Thoughts on original sin

Some time back I made the observation that sentience (self awareness) was the seed of original sin. Self awareness allowed man to see himself in all his insignificance in the universe. From our awareness of the ‘gift’ came a reverence and awe of that which is, and ashamed guilt to have been undeservably given such a precious sense.

Sentience was also the beginning of ego, the I/me who stood at the center of all that could be. Our desires for survival and security led us down the path of egocentrism and the corrosive expression of ‘self’ as all-important.

Throughout the history of mythology, philosophy, and religion a constant theme has been taught: reject the illusion of ego and return to the Way, the light, God, or any of dozens of other metaphors. Our stubborness, our hubris, our failure to acknowledge creation (creator) and our insignificant place within, is our “sin”

It was obvious that many, if not most, of man’s troubles were caused by selfish pursuit of desires. That our myths, our philosophical discussions about the nature of man, the religious explanations of our ‘true’ spiritual nature cautioned us about the perils of ego is completely rational.

It is an unfortunate state we find ourselves in today. What was a rather simple observation and a rational request to return to ‘innocence’ has been distorted into a smothering blanket of perpetual guilt requiring constant vigilance and propitiation. Only man could take such a precious gift and turn it into an anchor around his own neck.

JT

This line really hit me. It’s so very true.

I would agree more with Scott Peck’s sentiments about original sin in “the road less traveled”.

The original sin was laziness, and not asking god “why can’t we partake of the tree of knowledge”.

think about it whenever your confronted with a situation where you can be lazy and take the wrong choice or stop and think about what choice to take. which is the most oft choice chosen? when you have a plate full of food, and instead of taking the hard choice to push it away when your full, you continue to eat. (not “you” but generalizing)

I think this hits the sentiment close to what I’m saying, from man’s laziness stems mans selfishness. It is our desire to think about ourselves alone that makes us the ultimate lazy unspiritual material beings.

Hi MB,

I do agree that laziness is one of the attributes of selfish egoism, but I see it a couple of rungs up the ladder. I was looking more at root cause. The garden of eden was lost the moment “I” appeared.

Just like a woman to screw it up for us men! :stuck_out_tongue: (I’m going to be made to pay for that)

JT

so do you think selfishness drives laziness, or that laziness drives selfishness?

I think laziness is the very core of selfishness.

as for the woman comment? I’m not gonna touch that with a ten foot pole.

Hey MB,

OK. Chicken or egg. Just a quick question: If there were no sense of self, would we be capable of recognizing laziness? :laughing:

JT

ah good point without the “self” there can be no laziness and thus no selfishness.

but the chicken definately came before the egg.

think about it. :wink:

so let’s build a tree.

                                             self
                                              / \
                                    laziness  energetic
                                       /  \        /          \
                       selfishness   selfishness   helpfulness
                            /  \           /    \               /   \ 
                     apathy  careless    non-altruist     empathy

what do you think?

Could be done, but I think that with the feedback loops you’d end up with a black sheet of paper. :stuck_out_tongue: And don’t forget, there is as much tree below ground as there is above…

JT

Hi Tentative

I do not believe the problem is the ego. Frankly this mistake I believe has been the source of many modern religions that are nothing but escapism IMO since their believers try not to exist.

A persons ego by design is a healthy necessary attribute. It is the beginning of the soul. It is the necessary point of contact between a person’s inner world and the impressions received from the external world.

However, to function as it should requires consciousness and this loss during the fall is what corrupted the ego so that it no longer can serve as it should but instead demands to be served. Consciousness in the ego has been replaced by fear and imagination.

It doesn’t make sense to me that the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil should be denied as expressed in Genesis and then Jesus descends to provide exactly that. There’s got to be more to it.

The best I’ve been able to discover through my research and common sense is that cosmic conditions made it necessary for man’s natural evolution to be postponed and instead have his energies be used to serve the earth and its precarious situation at the time.

Emotional perception coupled with curiosity unveiled the situation so man had to be put to “sleep” for a while. However, once it was time for man to function normally, it was impossible to wake up because the ego could no longer function as it should having been denied consciousness for so long.

Original sin then is the hereditary corruption of the ego denying us consciousness. This is why all the great traditions initiating from a conscious source speak of awakening. We have to awaken to ourselves so that consciousness of the spirit can return to our ego which can begin to unify heaven and earth as it should.

Nick,

I guess I should have made it clearer that I was talking about the ‘dark’ side of ego. There is no such thing as being without ego, the issue is our self concept of what ego is. Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is indeed the Fall. Self awareness, the knowing of one’s self, allowed man to externalize himself away from that which is. The moment we uttered the word God we separated ourselves from creator. Most forget that, in a naming, we are making a linguistic and/or conceptual separation. A name implies something that is, which also defines what the named is not. There is no avoiding this. The failure is in not seeing that the named is just a slightly different viewpoint, and is not separate from. We are not separated from creator, we never have been, but we act as if we are. It is our arrogant assumption of me here and god there that is the sin.

JT

Hi Tentative

I’ll be interested to read your conception of man as a “microcosm” in the “Sense of the Cosmos” thread. Actually the soul of man can be both part of and separate at the same time from being made in the image. However, our problem is to reacquire that image. It is even more difficult when we assume we already have it.

I am awed by Meister Eckhart’s description of this potential.

Hi JT and Nick_A

Yes, Nick_A on some level you are right about the ego in so far as the ego is a healthy necessary attribute. But it is not the beginning of the soul. It is merely the messenger between the mind and the heart through the conscience. The ego itself is not currupt. Man is corrupt. The ego has a perfect purpose, but like anything we can use the tool for any end. Brings the ‘teaching’ of Star Wars and ‘the force’ to mind. The force being neither good nor evil, right nor wrong, left nor right.

So what is the function of the ego? We need some part of us that causes us to act. When we recognise who we are spiritually, through our conscience, we need our ego to show us that we indeed do have something to offer. One of the virtues of the true self is humility and without the ego we would have no need to act.

Please explain. I don’t really think that the effort of any religion is to escape. They truly believe they are worshipping God. How is that escapist?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil? hmm…lets take a look. There is the absolute realm - in Chinese it is known as Wu (absolute) Chi - which gives birth to the world of duality. The world of dualty is in effect the world of opposites. Yin and yang, in Chinese is Tai Chi. Tai means movement and chi means energy. So yin and yang is movement energy. These things do not exist in the absolute realm as they are merely a part of the energy and physical realm. So when Christianity refers to denying the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it refers to us not attaching to the world of duality, but instead focussing on the eternal absolute realm which is everlasting life.

Please explain.

Who put us to sleep? Sounds a bit too ‘conspiracy theory’ to me. Something is telling me that this is a great way for us to relinquish our own responsibility, to hand it over to ‘them’ - sounds like another religion.

Hi liquidangel

The intent and the effect may not be the same. A person must begin to impartially determine the different qualities of their spiritual search. consider the following quote from Abba Evagrius, fourth century:

It is through self knowledge that we can begin to determine the quality of the search itself and if its purpose is just the avoidance of getting to know ourselves.

The limitations of the subjective dual mind do not exist in the objective universe. From what I’ve learned, the universe and man within it is structured primarily of two basic laws. One is the Law of Octaves as taught by Pythagoras which was known long before his time. The second is the Law of Three forces which every “thing” is composed of and is also very ancient. You mention the duality of Yin and Yang, the male female principle, the active/passive principle. However this neglects what has come to be known as the "neglected middle and the force of “reconciliation”. This force allows the Yin and Yang to manifest as “One” or an individuality.

This Law of three forces at its highest is the Holy Trinity in Christianity.

In the context of the cosmological universal structure it is what allows for manifestations within the eternal processes of evolution and involution occurring within the quality of the moment itself.

This is the best description of this law I’ve read and the best I can remember now and is rather close:

"

So every-thing seen in context must be considered from the point of view of what is above it to which it becomes the lower, and what is below it to which it becomes the higher. Man has the ability to change his position and manifest as a new “middle”. This is re-birth.

Denying the Tree of Knowledge is simply denying man’s knowledge of his evolutionary potential.

This is a change of human “being” itself. It is human “being” becoming diversified from “him” into “them”.

Now consider Genesis 2:

Notice that man was put to “sleep”.He had to change from “him” into “them” so as to perform the same function as the rest of organic life. Man as a Trinity" became duality to be reconciled at the level of the earth. Jesus came so that man could once again be reconciled at a higher level sometimes referred to as the “kingdom”. To do this first requires a person to know themselves so as to begin on a stable realistic non-illusory foundation.

This is no relinquishment of responsibility. To the contrary one must begin to become responsible for knowing and experiencing the truth of themselves. Nothing “cutsey pooh” here. It is very difficult and takes great courage.

Nick,

I’m reluctant to read too much into this description of cosmology, but so far I haven’t found anything not already expressed in eastern thought in much simpler terms. If there is an AHA! it’s further down the road or I have already missed it. At this point, I’m in agreement with liquidangel. It isn’t that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, it just seems to have unnecessary complexity.

JT

Hi all,

When God addressed this to Adam he was trying to explain to Adam that good and evil are not understood by men, because men inevitably refer good and evil to externals, and as soon as they do so there arises conflict and war and death. For one man says this is good while another says this same thing is evil. An argument ensues…

Even today men still misapply their notions of good and evil. God’s prophetic word or law, (which seems still to apply to the human condition after several thousand years,) is simple, but, as usual, misunderstood.

The inner sanctum of the prohairesis is where judgements on the good and the evil are to be applied, not externals. So long as you guard your own good and evil, and stop telling others what is good and what evil, (whether by dictate or example,) all will be well with you and you will prosper.

Peter

Well, unless someone blows me away because of my shoes or skin color.

Please expand on that.

PW,

The garden of eden explanation is a colorful, wonderful story. I agree with your understanding of the message. The Tao makes clear that man’s troubles lies in knowledge. (false knowing) The ‘Way’ is a path back to the ‘universal essence’ (god) and that profound virtue is seeing and acting out of our inner nature, which is kindness, fairness, and compassion.

I haven’t found any of the early philosophical or religious texts from any culture that doesn’t equate our ‘fall’ to the illusory separation of man from creator. The metaphors may be different, the mythological stories share the cultures they were born in, but they all come to the same conclusion.

In fact, one could consider the ‘fall’ as the cornerstone of all religions in that all religions expound and explain what must be done to ‘return’ to god and how to practice (act) within that return.

I certainly agree that we project out of ourselves that which is good or evil, and that there is no external ‘force’ that compel’s us. I get very uncomfortable when I hear people talk about satanic forces as if they too were an external force. It’s just too convenient to say ‘the devil made me do it.’ Our unwillingness to accept ourselves as less-than-perfect creatures is just a part of the hubris that allowed us to separate ourselves from god.

JT

Hello tentative

I appreciate being able to compare our understandings.

You speak of acting our of our inner nature but have you tried it? Have you pondered and experimented with the difference between acting and reacting? Have you been able to act from your inner nature?

I read Paul’s description of himself as the “wretched man” in Romans 7. I see this condition in myself as well. So I must conclude that it is one thing to speak of the way back and quite another to find and follow it. This is my experience and why I know that help from above is necessary.

Why illusory? This is why I appreciated learning of cosmology so much. I was able to put the idea of separation into a more understandable perspective. When heaven and earth are seen as manifestations of different levels of existence within God, the relationship of individuality to the “All” becomes understandable.

I agree but it seems that it is first essential to know what is necessary to be able to “act” and not just “react” and as I previously said, to know the difference.

All our reactions are as a result of external forces in the same way that external forces influence all of organic life. Our vanity reacts to it and is manifested as attitudes, emotional states, and behavior. In order not to be a slave and continually react to external forces, we must possess an inner quality that would allow us to “act” instead.

The whole idea of evolution is the change of our being towards perfection. Why deny man’s evolution thinking he must remain as he is in the context of universal “being” and experience the re-birth spoken of in the Gospels?

He’s got a point. Nothing too satisfying about being content with self imposed prison.

I read one time my path referred to as the “Science of Idiotism”. A person begins to realize that in comparison with their inner potential they are an idiot. They tell their friends about this discovery and their friends believe him an idiot for thinking such things. A person than knows he is an idiot and his friends think he is an idiot so now he is a complete idiot and in the perfect place to experience the freedom necessary to begin real understanding.

Yes, there is little more frustrating than trying to argue with a complete idiot. :slight_smile:

This is not really correct.

The only ‘external forces’ we perceive are via impressions or presentations that strike ‘us’ (our mental being) with more or less power.

We are then free to choose whether or not to give our assent to these presentations.

Our actions are thus not the result of external forces but more correctly the result of choices.