Buddha supports a critic’s championing of such a teacher and criticism towards
the disciple.
“But
consider, Cunda, where the teacher is supremely enlightened, the doctrine well
set forth…and where the disciple has mastered it…and perpetually conforms to
it. To him one might say:--Thou, friend,
has been successful in teacher and in opportunity…and thou dost perpetually
conform to thy doctrine. By these words,
Cunda, teacher and doctrine and disciple are all three deemed
praiseworthy.” (v7).
“But
consider, Cunda, where a teacher hath arisen in the world, Arahant, supremely
enlightened; where a doctrine hath been
well set forth, well imparted, effectual for guidance, conducive to peace,
imparted by one who is supremely enlightened;
but where his disciples have not become proficient in the (benevolent)
(Dharma), nor has the full scope of the higher life become manifest to them,
evident, with all the stages in it coordinated, nor has it been made a thing of
saving grace for them, well proclaimed among men, when their teacher pass
away.” (v8).
The
Buddha describes an enlightened teacher with proficient students who are
settled upon the passing of the teacher.
“If a
religious system be placed in these circumstances, Cunda, and there be none to
take the lead who is a senior brother, experienced, of long standing in the
order, of ripe age, arrived at years of discretion, then is that system by this
circumstance imperfect. But if there is
such an one, then is that system by this circumstance made perfect.” (v10).
The
Buddha describes the preference for a Sangha with a dynamic array of disciples
and laypeople at varying levels of proficiency.
“In so
far, Cunda, as the holy life is furnished with these circumstances:--to wit,
with such a leading elder, and with such senior bhikkus, but if there be no
bhikkus of middle age or standing who are disciples, then is the holy life by
this circumstance made imperfect. Or if
it lack in certain other respects, it is to that extent imperfect, for
instance, if there be no novices who are disciples, or senior Sisters who are
disciples, or Sisters of middle standing who are disciples, or Sister novices
who are disciples, or if there be no laymen who are disciples, householders of
the white robe, holy livers, or if there be none among those laymen who are
wealthy, or if the system be not successful, prosperous, widespread and popular
in its full extent, well proclaimed among men, or if the system be all this but
have not attained the foremost place in public fame and support:--by any one
such circumstance the system is rendered imperfect.” (v12).
The
Buddha proclaims his leadership, his Dharma, and his Sangha.
“Uddaka
the son of Rama, Cunda, used to say: Seeing
he seeth not. And on seeing what does
one not see?” (v16).
“Now
were one to wish to use rightly that phrase, Seeing he does not see, it is thus
that he should say: Seeing he seeth
not. But what is it that seeing he does
not see? A religion that is in every way
successful, in every respect complete, neither defective nor redundant, well
set forth in all its full extent:--this is what he sees.” (v16).
The
Buddha proclaims certain doctrine.
“They
are these:--The Four Onsets of Mindfulness, the Four Supreme Efforts, the Four
Paths to Efficacy, the Five Powers, the Five Forces, the Seven Factors of
Enlightenment, the Ariyan Eightfold Path.”
(v17).
The
Buddha explains to Cunda how to correct additional disciples and people in
practising discourse.
“You,
Cunda, thus met together in concord and in courtesy, suppose that a
co-religionist expresses an opinion before the Chapter. Then if you judge that this honourable member
has laid hold of the meaning wrongly, or is proposing a wrong form of words, ye
are neither to approve of, nor to blame him.
Unapproving, unblaming, ye are to address him thus:--Of this meaning,
brother, either this is the phraseology or that: which fits better?” (v18).
“A new
doctrine, Cunda, do I teach for subduing the mental intoxicants that are
generated even in this present life. I
teach not a doctrine for the extirpating of intoxicants in the future life
only, but one for subduing them now and also for extirpating them in the
after-life.” (v22).
The
Buddha teaches further discipline for the Sangha.
The
Buddha teaches the doctrine of the 4 Jhanas.
The
Buddha describes “9 incapabilities” of the disciple who adheres to the Dharma.
The
Buddha describes characteristics of the Tathagata.
The
Buddha teaches the 4-Fold Noble Truth.
--
What
are the characteristics of a proficient teacher? How does a proficient teacher decide the
appropriate balance between structured doctrine and extemporaneous
learning? How does a proficient teacher
share lessons amongst disciples with varying skills? How are the most salient lessons for a
certain occasion appropriately determined?
How
does the principle of equanimity balanced with the Buddha’s teaching regarding
hierarchy and seniority? How does this
compare with the structure hierarchy within Israel, and the Umma within
Islam? How does this compare with
Jesus’s teachings regarding the first being last?
Amidst
the notion of equanimity, and the coinciding merit that exists within each
being, what equalising merit may be found amongst those members of the Sangha
that may previously be considered less meritorious? How do the distinct proficiencies of each
member contribute to the aggregate balance of the Sangha?
--
Gospels
John 8
“They went each to his own house, but
Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early
in the morning he came again to the temple;
all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman
who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him,
‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law (Moshe) commanded us to stone
such. What do you say about her?’ This they said to test him, that they might
have some charge to bring against him.
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up
and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a
stone at her.’ And once more he bent
down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the
eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman,
where are they? Has no one condemned
you?’ She said, ‘No one, (Leader).’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn
you; go, and do not sin again.’” (v1-11).
“Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I
am the light of the world; he who
follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’ The Pharisees then said to him, ‘You are
bearing witness to yourself; your
testimony is not (True).’ Jesus
answered, ‘Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is (True), for I
know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I
come or whither I am going. You judge
according to the flesh, I judge no one.
Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is (True), for it is not I alone
that judge, but I and (God) who sent me.
In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is (True); I bear witness to myself, and (God) who sent
me bears witness to me.’ They said to
him therefore, ‘Where is your (Progenerator)?’
Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my (Progenerator); if you knew me, you would know my
(Progenerator) also.’ These words he
spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had
not yet come.” (v12-20).
Jesus chastises his critics and
diminishes the proclamations of descendancy from Avraham.
“Jesus then said to the Jews who had
believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are (Truly) my disciples, and
you will know the (Truth), and the (Truth) will make you free.’ They answered him, ‘We are the descendants of
(Avraham), and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, ‘You will be made
free’?’
“Jesus answered them, ‘(Truly),
(Truly), I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house for
ever; the son continues for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be
free indeed. I know that you are
descendants of (Avraham); yet you seek
to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my
(Progenerator), and you do what you have heard from your father.’
“They answered him, ‘(Avraham) is our
father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you
were (Avraham’s) children, you would do what (Avraham) did, but now you seek to
kill me, a man who has told you the (Truth) which I heard from God; this is not what (Avraham) did. You do what your father did.’ They said to him, ‘We were not born of
fornication; we have one (Progenerator),
even God.” Jesus said to them, ‘If God
were your (Progenerator), you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth
from God; I came not of my own accord,
but (God) sent me. Why do you not
understand what I say? It is because you
cannot bear to hear my word. You are of
your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has
nothing to do with the (Truth), because there is no (Truth) in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own
nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the (Truth), you do not
believe me. Which of you convicts me of
sin? If I tell the (Truth), why do you
not believe me? He who is of God hears
the words of God; the reason why you do
not hear them is that you are not of God.’”
(v34-47).
Jesus denies accusations of having a
demon, proclaims the gift of eternal life, and proclaims existence that
predates Avraham; Jesus’s challengers
attempt to kill him.
--
Gospels
John 8
“They went
each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in
the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and
he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a
woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said
to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now
in the law (Moshe) commanded us to stone such. What do you say about
her?’ This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to
bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the
ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them,
‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at
her.’ And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the
ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning
with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before
him. Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has
no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, (Leader).’ And Jesus
said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.’”
(v1-11).
“Again Jesus
spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world; he who follows me
will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’ The
Pharisees then said to him, ‘You are bearing witness to yourself; your
testimony is not (True).’ Jesus answered, ‘Even if I do bear witness to
myself, my testimony is (True), for I know whence I have come and whither I am
going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going. You judge
according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my
judgment is (True), for it is not I alone that judge, but I and (Deus) (Who)
sent me. In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is
(True); I bear witness to myself, and the (Creator) (Who) sent me bears
witness to me.’ They said to him therefore, ‘Where is your
(Creator)?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my (Creator);
for if you knew me, you would know my (Creator) also.’ These words he
spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrest him,
because his hour had not yet come.” (v12-20).
“Jesus then
said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are
(Truly) my disciples, and you will know the (Truth), and the (Truth) will make
you free.’” (v31-32).
“Jesus
answered them, ‘Truly, (Truly), I say to you, every one who commits sin is a
slave to sin.’” (v34).
“They
answered him, ‘(Avraham) is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were
(Avraham’s) children, you would do what (Avraham) did, but now you (search) to
kill me, a man who has told you the (Truth) which I heard from God; this
is not what (Avraham) did. You do what your father did.’ They said
to him, ‘We were not born of fornication; we have one (Creator), even
God.’” (v39-41).
Jesus rebukes
his challengers and proclaims such being descended from “the devil.”
“The Jews
answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a
demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I have not a demon; but I honor my
(Creator), and you dishonour me. Yet I do not (search for) my own
glory; there is One (Who) (searches for) it and (Deus) will be the judge.’”
(v48-50).
“Jesus said
to them, ‘Truly, (Truly), I say to you, before (Avraham) was, I am.’ So
they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out
of the temple.” (v58-59).
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 8 –
10
The Gospel according to John may be arguably considered as the most militant of the 4 Christian Gospels, as it makes rather direct proclamations of Christian belief and Theology regarding Jesus’s existence and descendancy from God; however, the Gospel according to John also includes the narrative and teaching of Jesus that provides perhaps, arguably, the most profound teaching and example of forgiveness, kindness, and acceptance amongst the 4 Gospels: regarding only those free of sin casting the first stone towards the adulteress; what are the respective natures of these 2 characteristics (both the militancy of Faith and the profundity of forgiveness found within the Gospel according to John), and what is the nature of the confluence of these 2 characteristics within this specific teaching of Jesus, within Chapter 8?
How should “the Truth will make you
free” be appropriately understood? Aside
from the proclamations of his descendancy, what Truth is Jesus referencing, and
coincidingly, what falsehood is Jesus suggesting? Specifically, what are the “sins” of the
Israelites that Jesus references within Chapter 8? Is Jesus instructing his followers to simply
proclaim Faith in Jesus as the son of God, or for his followers to amend his
followers behaviour to become increasingly righteous, or both? If proclamation alone is sufficient, what is
the nature of significance within such a proclamation, and what is the
appropriate behaviour to be implemented, subsequently?
Within the beginning of the Gospel of
John, there is little description of Jesus teaching a specific doctrine of
behaviour, and contrarily, it is heavily concentrated upon proclamations of
Faith; how does this compare within the
respective elements within the additional 3 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke)? And how do these respective
approaches traditionally, and contemporarily, influence Christian doctrine and
practises, within liturgy as well as within ordinary interactions with people
from outside the fold of Christianity?
In Verse 41 of Chapter 8, Jesus makes a
distinction between Avraham, and the “far” of the Pharisees (later referencing
this “far” as the “devil”); when making
this distinction between the Avraham and the Pharisees, is Jesus actually making
a genealogical statement regarding the descendancy of the Pharisees (perhaps
tacitly referencing the Pharisees also having ancestors that exist outside of
the tribes of Israel)? How should this
issue of “fatherhood” be appropriately understood?
Does Jesus love the Pharisees? Why, or why otherwise? What evidence exists, in either respect; and how do Jesus’s words towards the
Pharisees teach Jesus’s followers how to love another person, and even to love
one’s enemy? How does this compare with
the equanimity that is taught within the Bhagavad Gita?
Amidst the belief of Deus (God) being
Omnipotent, and the Ultimate Creator of all phenomena, does this mean that the
“devil” is also created by/from Deus (God)?
And if the “devil” is created from Deus (God), does this mean that there
exists some legitimacy/value, some intrinsic Truth, within the “devil”? How does this compare with Jesus’s teachings
within Chapter 8? How does this compare
with the Bhagavad Gita’s teachings regarding the Omnipresence of Brahman, with
the Buddha’s teachings regarding Universal compassion, with the Koran’s similar
teachings regarding the existence of “Iblis,” and with the Torah’s admonition
of the idol worshipping of other tribes?
There is the age-old adage concerning
how to determine whether someone is telling the Truth; what validity exists within the consideration
of being able to tell when someone else is being Truthful when we, ourselves,
are increasingly Truthful with the Universe?
Is there any legitimacy within the notion: “A wise person speaks knowing that every word
a wise person says becomes True.”? How
does one appropriately manifest “Truthful actions”? Is there such a phenomenon as “excessive”
Truthfulness; and if so, how might such
a phenomenon actually emerge, and how might such a phenomenon be appropriately
reconciled?
Within Chapter 9, Jesus shares another
lesson of profound insight, kindness, and acceptance: regarding the condition
of the blind man being established, rather than through the sins of the blind
man or his parents, but so that the works of Deus may manifested; what legitimacy exists within the notion that
even the most harshest and cruellest suffering and atrocities have some
intrinsic merit/validity, even if only to facilitate the performance of healing
and mercy? Amidst any such legitimacy,
how are we to appropriate engage within the Universe and alleviate such
suffering and encourage behaviour that transcends such atrocities?
Amidst the teaching regarding the “good
shepherd,” what benevolence exists within a “good shepherd” if even the “good
shepherd” intends to eat the lamb in a similar manner that the wolf intends?
Within Verse 16 of Chapter 10, Jesus
proclaims having “other sheep;” whom is
Jesus referencing within this notion of “other sheep”? Are there “sheep” of Jesus that exist outside
the fold of conventional and additional practises of Christianity, and perhaps
even proclaiming different religious affiliations, allegiances, practises, and
doctrine? Is there a possibility that Jesus
intends for the eventual Church of Christianity to include additional people,
traditions, and doctrine that exist beyond, and even contradictory towards,
that of Christianity? How is this
teaching, regarding “other sheep,” subsequently explained and understood within
the traditional history of Christianity?
How might this teaching facilitate enhanced understanding between
Christianity and additional religious communities?
Within Chapter 10, Jesus describes the
nature of the relationship between himself (the good shepherd) and his followers
(the sheep), and also references his direct relationship with Deus; do Jesus’s followers also maintain a direct
relationship with Deus (as the shepherd-sheep metaphor), and if otherwise, what
is the nature of the relationship between Jesus’s followers and Deus? Also, what is the nature of the relationships
amongst Jesus’s followers (sheep to sheep);
are Jesus’s followers able to recognise each other as each recognises
Jesus?
Is it necessary for the “shepherd” to
lay down his life? What propensity do
the sheep have for being reconciled with the wolf? How does the notion of the “lion laying down
with the lamb” apply to this teaching?
Is Deus the “Ultimate Shepherd,” and amidst such a distinction, is Jesus
a “lamb” of Deus?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 8 – 10
Amidst the
accusations against the female adulteress being caught in the act, where is the
accusation of the male with whom she is found “in the act”?
Can
“following Jesus” be appropriately understood as following the teachings
compassion that Jesus provides, rather than necessarily proclaiming Jesus as a
deity and an individual’s saviour? And can following the teachings of
Jesus be manifested without following the specific example of Jesus (including
the provocation of authority and the pursuit towards martyrdom)? How are
the teachings of Jesus appropriately incorporated within conventional
behaviour? Within such behaviour, what is the appropriateness of
forgiveness and the absence of judging and/or condemning others (even those who
abstain from similarly proclaiming such adherence to the teachings of
Jesus)? Can the example and teachings of Jesus be found within additional
religious traditions that abstain from explicitly proclaiming Jesus?
Amidst the
compassion that Jesus provides to the downtrodden, how might Jesus be
increasingly compassionate towards those who transgress as conventional and
religious authorities?
Within
Chapter 9, Jesus explains an experience of suffering existing, other than
originating from sin, but so that healing can be performed; how does this
appropriately inform the Universe regarding the very nature of sin, suffering,
and healing? How does this compare with respective teachings (regarding
sin and suffering) within Judaism (amidst the blessing and the curse), within
Islam (amidst Al Yawm Kayyimah), within Buddhism (amidst Dependent
Origination), and within Hinduism (amidst Karma), and respectively with
additional religious traditions? How does this appropriately inform
religious adherents regarding how to respond to both the “sins” and “suffering”
of others, as well as of 1’s own self? How are forgiveness and healing
appropriately manifested within each of these respective contexts?
How is
Jesus’s teaching regarding him laying down his life “,on his own accord,” to be
appropriately understood? Does this absolve anyone from any guilt
regarding his crucifixion?
--
Koran
Sura 56: Al Waqiah The Event
“When
the Event comes to pass—
“There
is no belying its coming to pass—
“Abasing
some, exalting others—
“When
the earth is shaken with severe shaking,
“And
the mountains are crumbled to pieces,
“So
they are as scattered dust,
“And
you are three sorts.
“So
those on the right-hand; how happy are
those on the right-hand!
“And
those on the left; how wretched are
those on the left!
“And
the foremost are the foremost—
“These
are drawn nigh to Allah.” (v1-11).
“In
Gardens of bliss.
“A
multitude from among the first.
“And a
few from among those of later times,
“On
thrones inwrought,
“Reclining
on them, facing each other.
“Round
about them will go youths never altering in age,
“With
goblets and ewers, and a cup of pure drink—
“They
are not affected with headache thereby, nor are they intoxicated,
“And
fruits that they choose,
“And
flesh of fowl that they desire,
“And
pure, beautiful ones,
“Like
hidden pearls.
“A
reward for what they did.
“They
hear therein no vain or sinful talk—
“But
only the saying, Peace! Peace!” (v12-26).
There
is the description of the respective conditions of those on the right hand and
those on the left hand.
“So
glorify the name of thy Lord, the Incomparably Great.
“But
nay, I swear by revelation of portions of the Quran!—
“And it
is a great oath indeed, if you knew—
“Surely
it is a bounteous Quran,
“In a
book that is protected,
“Which
none touches save the purified ones.
“A
revelation from the Lord of the worlds.”
(v74-80).
“Is it
this announcement that you disdain?
“And
make your denial your means of subsistence.
“Why is
it not then that when it comes up to the throat,
“And
you at that time look on—
“And We
are nearer to it than you, but you see not—
“Why
then, if you are not held under authority,
“Do you
not send it back, if you are (Truthful)?
“Then
if he is one of those drawn nigh to Allah.
“Then
happiness and bounty and a Garden of bliss.”
(v81-89).
“So
glorify the name of thy Lord, the Incomparably Great.” (v96).
--
Koran
Sura 57: Al Hadid Iron
“Whatever
is in the heavens and the earth declares the glory of Allah, and (Allah) is the
Mighty, the Wise.
“(Allah’s)
is the (Sovereignty) of the heavens and the earth. (Allah) gives life and causes death; and (Allah) is Possessor of power over all
things.
“(Allah)
is the First and the Last and the Manifest and the Hidden, and (Allah) is the
Knower of all things.
“(Allah)
it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, and (Allah) is
established on the Throne of Power.
(Allah) knows that which goes down into the earth and that which comes
forth out of it, and that which comes down from heaven and that which goes up
to it. And (Allah) is with you wherever
you are. And Allah is Seer of what you
do.
“(Allah’s)
is the (Sovereignty) of the heavens and the earth; and to Allah are all affairs returned.
“(Allah)
causes the night to pass into the day, and causes the day to pass into the
night. And (Allah) is Knower of what is
in the hearts.
“Believe
in Allah and (Allah’s) Messenger, and spend of that whereof (Allah) has made
you heirs. So those of you who believe
and spend—for them is a great reward.
“And
what reason have you that you believe not in Allah? And the Messenger invites you to believe in
your Lord, and (Allah) has indeed accepted your covenant, if you are believers.
“(Allah)
it is Who sends down clear messages to (Allah’s) servant, that he may bring
your forth from darkness into light. And
surely Allah is Kind, Merciful to you.
“And
what reason have you that you spend not in Allah’s way? And Allah’s is the inheritance of the heavens
and the earth. Those of you who spent
before the Victory and fought are not on a level with others. They are greater in rank than those who spent
and fought afterwards. And Allah has
promised (benevolence) to all. And Allah
is Aware of what you do.” (v1-10).
“Who is
he that will offer to Allah a (benevolent) gift, so (Allah) will double it for
him, and he will have a generous
reward.” (v11).
“On
that day thou wilt see the faithful men and the faithful women, their light
gleaming before them and on their right hand.
(Benevolent) news for you this day!—Gardens wherein rivers flow, to
abide therein! That is the grand
achievement.” (v13).
“Know
that Allah gives life to the earth after its death. Indeed, We have made the signs clear for you
that you may understand.” (v17).
“Know
that this world’s life is only sport and play and gaiety and boasting among
yourselves and a vying in the multiplication of wealth and children. It is as rain, whose causing the vegetation
to grow pleases the husbandmen, then it withers away so that thou seest it
turning yellow, then it becomes chaff.
And in the Hereafter is a severe chastisement, and also forgiveness from
Allah and (Allah’s) pleasure. And this
world’s life is naught but a source of vanity.”
(v20).
“Vie
one with another for forgiveness from your Lord and a Garden the extensiveness
of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth—it is prepared for
those who believe in Allah and (Allah’s) messengers. That is the grace of Allah; (Allah) gives it to whom (Allah)
pleases. And Allah is the Lord of mighty
grace.” (v21).
“No
disaster befalls in the earth, or in yourselves, but it is in a book before We
bring it into existence—surely that is easy to Allah—
“So
that you grieve not for what has escaped you, nor exult in that which (Allah)
has given you. And Allah loves not any
arrogant boaster.” (v22-23).
“O you
who believe, keep your duty to Allah and believe in (Allah’s) Messenger—(Allah)
will give you two portions of (Allah’s) mercy, and give you a light in which
you shall walk, and forgive you. And
Allah is Forgiving, Merciful—
“That
the People of the Book may know that they control naught of the grace of Allah,
and that frace is in Allah’s hand.
(Allah) gives it to whom (Allah) pleases. And Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.” (v28-29).
--
Discussion
Questions From Sura 55 Al Rahman (The Beneficent) And Sura 56 Al Waqiah (The
Event)
What is
the intentionality, the significance, and the influence of the repetitive
phrase within Sura Al Rahman?
Amidst
the promise of the gardens of Heaven, and the companions to be had within
Paradise, what influence does this have within a believer’s temporal
behaviour? Does this influence a
believer’s temporal ambitions and pursuits?
Does this have a cognisant or subliminal influence through the
unconscious dreams of believers?
What is
the metaphysical lesson to be intrinsically gleaned from the notion that people
are frequently born with both a right hand and a left hand? Do both of these qualities intrinsically
exist within each person? How can a
“Universal” metaphor be utilised without being susceptible to being applied to
all individuals (righteous and perceivably unrighteous)?
--
Discussion
Questions From Sura 57 Al Hadid (Iron), Sura 58 Al Mujadilah (The Pleading
Woman), Sura 59 Al Hashr (The Banishment), Sura 60 Al Mumtahanah (The Woman Who
Is Examined), And Sura 61 Al Saff (The Ranks)
How
does the Koran’s reference to a “benevolent gift” to Allah compare with the
offerings prescribed within the Torah?
How does this compare with the comprehensive approach and Theology and
asceticism within Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Christianity? What is the nature between Islam’s emphasis
upon Zakat and benevolent deeds, as well as upon maintaining a householder
lifestyle (and abstaining from celibacy and asceticism)? And how does that duality compare with
respective teachings within Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity
regarding these same topics?
Within
much of the Koran, there seems to be a substantial, repeated emphasis on the
teaching that “hell” is a worse suffering than any suffering within the
temporal Realm, and Heaven is a higher pleasure than any pleasure within the
temporal Realm, and thus believers should behave righteously to eventually
experience the most pleasurable of pleasures;
however, the augmentation of the “carrot and stick” still seems to rely
upon the temporal experience of the sensations maintained amidst the carrot and
stick; simultaneously there are
additional teachings within the Koran that transcend the “temporal” experience
of sensations and of pleasure and pain, to emphasis a righteousness,
benevolence, compassion, and love, and Truth that extends beyond pleasure and
pain; what may be some specific examples
of such teachings within the Koran, and what may be some specific examples of
such teachings respectively within additional religious traditions, as well?
Amidst
the notion of Allah providing guidance and grace upon whomever Allah pleases,
what implications does this have upon the perception of the “free will” of an individual? Is it necessary for an individual to even try
to be righteous amidst such a decision ultimately being made by Allah? How does the Koran explain the nature of the
relationship between “free will” and “omnipotence”? And how do additional religious traditions
explain this apparent mutual exclusiveness?
Is the awakening to this mutual exclusivity (and perhaps emphasis upon
the existence of omnipotence) a process of the quelling of the ego and a
reconciliations and atonement with one’s self and the Universe, and Allah?
What is
the nature of the phenomenon of forgetting one’s own soul? What is the nature of the interaction between
the ego and the Atman amidst such an experience; where does the individual actually exist
amidst such a “disconnect,” and how is the process of remembrance
regenerated; and continual remembrance
cultivated? What role do additional
individuals play within the nature of this connexion?
How
does the Koran’s teaching regarding “the enemy” compare with Jesus’s teaching
regarding the enemy? What are
appropriate approaches in dealing with transgressors? Is reconciliation appropriate; and if so,
does such reconciliation require a preceding love and respect?
--
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