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 7; Vayetze; 118.3.21
Vayetze
Bereshit
28:10 – 32:3
Yaakov
leaves Beer-Sheva towards Haran
Yaakov
dreams and sees ladder to Heaven, with Adonai’s Angels
Adonai
tells of the vastness of Yaakov’s progeny
Yaakov
builds pillar of stones, with oil, and calls it “Beth El;” makes vow to Adonai
Yaakov
meets and kisses Rachel and moves stone from well
Yaakov
contracts with Laban to labour 7 years for marriage with Rachel
After
7 years, Laban provides Leah; Yaakov
labours another 7 years for Rachel
Leah
gives birth to Reuven, Simeon, Levi, and Yudah;
Bilhah gives birth to Dan and Naphtali;
Zilpah gives birth to Gad and Asher
Reuven
picks duda’im for Leah; Leah trades to
Rachel; Leah sleeps with Yaakov and
conceives Issachar; Leah conceives
Zebulun and Dinah
Rachel
gives birth to Yosef
Yaakov
plans to leave Laban; negotiates
wages; Laban deceitfully removes
Yaakov’s flocks; Yaakov establishes
methodology, with blessing of Adonai, for bountiful flocks
Yaakov
and his family and house flee from Laban;
Rachel steals Laban’s idols
Laban
pursues Yaakov; receives warning from
Adonai to be temperate with Yaakov;
Laban catches Yaakov; is unable
to find idols
Laban
and Yaakov make treaty of Peace and erect pillar and mound of stones
Laban
departs from Yaakov’s camp
--
What
are some of the social dynamics within the relationship between Rachel and
Leah? And what is the role of the
respective “maids”/“slaves,” Bilhah and Zilpah?
Does this have any implications regarding any implicit hierarchy amidst
all of Yaakov’s sons?
What
are some of the social dynamics within the aggregate relationship between
Yaakov and Laban (and Laban’s house)?
How does this relationship evolve throughout the narrative in Bereshit? Utilising the example of Laban wanting to
kiss his children goodbye as one instance, how does each utilise a portion of
the Truth to make an argument that might solicit an exceeding acquiescence on
the part of the other?
What
is the nature of the marital relations between Yaakov and his wives? How is he able to maintain a proficient
amount of cohesion amongst his 4 wives, compared to Avraham with Sarah and
Hagar? Within the practice of polygamy,
or maintaining multiple wives, is there an inevitable establishment of 1
favoured wife and additional subordinate wives? The example of Yaakov seems to be different
from a sultan maintaining a harem of women.
It seems as though Yaakov maintains the practice of sleeping with
Rachel, however, he evidently sleeps with Leah, without Rachel’s explicit
permission, in order to conceive Zebulun and Dinah. Are there any historic examples of there
being proficient equitability amongst numerous wives of one husband? How binding is Laban’s demand for Yaakov to
abstain from marrying any additional women?
There
seems to be an appropriate comparison to the spoils of victory from a violent
battle and Rachel’s stealing of Laban’s idols.
Other than causing insult and/or harm to Laban, what benefit do Laban’s
idols provide to Rachel and Yaakov and his family and house? Contrarily, does stealing the idols
implicitly involve Rachel and Yaakov and his family and house within the same
transgression of idol worship (or at least perceiving significance within
idols) for which Laban is intrinsically criticised? Does this have any connexion with the later
description of Yaakov being required to remove all the idols from his
household? How is the practice of
maintaining murtis explained within Hinduism, amidst a belief in an Ultimate
Reality, Brahman, that exists beyond matter, personification, duality, and
existence itself? Is there a difference
between Hindu murtis, statues of the Buddha, Christian depictions of Jesus, the
Kaaba in Mecca, and bowing before the Torah, from the idol worshipping
practiced by Laban and other nations described in Bereshit and the Torah?
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
7
Jnana
and Vijnana promised
Earth,
water, fire, air, akasha, mind, intellect, ego described as 8 divisions of
prakriti
Description
of omnipresence of Brahman
3
gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) comprise maya;
maya deludes people
Different
motivations for finding Brahman (spiritual life): alleviate suffering, to understand life,
achieve life’s purpose, people of wisdom (wisdom highest: see Brahman in everything)
Nature
of Brahman exists beyond birth and death
Delusion
arises from duality of attraction and aversion
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 7
“With your mind intent on (Me), Arjuna,
discipline yourself with the practice of yoga. Depend on (Me)
completely. Listen, and I will dispel all your doubts; you will
come to know (Me) fully and be united with (Me).” (v1).
“I will give you both jnana and
vijnana. When both these are realized, there is nothing more you need to
know.” (v2).
“Earth, water, fire, air, akasha, mind,
intellect, and ego—these are the eight divisions of (My) prakriti.
“But beyond this I have another, higher
nature, Arjuna; it supports the whole universe and is the source of life
in all beings.” (v4-5).
“There is nothing that exists separate from
(Me), Arjuna. The entire universe is suspended from (Me) as (My) necklace
of jewels.
“Arjuna, I am the taste of pure water and the
radiance of the sun and moon. I am the sacred word and the sound heard in
air, and the courage of human beings.
“I am the sweet fragrance in the earth and
the radiance of fire; I am the life in every creature and the striving of
the spiritual aspirant.” (v8-9).
“My eternal seed, Arjuna, is to be found in
every creature. I am the power of discrimination in those who are
intelligent, and the glory of the noble.
“In those who are strong, I am strength, free
from passion and selfish attachment. I am desire itself, if that desire
is in harmony with the purpose of life.” (v10-11).
“The states of sattva, rajas, and tamas come
from (Me), but I am not in them.
“These three gunas deceive the world:
people fall to look beyond them to (Me), supreme and imperishable.
“The three gunas make up (My) divine maya,
difficult to overcome. But they cross over this maya who take refuge in
(Me).
“Others are deluded by maya; performing
evil deeds, they have no devotion to (Me). Having lost all
discrimination, they follow the way of their lower nature.” (v12-15).
“(Benevolent) people come to worship (Me) for
different reasons. Some come to the spiritual life because of suffering, some
in order to understand life; some come through a desire to achieve life’s
purpose, and some come who are men and women of wisdom.
“Unwavering in devotion, always united with
(Me), the man or woman of wisdom surpasses all the others. To them I am
the dearest beloved, and they are very dear to (Me).
“All those who follow the spiritual path are
blessed. But the wise who are always established in union, for whom there
is no higher goal than (Me), may be regarded as (My) very Self.”
(v16-18).
“When a person is devoted to something with
complete faith, I unify his faith in that.
“Then, when his faith is completely unified,
he gains the object of his devotion. In this way, every desire is
fulfilled by (Me).” (v21-23).
“Through lack of understanding, people
believe that I, the Unmanifest, have entered into some form. They fail to
realize (My) (True) nature, which transcends birth and death.
“Few see through the veil of maya. The
world, deluded, does not know that I am without birth and changeless.
“I know everything about the past, the
present, and the future, Arjuna; but there is no one who knows (Me)
completely.” (v24-26).
“Delusion arises from the duality of
attraction and aversion, Arjuna; every creature is deluded by these from
birth.
“But those who have freed themselves from all
wrongdoing are firmly established in worship of (Me). Their actions are
pure, and they are free from the delusion caused by the pairs of
opposites.” (v27-28).
“Those who see (Me) ruling the cosmos, who
see (Me) in the adhibhuta, the adhidaiva, and the adhiyajna, are conscious of
(Me) even at the time of death.” (v30).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 7 – 8
Consideration
of other religious traditions (particularly Judaism and Islam) that describe
the nature of God (and the miracles of, and Creation from, God) existing
everywhere.
Is
there a xenophobic tendency within the description of the “Northern Path of the
Sun” (light) leading to liberation and the “Southern Path of the Sun” (dark)
leading to rebirth?
--
How can one “depend on Brahman
completely”? What does that look like? What tangibility, and what
actions exist within such reliance and Faith? What does a complete
“absence of dependence” upon Brahman look like; what are the tangibilities
and actions of such a lack of Faith? And how can the respective
behaviours of these polarities be evidence within the temporal behaviour of an
individual’s own self?
Can earth, water, fire, and air be considered
as the basic elements that exist within the Universe? How do the
comparatively abstract notions of akasha, mind, intellect, and ego factor
within this context of prakriti? Can “seed” (and its progenerative quality)
be considered as another element within the Universe that is substantially
distinct (even from “earth”); and how does this connect with the
description of the higher nature of Brahman as the source of life within all
beings? And can all elements be simply considered all as different forms
of “matter,” and that the only distinct phenomena that exist within the
Universe are matter, energy, and “Now” (the intangible experience of the Atman,
spirit, soul, intellect, ego, and similar concepts)?
Amidst the description of the gunas being
derived from Brahman, how can the “evil” deeds of an individual be attributed
to the individual rather than to the source of the characteristic that prompts
(and that exists within) the deed, Brahman? With such an understanding,
is the entire notion of “evilness” simply a delusion? And if so, what is
the purpose of such a delusion? Within the experience of life, does an
individual encounter the challenge of “evilness,” simply as a means of learning
how to forgive, and to be forgiven? Amidst the ascension beyond pain and
pleasure, is the “illusion of evilness” increasingly easy to comprehend?
What is the nature, and purpose, of the
distinctions amongst different spiritual aspirants: those searching for
relief from suffering, those searching to understand life, those searching to
achieve life’s purpose, and those searching for wisdom? Is there actually
any distinction amongst these different motivations?
Beginning within verse 21, there is the
teaching regarding “unifying one’s Faith” towards the object of one’s
devotion; how does this compare with the Buddha’s Dependent Origination
and Becoming; and with Jesus’s teaching regarding benevolent works,
serving Deus or mammon, and dedicating one’s Faith; and with Moshe’s
blessing and curse, and instruction for the Israelites to maintain the
integrity of Adonai’s mitzvot amidst the influences of additional tribes and
traditions; and the Koran’s teaching of Allah testing individuals through
the provision of material wealth?
What exists within humanity’s tendency of
attempting to “tangiblise” Brahman? What are the perceived benefits
within such identification, and what are the perceived detriments? How
does bowing towards the Torah and the Temple wall, bowing towards Mecca and the
Kaba, bowing towards the Cross, bowing towards murtis and statues that
represent celestial beings, and bowing towards other individuals and objects,
all factor within this practise of “tangiblising” Brahman? What are the
purposes; what are the fallacies; and how do such practises
discourage practitioners within respective traditions into condemning each
other for the perceived blasphemous or inappropriateness of such
behaviour? How does the submission of bowing compare with the submission of
feeding, clothing, housing, and healing people?
Amidst the notion of years, months, days, and
partially hours simply being respective measurements of the respective orbits
and rotations of the Earth and Moon, is there any legitimacy within the notion
of “time” simply being an elusion; that these measurements are simply a
measure of distance and movement, rather than necessarily of the passage of
time; and that there is simply the continual experience of “Now,” that is
always changing, and that maintains a certain perception of the “past” and of
the “future”? How might such an understanding help facilitate
reconciliation, direction, and purpose within the respective actions of
individuals within the “Now”?
How does “Om” compare and contrast with “YHVH”
(Hashem)? How do the respective understanding, practise, utilisation, and
phonetics of both of these terms compare and contrast with each other?
--
Digha
Nikaya
Sonadanda
Sutta
The
Buddha and the Sangha rest at the Gaggara Lake, in Kampa, in the Anga country
Sonandanda,
the Brahmin, proclaims intention to visit
the Buddha
Brahmins
criticise Sonadanda for such intentions because of the diminishment of his
reputation resulting from thus, citing his qualities as a Brahmin, including
being: well born on both sides,
prosperous, a repeater of the Vedas, handsome with fair complexion, virtuous,
provided with pleasant voice, a teacher of teachers, aged, honoured, and a
resident of the prosperous area of Kampa (provided by Seniya Bimbisara)
Sonadanda
proclaims virtues of the Buddha, including being: well born on both sides, a religious forsaker
of his family, a religious forsaker of treasures, departed from his handsome
and youthful manhood, departed from his parents and his household life,
handsome with fair complexion, virtuous, provided with pleasant voice, teacher
of teachers, without the passion of lust, a believer of Karma and
righteousness, a renunciant of the Kshatriya clan, a renunciant of a wealthy
family, a recipient of visitors from distant lands, a recipient of the trust of
Heavenly beings, an Arahat, a possessor of the 32 signs, a welcomer of all men,
honoured, the recipient of the belief or men and dieties, an instiller of
Peace, a chief of religious sects, a recipient of the trust of Seniya
Bimbisara, Pasenadi, Pokkharasadi, and a guest of Kampa
The
Brahmins acquiesce to Sonadanda
Sonadanda
becomes fearful of being unable to proficiently answer a question from the
Buddha or being unable to proficiently ask the Buddha a question; and thus, losing standing
The
Buddha asks Sonadanda a simply question:
what makes a Brahmin a Brahmin?
Sonadanda
proclaims 5 characteristics that qualify an individual as a Brahmin: well born on both sides for 7 generations, a
repeater of the Vedas, handsome and fair complexion, virtuous, and wise
The
Buddha asks if an individual can qualify as a Brahmin without any 1 of these
characteristics
Sonadanda
concedes that 3 characteristics (handsome and fair complexion, repeater of the
Vedas, and well born on both sides for 7 generations) are unnecessary in
qualifying as a Brahmin
Brahmins
criticise Sonadanda for depreciating the Brahmin caste
Sonadanda
responds by citing example of his nephew, Angaka; proclaiming that Angaka has the 3
characteristics, yet if he behaves without virtue and wisdom (citing 5
prohibitions within Buddhism: killing,
stealing, adultery, dishonesty, and intoxication), he disqualifies himself as a
Brahmin
The
Buddha asks whether an individual can qualify as a Brahmin without either
virtue or wisdom; Sonadanda affirms his
stance regarding these 2 characteristics and the Buddha agrees
The
Buddha asks: what, then, is that
righteousness and what that wisdom?
Sonadanda returns the question to the Buddha, and the Buddha provides
standard teaching of the Dharma
After
receiving the discourse, Sonadanda proclaims to be an adherent of the Dharma
Sonadanda
makes disclaimer of social protocols in abstaining from bowing to the Buddha in
public to maintain his standing
--
Is
the characteristic of avoiding ever receiving a slur an actual, historic trait,
or is this somewhat of a hyperbole?
There is the consideration that within different historic civilisations,
particularly wherein there is less written communication and reliance upon
verbal communication and agreements is vital, that people may be increasingly
conscientious of what people actually say (compared to contemporary
circumstances of multimedia and hyperdrive communications). Is it possible, amidst contemporary
circumstances, to live without a slur ever being communicated against one’s
self (either personally and/or implicitly through affiliation with a general
community); and, is it possible to live
without communicating a slur against someone else and/or another general
community?
Within
this Sutta, the Buddha is described as having a proficient ability of
telepathy. Is proficient telepathy a
marvel within the intellectually entrenched practices of “Western
civilisation”? And do Eastern
traditional practitioners maintain a proficiency within this phenomenon of
telepathy? To what extent do people
actually believe in the ability of telepathy and what are some of the protocols
or guidelines regarding the actual practice of telepathy? It seems that simply by the communication of
the concept, the ability necessarily exists in some degree or another. There is the consideration of “tacit”
communication and inside jokes. Within
one episode of Star Trek, where the crew interacts with extra-terrestrial life
that maintains such ability, there is the description of a certain protocol of
etiquette in practising telepathy where the practitioner is advised to abstain
from “reading” the thoughts of another individual without receiving appropriate
permission from that individual. Are
there any additional protocols of etiquette that seem appropriate? One consideration, amidst the practice of
telepathy, is how an individual is able to definitively determine the source of
the thoughts of another individual.
There may be an initial perception of a thought being communicated from
another person within an individual’s immediate physical proximity, however,
amidst the phenomenon of telepathy, there is the consideration that thoughts
can be communicated from the vast infinity of space and the progression of
events (time); perhaps even from people
who are passed from this life. We may
consider the previous “influences” and teachings that people respectively have
upon us and how that affects the thought that we seem to experience with others
who are physically and immediately close to us.
How much are these thoughts being communicated from those near to us,
those distant from us, and how much are these thoughts simply a projection from
our respective selves? From where is a
thought actually derived?
What
is the custom associated with being one who is the first to “hold out the
ladel”?
--
Matthew
14 – 17
Herod
perceives Jesus as John the Baptist;
description of Herod beheading John the Baptist
Jesus
feeds crowd of 5,000 men with additional women and children with 5 loaves and 2
fish, with 12 baskets left over
Jesus
walks on water
Peter
tries to walk on water
Pharisees
and scribes ask about absence of washing hands;
Jesus references Isaiah (“precepts of men”) and teaches disciples
“cleanliness of actions”
Gentile
woman pleads for healing of her daughter
Jesus
heals additional people
Jesus
feeds crowd of 4,000 men and additional women and children, with 7 loaves of
bread and a few fish
Scribes
ask for a sign and Jesus rebukes
Jesus: “beware of the leavening (teaching) of the
Pharisees and Sadducees”
Peter
proclaims Jesus as the Christ; Jesus
proclaims Peter as “the Rock”
Jesus
prophesies his destiny
Jesus
climbs mountain with Peter, James, and John;
voice from God, with Moshe and Eliyahu
Jesus
explains John the Baptist as Eliyahu
Jesus
heals epileptic boy that disciples unable to heal
Jesus
pays Peter’s tax with a shekel from a fish
--
Gospels
Matthew 13 – 14
“That same day Jesus went out of the house
and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered about him, so that he
got into a boat and sat there; and the whole crowd stood on the
beach. And he told them many things in parables, saying: ‘A sower
went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the
birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where
they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had not
depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they
had not root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns
grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on (beneficial) soil and
brought forth grain, some a hundred-fold, some sixty, some thirty. He who
has ears, let him hear.’” (v1-9).
“Then the disciples came and said to him,
‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’ And he answered them, ‘To you it
has been given to know the secrets of the (Sovereignty) of heaven, but to them
it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will
have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken
away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not
see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.’” (v10-13).
“Hear then the parable of the sower.
When any one hears the word of the (Sovereignty) and does not understand it,
the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is
what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this
is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has
no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or
persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As
for what was sown among thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of
the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves
unfruitful. As for what was sown on (beneficial) soil, this is he who
hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in
one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” (v18-23).
“Another parable he put before them, saying,
‘The (Sovereignty) of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed (beneficial)
seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed
weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore
grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder
came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow (beneficial) seed in your
field? How then has it weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done
this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather
them?’ But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up
the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the
harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first
and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my
barn.’” (v 24-30).
“Another parable he put before them, saying,
‘The (Sovereignty) of heaven is like a garin of mustard seed which a man took
and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has
grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the
air come and make nests in its branches.’” (v31-32).
“He told them another parable. ‘The
(Sovereignty) of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three
measures of flour, till it was all leavened.’” (v33).
“Then he left the crowds and went into the
house. And his disciples came to him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable
of the weeds of the field.’ He answered, ‘He who sows the (beneficial
seed) is the Son of man; the field is the world, and the (beneficial)
seed means the sons of the (Sovereignty); the weeds are the sons of the
evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the
close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are
gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The
Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather of his kingdom al causes
of sin and al evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there
men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like
the sun in the (Sovereignty) of their (Deus). He who has ears, let him
hear.’” (v36-43).
“And when Jesus had finished these parables,
he went away from there, and coming to his own country he taught them in their
synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, ‘Where did this man get this
wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is
not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and
Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then
did this man get all this?’ And they took offense at him. But Jesus
said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in
his own house.’ And he did not do many mighty works there, because of
their unbelief.” (v53-58).
There is the description of Herod beheading
John the Baptist.
“Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from
there in a boat to a lonely place apart. But when the crowds heard it,
they followed him on foot from the towns. As he went ashore he saw a
great throng; and he had compassion on them, and healed their sick.
When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely
place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages
and buy food for themselves.’ Jesus said, ‘They need not go away;
you give them something to eat.’ They said to him, ‘We have only five
loaves here and two fish.’ And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’
Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five
loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave
the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.
And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full
of the broken pieces left over. And those who ate were about five
thousand men, besides women and children.” (v13-21).
“Then he made the disciples get into the boat
and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And
after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to
pray. Wen evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was
many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind
was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them,
walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea,
they were terrified, saying, ‘It is a ghost!’ and they cried out for
fear. But immediately he spoke to them, saying, ‘Take heart, it is I;
have no fear.’
“And Peter answered him, ‘(Leader), if it is
you, bid me come to you on the water.’ He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter
got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when
he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, ‘(Leader),
save me.’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying
to him, ‘O man of little faith, why did you doubt?’ And when they got
into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him,
saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” (v22-33).
--
Do
people actually eat an increase of food from the 5 loaves and 2 fish, or are
people simply genuinely fulfilled with the much smaller portions that are given; (water and wine idea)?
Vegetarianism
and Jesus’ doctrine regarding clean hands and clean acts
Metaphysical
consideration of cleanliness: leprosy
and diseases being derived from previous transgressions
Consideration: what is Jesus’ doctrine regarding taxation
and spirituality/religion? Jesus seems
to rebuke conventional government, but then provides Peter with the means to
pay the tax (to “abstain from causing offence”)? Does Jesus actually conform to conventional
authority, or is there significance that the shekel is provided through a
miracle? Is there significance in the
fact that Jesus actually abstains from directly paying the tax (and instead,
simply telling Peter how to do so)? What
are lessons for contemporary circumstances with conventional government and
taxation?
--
Within the parable of the “sower of seeds,”
might the fundamental distinction be understood as the seeds that are sown in
beneficial soil and the seeds that are sown in a dubious manner (with the
different challenges of this temporal life having similar consequences)?
Whilst Jesus explains the seeds as the teachings of righteousness, can the
seeds within this parable also be appropriately understood as the children of
those who receive the teachings? And if so, what implications do the
actions of the sower have regarding the manner in which he “plants his seeds”?
How does Jesus’s teaching, regarding “from
him who has not, even what he has will be taken away,” intersect with Jesus’s
previous teaching within the Sermon on the Mount, regarding “blessed are the
impoverished”? What appropriate socioeconomic policies are to be drawn
from these respective teachings?
May it be considered that, amidst the
continuing condition of suffering within the Universe upon the passing of
Jesus, that all the disciples of Jesus exist, in some manner, within the
initial categories of sowers (with a lack of understanding, a lack of
rootedness amidst persecution, and/or a tendency for being usurped by the
“cares of the world”)? If otherwise, what is the tangible fruit that is
reaped by the sower within the beneficial soil, and how does this differ from
the effective fruits of the other sowers?
Amidst the parable of the enemy sowing weeds,
there is the literal consideration of such individuals actually cultivating and
storing the seeds of weeds specifically with the intention of sabotaging
another person’s crops; is this an actual agricultural tactic? Can
the manufacturing and stockpiling of weapons be considered in a similar manner?
What other forms of human “production” and “cultivation” exist specifically
within an antagonist context, with the specific intention of causing harm to
another individual and/or community? And how do the manufacturing of
weapons and additional antagonistic tactics have a detrimental effect on
exactly those individuals and communities who practise such? How can
people be encouraged to transcend such practises?
What is the cause, and the nature, of the
lack of honour that a Prophet experiences within his own house? How does
Jesus’s experience compare and contrast with the respective experiences of
Avraham, Yitzak, Yaakov, Moshe, the Buddha, Arjuna, and Muhammad?
Amidst the story of Jesus and Peter walking
atop the sea, there is the consideration: does each person, with
sufficient Faith, have the propensity of walking atop the sea? And if so,
what do such individuals relinquish by having such Faith and such
ability? Amidst such Faith and ability, what becomes the actual nature of
the sea and additional phenomena throughout the Universe? Amidst being
able to break a few loaves of bread to feed a few thousand people, what is the
sustenance that is required to sustain such individuals?
Whilst the “defiling” teaching is in response
to the washing of hands, this teaching is also utilised as a means of
permitting the meat of animals that is prohibited within the Kashrut laws of
Judaism; amidst the notion of the “actions coming out of a man defiling,”
how might this apply to the very act of killing an animal to eat its meat
(particularly amidst the recognition of the suffering of the animal, as
evidenced within the stringent Jewish Halachic directions for slaughtering
animals and causing the least amount of anguish)?
Jesus’s response to the Canaanite woman, who
asks for healing for her daughter, seems rather derogatory, and the woman’s
response seems to be substantially subservient; how does this exist
amidst Jesus’s teachings of compassion for all people? Jesus also
communicates the mission only to tend to the “lost children” of Israel, yet
this mission is expanded to include Gentiles; how does this interaction
between the Canaanite woman and Jesus influence the manner in which Jesus’s
teachings and healing are shared with people outside of the fold of Israel?
--
Koran
Sura
7: Al A’raf; The Elevated Places
The
Koran proclaims the Oneness of Allah, and the tendency of disbelievers,
including Iblis
Iblis
vows to corrupt humanity
The
story of Adam, evil, and the forbidden, is described
The
Koran implores the children of Adam to be righteous, and avoid seduction of
evil unlike example of Adam and Eve
There
is the description of the cycles of civilisation; and imploring of humanity to abide by the
Message
There
is the description of a veil and the Elevated place between the believers and
the disbelievers
There
is the description of how Allah creates the Universe
There
is the command to call upon Allah humbly and in secret
The
mercy of Allah is provided to the doers of good
There
is reference to Noach
There
is reference to Hud who refers to Noach
There
is reference to Salih and the people of Thamud, who references the people of Ad
(and Hud), and the Thamud hamstring the she-camel
There
is reference to Lot
There
is reference to Shua’ib and the people of Midian, who teaches fair measures
There
is the description of people being tested with blessings
There
is reference to Moshe, Pharaoh, the rod into a snake, and the dissonance
between Moshe and Pharaoh and Pharaoh’s Priests
There
is the description of the plagues suffered by Egypt
Moshe
communes with Allah for 40 days, whilst Aaron is with the children of Israel
Aaron
and the Israelites form the golden calf and repent when Moshe returns
The
Messenger of Allah, Peace Be Upon Him, is referenced, also as “the Ummi”
There
is the description of the miracles amidst Moshe
There
is the description of the transgression of the Israelites
The
Hour is described
Verse
199: “Take to forgiveness and enjoin
good and turn away from the ignorant.”
--
When
reading the Koran, is there a certain pattern of technique that can or should
be recognized regarding many of the versus of the Suras? For instances, there are certain themes and
principles that are repeatedly emphasised (such as the Oneness of Allah, the
Creation of Allah, tendencies and consequences of disbelievers, references to
historic responses from believers and disbelievers, blessings, curses,
descriptions of Creation, and additionally).
Is there a certain combination where specific teachings and principles
are usually connected with each other in sequential verses? If there are certain patterns, is there any
variation from this, within the Koran?
And, amidst such patterns, is there any significance to where and how
these patterns are arranged, and/or within any manner of how these patterns may
vary within the Koran? Does the
inclusion of any frequent, standard teachings, principles, and/or patterns
amidst other (perceivably distinct and stand alone, and less repeated) teachings
provide increased or decreased significance to the other teachings being
communicated in a specific passage?
What
is the actual distinction between the 1st person plural
proclamations of the Koran, made from the Angels of Allah (and presumably the
Angel, Gabriel) and the actual actions and proclamations of Allah? Is the voice of Allah explicitly or
intrinsically included within that 1st person plural language of the
Koran?
How
does the belief, understanding, and/or interpretation and implications of the
story of Adam and Eve, the Tree of Knowledge, and the serpent (evil, Devil,
additionally) compare between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
There
seems to be an implicit suggestion of a linear sequential emergence of Noach,
Hud, Salih, Noach, and Shua’ib. Is this
an accurate observation, and is this the historical progression of each of
these individuals? How does this compare
with the narrative within the Torah, the Talmudic and traditional explanations,
and additional accounts of the history within this same geographic area?
There
is an interesting distinction in the respective stories that describe Moshe’s
interaction with Allah on the Mountain.
Within this Sura, Al A’rah, Allah is describe ed as crumbling another
mountain when Moshe solicits to see Allah;
whereas, within the Torah, there is the description of Adonai passing by
Moshe so that Moshe is able to see the back of Adonai. Amidst these obvious differences, what are
some of the fundamental similarities within these 2 stories, and how do these
compare with additional descriptions of similar experiences, such as Arjuna and
Sri Krishna, Jesus, and the Buddha, and additionally?
After
a considerable amount of concentration, repetition, and consideration, this
Sura seems to become increasingly cohesive.
There seems to be a linear description of the many Prophets revered
within Islam and within the Koran (as previously described and continuing
through Moshe and Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Each Prophet). Is this intentional? This lineage also exists within the context
of additional teachings (also, as previously described). Does this have any significance. The name of this Sura is, “Al A’rah” (The
Elevated Places), and seems to refer to the specific teaching (also previously
described) regarding the distinction of the respective experience of believers
and disbelievers upon the Day of Judgment.
What are the implications of this title of, “Al A’rah,” with respect to
the lineage of the Prophets; and who
provides this Sura with this appellation?
There
is the consideration, amidst the title, “Al A’rah,” is it easier to be a
“believer” when one is in Heaven, or when one is experiencing the adversity of
the curses of the Day of Judgment. The
teachings of Heaven, within the Koran, seem to communicate the “carrot and the
stick” approach, offering exceeding sensual pleasures (of gardens, companions ,
and additionally) within Heaven, upon the Day of Judgment. Yet there is also the teaching that the
bounties and pleasures of this temporal realm are simply a test of
righteousness and to abstain from indulging in such seduction. So why is Heaven described as a sensual
delight of pleasures when there is the teaching to abstain from becoming
enveloped within such sensual pleasures?
The teaching to abstain from such sensual pleasures seems to suggest
that such sensual pleasures are ultimately insignificant; and if such sensual pleasures are ultimately
insignificant, then such descriptions of heightened sensual pleasures in
Heaven, upon the Day of Judgment for the believers, is a false motivation for
those who adhere to such beliefs. The
notion of “saving up” one’s righteousness to experience the ultimate sensual
pleasures in Heaven seems to be intrinsically contradictory. How does this approach to transcending
sensual pleasures of this temporal realm compare with the teachings of
indifference (maintaining equanimity amongst pleasure and pain, friend and foe)
provided from the Bhagavad Gita?
Within
this Sura, the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, is specifically referenced,
which seems to be somewhat unusual;
however, this may also be understood within the previously described
context of the linear history of the Prophets.
Is there any significance to this inclusion? Why are Avraham and Jesus and others (such as
David and Solomon) excluded from this linear historic description? And, what significance to Peter and Paul
respectively maintain within the Faith of Islam?
When
the Koran commands: “Say: …I am the Messenger of Allah…”, is this a
specific, exclusive command for Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, or are all Muslims
who recite this passage supposed to identify as being the recipient of this
command and this position? What are the
implications with either of these understandings?
What
is the meaning and significance of the reference to “the Ummi” (one who
abstains from writing and reading what is written)?
Within
this Sura, there is reference to the 99 Names of Allah; and amidst this, there is the consideration
of a book-writing project, where each of the 99 Names of Allah are listed
within the order that these names appear within the Koran, with citations, and
with each name written in Arabic, with translations of each name in additional,
appropriate languages. And perhaps such
a book may provide some additional insight and teaching regarding many or all
of these names.
Also
within this Sura, there is the description that alternate personas of worship,
other than Allah, are very much slaves just like those who provide the
worship. How can this teaching be
applied to the contemporary form of celebrity and the pursuit of fame and
personal glory?
--
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