Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 This was very interesting. Is the reference being made to the Bible which refers to the original sin in these general terms...the original sin was eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge...and when they did that, Adam and Eve experienced seperateness and the associated shame...and they dropped down to earth from the heavens? One question...why was the tree called the tree of KNOWLEDGE? Why was the satan and the temptation associated with knowledge? regards Sunil Sudhakar RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > Once Maharshi , when asked 'What is the primordial sin ' spoken of by one > of the great religions of the world , answered : > "It is the illusion of a separate personal existence". > > That is indeed the source of all blunders and sufferings . In truth what can be > expected from withdrawing into a narrow circle of selfish personal life ? > Only an unavoidable destruction of the man who is himself putting a sword into > the hands of death , whose duty is to annihilate that which really has never been > more than nothingness. > > ************************************************** > Mouni Sadhu , In Days of Great Peace > ************************************************** > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 Hi Sunil, > One question...why was the tree called the tree > of KNOWLEDGE? Why was the satan and the > temptation associated with knowledge? The tree is actually called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." In the story, that knowledge is divine knowledge. God has that knowledge and he tries to prevent Adam and Even from getting it because if they do, they will become divine like him. > Why was the satan and the > temptation associated with knowledge? Because God tries to keep Adam and Eve in ignorance. What's the opposite of that? Encouraging Adam and Eve to get knowledge. (Incidentally, there's no Satan in the story, only a serpent.) > ...when they did that, Adam and Eve experienced > seperateness Actually, if they had eaten both fruits, they would have become divine and in that sense lost their separateness from God. It is God in this story who tries to maintain the separateness. It seems to me that this story has nothing in common with Advaita. Regards, Rob - <Sunil_Sudhakar <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, September 26, 2001 8:31 AM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Mouni Sadhu - the primordial sin > This was very interesting. Is the reference being made to the Bible > which refers to the original sin in these general terms...the > original sin was eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge...and > when they did that, Adam and Eve experienced seperateness and the > associated shame...and they dropped down to earth from the heavens? > > One question...why was the tree called the tree of KNOWLEDGE? Why was > the satan and the temptation associated with knowledge? > > regards > > Sunil Sudhakar > RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > > > Once Maharshi , when asked 'What is the primordial sin ' spoken of > by one > > of the great religions of the world , answered : > > "It is the illusion of a separate personal existence". > > > > That is indeed the source of all blunders and sufferings . In truth > what can be > > expected from withdrawing into a narrow circle of selfish personal > life ? > > Only an unavoidable destruction of the man who is himself putting a > sword into > > the hands of death , whose duty is to annihilate that which really > has never been > > more than nothingness. > > > > ************************************************** > > Mouni Sadhu , In Days of Great Peace > > ************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 Rob Thanx Rob. But your answers Baffle me. Why would god be conceived as someone preventing Man from attaining divinity? Is there some other way of interpreting this? What does Ramana mean when he says "It is the illusion of a separate personal existence". That is indeed the source of all blunders and sufferings" as an interpretation of the original sin? I wonder. regards Sunil Sudhakar RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Sunil, > > > One question...why was the tree called the tree > > of KNOWLEDGE? Why was the satan and the > > temptation associated with knowledge? > > The tree is actually called "the tree of the knowledge > of good and evil." In the story, that knowledge is > divine knowledge. God has that knowledge and > he tries to prevent Adam and Even from getting > it because if they do, they will become divine like > him. > > > Why was the satan and the > > temptation associated with knowledge? > > Because God tries to keep Adam and Eve in > ignorance. What's the opposite of that? Encouraging > Adam and Eve to get knowledge. (Incidentally, > there's no Satan in the story, only a serpent.) > > > ...when they did that, Adam and Eve experienced > > seperateness > > Actually, if they had eaten both fruits, they would have > become divine and in that sense lost their separateness > from God. It is God in this story who tries to maintain > the separateness. > > It seems to me that this story has nothing in common > with Advaita. > > Regards, > > Rob > > > - > <Sunil_Sudhakar@f...> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Wednesday, September 26, 2001 8:31 AM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Mouni Sadhu - the primordial sin > > > > This was very interesting. Is the reference being made to the Bible > > which refers to the original sin in these general terms...the > > original sin was eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge...and > > when they did that, Adam and Eve experienced seperateness and the > > associated shame...and they dropped down to earth from the heavens? > > > > One question...why was the tree called the tree of KNOWLEDGE? Why was > > the satan and the temptation associated with knowledge? > > > > regards > > > > Sunil Sudhakar > > RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > > > > > Once Maharshi , when asked 'What is the primordial sin ' spoken of > > by one > > > of the great religions of the world , answered : > > > "It is the illusion of a separate personal existence". > > > > > > That is indeed the source of all blunders and sufferings . In truth > > what can be > > > expected from withdrawing into a narrow circle of selfish personal > > life ? > > > Only an unavoidable destruction of the man who is himself putting a > > sword into > > > the hands of death , whose duty is to annihilate that which really > > has never been > > > more than nothingness. > > > > > > ************************************************** > > > Mouni Sadhu , In Days of Great Peace > > > ************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 Hi Sunil, > Why would god be conceived as > someone preventing Man from attaining divinity? God does something similar again in the Bible when humans build a tower that is so tall it reaches nearly to heaven. He demolishes the tower and imposes a multiplicity of languages on mankind (up till then they spoke a single language) to prevent them from cooperating and building again and reaching heaven. But isn't this a common theme in the early speculative writings of more than one culture? In ancient Greece, for example, the hero Prometheus steals fire from the gods and gives it to humans, and the gods punish him. In the oldest parts of the Bible, including the story of Adam and Eve, God is conceived as a jealous, petty, angry, violent person -- as an unattractive literary character. There is a famous American literary critic named Harold Bloom who says we find this puzzling only because we wrongly assume that these old stories are religious literature. In fact, he says, they were originally written as entertaining short stories. Centuries later, they were incorporated in the religious anthology which came to be known as the Bible. Of course this is just a theory; there is no way to know whether it is true. All we can do is read the stories with an open mind and try to guess the authors' intentions. In the West, when we read such stories in ancient Greek and Roman literature, we call them "mythology." The stories are about gods but we understanding they aren't really religious. But when we read the same kind of stories in ancient Hebrew literature, we call them scripture. > Is there some other > way of interpreting this? I don't know all the ways this story has been interpreted, but God's motive is so clearly stated that I think it would be difficult to devise an interpretation that denies it. Here is how God explains his behavior in the story. He is speaking to the other gods here, explaining why he has banished Adam and Eve from the garden after they ate the fruit: "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" Eating from the first tree merely made the humans "like" gods, which was bad enough, but the second tree, which would confer immortality -- actual divinity -- is too big a threat for our jealous God to bear. > What does Ramana mean when he says... Just a guess but I imagine he is reacting to Adam and Eve's behavior after they eat the fruit. They become ashamed of their naked bodies and cover their genitals with fig leaves. When God sees this, he knows they have gained the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps Bhagavan was thinking that people can only be concerned about being seen naked by others when they imagine there are others. My own view about this aspect of the story is that it must be taken as humorous irony. I have been persuaded to this view by Bloom, who points out that many of these stories embody this type of humor. "Good and evil" is the most profound theme of Western religion, yet the author here is pretending to believe that embarrassment about nudity is an appropriate example of knowledge about it. It's a kind of satire. I am reminded of something said about this story by Saint Augustine, one of the greatest Christian theologians. He said that prior to being punished by God for this sin, Adam had total voluntary control over all parts of his body, including his erections (of the penis). As part of the punishment, God made erections involuntary -- the penis would now become disobedient to the man just as man became disobedient to God. (I mention this not because it fits into any particular argument, but only because it has always amused me.) Rob - <Sunil_Sudhakar <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:57 AM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Mouni Sadhu - the primordial sin > Rob > > Thanx Rob. But your answers Baffle me. Why would god be conceived as > someone preventing Man from attaining divinity? Is there some other > way of interpreting this? > > What does Ramana mean when he says "It is the illusion of a separate > personal existence". That is indeed the source of all blunders and > sufferings" as an interpretation of the original sin? I wonder. > > regards > > Sunil Sudhakar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 I believe that the Adam and eve is more than what they really portray. It could be more symbolic. I have an explanation from a book called the Autobiography of a Yogi - Chapter 16. Its listed after my signing this mail. This kind of explains. But then again, everyone maps the stories according to their aptitude and wisdom - rather maturity. :-) Regards, Seshadri. << Master expounded the Christian Bible with a beautiful clarity. It was from my Hindu guru, unknown to the roll call of Christian membership, that I learned to perceive the deathless essence of the Bible, and to understand the truth in Christ's assertion—surely the most thrillingly intransigent ever uttered: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."11 The great masters of India mold their lives by the same godly ideals which animated Jesus; these men are his proclaimed kin: "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."12 "If ye continue in my word," Christ pointed out, "then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."13 Freemen all, lords of themselves, the Yogi-Christs of India are part of the immortal fraternity: those who have attained a liberating knowledge of the One Father. "The Adam and Eve story is incomprehensible to me!" I observed with considerable heat one day in my early struggles with the allegory. "Why did God punish not only the guilty pair, but also the innocent unborn generations?" Master was more amused by my vehemence than my ignorance. "Genesis is deeply symbolic, and cannot be grasped by a literal interpretation," he explained. "Its 'tree of life' is the human body. The spinal cord is like an upturned tree, with man's hair as its roots, and afferent and efferent nerves as branches. The tree of the nervous system bears many enjoyable fruits, or sensations of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. In these, man may rightfully indulge; but he was forbidden the experience of sex, the 'apple' at the center of the bodily garden.14 "The 'serpent' represents the coiled-up spinal energy which stimulates the sex nerves. 'Adam' is reason, and 'Eve' is feeling. When the emotion or Eve-consciousness in any human being is overpowered by the sex impulse, his reason or Adam also succumbs.15 "God created the human species by materializing the bodies of man and woman through the force of His will; He endowed the new species with the power to create children in a similar 'immaculate' or divine manner.16 Because His manifestation in the individualized soul had hitherto been limited to animals, instinct-bound and lacking the potentialities of full reason, God made the first human bodies, symbolically called Adam and Eve. To these, for advantageous upward evolution, He transferred the souls or divine essence of two animals. 17 In Adam or man, reason predominated; in Eve or woman, feeling was ascendant. Thus was expressed the duality or polarity which underlies the phenomenal worlds. Reason and feeling remain in a heaven of cooperative joy so long as the human mind is not tricked by the serpentine energy of animal propensities. "The human body was therefore not solely a result of evolution from beasts, but was produced by an act of special creation by God. The animal forms were too crude to express full divinity; the human being was uniquely given a tremendous mental capacity—the 'thousand-petaled lotus' of the brain—as well as acutely awakened occult centers in the spine. "God, or the Divine Consciousness present within the first created pair, counseled them to enjoy all human sensibilities, but not to put their concentration on touch sensations.18 These were banned in order to avoid the development of the sex organs, which would enmesh humanity in the inferior animal method of propagation. The warning not to revive subconsciously-present bestial memories was not heeded. Resuming the way of brute procreation, Adam and Eve fell from the state of heavenly joy natural to the original perfect man. "Knowledge of 'good and evil' refers to the cosmic dualistic compulsion. Falling under the sway of maya through misuse of his feeling and reason, or Eve—and Adam—consciousness, man relinquishes his right to enter the heavenly garden of divine self-sufficiency. 19 The personal responsibility of every human being is to restore his 'parents' or dual nature to a unified harmony or Eden." As Sri Yukteswar ended his discourse, I glanced with new respect at the pages of Genesis. "Dear Master,' I said, "for the first time I feel a proper filial obligation toward Adam and Eve!" >> --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > Hi Sunil, > > > Why would god be conceived as > > someone preventing Man from attaining divinity? > > God does something similar again in the Bible when > humans build a tower that is so tall it reaches > nearly to heaven. He demolishes the tower and > imposes a multiplicity of languages on mankind (up > till then they spoke a single language) to prevent > them from cooperating and building again and > reaching heaven. > > But isn't this a common theme in the early > speculative writings of more than one culture? In > ancient Greece, for example, the hero Prometheus > steals fire from the gods and gives it to humans, > and the gods punish him. > > In the oldest parts of the Bible, including the > story of > Adam and Eve, God is conceived as a jealous, > petty, angry, violent person -- as an unattractive > literary character. There is a famous American > literary critic named Harold Bloom who says we > find this puzzling only because we wrongly assume > that these old stories are religious literature. In > fact, he says, they were originally written as > entertaining short stories. Centuries later, they > were incorporated in the religious anthology which > came to be known as the Bible. Of course this > is just a theory; there is no way to know whether > it is true. All we can do is read the stories with > an > open mind and try to guess the authors' intentions. > > In the West, when we read such stories in ancient > Greek and Roman literature, we call them > "mythology." The stories are about gods but > we understanding they aren't really religious. But > when we read the same kind of stories in ancient > Hebrew literature, we call them scripture. > > > Is there some other > > way of interpreting this? > > I don't know all the ways this story has been > interpreted, but God's motive is so clearly stated > that I think it would be difficult to devise an > interpretation that denies it. > > Here is how God explains his behavior in the story. > He is speaking to the other gods here, explaining > why he has banished Adam and Eve from the garden > after they ate the fruit: > > "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing > good and evil, what if he should stretch out his > hand > and take also from the tree of life and eat, and > live > forever!" > > Eating from the first tree merely made the humans > "like" gods, which was bad enough, but the second > tree, which would confer immortality -- actual > divinity -- is too big a threat for our jealous God > to bear. > > > What does Ramana mean when he says... > > Just a guess but I imagine he is reacting to > Adam and Eve's behavior after they eat the > fruit. They become ashamed of their naked > bodies and cover their genitals with fig leaves. > When God sees this, he knows they have gained > the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps > Bhagavan was thinking that people can only > be concerned about being seen naked by others > when they imagine there are others. > > My own view about this aspect of the story > is that it must be taken as humorous irony. I have > been persuaded to this view by Bloom, who points > out that many of these stories embody this type > of humor. "Good and evil" is the most profound > theme of Western religion, yet the author here > is pretending to believe that embarrassment about > nudity is an appropriate example of knowledge > about it. It's a kind of satire. > > I am reminded of something said about this > story by Saint Augustine, one of the greatest > Christian theologians. He said that prior to > being punished by God for this sin, Adam had > total voluntary control over all parts of his > body, including his erections (of the penis). As > part of the punishment, God made erections > involuntary -- the penis would now become > disobedient to the man just as man became > disobedient > to God. (I mention this not because it fits into > any particular argument, but only because it has > always amused me.) > > Rob > > - > <Sunil_Sudhakar > <RamanaMaharshi> > Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:57 AM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Mouni Sadhu - the > primordial sin > > > > Rob > > > > Thanx Rob. But your answers Baffle me. Why would > god be conceived as > > someone preventing Man from attaining divinity? Is > there some other > > way of interpreting this? > > > > What does Ramana mean when he says "It is the > illusion of a separate > > personal existence". That is indeed the source of > all blunders and > > sufferings" as an interpretation of the original > sin? I wonder. > > > > regards > > > > Sunil Sudhakar > > > ===== Thanking You, With Warmest Regards, Seshadri. Email: dksesh http://dkseshadri.tripod.com Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger. http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2001 Report Share Posted September 27, 2001 True knowledge has to be revealed by the Self, that is prior to the mind. It is a revelation and an experience, not thought. The mind has to be silenced and humbled. Silence and grace allow the truth to arise from the heart. It will not happen as long as the mind is turned outward. The knowledge the mind has is ignorance. Eating of the fruit of good and evil refers to the limited, ignorant mind thinking it knows some truth, and not knowing and bowing to it's Source. That's why "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven (within) and all things...." "Be still an know (not think) that I AM GOD." Sherm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.