Reflections on the Garden of Eden (for Mary and all)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mary and other members,

 

I just got back jogging around the lake and thought about possible

answers to your questions which are profound. Other biblical

commentators most likely have attempted to answer these questions as

well. My humble comments are shown below:

 

1. I've thought, too, about the fruit itself, the apple

> with the "knowledge of good and evil". Why forbid it?

 

At first blush, it appears that the Creator is protective of the

divine domain and that humans should not attempt to venture into this

subject. However, upon further reflection, it could be that this

knowledge is a domain that humans cannot fathom and understand

without divine assistance or intervention. There appears to be a

hint that human consciousness becomes influenced or become engrossed

by the effects of the senses as they process the information from the

phenomenal existence and are evaluated by the brain. As such, human

judgement becomes impaired.

 

2. Is it that we cannot handle trying to differentiate

> between good and evil without causing strife?

 

It appears that the answer to this question is yes. The human senses

are powerful tools of perceiving the world that they invariably

influence the way our brain processes the information. They

influence our own thinking and our understanding of our own nature.

Consequently, our ability to differentiate between good and evil is

affected.

 

What I'm trying to say is that when one sees a flower, the retina

perceives the image and transmits the image to the brain. When the

inner self evaluates this image, the self becomes engrossed by the

flower and loses its identity as the self appreciates the image of

the flower. With such an influence, human judgement can be impaired.

 

3. Is it that the difference is so minute that they are one and

> the same and we can't really grapple with the idea

> that two fractions, however distinct, make up one

> whole? After all, how often have actions taken with

> good intentions ended with evil consequences. They

> say, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".

 

It appears that human thinking has a tendency to be affected by

preconceptions, ideas and dogmas which filter the information from

the outside world. This is precisely why we have religious wars as

we all too often see in Afghanistan and Iraq. The same comments

apply to the cultural clashes we see in the USA, England, France,

Australia to name a few examples.

 

4. Either way, it just seems to me that so much of our

> daily strife stems from the differentiating of good

> from evil, our actions from theirs. I wonder if we

> could return to "Eden" if we could realize that we are

> all exactly the same and that just because some of us

> look or act like the apple skin versus the apple flesh

> versus the apple seed, doesn't mean we aren't all

> "apple".

 

I agree with you. Human beings need to go beyond their

preconceptions, ideas and dogmas to have a true understanding of the

phenomenal existence. This is the only way that problems can be

solved, especially those clashes relating to religion and culture.

 

In the final analysis, we return to the meaning of the Garden of

Eden. The author of the story appears to be saying that it is

possible for human beings to have knowledge of everything with the

influence of divine assistance or bliss consciousness. However, it

is not possible for humans to have this knowledge through the senses

alone.

 

I could go on further but will stop here and await your comments and

others' as well.

 

Regards,

 

John R.

 

 

 

 

>

>

> --- John <jr_esq> wrote:

>

> > To all members:

> >

> > Based on my early morning musings, it appears to me

> > that there are

> > other explanations as to why Eve ate the forbidden

> > fruit in the Garden

> > of Eden. The traditional interpretation of the

> > story states that the

> > Snake (the Devil) made Eve eat the fruit. We can

> > vividly see this

> > account in John Milton's "Paradise Lost".

> >

> > However, based on vedic knowledge, it can be

> > interpreted that the Snake

> > represents the kundalini, which is pictured as a

> > snake coiled in the

> > first chakra.

> >

> > Kundalini can be interpreted as the latent power

> > within human beings

> > that searches for the ultimate truth. On the other

> > hand, kundalini can

> > also be interpreted as the latent desire that is

> > embedded to being

> > human. Or is desire inherent to the manifestation

> > of matter in the

> > universe? If there are devas, can we say that

> > desire is inherent in

> > their existence in the other lokas or dimension?

> >

> > It appears that desire is not inherently bad by

> > itself. We can argue

> > that the creation of the universe is the evidence

> > that the Creator has

> > a desire to manifest his consciousness in all forms

> > of matter and

> > beings. We can even deduce that the Creator desired

> > to partake in the

> > activity of the manifested creation. Thus, we have

> > ideas of the Divine

> > Incarnation in vedic texts, and in the Christian

> > tradition.

> >

> > It is only when desires are misplaced that they

> > become the source of

> > bondage. Thus, we see the message of the event in

> > the Garden of Eden.

> > The first humans left (either voluntarily or

> > unknowingly) the bliss of

> > the Garden to toil in the life subjected to the

> > three gunas.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > John R.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

I'd like to say that I've really enjoyed your posts on

this thread. Since I am completely ignorant of most

things Hindu, I didn't know what "the three gunas"

were (from your first post). So I did an internet

search and spent several very enjoyable hours learning

all sorts of stuff. So, thank you for that.

 

I agree with you on your statements regarding desire.

Inherently, I think it's good, but as in all things,

it's in the application that things go wrong.

 

In this last post you stated,

 

> In the final analysis, we return to the meaning of

> the Garden of Eden. The author of the story appears

> to be saying that it is possible for human beings

> to have knowledge of everything with the influence

> of divine assistance or bliss consciousness.

> However, it is not possible for humans to have this

> knowledge through the senses alone.

 

I've been pondering that for the last couple days. Why

can't we? Is it our linear thinking? Is it our concept

of time? Is it that the past holds such a grip on our

judgment of others that we cannot act in the present

or judge on facts alone? Or even break out of who we

were yesterday? The acceptance of things being

paradoxical seems essential to understanding universal

truths and yet we really aren't raised to think that

way.

 

But with our only using a small fraction of our

brain's capacity, it seems to me that we are capable,

yet currently blocked. But blocked by what? Divinity?

Time? Laziness?

 

Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I think I

remember reading an article that Rick (Das) wrote once

about the 4 legs of Dharma and that we only had one

left during this period. Sadly, my brain is fried and

I can't remember any detail. But somehow I get the

feeling it talks about the same thing. A loss of

knowledge over time.

 

Anyway, I'm having a good time pondering and searching

and very much enjoy your posts.

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mary,

 

It's often that we can discuss these questions outside of the

traditional Christian dogma. Because of that, I find it challenging

and interesting just like you do.

 

My reply to your questions are as follows:

 

1. I've been pondering that for the last couple days. Why

> can't we?

 

First of all, I believe Adam and Eve would have known everything

there is to know in the Garden of Eden as they "walked" with the

personal Divinity, the Father. The description of the Garden implied

that they enyoyed an earthly paradise as well as a taste of divine

bliss while existing in the relative world. The sublime existence

included the absence of the influence of the gunas on their lives.

 

However, the first humans were tempted to eat the forbidden fruit.

To me, that implied that they wanted to become gods in their own

right with the power to know good and evil while here on earth or

through the relative existence alone. They thought that knowledge

can be obtained through the senses alone. In traditional Christian

teaching, this was the 'original sin'.

 

As other vedic texts have shown, knowledge through the senses are

limited by definition. That is, the senses do not perceive the

absolute life. Therefore, the divine component of knowledge is not

included. Without support from the divine bliss, human existence is

subjected to the gunas, which can only lead to instability and

perdition.

 

The Bhagavad Gita states that there is a way to escape the three

gunas and that is by transcending them. In other words, one needs to

have faith that there is something more than what we can see from our

own senses. By doing so, one eventually raises his or her

consciousness from the basic waking, dreaming and sleeping states.

 

2. Is it our linear thinking?

 

No. There is nothing wrong with the mechanical way of thinking. The

human brain is the most sophisticated organ of the body that the

universe has ever developed. It has the capacity to perceive the

information from the relative world, and at the same time can absorb

the bliss from the absolute existence.

 

In my opinion, this is the reason why the current development in

computers and artificial intelligence are not as daunting as they

appear to be. These computers or robots of the future can only

crunch numbers. They cannot retain the bliss from the absolute. As

such, they are mere machines as compared to the human brain.

 

3. Is it our concept of time?

 

Yes, somewhat. Time and our role in it is like a movie film that is

played and we see ourselves act in space-time. The vedic texts are

essentially saying that we need to raise our consciousness to get out

of the film and see the entire perspective outside of the film. We

can do this through the development of the higher levels of

consciousness.

 

4. Is it that the past holds such a grip on our

> judgment of others that we cannot act in the present

> or judge on facts alone? Or even break out of who we

> were yesterday?

 

Yes. We are a product of our experience which become a form of

bondage. This is the reason why humans need to experience the

absolute bliss while here on earth to escape the bondage of time and

experience.

 

5. The acceptance of things being paradoxical seems essential to

understanding universal truths and yet we really aren't raised to

think that way.

 

Yes, absolutely. The wisdom of the sages from the past is needed to

live life in freedom. This wisdom should be passed on to the

following generations to come.

 

Since you've asked many questions, I'll stop here to take a breather

and will answer your other questions on my next posting. Perhaps,

the other members of the list can add their observations on this

matter.

 

Regards,

 

John R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> But with our only using a small fraction of our

> brain's capacity, it seems to me that we are capable,

> yet currently blocked. But blocked by what? Divinity?

> Time? Laziness?

>

> Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I think I

> remember reading an article that Rick (Das) wrote once

> about the 4 legs of Dharma and that we only had one

> left during this period. Sadly, my brain is fried and

> I can't remember any detail. But somehow I get the

> feeling it talks about the same thing. A loss of

> knowledge over time.

>

> Anyway, I'm having a good time pondering and searching

> and very much enjoy your posts.

>

> :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

Thanks for your time and interest in answering my

questions.

 

Did you see the Barbara Walters special on Heaven? I

found the segment on the gene that supposedly dictates

our spirituality somewhat unnerving. It felt like we

really aren't individuals with souls but rather a

collection of arbitrarily chosen genes living in a

giant Yahtzee game. Yikes.

 

I've thought about what you've said about Adam, Eve,

divine bliss and obtaining knowledge through the

senses alone. I still have to digest the whole guna

thing to really understand the rest of what you say.

 

If knowledge can't be obtained through the senses, how

do we obtain it? Psychicly? Obtained directly into the

brain by God? Is this how the sages of the past that

you mentioned received their knowledge? Then

obviously, a higher state of consciousness is darned

imperative.

 

Despite your belief that Adam and Eve knew everything,

it sounds like they were pure physicality that

crumbled with the first true piece of knowledge that

required a higher state of consciousness. They must

have lacked that state that sages reach, no matter how

much time they spent strolling about with God.

Wouldn't you say? It sounds like they were just a more

interesting version of animal in the Garden since they

had the ability to speak with God instead of just

staring at him, which I can see would bore Him pretty

quick. So if they are supposed to represent ourselves

when SOLELY physical and animalistic, then the story

makes much more sense to me.

 

Well, I'm glad the list is very quiet right now,

because I'm enjoying this topic very much.

 

Thanks, John.

 

Mary

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mary,

 

I haven't seen the television special. I would have found the

subject fascinating as well. According to other commentators, the

DNA contains the blue print of the individual's earthly life,

including the potential to harbor the soul as it is embedded in the

human gametes. That's how awesome the mechanics of biological life

is. As such, we should be vigilant in making sure that this precious

gift of life is not manipulated to the detriment of the environment.

 

My reply to your other comments are as follows:

 

1. If knowledge can't be obtained through the senses, how

> do we obtain it? Psychicly? Obtained directly into the

> brain by God? Is this how the sages of the past that

> you mentioned received their knowledge? Then

> obviously, a higher state of consciousness is darned

> imperative.

 

Your question has hit the nail on the head as the phrase goes. There

is a vedic saying that states that people are subject to the "mistake

of the intellect". That mistake includes the idea that the "real"

world is based on things that we perceive through the senses. For

example,

 

-- a person may be happy because of his or her new Mercedes which may

bring a sense of high status symbol. However, in scientific terms,

this new car is really made out of NOTHING! The new car is really

just a conglomeration of molecules and atoms. If it weren't for

certain laws in physics, he or she would be able to put their hands

right through the car, or even walk right through it!

 

Furthermore, the same car will eventually get old and run down after

so many years. Therefore, if the person bases his happiness on this

car, then the happiness is only fleeting end and is based on an

illusion in the first place.

 

The sages of the past have found this wisdom through their own

reflection and reasoning powers. In spite of this knowledge, humans

today continue to fight and kill each other over territory and

possesions which are all an illusion!

 

Knowing this wisdom and recent discoveries of science, we can reason

that the world is based on the unseen. Scientists have found that

the entire atomic structure is based on particles that behave like

thoughts. Therefore, the entire universe is based on consciousness

which you and I have access to.

 

2. Despite your belief that Adam and Eve knew everything,

> it sounds like they were pure physicality that

> crumbled with the first true piece of knowledge that

> required a higher state of consciousness. They must

> have lacked that state that sages reach, no matter how

> much time they spent strolling about with God.

> Wouldn't you say? It sounds like they were just a more

> interesting version of animal in the Garden since they

> had the ability to speak with God instead of just

> staring at him, which I can see would bore Him pretty

> quick. So if they are supposed to represent ourselves

> when SOLELY physical and animalistic, then the story

> makes much more sense to me.

 

I believe that Adam and Eve made a "mistake of the intellect" as

mentioned above. It appears to me that the Snake had deceived them

of what reality is!

 

Lastly, I wish you and the other list members a Merry Christmas and a

Happy New Year!

 

Regards,

 

John R.

 

 

 

 

>

> Well, I'm glad the list is very quiet right now,

> because I'm enjoying this topic very much.

>

> Thanks, John.

>

> Mary

>

>

>

>

>

>