Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Blue Apples

day 24 of 365 days

BLUE APPLES
a taste of enlightenment....

If i'd done this correctly in terms of the story in Eden, then i guess there should already be a bite outa that sucker, eh? ;^)

So, what exactly happened in the garden?

While doing some research for a book I am in the process of writing, I came across an interesting take on the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. But not as interesting as William Henry's (see BLUE APPLES link above).
It comes in the form of the Manichaen interpretation of the story, In which Mani attempts to explain that it is Yahweh that is the liar and that the Serpent is actually telling the truth when Eve takes the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I find this shortsighted but on the right track, and will explain my understanding after a little bit of background, which i have borrowed and seriously revised in terms of proper language (attempting to remove persuasive and coercive terminology and phrasing) from this page: www.hiddenmeanings.com/paralleluniverse.htm

From approximately 210AD to 276 AD, It is believed that Mani lived in the area of asia currently referred to as Iran.
Manichaeism, a highly influential religion, was founded around him.

Manichaeism is extreme in its insistence on duality.
The Cosmos is seen as a battleground for the war between the material and the spiritual, represented as the "bad" and "good" gods respectively.
Christians of the period (and some currently) recognized the evil god as represented by Satan, but would not accept the idea that Satan could have as much power as Yahweh.
In accordance with the story of Lucifer, they hold that Satan (mistakenly considered to be a specific entity, namely Lucifer, rather than being an "office" or position of power or metaphorical description of an archetypal way of being and expression), unlike Yahweh, is a created being.
A Fallen Angel cast down from service to Yahweh due to his insistence on being separate but equal.(this is the birth of what we refer to as EGO - hence, egotism is Luciferianism - it is also the mechanism through which cancer cells flourish living at the expense of all cells around them and denying the symbiotic relationship to the whole - but that is another topic altogether that gets into holography and all kinds of stuff like that.)
This becomes a very important point in the story of the Garden, especially since there is the possibility that the Serpent is a third entity altogether, as the Serpent is not referred to by name as either Satan or Lucifer.

The Manichees were a syncretic religion, attempting to include the religious traditions within their experiential scope within their dogma and symbolism. As a result, they preserved many apocryphal Christian works, such as the Acts Of Thomas, that otherwise would have been lost. While eager to describe himself as a "disciple of Jesus Christ", Mani found the orthodox church rejecting him as a heretic.

It is quite possible that it was Mani's interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden which led to his eventual demise at the hands of the "Christian" establishment.
According to Mani's understanding, When Eve takes the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, It is not the Serpent who is the liar, the "evil" god, but rather Yahweh who is deceitful and evil.
This is where I personally feel that Mani shows himself to be an unenlightened being.
His insistence on a dualistic nature keeps him blind from the possibility of BOTH beings telling the TRUTH.
the following in quotes is directly from the previously mentioned website:
(text in parentheses are my additional notes)

"Mani said that the Serpent told Eve the truth. That if she took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil she would become as God and not die as the Evil God (Yahweh) told her.
Mani in identifying the serpent as the Good Spiritual God made it clear that the God we identified as Good (Yahweh) was the evil physical God because he lied when he told Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit they would die.
The serpent who Mani said was the Good Spiritual God told Eve that if they ate the fruit they would not die but would become as God which was true.
That statement about identifying which voice was the Good God, the invisible one or the serpent is borne out in this scripture."

ok....so, I see this as an oversimplification in the extreme.
First of all, there is no clear definition of what is meant by the term "die" within this passage. This could very easily be a mystical language, especially considering the context!
the death of the self? the death of a way of knowing and being up until this point (the point of tasting of the fruit), when we are reborn into something new? is it possible to die and not die at the same time?
I say an emphatic YES!
what is being discussed here is none other than that which the eastern philosophies and religions term Enlightenment, It is also represented in the Death and Resurrection of the many SUNs of GODfrom Christ to Krishna, from Osirus to Mithras and on and on)
It may refer to the dissolution of the self in order to be born into a higher state on consciousness, of being.
first step is the fall from innocence, the split which creates the situation in which one can know the "self" .
The foundation is built.
only then can one KNOWINGLY rather than ignorantly return to the state of ONENESS from which we supposedly rose or fell, depending on your interpretation.

Yet both Mani and the author of the website can't get over the Aristotelian hump, even though further down the webpage the topic is quantum physics which blows dualistic either/or logic out of the water in favor of a both/and inter-relationship.

more from the webpage:

" 'John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.'

So you see Mani is saying that the serpent is the Good God because he told the truth when he said that by eating the fruit, Adam and Eve would become as God, whereas God told them they would die.

' Genesis 2:16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat:
17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'

OK That's God's side, now let's hear from the Serpent

'Genesis 3:4. And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not die:
5. For God knows that in the day you eat that, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.'

Now we have two entities here.

One says if you eat you shall die. The other says that..s a lie you will not die but if you eat you shall be as gods.

So who is the liar and remember the Bible says Satan the Devil is the father of lies.

(this has got to be one of the most oversimplified and non-explanatory sentences in the whole website - we need actual passages that equate the devil, the serpent, and satan here, otherwise, this point is null and void)

'Genesis 3:22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden'

So there is the answer.
The Bible says that it is Satan that is a liar and the father of lies. In this story it is the Serpent that said you will not die you will be as Gods.
It was God that said you will die.
According to the Bible they did not die but became as Gods. You can see for yourself, ..man is become as one of us.
Therefore it was the Serpent who was telling the truth and God who was lying.
Thus who is Satan?
So Mani is correct."

-end of passage from website

ok...so I think this is idiocy.
for a person who is attempting to play off some sort of righteous esoteric knowledge, this is an extremely weak argument.
It is attempting to use rational logic to understand a form of expression that is not based in logic and reason, but rather in mysticism.

I see it thusly:

By eating of the fruit, we lose our innocence and are split into duality. good/bad and all of that.
ask yourself, do you believe that the activities or possible actions that occurred both before and after eating of the fruit were different?
was there even an issue whether or not adam had sex with eve out of wedlock before eating of the fruit?
or how about if they liked backdoor antics, so to speak?
seriously...it is a possibility isn't it?
a visceral one...
or was that made a sin only after eating of the fruit?
or is it only the perception of whether or not that action is good or evil which was born upon the tasting of that fruit?

to taste the Fruit is to Die to Innocence.
the "good god" Yahweh does not lie about this.
but the Serpent does not lie either.
The messages of the two are COMPLIMENTARY.
In order to understand the world in dualistic terms, in terms of good and evil, one must sacrifice their innocence. To know of good and evil is to be as gods, or so says genesis.
The Serpent says that you will know as the gods know (as the higher beings know).
You will be started upon the path to a deeper understanding and relationship to the divine.
through opposites, definitions and refinement of understanding are possible.
Being able to compare, contrast. there are two sides.
but both sides are still a part of one coin, so to speak.
If the serpent truly says that Yahweh is lying, then the serpent is lying, not Yahweh.
In this way the serpent may be attempting to convince Eve that she does NOT have to give up her innocence to know good and evil. It is a very subtle point, but very important.
This is how people become enslaved.
Humans are misled about the repercussions of their decisions while those who wish to control have complete knowledge of them;
then, when the truth is revealed and the humans realize the price, those who knew what was up from the beginning conveniently provides a solution or sustenance that creates the situation which they so desired from the onset.
This is a kind of metaphysical dangling of the carrot.

Just follow the carrot...do not worry...there are no holes in the road...oh, sorry..there was one right there...let me give you this splint for your broken leg...now don't ever take it off. I've given it to you so you can walk. now that you have been damaged, you cannot walk without it, so never take it off, you must now walk as i tell you to walk, for your own good, for your SAFETY.

So, be aware, and do not think that anything comes for free.
something must always be sacrificed.
But the dualistic path is the long path.
yet in a very real way, it is the Crucible through which we must go in order to reach "Heaven"
It is most impressively expressed in the tradition of Alchemy, the marriage of opposites.
There lies a rich language of symbols and language which stretched thru all traditions.
The answers are never in the dogma. it is dogma which separates.
it is the mystical which connects all things and transcends differences.
it is the DIRECT EXPERIENCE which is the truth, not the shadows of tradition.
an d the most visceral question of all:
"How worthy is a God of being believed in if he cannot even manage to forgive the one who was once his most highly respected servant? If even god is not capable of that kind of compassion, yet I am , what does that mean?"

4 comments:

  1. That was very interesting and a needed read on my part. I never pay much attention to the Bible haven decided that it is not needed in my life. However, I did study it a bit and came up with the same theory as Mani. But having heard another way of seeing it, I feel a bit foolish. I seem to have been set on proving the Bible wrong in my research which is not of much benefit if you truly want to be enlightened. By the way, I like that picture of you biting into that blue apple. It's nice. Actually I like all of your pictures in your blog. They all give me a feeling. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. excellent. It is always good to know that my point of view is first of all being comunicated in a way that has impact, and secondly, that i am actually expressing something that matters and can be of use to others.
    oh wait a minute...maybe reverese the order of those.
    anyway, thank you Truthseeker for your comment.
    I myself, am no more of a fan of Yahweh than Mani is. (but choosing the opposite is simply reactionary simplemindedness - i would rather go for depth)
    There is decidely something wrongminded and mentally ill about that diety.
    Whenever i think about this "war" between good and evil, "satan" and "god", i inevitably go back to the Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaimen book "Good Omens".
    I say we all refuse to even be a part of that childish game altogether!
    -i guess this then refers to a recent post of mine that refers to Dune and the work of Frank Herbert.
    Leto the twin destroying the hypocrisy born of his father, the Mua'Dib's religion.
    It is a poignant message for our time.
    one must wonder, what would the world be like if the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition had never even come into being?
    what if we had instead developed a highly refined form of animism?
    so much to write on this....hence the coming book.
    thanks again for the grateful comment.
    it is immensely appeciated

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, I belive that God is telling the truth when you consider that man was meant to live forever - so in that 'day' you will die refers to the fact that on loss of 'innocence' man literally started to die. It took him about 900 years in those days, because he was so perfect to start with. Further down the chain now, we are so far removed from perfection that we die anytime from birth onwards, and regularly do. The devil's comment only served to induce man to lose that innocence and thus lose his everlasting perfect life on this wonderfully made planet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous - you who don't even have the strength to sign any name at all when you express your beliefs in words that are absolute - it is great how you can use absolutist language to express something that you cannot know except by faith.
    it shows a highly developed understanding of God. and yes, i am being sarcastic.
    I would also suggest that your belief that there is any importance to the individuation which you believe we have fallen from would suggest that you actually follow the ultimate egotist, Lucifer, who's main fault in the Christian tradition is believing so highly in his own individual self-importance rather than understanding that he is simply an aspect, a part, if you will, of God the One and Only (not an anthropomorphic deity, but the All that Is).
    Your beliefs seem to be on the negative side of the equation.One of the main faults of the type of dualism that much of Gnosticism is built upon.
    I take it that you do not believe in spirit,or soul, or you would understand the concept that death of the body is exactly that, death of the body and nothing more, that in essence, death is an illusion.
    Or maybe you are simply caught up in the worldy desires of the flesh and cannot imagine what it would be like to exist beyond it, or maybe to even exist as a part of something greater without any importance of your own individual ego.
    Or maybe you are a humanist who worships the importance of man, which I would argue is the "religion of man" warned about in the book of Revelations
    (this is one area in which I believe differently that traditions such as the Sufic, in preference for an Animist view which does not put man above other aspects of God, as represented in the spirit inhabiting all things, but rather as equal and differing only in aesthetic quality - this does not mean that I do not believe in the Sufi concept of "the Perfect Man" which is attained through great and unceasing inner work, but that all aspects of manifestation each hold within them their own qualities of the One Whom Is All Things.
    I believe this is the ONLY way in which humans can avoid exploitation of the rest of God's creation and live in proper sacred balance within this world in which we can seek to once again understand and become at one with the whole - to believe it was made only for us is to once again fall into the trap of self worship.)

    I would argue that you are worshiping yourself and your own need to be self defined rather than defined by God, so in a sense, you are expressing the opposite of what would be considered holy or sacred to the majority of traditions which believe in a Higher Power or an all pervasive Oneness Whom is referred to as God by most.
    Besides, you say "the devil's comment" when the fact of the matter is that it is the SERPENT'S Comment and there is NO reference to the devil in that biblical passage whatsoever in any extant translation nor is there any reference as to WHOM the serpent is. If one is to believe that God is all powerful, omnipresent and that there is no reality but God, then even believing that Lucifer, or Satan himself is not an agent of God is to not believe in the Oneness of the Creator, for in that belief system, there can and is NOTHING BUT GOD and all else and all separation is ILLUSION.

    Also I feel it necessary to point out that your use of the modifier "Actually" at the beginning of your comment alludes to a self righteous knowledge which condemns other opinions as ignorant. It is a mildly violent use of language and does not add to discourse but rather works against wisdom by adding discord to the 'conversation'. It lends to the thought that you need to prop up your own beliefs and thoughts by knocking down others, which is not a way of knowledge or expansive understanding, but rather a way of using coercion and base judgementalism in order to destroy other beliefs so that one does not have to look as deeply at something and can remain in ignorance or a surface level of understanding.

    Maybe you should be a bit more critical of your own beliefs, how deep and wise they actually are, how deep your own search has been, how you affect other people's own searches by your type of expression, and your ability to properly use language to express what you are wanting to communicate.

    ReplyDelete