Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist thoughts on the Garden myth
not1not2
Veteran
As I left the Judeau-Christian fold to explore other religions, I did a good deal of study in attempt to reconcile my difficulties with my birth religion. I studied Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) at the same time I was studing Taoism, Hinduism and (eventually) Buddhism. I still have a continuing interest in finding some some sort of reconciliation with my former belief system. The following is an attempt at just that, though I imagine that certain Jews, Christians & Buddhists alike may balk at this as a distortion of the teachings. So, I will say this is not an attempt to faithfully represent the teachings from their own traditional view. There are also a few kinks that I have not been able to fully work out. So here goes:
I don't know if this is of any interest to you guys, though I suspect that Simon and/or Elohim might have something to say about it.
_/\_
metta
The garden story can be taken as a description of the descent of conciousness into multiplicity. Eve being tempted by the devil is the outward-seeking/desiring consciousness chasing after the discriminating mind, which also is the mind of indentification (ego). This necessarily causes our undiscriminating/pristine awareness (Adam Kadmon) to follow and mind takes on the quality of the taints corresponding with the disriminating mind. So, discriminating mind becomes dominant and good/evil can be distinguished, and one's nakedness (non-substantial nature) is distinguished. This causes the outward seeking mind to seek substance in phenomena. With this seeking comes identification with various phenomena (clothing oneself, from a sense of shame/pride), our pristine awareness now identifies with the forms and movements as its own nature, and suffering arises (because this is an incorrect/incomplete perception). Surely, if we identify with our perceptions (a mere imputation of the discriminating mind), we shall experience death, as perceptions are impermanent. So, the wage of sin (identifying with phenomena) is literally death. We must work to uproot this identification in order to regain our pristine awareness and transcend suffering. To acheive the deathless, the non-substantial nature (shunyata) of all things/perceptions/imputations must be realized & actualized.
I don't know if this is of any interest to you guys, though I suspect that Simon and/or Elohim might have something to say about it.
_/\_
metta
0
Comments
I have often found parallels between the various beliefs and practices of the world, and I am continually fascinated by the similarities that many of them share. In particular, I find that the various mystical traditions have a common thread among that speaks directly from experience and insight.
Nevertheless, as you have already stated, these ideas can be seen as distortions of the original teachings. Even so, I can still feel the chilling sensation that travels my spine whenever I read thoughts such as this—the feeling that I am close, and that the Truth I seek is found within all things.
Sincerely,
Jason
Yeah, this sort of reminds me of something that I read in a Bruce Lee book (of all things). It was a compilation of his notes & he said several times, that as long as people have 2 arms & 2 legs, there is no new fighting technique. In other words, a punch is a punch; a kick is a kick. You can emphasize one over the other & create derivations to fit the predispositions/strengths of the fighters, but that's it. Just these 2 arms & 2 legs.
Similarly, there is just this one reality, filtered by each individual to various extents by the 6 sense bases & varying degrees of the 3 poisons. Every religion, philosophy or whatever is dealing with the same thing. Each religion is not dealing with it's own reality, so it is not surprising that we find threads of similarity through all world philosophies & beliefs. It is also not surprising that we find differences in them all too.
Take care.
_/\_
metta
LOL!! This is exactly, word for word, what I would have liked to say in response to Not1's initial post.
I've put the Garden of Eden story into a few other contexts as well, as I was studying other religions and belief systems. But never as well as this, Not1. I loved it and it's going to be on my brain for I don't know how long. I love this kind of thing. *shiver*
One thing I would like to mention is that one of the kinks I talked about in my first post is in regards to the part about Adam & Eve recognizing their own nakedness & and, consequently, clothing themselves out of a sense of shame. I'm still trying to work out what exactly is meant (in the Jewish context) by nakedness here, as well as in what manner they clothed themselves. It could be something along the lines of what I originally posted, but for some reason I am not satisfied with that. Not that I think it's totally off, but it leaves something to be desired (imo).
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had ever thought about this particular passage beyond its literal sense and/or if anyone could add some more context to it.
_/\_
metta
The Garden myth has been reinterpreted for centuries and the 20th certainly saw its fair share of such new readings as each liberation movement re-discovered it. In particular, the feminist movement required us to re-examine the sexist readings. Much earlier, 'gnostics' exegesis stood traditional undertstanding on its head by suggesting that the snake is the messenger of Sophia, the Wisdom Mother, who liberates humanity from the twisted emiurge, Yhwh.
The first couple's awareness of their 'nakedness' is a symbol for the appearance of conscience and the understanding of imperfection, just as the 'curses' by Yhwh are an attempt to explain impermanence (death) and suffering (childbirth). No conflict with Buddhism there, I think.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the Sophia thing. It seems quite extratraditional, if not anti-traditional. Now, I have heard that the Hebrew does place Wisdom somewhere in there, but I don't think YHVH was ever regarded as a 'twisted demiurge' in the Jewish tradition.
Anyway, a thought I had, in regards to the nakedness & the shame they felt, was that it could indicate the birth of self-reflection & pride, respectively. The self-reflection was enabled by the minds descriminating/indentifying capacity (tree of knowledge of good & evil), from which pride was born.
Just a couple of thoughts.
_/\_
metta
This interpretation is from the Gnostic tradition, which straddles Second Temple Judaism and Christianity.
Thanks. I have come across this in some of my readings on Gnostic Christianity. It is interesting, but (like I said) I just don't know how I feel about it, considering it pretty much slams Judaism using Judaism. Not saying I don't like the ideas of the Sophia based traditions, this just puts me off a bit. In other words, it is borderline blasphemy from the Jewish POV (imo) and, more importantly, it seems like a misrepresentation of the original scripture.
That's just my opinion though. I don't mean to start any sort of argument either.
_/\_
metta
Some of the gnostic myths and the neo-platonic envisage a pantheon in which Yhwh is less than supreme, a simple 'potter' of the gods. In post-Freudian mythogenesis, we can see Yhwh as jealous of the Wisdom Mother from whom he comes, refusing to allow her access to the slave population that he has formed out of pre-existing material in order to work for him and worship him. In this, he was attempting to imitate the Court of Heaven, where the gods, angels, archangels, powers, thrones, dominions, etc., all exist solely to give glory to the One. Yhwh, like a spoiled child, slips away and makes himself a court of his own. The two trees represent the two aspects of wisdom and deathlessness which characterise the real court. Yhwh cannot eliminate them from creation because they are attributes of the One in which all things arise, so he band their use.
The Mother, in her compassion, sends the serpent (a symbol in many other places around the world of sagacity and ancient wisdom) to extend the gifts of their inheritance to these newly-emerging humans. The serpent goes first to the Woman because she has had to be formed by Yhwh when he realised that he could not manufacture a hermaphrodite and, therby, allowed the image of the Mother to enter his little world.
It is interesting to note that there is a trace of a much older story at the end of the Garden myth, where Yhwh curses the Woman. The Man then calls her "mother of all living" which is the title of the supreme goddess of the Sumerian pantheon!
When I first began to learn about the pre-Abrahamic creation stories from which the myths of the first seven chapters of Genesis descend, I was very worried I was about 10 or 11. These were our stories. How could those nasty Babylonians or mysterious Sumerians know anything about them? It really shook my 'faith'. Today, I see that 'faith', like all such, as being a blind groping after truth, at the heart of which is the certainty that truth exists. It has been a blessing in my life that I was taught to integrate new understandings and not to assume that I know it all yet. And to have this driven by the underlying presupposition that there is, indeed, a truth to be pursued and which can be known.
As an additional aside, you may like to look at a wonderful book, called The Book of J which suggests that the "Yahwistic" thread of the Pentateuch (those parts in which god is named Yhwh), which weaves in and out of the other threads (called "Elohistic", "Priestly" and "Deuteronomist") was written by one of Solomon's daughters or granddaughters. The translation of the "J" text is poetic and Harold Bloom's literary commentary is a joy.
Thanks for the info. I found it very interesting & I plan on re-reading it a couple of times to fully digest it.
_/\_
metta
P.S.- Isn't the genesis story more in reference to Elohim than YHVH, Elohim being a holdover from Cainanite pantheon?
The first. poem-like account ("In the beginning.....") of the six days of creation is "Priestly", the second, Gan Eden uses the post-Ezra redaction of an original Yahwistic text. As you say, the use of the apparent plural, Elohim, as a name for God may indicate an earlier strand in which Yhwh has a female consort. This notion persisted in, for example, the Jewish community at Elephantine at the First Cataract on the Nile.
I've read that another grammatically correct rendering of the Hebrew first line can be read as something like:
"With beginning, It {implied} created Elohim"
I believe that was in a God is a Verb by Rabbi David Cooper (an excellent book). To me, coupled with the fact that Elohim (I believe) part of the Caananite Pantheon, this suggests a larger perspective at play here. The other rendering of "In the beginning..." seems to be a liturgical usage given to the Jewish public at large in order to preserve their Demiurgic belief/social structure. From what I've read, it is possible that the former perspective was taught (among) to the select few upstanding members of society who will receive secret Oral transmission in preparation for them becoming a Rabbi. This further implies that the public form Judaeo-Christianity we know is actually an extension of a basically Pagan/tribal belief system which was, in fact, transcended (though maintained) by the likes of Abraham, Moses, Solomon & I imagine other advanced Rabbis. In this way, taking Elohim as the demiurge from previous mythology (rather than YHVH), the gnostic spin might not be entirely innacurate.
Also, I think it is interesting that YHVH is considered to be androgenous/hermaphroditic & seems to carry with it a notion much closet to that of 'the One' which the gnostics/philosophers spoke of. Now, on the issue of 'Elohim' being plural, Adam was also a plural being & Eve was taken from his side. The notion of 'man(kind) being created in the image of God (Elohim) is quite interesting here as it has some interesting implications which seem to echo some of the Hindu ontologies.
Anyway, my mind is just beginning to make some interesting correlations here, so take these statements with a grain of salt.
Once again, thanks Simon. This has managed to open a quite interesting can of worms for me with some surprising implications. I'm looking forward to further discussion & investigation.
_/\_
metta
The trigger was Wolley's Ur of the Chaldees. As I began to understand where Mesopotamia stood in relation to the East and the West, my investigations spread out from there and the links with their Semitic descendants became clear.
Could you please tell me how the Gnostic spin might not be entirely inaccurate by taking me as the demiurge from previous mythology (rather than YHVH)?
Curiously,
Jason
Perhaps the recognition of nakedness and the desire to cover themselves up stems from the arising of discrimination, and subsequently, of mistrust. Where they once lived in a world where everyone and everything just functioned (things as they are), now there is this business of right and wrong, good and evil, and the mental stress and mistrust that goes with it.
Being naked is the same as being vulnerable, and in a world of discriminating mind, the likely reaction to vulnerability might be to attempt to hide, or to pretend that things are other than they are.
Hmm. Do you suppose the act of Adam and Eve clothing themselves might be a metaphor for the first dishonest act?
Actually I'm wondering if anyone has ever read this book before: The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The authors claim to have found archaelogical evidence to prove that the entire Old Testament is but a political piece of propoganda, with the Exodus never supposedly to have happened at all etc.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm
I'm quite open in that one, still don't use it in apologetics yet, for I know that it might be highly disputable.
SWW, it seems to me that clothes for primitive men seem to be protection against the elements - the powers of YHWH. Might it perhaps point to the humans' desire to shield themselves from punishment and all things undesirable (karma! :rockon:), and in essence, is the first dishonest act indeed?
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." - Genesis 2:17
I still wonder what the above means - guilt as a "negative karmic imprint"? Or suicide out of guilt? Or perhaps it could be anything else...
Both Finkelstein and Silberman are well-qualified and trustowrthy as scholars. I have recommended this book a number of times, both here and elsewhere. It is a good read and a clear summary of the more 'progressive' aspects of biblical archaeology. It also causes a great deal of opposition!
To my mind, the book gives us a chance of moving Judaism away from its Josianic, territorial "pan-Israelism" and towards finding the deep messages of personal challenge to a good life that lie under the farrago of nationalistic self-aggrandisement. Judaism 'worked' extremely well, as a social, moral and spiritual path, until it was re-linked with a new nationalism.
I find this book a good compliment to Karen Armstrong's "A History of God", too...
I would like to start by emphasizing that I said "not entirely inaccurate". I would also like to state my knowledge of Judaism's pre-Abrahamic roots is very limited & may well be incorrect.
Anyway, what I mean by that statement is that if we take Elohim (you) to be a personal God-figure which has its origins in the Caananite tribal belief system, then we can say that perhaps he asserted his position as Creator in mistaken sense (as described in the Brahmajala Sutta), not realizing his previous incarnation in a different realm.
So, while I'm not sure how seemlessly the Gnostic Spin would fit with this Sutta, in this sense it does not seem entirely off-base. Beyond that I could say that Elohim is simply a fabricated emanation whose existence relies upon a higher aspect of Reality/Being bringing about 'beginning' or temporality in reference to the alternate translation of Genesis 1 that I provided above.
I haven't fully worked it out or anything, & I may well be off-base. Simon's statements just caused some interesting thoughts. That was one of them. Anyway, does this answer your question sufficiently?
_/\_
metta
http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/zen_song_of_the_mind.html
_/\_
metta
You know I was just kidding about the whole, "Could you please tell me how the Gnostic spin might not be entirely inaccurate by taking me as the demiurge rather than YHWH" thing don't you? I know full well why they took me as the Demiurge, and I'm damn proud of it!
:rarr:
Demiurge
Abraxas
I wonder what they'd say if they knew their demiurge was a Buddhist?
_/\_
metta
P.S.-Thanks for the link, Simon. I'll have to check it out later.