Deconstructing the Hebrew creation myth

[kennyvii]

Kenny,
Your reply was to Reed but he doesn't believe in a fall. As for me, I think the fall was one of perception, and yet perception has the ability to change reality to some degree as well. So I agree with what you say above.

Yes. I think our dissagreement is whether the two "myths" are meant to be understood as is apparent or whether a type of literary device is employed here to say something else that was entirely unacceptable to the thought of either a time period or to a type of mind set (of any age). Like writing a seemingly innoccuous letter to your sister filled with code and meaning known only to someone else that reads the letter.

Once my daughter took me to a beautiful swimming spot in West Virginia, but the local young had left piles of trash and broken glass around. She was incensed at their carelessness, and she said, "I mean, what if this were heaven?!"

...and that's why we love them.

There is a lot of poignancy in that statement. There those people were, lolling about in heaven, disrespecting it, blind to it, and full of guilt and loathing and judgementalism about who is going to go to heaven someday - as though heaven could ever be occupied by the irresponsible - as though heaven has a gatekeeper other than one's own mind, and there was my daughter, not blind or disrespectful of the paradise, but yet cut off from it.

yes, yeah. I like that. This is the attraction of Buddhism vs popular Christianity. one is a path to "heaven" and one is a "take this coupon; get in for free". (note: this is my impression of Buddhism only: I know nothing about it yet).

Duality is everywhere. No creation without duality. The universe runs on duality. The first account of creation is that of bringing order to chaos. You think of duality as something bad, but that is only because our perception gets stuck and we can't see behind the duality is unity. Duality is how unity moves and creates.

I see duality as bad firstly because I suspect it is not substancial. While it is a mystery to me (so, yes, here my arguement falls down right off...) why there is need for either evil or the notion of evil. Creation ought to precede faultless from its source and remain so having no other influence but that souce upon it. This is the Preistly account. Jesus, Moses, and "the Buddha Guy" (who ascended by enlightenment?), demonstrated decided dominion over nature. Adam and Eve were (and we remain) at the mercy of nature, of arbitrary gods, of low passions: fearful and selfish emotions. Hell?
And I do have my reason (my "proof") for not believing in the reality of evil. I have had two experiences dramatic enough to make an impression upon me that make no sense if duality is real.

[DHodges]

The whole concept of a "fall" clearly implies that one had been in a previously "raised' (or non-fallen) state. There is nothing factual to support this assertion.

FACTS ABOUT THE FALL
(1) You fell out of your mother's cunt

(end of list)

[Iolaus]

Reed,

My point is that there are other hypotheses that may be better at covering the data points. Occam's Razor suggests to me that the whole elaborate drama of garden and serpent and apple is, even symbolicly, far too elaborate. Evolution is like watching the grass grow, not very exciting.

Somehow your points aren't clear. I see no reason why the drama is too elaborate and if I never hear about Occam again it'll be too soon. No one has any idea what it is like to watch evolution, since no one has seen it. But if it did look like grass growing, it would mean you had a lousy seat.

The question is, is this evolution? Daniel Quinn says no, we got waylaid. We took a dangerous detour we didn't need to take, and evolution was going along just fine. Now things are dicey.

You want to say that nothing is wrong. Some enlightened people have spoken of seeing that all is perfect, and unfolding perfectly. Then they say there was never anything wrong, I just couldn't see it. How to get there is the question. Wanting to get there indicates something is wrong. To get there is a process of undoing the wrong. Whether or not there is something wrong is mostly a matter of perception. So there's still the problem of how to help people who are stuck in wrongness.

Yeah, we could definitely start by getting rid of the negativity in Christianity. And Islam.

As I mentioned, there would be no need for either Judaism or Chriatianity in their current forms were it not for the (posited) Fall.

Why does Buddhism speak of salvation?

I think the problem with Christianity is the idea of guilt, judgement and punitiveness, rather than the belief that we fell.

Kenny,

I think our disagreement is whether the two "myths" are meant to be understood as is apparent or whether a type of literary device is employed here to say something else that was entirely unacceptable to the thought of either a time period or to a type of mind set (of any age).

I think that they were probably written on at least two levels at once, perhaps 3 or 4. I also think they have been rewritten, truncated, mistranslated and so on. The insistence that only the obvious meaning was ever intended makes certain forms of Christianity a religion for fools and the lowest common denominator.

This is the attraction of Buddhism vs popular Christianity. One is a path to "heaven" and one is a "take this coupon; get in for free". (note: this is my impression of Buddhism only: I know nothing about it yet).

Yeah, this form of Christianity is a cheat and a counterfeit. It's enough to make me believe in the devil. I've never liked Buddhism, but it can sure be useful.

I wonder whether any religion does anyone much good, or whether we just progress when we're finally ready. The ripe fruit theory of enlightenment.

I see duality as bad firstly because I suspect it is not substantial.

It's as substantial as the material world, which is probably not very substantial, yet it does have quite a lot of persistence. Without duality you have uniformity. For things to get going, there is a division into positive and negative. But the two are always really one, yet they are firmly separated into an attraction-repulsion force.

why there is need for either evil or the notion of evil. Creation ought to proceed faultless from its source and remain so having no other influence but that source upon it. This is the Priestly account.

I see. And apparently you find the teachings of Jesus are more in accord with this one?

Creation indeed proceeds from its source and there is no other source for anything, anywhere, at any time. There is no inherently evil being. I wonder if by evil you include animals eating each other. It seems to me that at this level of physicality, there is no other way. This whole universe and world is an energy exchange system. All things are food, including the inanimate. Things look solid an calm to us because our senses are designed that way. But in reality, (and I think our brains can see it on certain drugs), it is a vast seething energy world. It may not be bad at all, there is no birth or death, but forms come and go. Consciousness fills everything. Is is bad when the wildebeest gets killed? Maybe not. Creatures are endowed with a desire to live within their bodies, because if they didn't feel that way, there would be nothing to do but lay down and die. But death is like a chesspiece getting taken off the board. You take turns. You come back and play again. Life is all there is. Existence is all there is. Nonexistence doesn't exist. Our consciousness is dimmed so that we take the game seriously. The more consciousness is developed in you, the more the game is up.
It also becomes more fun.
You can experience the priestly account on mushrooms.

Jesus, Moses, and "the Buddha Guy" (who ascended by enlightenment?), demonstrated decided dominion over nature. Adam and Eve were (and we remain) at the mercy of nature, of arbitrary gods, of low passions: fearful and selfish emotions. Hell?

Yes, it's all part of hell, and the only question I have is, did we get sent here as miscreants, or is it just a natural stage of spiritual evolution? But that's just idle curiosity. The point is to figure it out.

It can be difficult to hold onto faith in the process, when we see so very little of the big picture, and have so much to worry about. I don't know why we have been put into such a bizarre position - with brains and aspirations almost limitless, and yet stuck in a situation in which we are pretty much as blind as a parasite living in your intestinal tract. We are so desperate, so innately needing of an explanation to existence, that we believe almost any claptrap that comes along. I think deeper than our fear of death is our fear of admitting our utter ignorance, and that is one thing I like about Buddhism, is that they just cut the bullshit.

And I do have my reason (my "proof") for not believing in the reality of evil. I have had two experiences dramatic enough to make an impression upon me that make no sense if duality is real.

I would very much like to hear them. And by the way, I do think evil is a chimera.

[reedsch]

You want to say that nothing is wrong. Some enlightened people have spoken of seeing that all is perfect, and unfolding perfectly. Then they say there was never anything wrong, I just couldn't see it. How to get there is the question. Wanting to get there indicates something is wrong. To get there is a process of undoing the wrong. Whether or not there is something wrong is mostly a matter of perception.

There is the IDEAL and the NOT-IDEAL. Although a duality like PAIN/PLEASURE can be differentiated into PLEASURE/NOT-PLEASURE and PAIN/NOT-PAIN i.e the fact that something is not pleasurable does not mean that it is painful. But I digress slightly only to point out what appear to me as different motives, the reason being your statement"Wanting to get there indicates something is wrong." Fleeing from the Sabre-tooth lion's jaws was the evolutionary motive for the speed of the Pronghorn, so we can posit that avoiding bad things is a significant force in the progression of species.

The Ideal also implies a static condition, Heaven as an end-point, a finite goal. But it appears that Nature has created a treadmill so that there is no real end-point (except individual death, though for species like the Sabre-tooth tiger there clearly was an end!) I agree that wrongness is mostly a matter of perception, meaning that it is relative.

To make a long story short, I am not sure where the image of the Ideal originates from. It obviously has a lot of power to motiviate us. But to suggest that the image exists because we once were in possession of the ideal and lost it is only one possibility.

[kennyvii]

The whole concept of a "fall" clearly implies that one had been in a previously "raised' (or non-fallen) state. There is nothing factual to support this assertion.

FACTS ABOUT THE FALL
(1) You fell out of your mother's cunt

(end of list)

Kenny didn't write that. And I was delivered by a stork, thanks, just like the rest of you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't think I'm following you very well. I just don't see applying the term neurosis to nature, or comparing the problems people have with nature as a whole.

What I originally wrote was about nature, the rise and fall of whole species, appearing to work with stagnation and 'intense neurotic' episodes throughout the ages as well. The word neurosis here was quoted as response to you using it in some fashion, I guess to describe an in your view "destructive, murderous, ungrateful and inwardly dead" humanity. The way I used it was in the sense of explosive expansion and the pressures arising with that.

But aren't you agreeing with the commonplace idea that life becomes meaningful and fertile because of death, and success needing multiple failure to even get a chance?

No.

Then I'm not sure what you mean by (human) life or how you measure its health.

Consciousness would bring disharmony in the creature and incredible fear and within its wake deception which are perhaps the only ways to survive from here on.

Animals are very conscious of death and very afraid. Not sure what you mean about the deception.

Being wired to react to dangerous events is not quite the same as being aware (consciously or subconsciously) of a more conceptual view of future or past.

[reedsch]

FACTS ABOUT THE FALL
(1) You fell out of your mother's cunt

You didn't fall out you were forcibly evicted, possibly against your will. I note also that ostensible Son of God also came into the world in this quite normal manner instead of descending from the clouds. It is a profound experience though, I was moved to tears at the birth of both of my children.

I maintain the position that the fact that things are NOT IDEAL does not carry the implication that they are some how WRONG. One needs to plumb further the source of the image of the ideal.

[Iolaus]

Reed,

What I have been tyring to get across is that there is a difference between saying that something is fundamentally wrong with nature and with life on earth, versus saying that there is something wrong with humans. The very fact that so many of us are worried about planetary destruction and irreversable losses due to mismanagement, lack of caring and greed, shows that this is so. The fact that all 5 major civilized religions focus on some sort of salvation shows that humans feel something is wrong.

When that something wrong gets cured, one also sees that nothing is wrong, but that is a paradox.

[kennyvii]

reedsch wrote:

I maintain the position that the fact that things are NOT IDEAL does not carry the implication that they are some how WRONG. One needs to plumb further the source of the image of the ideal.

The source of the image of the ideal. Coooool way to put it.
OK, so...the source being creator or prime mover and its image being creation?

Just because parts of things are not ideal, as a whole things are still not wrong; not wholely wrong. But it seems like the greater the measure of the ideal in a thing the closer to being "right" it comes.

[kennyvii]

Reed,

What I have been tyring to get across is that there is a difference between saying that something is fundamentally wrong with nature and with life on earth, versus saying that there is something wrong with humans. The very fact that so many of us are worried about planetary destruction and irreversable losses due to mismanagement, lack of caring and greed, shows that this is so. The fact that all 5 major civilized religions focus on some sort of salvation shows that humans feel something is wrong.

Is Reed saying that a sense of things being wrong is what's wrong? "nuthin to fear but fear id'self" sort of stuff?
Iolaus wrote:

When that something wrong gets cured, one also sees that nothing is wrong, but that is a paradox.

Only if he doesn't remember getting cured, right?
slightly edited for clarity alone

[Iolaus]

Kenny,

The source of the image of the ideal. Coooool way to put it.
OK, so...the source being creator or prime mover and its image being creation?

I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant that we should look at the source of why we have an ideal that doesn't match reality.

Is Reed saying that a sense of things being wrong is what's wrong? "nuthin to fear but fear id'self" sort of stuff?

I think so.

Only if he doesn't remember getting cured, right?

Now, that I don't understand. What does memory have to do with it? I was referring to the way I have read of enlightened people, or at any rate those who achieved a certain attainment, finding that all is perfect, all is unfolding as it should, nothing is lacking. But, you see, it took a certain attainment to see things that way. So that is why it's a paradox.