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 8; Vayishlach; 118.3.29
Vayishlach
Bereshit
32:4 – 36:43
Yaakov
sends messengers before reuniting with Esau;
messengers reply that Esau is approaching with 400 men.
Yaakov
prays to Adonai; Yaakov sends gifts to
Esau, in droves.
Yaakov
wrestles with the Angel and receives the name, “Yisrael.”
Yaakov
and Esau are reconciled.
Shechem
rapes Dinah; Sons of Israel deceive city
of Hamor (and Shechem) into being circumcised, and kill all men in the city.
Yaakov
commands his house to rid itself of idols.
Elohim
blesses Yaakov, again, with name of, “Israel.”
On
the way to Ephrath (Bethlehem), Rachel gives birth to Benyamin, and passes
away.
The
descendants of Esau are described.
The
descendants of Seir are described.
The
tribes of Esau are described.
--
What
is the connexion between Yaakov praying to Adonai and subsequently sending
gifts? Is the provision of gifts
Divinely inspired?
There
is an interesting similarity between the terms, “Yisrael,” and “Islam,”
particularly considering how significant each term respectively is within the
respective traditions of Judaism and Islam.
It is also interesting to note the distinction of meanings (with terse
English translations of): “wrestling
with Adonai and prevailing,” and, “submission to the Will of Allah.” Is there any additional connexion, aside from
the phonetic sound, “Is”? How does the
term, “Ismael,” factor within this?
The
story of Shechem is somewhat disconcerting.
The hostility towards Shechem, after he rapes Dinah, is very
understandable; however, upon learning
of this story and even identifying with the hostility, how does a foreigner to
Israel reconcile the propensity to deceive, and proceed towards substantially
trusting the Sons of Israel?
--
Bhagavad
Gita
Chapter
8
Descriptions
of Brahman, adhyatma, adhibhuta, adhidaiva, adhiyajna
Brahman: highest nature; source of Creation
Adhyatma: presence of Brahman in each creature
Adhibhuta: perishable body
Adhidaiva: Purusha, eternal spirit
Adhiyajna: supreme sacrifice made to Brahman
Remembering
Brahman, through meditation, at time of death;
Om
Description
of paths of rebirth and liberation
Meditation
exists higher than study and selfless service, austerity, and giving
--
Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 8
“O Krishna, what is Brahman, and what is the
nature of action? What is the adhyatma, the adhibhuta, the adhidaiva?
“What is the adhiyajna, the supreme
sacrifice, and how is it to be offered? How are the self-controlled
united with (You) at the time of death?” (v1-2).
“My highest nature, the imperishable Brahman,
gives every creature its existence and lives in every creature as the
adhyatma. My action is creation and the bringing forth of creatures.
“The adhibhuta is the perishable body;
the adhidaiva is Purusha, eternal spirit. The adhiyajna, the supreme
sacrifice, is made to (Me) as the Lord within you.” (v3-4).
“Those who remember (Me) at the time of death
will come to (Me).
“Do not doubt this. Whatever occupies
the mind at the time of death determines the destination of the dying;
always they will tend toward that state of being.
“Therefore, remember (Me) at all times and
fight on. With your heart and mind intent on (Me), you will surely come
to (Me).
“When you make your mind one-pointed through
regular practice of meditation, you will find the supreme glory of the
Lord.” (v5-8).
“The Lord is the supreme poet, the first
cause, the sovereign ruler, subtler than the tiniest particle, the support of
all, inconceivable, bright as the sun, beyond darkness.” (v9).
“I will tell you briefly of the eternal state
all scriptures affirm, which can be entered only by those who are
self-controlled and free from selfish passions. Those whose lives are
dedicated to Brahman attain this supreme goal.
“Remembering (Me) at the time of death, close
down the doors of the senses and place the mind in the heart. Then, while
absorbed in meditation, focus all energy upwards to the head.
“Repeating in this state the divine Name, the
syllable Om that represents the changeless Brahman, you will go forth from the
body and attain the supreme goal.” (v11-13).
“I am easily attained by the person who
always remembers (Me) and is attached to nothing else.
“Such a person is a (True) yogi,
Arjuna. Great souls make their lives perfect and discover (Me);
they are freed from mortality and the suffering of this separate existence.
“Every creature in the universe is subject to
rebirth, Arjuna, except the one who is united with (Me).” (v14-16).
“But beyond this formless state there is
another, unmanifested (Reality), which is eternal and is not dissolved when the
cosmos is destroyed.” (v20).
“This supreme Lord (Who) pervades all
existence, the (True) Self of all creatures, may be (Realised) through
undivided love.” (v22).
--
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
Kutadanta
Sutta
The
Buddha visits the Ambalatthika Pleasuance, in Khanumata in Magadha.
Kutadanta,
the Brahmin, prepares to make a large sacrifice.
Kutadanta
considers to ask the Buddha about the sacrifice with 3-fold method, 16
accessory instruments; and leaves to
visit the Buddha.
Local
Brahmins challenge Kutadanta in a manner similar to Sonadanda, and Kutadanta
similarly replies.
Kutadanta
visits the Buddha, and the Buddha describes the quintessential sacrifice.
The
Buddha tells the story of King Maha Vigita who wants to offer a sacrifice.
King
Maha Vigita’s Brahmin advises him of disruption within the kingdom, and inappropriateness
of offering sacrifice amidst such disruption;
to establish accord before offering sacrifice.
The
Brahmin states that military action and punishment against robbers is
insufficient because it abstains from removing all culprits.
The
Brahmin advises to give food and seeds to those who are interested in keeping
cattle and raising crops; to give
capital to whoever is interested in trading;
and to give wages and food to whoever is interested in government work.
The
Brahmin advises that men become productive with such investment and families
dance with children and open doors.
King
Maha Vigita complies; and comprehensive
Peace and social and economic accord are established.
The
Brahmin advises the king to consult with the Kshatriyas, ministers and
officials, Brahmins, and householders, to endorse the sacrifice; this sanctioning becomes 4 furnishings for
the sacrifice.
The
Buddha describes King Maha Vigita’s 8 gifts:
wellborn on both sides for 7 generations without a slur, handsome and fair
complexion, mighty and wealthy, commanding a powerful army, believing and
giving, learned and knowledgeable, understanding of the meaning of concepts,
and intelligence; these gifts are 8
furnishings.
The
Buddha describes the 4 gifts of the Brahmin Chaplain: wellborn on both sides for 7 generations
without a slur, learned within the Holy Scriptures, virtue, and
intelligence; these gifts are 4
furnishings.
The
Buddha describes the 3 modes: abstaining
from regret before the sacrifice;
abstaining from regret during the sacrifice; abstaining from regret after the sacrifice.
The
Buddha describes 10 potential detractors from sacrifice: those who delve into: killing, thievery, lust, lies, slander, rude
speech, vain chatter, covetousness, illwill, and wrong views; advice to abstain from responding to such
actors, and to cater to those who abstain therefrom.
The
sacrifice is made without killing any animals, without cutting down trees,
without oppressive labour; “whoso chose
to help, he worked; whoso chose not to
help, worked not.”; sacrifice is made
only with ghee, oil, butter, milk, honey, and sugar.
Citizens
offer sacrifice for king, and king refuses;
citizens establish philanthropies with intended sacrifices.
The
listeners of the story rejoice, but Kutadanta is troubled; he asks Buddha whether the Buddha is that
Brahmin, and the Buddha confirms.
The
Buddha describes additional, enhanced forms of sacrifices: perpetual gifts to a virtuous family; establishing a dwelling place for the Sangha; accepting a Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, as a
guide; and adhering to 5 prohibitions (killing, thievery, lust, deceit,
intoxication).
The
Buddha provides the standard teaching of 4 Ghanas.
Kutadanta
accepts the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and releases the animals.
The
Buddha teaches the doctrine of the 4 Noble Truths (Dukka, Desire, Cessation of
Desire, Noble 8-Fold Path).
Kutadanta
offers another meal for the Buddha and the Sangha.
--
The
story that the Buddha tells regarding the strategy for implementing Peace and
social and economic cohesion seems rather fantastic; is it plausible? What is required, within the leadership and
within the people, to establish such circumstances? How long does that process take? If there is an absence of punishment and
retaliation, can it actually be expected that crime becomes nil?
The
4 groups of people that the Budda described seems to conform with the 4
traditional castes within Hinduism:
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, (Vaikyas), and Shudras; is this an accurate correlation? If so, what is the distinction between
“Kshatriyas” and “ministers and officials,” given that the Kshatriya seems to
include ministers and officials; and
does the category of “householder” apply to both (Vaisyas) and Shudras? If so, does this apparent lack of regard for
the distinction connote some intrinsic arrogance: an implied lack of regard towards such castes
compared to the Brahmins and Kshatriyas (also considering that the Brahmin
again lists first his own traditional caste of his temporal life, Kshatriya).
At what point do Dalits emerge within the historic progression of
Hinduism? And is there any relevance
within the perception of the traditional Buddhist Sangha, with the Monks and
Nuns and laypeople, essentially being a caste system with 2 distinctions: Brahmins and Dalits (albeit, perhaps with
increasing compassion, yet still with defined distinctions, esoteric
implications, and social hierarchy still involved)?
Within
the description of the potential detractors, the Buddha seems to revert to the
5 basic prohibitions additionally described within the Digha Nikaya (killing,
thievery, lusts, deceit, and intoxication), with the exception of
intoxication. What is the nature of the
distinction within this list of ten behaviours (some of which seem to be rather
similar) and the 5 prohibition described elsewhere? Is there any significance that should be
inferred from this distinction?
How
does the story of the offerings provided by the citizens compare with the story
of Moshe needing to refuse the offerings from the Israelites to make the items
of the ark and the tabernacle?
--
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 15
“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah
prophesy of you, when he said:
“ ‘This people honors (Me) with their lips,
but their heart is far from (Me);
“ ‘in vain do they worship (Me), teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men.’” (v7-9).
“And he called the people to him and said to
them, ‘Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man,
but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.’” (v10-11).
“And he said, ‘Are you also still without
understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes
into the stomach, and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth
proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart
come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness,
slander. These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed
hands does not defile a man.’” (v16-20).
“And Jesus went away from there and withdrew
to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from
that region came out and cried, ‘Have mercy on me, O (Leader), Son of
David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.’ But he did
not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying,
‘Send her away, for she is crying after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent
only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But she came and knelt
before him, saying, ‘(Leader), help me.’ And he answered, ‘It is not fair
to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes,
(Leader), yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’
table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Be
it done for you as you desire.’ And her daughter was healed
instantly.” (v21-28).
Jesus heals and feeds the people.
--
Gospels
Matthew 16
“And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to
test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven.” (v1).
“You know how to interpret the appearance of
the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” (v3).
“When the disciples reached the other side,
they had forgotten to bring any bread. Jesus said to them, ‘Take heed and
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And they discussed it
among themselves, saying, ‘We brought no bread.’ But Jesus, aware of this,
said, ‘O men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that
you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves
of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves of
the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?
How is it that you fail to perceive that I
did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.’ Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the
leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (v5-12).
“Now when Jesus came into the district of
Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say that the Son of man
is?’” (v13).
“He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I
am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And
Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has
not revealed this to you, but my (Deus) (Who) is in heaven.” (v15-17).
“Then he strictly charged the disciples to
tell no one that he was the Christ.” (v20).
“Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any man
would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my
sake will find it.” (v24-25).
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 14 – 17
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?
--
Discussion
Questions From Chapters 13 – 15
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?
--
Discussion Questions From Chapters 16 – 19
Amidst an awareness of the infinity of miracles
that exist within each second of this temporal realm, does the necessity for
“signs of Heaven” dissipate, in order to perceive the manifestation of the
Divine?
How may the teaching of the “leaven” of
conventional authority be applied to contemporary circumstances? How does this
compare with the mitzvot for Israelis to abstain from delving into the
religious practises of foreign tribes; with the Buddha’s emphasis upon
independent self-investigation; how does this compare with the Bhagavad Gita’s emphasis
for an individual to remain within one’s own Varna? And how does this compare
within the Koranic teachings regarding the relationship between believers and
unbelievers?
Why does Jesus initially revert from
explicitly proclaiming himself as the Moshiach? What is the purpose within the
secrecy?
What is the extent to which individual
contemporarily follow the exact example of Jesus? How does this compare with
contemporary following of the respectively exact examples of Avraham, Moshe,
Israel, Arjuna, the Buddha, and Muhammad?
How does Jesus’s, Peter’s, John’s, and
James’s encounter with Moshe, Eliyahu, and Deus compare and contrast with the
Buddha’s conversation with Sakka, and with Arjuna’s encounter with Sri Krishna?
Amidst the description of the disciples
“falling on the faces” when hearing the voice of Deus, what is the nature of
act of submission? Does bowing the head signifying a humbling of the ego,
perceiving the epitome of an individual’s will exists within the mind? How does
this compare
with the practise within additional cultures
and traditions whereby the bowing of the head is regularly conducted within the
similar implications of such religious submission, but as a gesture of respect
and even love? What does the “bowing of the heart” look like? How does refusing
to bow to an aggressor’s will or command, compare and contrast with regularly
bowing (within warfare) to escape from danger, and as part of the strategy for
attacking an aggressor’s will or command?
Does Jesus provide Peter with the shekel
simply to keep Peter honest amidst his previous declaration? What is the
nature of the pressure that Peter experiences when being approached by the tax
collectors? And what is the nature of the provision of the shekel from
the mouth of the fish? The tax collectors’ initial question seems to be
unresolved: amidst Jesus’s teaching regarding “rendering unto Caesar,”
and the very example of effective asceticism from Jesus, is it appropriate to
refuse to pay the tax or to pay the tax?
Amidst the teaching regarding humility, and
the additional teaching of “the last being first,” does this establish a
practise of people striving (and even competing) to be “last”? Within the
contemporary practise of charity, tzedekah, Zakat, the Saddhu, and asceticism,
who is the “first” and who is the “last”? How does “moderation” factor
within these practises; what are some appropriate methodologies for
implementing, facilitating, practising, and inspiring such moderation;
and what are some historic and contemporary examples of such proficient
moderation?
Whilst rebuking temptation, Jesus also
affirms the necessity of temptation; how is this paradox appropriately
reconciled? How does this compare with the teachings regarding the senses
and Maya respectively within the Bhagavad Gita and the Digha Nikaya?
Jesus also teaches that it is what comes out of man that is
transgressive; so whilst a man’s hand, foot, or eye, may cause a
transgression, is it accurate to conclude that such actions emanate from the
mind and the thought of the man, and that it is the “mind” of the man that
should be “cut out”? What might “cutting out the mind” look like;
and is there any similarity of this with the notion of “relinquishing the
ego”? How might “cutting out the mind” compare with the selflessness also
respectively taught within Hinduism and Buddhism? And again, what is an
appropriate balance, presuming that some form of selfishness (and/or
temptation) is necessary simply to sustain life?
What is the nature of the confluence between
the “Gentile” treatment that Jesus prescribes, and the “70 x 7” forgiveness
that Jesus also prescribes? What is the appropriate balance between
forgiveness, reconciliation, and inspiring reformation?
Does Jesus teach a doctrine of celibacy to his
disciples (to become “eunuchs for the sake of Heaven”)? What implications
does this have regarding the historic and contemporary practise of
Christianity; and amidst the institution of marriage within Christianity,
upon what teachings are such practises, and such an institution,
established? And how does that affect the actual adherence to the
teachings of Jesus?
Are there any additional examples, from the
respective Prophets of any religion, whereby certain “allowances” are provided
because of the “hardness of heart” of the religious followers?
Judaism and Hinduism are respectively,
substantially predicated upon familial lineages, whereby there emerge certain
systems of caste affiliation, tribal duties and allegiances that are
facilitated through marriage and inherited by progeny; Christianity and
Buddhism respective emerge from Judaism and Hinduism (respectively) and
respectively (and similarly) share doctrines that alleviate the oppressive
nature of the historic adherence to these caste affiliations, tribal duties,
and allegiances; yet Christianity and Buddhism also respectively (and
coinciding with the alleviation of caste) call upon adherents to effectively
renounce all familial allegiances, and to abstain from marriage and the
procreation of progeny (this being arguable within much of Christianity);
is it possible to alleviate such “caste oppression,” whilst maintaining the
practise and institution of marriage and the procreation of progeny? If
so, how might such a practise look like? How do subsequently emerging
religious traditions (including Islam, Sikhism, and the Baha’i Faith) factor
within this consideration?
--
Koran
Sura
Al Anfal (Voluntary Gifts)
There
is reference to voluntary gifts and the behaviour of believers in Allah, being generous.
Allah
provides believers with assistance of Angels amidst concern of conflict with
others.
Allah
commands smoting of those who oppose Allah and the Messenger of Allah.
“This
– and (know) that Allah will weaken the struggle of the disbelievers;” (verse
18).
Allah
describes those who proclaim hearing but abstain from hearing.
There
is the warning of affliction that may abstain from smiting exclusively the
unjust.
Wealth
and children are described as a temptation.
“And
Allah would not chastise them while thou wast among them; nor would Allah chastise them while they seek
forgiveness.” (verse 33).
Hell
is described for disbelievers.
There
is the description of Allah providing assurance amidst the fears of the
believers.
“And
if thou fear treachery on the part of a people, throw back them (their treaty)
on terms of equality. Surely Allah loves
not the treacherous.”
“And
if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely (Allah) is the Hearer, the
Knower.” (verse 61)
“And
if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee. (Allah) it is Who strengthened thee with
(Allah’s) help and with the believers.”
(verse 62).
There
is the description of the spoils of conflict.
--
Within
the command to smote those who challenge Allah and Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him,
there is also reference to the Fire.
Within this passage, there is an address to Angels, so is the implicit
command within this passage made specifically to Angels (as is seemingly
reinforced through later verses), and does the reference to the Fire coincide
with this celestial invocation? Or, is
this also to be understood as applicable to human believers? And if so, is there the implicit suggestion
that human believers are supposed to be manifesting the trans-temporal
experience of the Fire (presuming that the consequences of al Qisayimah are
trans-temporal) upon unbelievers? And if
that is so, is that simply a hyperbolic perception of the characteristics of the
temporal realm?
“So
you slew them not but Allah slew them”:
how does this compare with Sri Krishna describing to Arjuna that Arjuna
is simply a mechanism or manifesting the Will of Brahman that already
occurs? And how does this compare with
the Chrubim and Angels of Adonai protecting the Israelites from the Egyptians
and additional combatants? Does this
notion of “Allah doing the fighting” have any literal relevance regarding the
practise of Ahimsa: being willing to
vehemently confront oppression, yet abstaining from actually inflicting violence?
Within
this Sura, there is the description of Allah doing away with a believer’s evils
and providing protection. This passage
seems to be rather static in its description, yet elsewhere within the Koran,
there is also the description of believers straying from belief and returning
to transgressions. So, given that
additional teaching, what is the nature of this protection and alleviation of
evils?
There
is also the teaching of respite being given to disbelievers for a number of
different reasons, including the propensity of disbelievers to seek
forgiveness? What are the implications
of this respite with respect to the behaviour of believers; to what extent should believers provide the
opportunity for forgiveness to disbelievers?
What
does “all religions are for Allah” actually mean? Understanding that Islam itself is described
as a religion that precedes the temporal birth of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him,
and that is actually practised by Avraham and Moshe and Jesus and additional
Prophets, does that mean that adherents to additional contemporary religious
traditions, distinct from what is commonly referred to Islam, are also included
as a “religion for Allah”? Can Islam be
practised without the Shahadah? And that
brings the consideration of the Buddha’s question to Sonadanda regarding the
quintessential characteristics of a Brahmin (being righteousness and wisdom),
is there a similar redaction that may be perceived for Muslims?
Within
certain guidance for participating within conflict with disbelievers, there is
a reference to the practise of treaties (in verse 58). Does this reference teach the significance of
written agreements and contracts even with strangers or enemies (as contracts
with business partners are described elsewhere within the Koran)? What are the dynamics between the methodology
of violent conflict and the methodology of mediation, negotiation, and
treaties? Elsewhere within the Koran,
there is the command to only fight when the enemy is initiating the fight or
being oppressive; however, there also
seems to be a protocol for offering negotiations before immediately waging
violence. What is the nature of that
spectrum and how can the protocols for diplomacy be emphasised amidst a
substantial interest, amidst some, for violent conflict?
Later,
there is the description that when disbelievers attempt to deceive, for
believers to simply trust in Allah. What
does that actually mean? Does that mean
to begin waging violent conflict and trust that Allah will deliver the rightful
combatants; or does that mean to simply
be quiet and accept the adversity; or
something in between?
--
--
Going
to visit a new friend in the new friend’s home.
New friend casually provides a pitcher of a refreshing beverage and a
glass; how do you know how much to pour
(how much do you pour and how do you decide)?
New friend asks to pour new friend a glass, how do you know how much to
pour? New friend provides numerous
glasses for additional friends, how do you know how much to pour? Any adjustments? How do you determine what happens amidst
disparities?
Conversational
questions for CCWA; story of etiquette
lesson with Dan Ro (his offering, my reply and experience of sabotage)
--
Question
to interfaith and religious leaders:
soliciting moral endorsement of UIFAN (with basic description of
methodology [and Ahimsic Civil Transcendent Golden Rule Compassion], and
propensity to break laws; with UCLP, and
ACE Plan)
Question: is it OK to break the law? If otherwise, do you agree with Gandhi, MLK,
and Ghosananda, Mendela, and others? If
yes, what are necessary circumstances for such, and do any of those
circumstances exist now?
(abstain from specifically soliciting
you to join us and practise ACTGRC, although you are welcome, simply soliciting
your moral endorsement that we may communicate to conventional authority as
legitimacy of endeavor to prevent unnecessary, (and even violent) reaction and
conflict)
--
Correspondences
for projects (including Project Transformation)
--
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