Question about the Fall?


SpiritDragon
 Share

Recommended Posts

jb789,

It's actually found in the second scripture that James12 listed - 2 Nephi 2:22-23. "...and they would have had no children."

I really like where you are going with non-judgment approach of eastern mindfulness, and not labeling things, people, and even self as good or bad. I believe in that approach fully. We are taught not to judge people, but we are taught to judge with a righteous judgement. Not so much between people and things, rather between powers and principles. We do have to judge between the real dualities of good and evil.

Good point, yes, we must judge righteously. I think what Max Skousen had in mind is, according to him, as we refuse to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we have an eye single to the glory of God, uncluttered by our own opinions/judgements/preferences/beliefs/etc. So in that sense, if we had truly "removed the mote" from our own eye, we would see things clearly, in their true light. There certainly is a difference between judging righteously (via the Spirit) and unrighteously (via our own limited understanding).

The concept of non-duality is a difficult one to understand - it almost can't be put into words, because it is actually beyond concepts/mental formulations. the best way i can describe it is when the mental chatter ceases, and one sees truth and light (intelligence) instantly. I think this is what Max was getting at - to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is to remove the barriers that prevent us from having a fulness of the Spirit with us, which allows us to in a sense return to a state of innocence and be as children.

I think the concept of non-duality (which is what Max called leaving the tree of knowledge of good and evil) is when we see how all things are inter-connected, and we lose our bias/preference for one side of the whole. A crude example would be someone who loves summer, but dislikes winter, rather than seeing the beauty in both. One thing Max said that really stuck with me is that we are to be grateful in "all things" - which happens when we no longer have preferences for this or that (this applies to the tree of knowledge - for in this state we would no longer prefer health to sickness, pleasure to pain, etc - we would see they are two sides to the same coin - we are not to be attracted to one side of the coin, yet have an aversion to the other side). Living such a principle removes a lot of the conflict from life - you are no longer struggling to get the things you deem desireable, and struggling to avoid that which you deem as undesireable. You embrace the whole of life, rather than accept one half and reject the other.

If we think about it, evil really is the lust for one thing, and the rejection of another (think of the love of money - it is the lust for what is falsely deemed as desireable - riches - and that which is falsely deemed as causing unhappiness - the lack of riches). Paul put it well when he said he learned to be content in sickness and health, poverty and wealth, etc - see Phillipains 4:12). I think this is what Max meant by not partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - it is actually the evil person that is obsessed with the idea of certain things being desireable, and chasing after them (money, sex, power, etc). To not buy into this illusion of opposites - where one is to be desired and the other shunned - is non-duality; this is not partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Lucifer deceived Adam and Eve into believing that whatever he was offering them, by partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was preferable to the paradise they were already living in. And so the whole quest of mortality (for us as well) is for Adam to realize he is Michael, and having tasted the bitter (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), come full circle back to the presence of God, from whence he came.

Edited by jb789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like almost everything you have said, but I disagree with the symbolism of the tree and the idea of non-duality. I like the idea of quieting the mind to find truth and light, and to not trust so much in our own understanding etc. That is all good...and that's exactly my point that the opposite, therefore, must be bad. So, you end up with dualism.

If dualism does not exist, what exactly are we judging between?

Edited by Marlin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like almost everything you have said, but I disagree with the symbolism of the tree and the idea of non-duality. I like the idea of quieting the mind to find truth and light, and to not trust so much in our own understanding etc. That is all good...and that's exactly my point that the opposite, therefore, must be bad. So, you end up with dualism.

If dualism does not exist, what exactly are we judging between?

Yes, I see what you mean - I suppose it's a matter of definitions/semantics. Perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly - but I see non-duality as the ending of false judgements/positionalities/preferences/etc. And the opposite of this of this would of course be duality.

It's really a condition of the mind itself. The dualistic mind is forever craving something, and avoiding something else, because it is caught in illusion - the illusion that this is preferable to that. The non-dualistic mind sees no such divisions - it is not caught in the struggle of opposites, in the sense that it is desiring one opposite, and resisting the other.

Again, this is my own understanding, but I believe that dualism/non-dualism is a state of mind. As one begins the spiritual path, they see life as full of choices - good vs. bad - and they strive to make the good choices and reject the bad ones. However, as they spiritually mature, eventually they get to the point where life is not so much seen as a series of choices/judgements we must make between good and evil - because their hearts are so aligned with the will of God, indeed, they have an eye "single to the glory of God", all they perceive is the straight and narrow path, dead ahead, which leads directly back to God. They are not a house divided against themselves. In this way, there is nothing to "strive" for, and nothing to "avoid" - for them, duality has ended, for they are alive in Christ, and the division between good and bad, for their own spiritual state, no longer exists. It's like being enveloped by the light so much that no shadows exist. Having experienced true spiritual re-birth, having entered "into the rest of the Lord", they have minds like children that are full of light and single in purpose - hence, without duality.

As I mentioned, it really is a difficult concept to explain, it's like I remember a general authority using the analogy of trying to describe what salt tastes like to one who hasn't tasted it - words don't do it justice. Yet throughout the ages individuals have come to a spiritual awakening (call it being born again, enlightened, etc, they all refer to the same experience) where a fundamental change occurs within them, and at that point inner conflict ceases. To them, the path truly is "straight and narrow" - they are not caught in the illusion of dualistic thinking, which essentially is the reasoning/comparisons of the carnal mind. Non-dualism is when the mind ceases judging, when it ceases comparing, when it is completely still and sees truth instantly.

I hope this helps somewhat! It is a difficult concept, rightly so because it is largely beyond the usual mental constructs/etc, which is how we explain things to others. It is something that is truly spiritual in nature, and not based in mental ideas and notions. Indeed, even mental ideas/concepts are a barrier to such a pure understanding, because the mind itself can become a barrier to perceiving truth.

If you have the time or interest, I would recommend at least looking at some of Max Skousen's book (I provided a link in an earlier post) - when I read it, it hit home some concepts I was thinking about for several years, and clarified them in a remarkable way.

Edited by jb789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I'd like to read his book. Thanks for the referral.

I really do like the concepts that you present and I believe most of it. I have actually read a lot about these concepts based in eastern philosophy, such as mindfulness, contemplative prayer, and meditation. I practice these daily. The problem I see with eastern philosophy however, is that they deny dualism exists at all. As Christians who believe in a deity and an adversary, it is impossible to deny that it truly exists.

I agree with you that those who are born again have transcended dualism and are no longer dualistic creatures with both carnal desires and spiritual desires.

The difference is that eastern philosophy teaches that dualism does not exist. Christian philosophy teaches that dualism does exist, but we should not be dualistic creatures. We should "strive" to be single in nature with God, yet not beat ourselves up when we fail at that.

Eastern philosophy teaches that desire, striving, and judging bring suffering. Christian philosophy teaches that righteous desire, striving towards God, and righteous judgment are the only path to God and happiness.

The problem that Christians run into is when they start judging themselves and beat themselves up for wrong doing. We sometimes forget that this is a probationary state and jump the gun with judgment, which is unrighteous judgment. There is righteous judgment, righteous desires, and righteous striving which bring light and joy. The opposite of unrighteous judgment, etc. bring darkness and suffering. When we are "luke warm" (dualistic), not able to stay to one side of hot or cold, suffering is very real and God will spew us out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I'd like to read his book. Thanks for the referral.

I really do like the concepts that you present and I believe most of it. I have actually read a lot about these concepts based in eastern philosophy, such as mindfulness, contemplative prayer, and meditation. I practice these daily. The problem I see with eastern philosophy however, is that they deny dualism exists at all. As Christians who believe in a deity and an adversary, it is impossible to deny that it truly exists.

I agree with you that those who are born again have transcended dualism and are no longer dualistic creatures with both carnal desires and spiritual desires.

The difference is that eastern philosophy teaches that dualism does not exist. Christian philosophy teaches that dualism does exist, but we should not be dualistic creatures. We should "strive" to be single in nature with God, yet not beat ourselves up when we fail at that.

Eastern philosophy teaches that desire, striving, and judging bring suffering. Christian philosophy teaches that righteous desire, striving towards God, and righteous judgment are the only path to God and happiness.

The problem that Christians run into is when they start judging themselves and beat themselves up for wrong doing. We sometimes forget that this is a probationary state and jump the gun with judgment, which is unrighteous judgment. There is righteous judgment, righteous desires, and righteous striving which bring light and joy. The opposite of unrighteous judgment, etc. bring darkness and suffering. When we are "luke warm" (dualistic), not able to stay to one side of hot or cold, suffering is very real and God will spew us out.

Yes, I think you make very good points - I agree with your point that often Eastern philosophy will deny dualism, and that Christianity teaches dualism exists, yet to strive to be non-dualistic. This is a good way of putting it.

I've read a fair amount of Eastern philosophy also, I think one of the potential problems with the way it's typically presented is that it describes the spiritual/mental state of a very advanced/mature spiritual person (non-duality), which is quite a way's off from where most of us are at. Thus, in reading such descriptions of the "enlightened" state (or we could call it the "born-again" state), it often sounds very cryptic, and even the notion of non-duality to some appears to be an impossibility (yet when experienced the saints/sages are correct in their descriptions of it).

I think you bring up good points about the striving aspect as well. Often it's a matter of semantics/definitions - to the Eastern way, I believe, if one has truly transcending carnality/is enlightened/born-again/etc, they are so aligned with will of God (the Tao, in Taoism), that they have no conflicting desires within them - this is then experienced as being "effortless" or sometimes "desire-less", as the figurative river flows very quickly and easily with no obstructions. Again, I think such a description, while accurate, is a fairly advanced spiritual state, so if you were to try and explain this to say a recent church convert, they would look at you like you are crazy =) It's like trying to explain to someone that you can love others, yet at the same time not be attached to them - unless you've experienced this, it can see like a contradiction!

Anyways, good points, I see where you're coming from and I agree. I think Eastern philosophy might teach that duality doesn't exist because they view it as an illusion - those under the illusion may insist it does exist, but to the Eastern philosopher, it is an illusion nonetheless, and hence, not actually real (whereas truth would be considered "reality").

P.S. Another thing important to remember is that Eastern philosophers (Lao Tzu, Buddha, etc) largely operated from the light of Christ within them - they made no claims of speaking with God, celestial visitations, etc. As such, their view of evil was simply the temptations/thoughts/desires they encountered themselves. They knew nothing personally of God nor Lucifer, they were only guided by the light of Christ within them (and did a remarkable job with what they had!)

Edited by jb789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jb789,

I disagree with Skousen. The tree does not represent our tendency to falsely judge. Their eyes were opened by the fruit. All things do have their opposites. The whole is not unified. Good is not unified with evil. God himself said that they are become as one of us...

I think that people erroneously assume that because the fruit was forbidden that it was somehow bad, or represents something bad. Not all things that are forbidden are bad. I believe that it was forbidden the same way the sex is forbidden before marriage. They needed to be prepared. Without proper preparation, Lucifer would gain control of their hearts. Which he did. The scriptures say that Adam loved Lucifer more than God.

The tree was a very, very good thing. It was incredibly sacred and necessary for salvation. I personally believe that the further instruction that they would have received would have been preparatory to partaking the fruit.

That's alright if you disagree with me seminarysnoozer, like I said it is all speculation. I'm not claiming that I'm right.

I agree with the tree being good. I disagree with them needing additional instruction.

Did things turn out the way they were supposed to or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts.

The scriptural and other revealed accounts of the Eden epoch are symbolic and mostly presented in an ancient literary poetic format. There is a reason and a purpose that the entire story enshrouded in metaphoric ambiguities. The Eden epoch is not so much about how Adam and Eve became fallen creatures as it is about how you and I became fallen creatures. Most of this thread talks about Adam and Eve from a rather cold and distant view. I believe that is a mistake – I believe the principles and lessons that should be learned is more about each of us than it is about the individuals Adam and Eve.

Many epochs in scripture can be viewed as actual historical events. For example we can see the Exodus as a distant story of Moses leading the tribes of Israel out of Egypt so long ago that particular events of the story really have little or no impact on us today. Or we can view the epoch as a symbolic metaphor and template of our own struggle to make the ever difficult transition from reliance and faith in the world to establishing a divine community of Zion. This gives very interesting insight into the worship of a “golden” calf in favor of divine instructions from G-d on his mountain (temple).

In the Book of Mormon we learn that there is a “seed” that must be “planted” and that in caring for and neutering of a plant that will grow and produce a most precious fruit. We learn that this precious fruit is the fruit of the “other” great tree of Eden called the Tree of Life. And that partaking of the fruit is not a matter of picking the fruit and eating it. I find it interesting that few seem to make the connection to the tree of knowledge of good and evil also begins as a seed that each of us planted and cared for before we partook.

Under the covenant and protection as citizens in heaven of the kingdom of G-d it was not possible to come to a knowledge of evil or the good that opposes such evil. We were protected by the Father such that participating in evil with Lucifer would result in our eternal damnation and we all knew it.

The Father gave us an honest and truthful option. We could become fallen creatures exiled from his kingdom and taste of the fruits of evil which includes the punishment of death. The plan also included an experience tasting the fruits of good which included a sacrifice of divine innocence to overcome death and restore us. While remaining fallen creatures the details of this “plan” would remain sketchy and enshrouded in symbolism and metaphors that could only be approached in understanding through faith – a particular condition of a fallen creature. And so we are given some distant understanding in divine revelation of this fall in what we call the story of Adam and Eve in the Eden epoch. But to understand details we must ascribe such details to ourselves and not think in terms of non-participation divorcing ourselves from our choice and the consequence of that choice to gain a knowledge of good and evil in order to possibly qualify us to become G-ds. And so the covenant had a beginning for creating each of us as man (or woman) in the image and likeness of G-d and will have completeness or fulfillment in the end – which is called the final judgment.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share