Paradise and The Fall

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

Since your original idea was to compare ideas on Original Sin, here is a summary of the Theosophical view of the Christine doctrine.

The Absolute is limitless, unknowable, and undefineable. The limitless part is key. The Absolute allows part of itself to be limited (to be "trapped inside of matter") for the purpose of gaining experience. The "limited section" of the Absolute (called the Son, or the universe) takes on layers of materiality. When the final veil of materiality is taken on, the physical world appears. The Son has now traveled from the super-spiritual down to the mundane.

This Fall into matter is seen as a sin in Christianity. However, Theosophy views it as a positive event, a normal progress of the evolving of the universe.

Humanity has completed the first half — the phase from spiritual down into matter — of a complete cycle. We are now in the upward phase of the cycle, on our return back to the spiritual.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Lunamoth

+++

I'm actually a few posts behind you (and Nick) now, I was composing a response to your post to me ... but Grrr! I'm trying to finish my essay on the Synoptic Problem ... I'm wandering around here in 'a wilderness of mirrors' (sources and hypotheses) and a little window keeps popping up with posts at CR!

So forgive me if I pick up on your exchanges at another time. Meanwhile, here is what I was writing ...

+++

But, of course, you are right.

I have hoped to set out some of the metaphysical groundwork, the axioms on which the argument stands, that there is no evil in God, because God is what He wills (He wills only what He is), and He wills only the good, and the true (because sin is, by definition, neither ontologically Truth nor Goodness) whereas man, because he is (ontologically) free, can will that which is neither true nor good (ontologically) even though that is the way it appears to him (because he is not omniscient).

It is precisely because God is omniscient, God knows the final end of all things, that he appears to allow suffering, because it is an unavoidable and inescapable fact of the journey to our perfection, suffering is the measure of the experience of the distance from goodness as such, it is the manifestation first spiritually, then psychically, and finally physically, of a distance so great it appears as separation, as privation ... and the final, dreadful, trajectory of the arc of the fall is death ... the privation of being, of existence.

The only logical way, ontologically and metaphysically, that God can circumvent fate, or karma, of this freedom of action is to remove the possibility of karmic action by taking away man's free will. This would involve a fundamental change of his nature – man would cease to be human, he would become animal.

The only other way is utterly illogical ... that God does not circumvent fate, he takes the burden of it upon Himself, He dies that we might live ... and the only logical motivation for such an act is ... love.

...

Oh good grief ... I've started, haven't I? ... But listen ...

He becomes humanity to repair it from within, and in so doing gives us the means, that by our own free will, we might return to Him. He does not overlay His goodness on our fallen nature (fallen, wounded, but not changed) from without, but by the radiant light of his Presence, His solidarity with our suffering, He purifies it in the fierce Ardour of His love, which we in our blindness can only experience as a sifting.

Justice is the removal of ignorance, the illumination of truth, but even the light of truth, the illumined intellect, cannot fathom the depths of His Mercy. Only in faith can we know that ... we know it not of Him, but in Him.

The Love with which He loves us is the love with which we love; love is a movement, a flow, a dynamic ... how can one define love? ... Love is not a thing, it is the way a thing relates, it is the ontology, objectively and subjectively, of the relationship between things ... Love is a pure void in which the other is allowed to be, absolutely.

Sin is the love of self-as-self, that occludes the reality of self-as-relation ... self-as-other.

Luke 22:31
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not..."

And He knew that faith will falter ... in the next breath He said:
"I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me." (22:34).

And here's a thing, to bring us back on course:

"And Peter going out, wept bitterly." (Luke 22:62).
... out of the Garden, perhaps?

and this:

John 18:25-27
"And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it and said: I am not. One of the servants of the high priest (a kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off) saith to him: Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Again therefore Peter denied: and immediately the cock crew."

Was that Peter talking to a servant, or the adversary goading a son of Adam?

Scripture ... spooky stuff ...

Anyway. Yes. We must look at the Fall.

Thomas
(Still desperately trying to finish his essay...)

Thomas! Don't be distressed. Finish your essay and come back to this when you can. Sorry you are swamped with work...at least you are not having a bad hair day.



Oh we need more selections of smilies on this forum.

And now a little appreciation:


He becomes humanity to repair it from within, and in so doing gives us the means, that by our own free will, we might return to Him. He does not overlay His goodness on our fallen nature (fallen, wounded, but not changed) from without, but by the radiant light of his Presence, His solidarity with our suffering, He purifies it in the fierce Ardour of His love, which we in our blindness can only experience as a sifting.


The Love with which He loves us is the love with which we love; love is a movement, a flow, a dynamic ... how can one define love? ... Love is not a thing, it is the way a thing relates, it is the ontology, objectively and subjectively, of the relationship between things ... Love is a pure void in which the other is allowed to be, absolutely.

Very nice Thomas, excellent. I think we will be returning to these ideas...God with us in our suffering, love is relationship...

luna

[lunamoth]

That is very interesting Nick and yes, the point is to get other interpretations of the Fall.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Luna,

Since your original idea was to compare ideas on Original Sin, here is a summary of the Theosophical view of the Christine doctrine.

The Absolute is limitless, unknowable, and undefineable. The limitless part is key. The Absolute allows part of itself to be limited (to be "trapped inside of matter") for the purpose of gaining experience. The "limited section" of the Absolute (called the Son, or the universe) takes on layers of materiality. When the final veil of materiality is taken on, the physical world appears. The Son has now traveled from the super-spiritual down to the mundane.

This sounds familiar to something I've heard before...need to rack brain...something about the trinity as Father (unity?), the Son (fallen world), and Spirit (reunion via love)...thinking...

Haha, it also reminds me of someting I wrote on this forum a couple of years ago. http://www.comparative-religion.com/...775-post9.html

This Fall into matter is seen as a sin in Christianity. However, Theosophy views it as a positive event, a normal progress of the evolving of the universe.

The only thing is, to my understanding Christianity does not see the fall as the fall into matter, but it is about, as Thomas said about, our relationship with God. When we start talking about matter vs. spirit, and good vs. evil, we are getting into a different theology, a Gnostic theology (and I'm not slamming Gnosticism...just comparing).

I have heard of the Fall used as a metaphor for our 'fall' into self-consciousness, the 'moment' when humanity could comprehend that the only way we could be "I" is if there is also "other," and thus the illusion of duality started for all time.

My own view of the Fall is that is not something that happened in the past, but something that is part of our own experience now. We feel alienated, from God, each other, creation, ourselves...we are hungry and ill...we are in exile...we know something is not right. We can't help but to do things we know are harmful, that damage our relationship with God and each other. To me it is self-evident that we live in a fallen state.

Humanity has completed the first half — the phase from spiritual down into matter — of a complete cycle. We are now in the upward phase of the cycle, on our return back to the spiritual.

Interesting. Please go on.

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

You said,

"The only thing is, to my understanding Christianity does not see the fall as the fall into matter, but it is about ... our relationship with God."

--> This is our difference in a nutshell. The value of our discussion for a monotheist (you) and a non-monothiest (me) is to compare ideas.

"When we start talking about matter vs. spirit, and good vs. evil, we are getting into a different theology, a Gnostic theology...."

--> I am open to hearing about Gnostic ideas. Are you saying Gnostic ideas do not resonate with you?

"I have heard of the Fall used as a metaphor for our 'fall' into self-consciousness, the 'moment' when humanity could comprehend that the only way we could be "I" is if there is also "other," and thus the illusion of duality started for all time."

--> This is similar to my belief system, so I would remove the word "metaphor". The concept of duality (a duality that eventually disappears) is basic to many eastern philosophies.

"My own view of the Fall is that is not something that happened in the past, but something that is part of our own experience now."

--> I agree. This is why I described the entire experience as a cycle. The cycle continues even today. (I suppose Christianity sees it as only two stages — Heaven and earth. I see it as a seemingly endless ladder of ascending (and descending) of levels of consciousness.

"We feel alienated...."

--> This is the duality that you mentioned before.

"Interesting. Please go on."

--> Oh, I could give a lot more detail, but I do not know how much you want. Have you heard of the ideas of various levels of consciousness?

~~~

Luna, I want to thank you for our discussion so far. It is rare, indeed, for a Christian and a non-Christian to have a meaningful discussion. Keep up the good work.

[Nick the Pilot]

"Oh we need more selections of smilies on this forum."

[lunamoth]

Hi Nick,

A few quick replies...getting late.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Luna,

You said,

"The only thing is, to my understanding Christianity does not see the fall as the fall into matter, but it is about ... our relationship with God."

--> This is our difference in a nutshell. The value of our discussion for a monotheist (you) and a non-monothiest (me) is to compare ideas.

Well, this kind of discussion is why I am here at CR. I was just trying to correct a misunderstanding I thought you had...you said: "This Fall into matter is seen as a sin in Christianity." That seems to equate matter with sin, or evil, and that is not an orthodox Christian view. I was just trying to clarify that. (BTW, were you raised in a Christian tradition? I feel a little silly explaining things to you if you already know them...but am still happy to discuss my understanding of these things).

Nick--->I am open to hearing about Gnostic ideas. Are you saying Gnostic ideas do not resonate with you?

I don't really know much about Gnosticism, in spite of having a number of conversations with gnostics here and elsewhere. I get the general gist of what gnosis is, and in that sense I am gnostic, but ask 10 gnostics what they know and you will of course get ten different answers. Anyhoo, the idea that creation/matter is evil and spirit is good and needs to be released from this material prison is a Gnostic idea from the first century, I think. As for me, I'm a Christian.

"I have heard of the Fall used as a metaphor for our 'fall' into self-consciousness, the 'moment' when humanity could comprehend that the only way we could be "I" is if there is also "other," and thus the illusion of duality started for all time."

--> This is similar to my belief system, so I would remove the word "metaphor". The concept of duality (a duality that eventually disappears) is basic to many eastern philosophies.

I think it works this way, although I would definitely call it a metaphor, and I would also say that it falls short (no pun intended) of the full meaning of the Fall.

"My own view of the Fall is that is not something that happened in the past, but something that is part of our own experience now."

[/I]--> I agree. This is why I described the entire experience as a cycle. The cycle continues even today. (I suppose Christianity sees it as only two stages — Heaven and earth. I see it as a seemingly endless ladder of ascending (and descending) of levels of consciousness.

I think you have expressed another misconception here: heaven and earth as two stages. I don't have time to sort it out right now but I'll try to return to it, or maybe Thomas will have something to say about it. But off the top of my head: Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Reconciliation is for the earth to become heaven. It's inaugerated, and it will be completed in the fullness of time.

"We feel alienated...."

--> This is the duality that you mentioned before.

Yes, I think so.

"Interesting. Please go on."

--> Oh, I could give a lot more detail, but I do not know how much you want. Have you heard of the ideas of various levels of consciousness?

Well, I think Andrew has talked about it...but I don't really remember it. If you can explain it simply that would be of interest to me.

~~~

Luna, I want to thank you for our discussion so far. It is rare, indeed, for a Christian and a non-Christian to have a meaningful discussion. Keep up the good work.

My pleasure. As I said, that's why I post here. That and the doughnuts. You have tried the doughnuts, haven't you?

good nite

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

You said,

"...to equate matter with sin, or evil ... is not an orthodox Christian view."

--> I agree. The idea of "falling into matter" is a Theosophical concept.

"BTW, were you raised in a Christian tradition?"

--> Yes, I was. I even went to a Catholic high school. Our discussions in high school religion class were very "interesting". The day I graduated high school was the day I quit the church.

"I think you have expressed another misconception here: heaven and earth as two stages.... Reconciliation is for the earth to become heaven."

--> This is one of the biggest differences between Christianity and Theosophy. We do not see Heaven happening on Earth. Rather, we interpret the idea to mean this: A high level of consciousness is required to exist on the highest Plane of Existence. It is our task to develop this ability (to be conscious at a high level) while on Earth. (This is our interpretation of "on Earth as it is in Heaven" — a profound concept.) We also do not believe our physical bodies will be taken up to Heaven — a key Christian teaching.

The funny thing is, we believe a lot of the things in the Bible, but we interpret them in a metaphysical way, which changes their meaning completely.

"Christianity does not see the fall as the fall into matter, but it is about ... our relationship with God."

--> This is a key point in our differences. Another way to state our differerences is: To us, it is not about our relationship with God, it is about our relationship with each other. When you and I finally achieve Nirvanic conscious (something I am really looking forward to), all separation between you and I will disappear.

"If you can explain [levels of consciousness] simply that would be of interest to me."

--> For example, we believe we can become fully conscious while on the astral plane. Have you heard of this?

"...that's why I post here. That and the doughnuts."

--> Dang, that reminds me how hungry I am. (I did bring a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, though....)

[Thomas]

Being Catholic I shall pre-empt Lunamoth in highlighting the differences between Catholic and Orthodox on the subject of the Fall from our side of the fence ... but I hope I have done so fairly.

The main distinction between Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the Fall is, I would argue, not a doctrinal difference, but a theological difference, subsequent to the Sacra Doctrina. In making such a claim I declare my conviction that East and West are as 'two lungs' (to use the late Pope John Paul II's term) of the one living and breathing organism.

Orthodoxy denies Augustine's notion of hereditary guilt (or rather never accepted it - Augustine was unknown in the East until the 14th century, by which time theological outlooks had 'set').

For the Orthodox, the act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, as it is for Augustine, but the consequences of that act altered the reality of the Kosmos. Thus the East do not see humanity as sharing in the guilt of Adam, as the West does.

The West holds that the consequence of the sin of Adam is that by a fault of nature, man is inclined to sin, and by sinning partakes ontologically in the original act, not so much guilty of the sin of Adam, but guilty in the sin of Adam, and thus bears some of the burden of culpability.

Thomas

[Thomas]

As we are on the Esoteric board, I thought I might post some quotes from Frithjof Schuon, who, after René Guénon, I consider to be an esoterist without equal in the realm of Traditional Metaphysics and thereby Comnparative Religion, and who is widely regarded as a foremost spokesman of the Perennial Tradition.

All the following quotes are taken from "Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts"

Existence is to be found symbolized in the story of the Earthly Paradise. Adam's desire — the cause of sins, but according to Islam, not in itself sin — is like the shadow of the principle of contradiction or of nothingness implicit in the Divine infinity.

This principle is not itself evil, but it is the distant metaphysical source of evil since it is the cause of the world considered as a 'splitting into two' of the Real, as separation and estrangement.

The whole problem lies in the fact that the serpent was in Paradise. Had he not been there, Paradise would have been God, or rather it could not have had any separate existence. To exist means to be other than God, and so to be 'bad'.

[Thomas]

The very fact that existence has been called esoterically 'a fault to which no other fault can be compared' shows that the fall of Adam is nothing other than the actualizing on the level of existence of the separative principle of existence.

In Hindu terms one would say that Eve represents the expansive and passional cosmic quality (rajas) and that the serpent — who is necessarily to be found in Paradise since Paradise is created — is the subversive and dark quality (tamas).

In the story of the Earthly Paradise there are four degrees of causality or responsibility, which are represented by God, Adam, Eve and the serpent. Judaism and Christianity include Eve and Adam in the sin, though in different degrees. Islam attributes the sin to Satan.

Metaphysically one could, if one went beyond the level at which the notion of 'sin' has a meaning, attribute the negative cause to God himself, for evil cannot come about by chance.

If Islam denies the sin of Adam — not in the sense of an 'error committed' but in the sense of an intentional transgression — and denies at the same time the culpability of prophets in general, this is for the metaphysical reason that God, of whom Adam and the prophets are direct representatives (Khulafe, from Khali'fah), is without imperfection while being at the same time the final, and indirect, Cause of imperfections.

If the Bible, on the contrary, affirms the sin of Adam, this is for the cosmological reason that he was the first human manifestation of evil without which there would have been no sins in the world.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

To exist means to be other than God, and so to be 'bad'.

wow...mind spinning out of control...

In the world but not of it??

[Nick the Pilot]

"To exist means to be other than God, and so to be 'bad'."

--> This is not a Theosophical concept. Theosophy sees humanity as basically good, not basically bad.

Also, Sin is not a Theosophical concept.

[Thomas]

More from Schuon –
(BTW: on the matter of copyright, I am a friend of a friend, as it were, and so exercise certain permissions):

According to Christian doctrine Adam sinned and the fall was the first sin.

For Islam Adam could not sin. He was the first of the Prophets, and they are beyond sin. On the other hand Adam was a man, and human nature implies limitations and so the possibility of faults; otherwise nothing would distinguish it from God. It is a fault (dhanb), that is a sort of inadvertence or confusion and not an intentional transgression (ithm, fulm), which caused the loss of Eden.

The first pair were pardoned for this fault after suffering its consequences on this earth. It is a peculiarity of the faults of prophets that they carry with them sanctions in this life and not in the next life. David and Solomon had to suffer here below and not in the beyond. According to this way of seeing things it is only through Cain that sin came into the world.

Christianity does not concede the impeccability of prophets in general and of Adam in particular. Since however it cannot admit that prophets suffered the pains of fire, even before the coming of Christ, it placed the prophets in limbo. This conception of limbo, a 'non-heaven' which is also not hell, has a theological function analogous to the Islamic conception of a fault, a 'demerit' which is not a sin.

Christianity, with its 'historical' mode of thinking, attributes to original sin what Islam attributes to earthly nature as such. In a sense the Christian perspective is in 'time' and that of Islam in 'space'.

Note:
In itself this Arabic word dhanb designates 'fault' considered in its aspect of being an 'excrescence'. This makes it possible to understand that existence (ex-stare) is, according to a hadith, a 'guilt to which no other can be compared'. A desire is an 'excrescence', but cannot be considered as a 'sin'; on the other hand every sin has by definition an aspect of dhanb, and this authorises the designation of every transgression by this word.

[Thomas]

The Christian perspective is founded on the fall of Adam, which requires as its complement the messianic redemption.

The Islamic perspective for its part envisages humanity as it is, in its collective state so the speak, and it rests on the idea of the 'message' (risalah), of the 'envoys' (rusul), that is, on the necessarily multiple manifestation of the eternal Word. This line of messengers, since it has a beginning, requires a final synthesis — the Prophet, who is the 'seal', or kheztam, of the prophetic cycle. The 'mythologies' intersect without inner contradiction and the mutual misinterpretations arise from ignorance of their respective points of departure and from the mistake of attributing to others one's own postulates.

The Hindu perspective starts from Reality, not from man, whose fall becomes one cosmic accident among thousands of others.

The Buddhist perspective, like the Christian, starts from man: it is founded on the distinction between suffering and Deliverance, but it speaks of man only to reduce him to nothingness. This apparent nothingness is the sole Reality, the infinite Plenitude.

[Thomas]

Hey Flow –

Isn't there a link between figs and seratonin, and seratonin and the pineal gland?

Thomas