The Trouble with Transcendental Unity of Religions

[Bandit]

Except for you.

people who do not know others, yet they know more about everyone else than everyone else knows about themselves.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The cherubim guards in all directions against those who would reach forth and take of the tree. It is the reaching, grasping, holding, and forcible taking of the fruit that is prohibited.

Chris

did the fire sword also keep them from having the antidote for their condition? wasn't it inside the mystical garden?

[Netti-Netti]

The cherubim guards in all directions against those who would reach forth and take of the tree. It is the reaching, grasping, holding, and forcible taking of the fruit that is prohibited.

Yes, so it would seem:

And the L-RD God said, '...(Man) must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' ~ Genesis 3:22-24

I would say G-d was letting us know that only He can confer Eternal life and that it cannot be arbitrarily accessed by human action.

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. ~ Genesis 3:24

I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what anyone has to say about the cherubim.

It seems the Cherubim with flaming swords were assigned to guard duty by G-d, who evidently wanted to assert His judgment, authority, and jurisdiction. The Tree of Life is being guarded by the Cherubim, whose protection of the Tree indicates that it has a special sanctity and that you are not to proceed without permission. The flaming swords also symbolize G-d's might, making it clear that His judgment and authority are enforceable.

did the fire sword also keep them from having the antidote for their condition?

The L-rd did not officially say that Adam and Eve would never have access to Eternal Life. He does not wish to deny mankind Eternal Life. What He does intend to show, it seems, is how mankind can gain access.

The idea of G-d's prerogative might bear some clarification. The Cherubim were armed guards who had been assigned the task of restricting access to the Tree of Life. This restriction alerts us to the need to look to G-d for permission to gain access to the Tree.

It seems G-d wanted to make a point of the fact that He was in control of Adam and Eve being separated from the Tree of Life. That is, he is in control of the ultimate spiritual resource. I see this as G-d's way of initiating the plan for salvation and of reminding us of His ongoing concern and involvement with Creation, which we see again with various other covenants He enters into later.

It seems to me that the upshot of the Adam and Eve story is the importance of obedience. Banishment from Paradise is a provision that facilitates fairly simple contingency learning: G-d gives us freedom to stray. But when I stray, I can expect to experience consequences. Moral of the story: stay on G-d's good side.

At the same time, the banishment from Paradise includes a hopeful provision - i.e., a chance to learn how to resist temptation based on increased insight about the nature of good and evil. The loss of innocence allows for a new level of obedience that is more conscious, more reasoned, and also more reverential. As Thomas said, when obedience leads to real life, it's no longer about avoiding punishment.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Bandit

did the fire sword also keep them from having the antidote for their condition? wasn't it inside the mystical garden?

It depends on how we want to construct the analogy. As far as I'm concerned, the reason they couldn't go back is that it would be like trying to climb into the womb again.

Chris

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Bandit

did the fire sword also keep them from having the antidote for their condition? wasn't it inside the mystical garden?

The Tree of Life was in the middle of the garden - along with the Tree of Good and Evil.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

In the story I already know the way back to the tree and have tasted it before, so its not a matter of identifying the trees. My problem is the deadly cherub which G!d placed between me and the tree. I'd eat from the tree if the cherub weren't in my way, because I don't obey when G!d says 'Do not eat'. Ironic that obedience requires that I die, and disobedience is instant death. My problem is also the serpent, which G!d allowed in the garden. The serpent is obviously the variable that matters, which I realized soon after I'd eaten fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. I will be permitted to live in the garden once the serpent dies, even though I now know good & evil. Puzzling. Should complain about my situation?

In the question of transcendental unity of religions, a related question is "is it the knowledge of good and evil or the serpent that matters, and how is it killed?"

Well heck, since the title of this thread is "The Trouble with Transcendental Unity of Religions," it might be appropriate to investigate a curious parallel to the stepping on the head of the snake from a different religion, to investigate the trouble it might stir up:

From The Sutta-Nipâta: IV. ATTHAKAVAGGA.

1. KÂMASUTTA.

1. If he who desires sensual pleasures is successful, he certainly becomes glad-minded, having obtained what a mortal wishes for. (766)

2. But if those sensual pleasures fail the person who desires and wishes (for them), he will suffer, pierced by the arrow (of pain). (767)

3. He who avoids sensual pleasures as (he would avoid treading upon) the head of a snake with his foot, such a one, being thoughtful (sato), will conquer this desire. (768)

4. He who covets extensively (such) pleasures (as these), fields, goods, or gold, cows and horses, servants, women, relations, (769)

5. Sins will overpower him, dangers will crush him, and pain will follow him as water (pours into) a broken ship. (770)

6. Therefore let one always be thoughtful, and avoid pleasures; having abandoned them, let him cross the stream, after baling out the ship, and go to the other shore. (771)

[Dream]

It is interesting that the snake and the foot appear in a conversation about religion. Isn't this a different picture though? In this the person is advised to avoid all pleasure as if it were a snakes head and they were barefooted.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

It is interesting that the snake and the foot appear in a conversation about religion. Isn't this a different picture though? In this the person is advised to avoid all pleasure as if it were a snakes head and they were barefooted.

Hey, I did say that I was looking to see what kind of trouble I could stir up.

[Netti-Netti]

it might be appropriate to investigate a curious parallel to the stepping on the head of the snake from a different religion....

The theme of good versus evil is sometimes represented as power struggle. Consider the story about Krisha taking on the Kaliya snake. In the course of being tamed by Lord Krishna, Kaliya would fight back and raise its head in resistance:

SB 10.16.28: My dear King, Kāliya had 101 prominent heads, and when one of them would not bow down, Lord Kṛṣṇa, who inflicts punishment on cruel wrong-doers, would smash that stubborn head by striking it with His feet.

SB 10.16.29: Then the Lord would dance on it and subdue it, forcing it to bow down with His foot.

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 10 Chapter 16


Srimad Bhagavatam is considered the Hindu Bible. Its dating is unclear. The Bhagavata Purana (aka Śrīmad Bhāgavatam) has been attributed to Vyasa, who was compiling scriptures around 3100 BCE

[Eclectic Mystic]

You guys all know that Professor Huston Smith wrote the introduction to the book of the same title as is in this thread, right?

[Raksha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas
Everybody thinking they know best is the source of the problem, not its solution. It's also nigh-on a fact that as soon as we go our own way, we're most probably making a mistake ... "hey ma, look! everyone's marching out of step but me!"

I think that is human wisdom talking. I think think that individual revelation is the Stone the Builders Rejected, which is been made the Capstone. The builders are of course the builders of the House of God. The builders reject it, because they cannot conceive of it working. It is not their decision however, and every stone in the spiritual temple must be custom cut at the quarry, just as the physical stones were for Solomon's temple.

Dream,

I've been away from this topic for awhile because this was the last thing anyone said that resonated with me. Then the discussion veered off into the symbolism of the Adam and Eve story, and I guess I've been through that one too many times on other boards to have any interest in discussing it right now.

I guess what interests me the most at the moment is the idea of the individual revelation being the chief cornerstone of the Temple. Sometimes, everyone really *IS* out of step but the one lone contrarian oddball!

Every religion or spiritual movement develops its own form of "orthodoxy" or conventional wisdom after its been around for a while, alternative or New Age groups as well as mainstream religions. The problem comes from people repeating what they have been told by others instead of trusting their own experience and intuition. So it isn't only a matter of "hearing a different drummer" but of actually hearing the drummer while everyone else is just pretending they do.

So for the past week I've been exploring the websites of some of my favorite oddballs in the religious counterculture, whose insights or revelations are consistent with mine.

--Linda