--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> You know the Adam and Eve myth? Where they ate of the tree of > >>> knowledge and were banished from the Garden. Most myths go pretty > >>> far back and have at their core a clear and unadulterated > >>> meaning. What is this one realy about? > > >> --Depends who you ask. My favorite esoteric interpolation is from > >> the Golden Dawn, which uses the Fall, and the Revelation as > >> counterpoints. > > > > I think it's about the split of Unity into Duality - which started > > consciousness, so that we can become conscious of ourselves and > > self-referral(knower, known and object and knowing). In terms of > > our consciousness, the original spark split into 2 so that the 2 > > parts, masculine and feminine, can become whole in themselves > > through their journey through their lives, until they can join > > together in consciousness (T.S. Eliot "and the end of all our > > exploring is to arrive where we started, and know the place for > > the first time") If they are not whole in themselves they would > > be too absorbed in each other and not develop. > > Good book on this - M A Jacoby "The Longing for Paradise" > > One of the reasons this seeming dichotomy is seen as > problematic is because of linear thinking -- the belief > that it all started at some point in time, that there > was a Creation. That's one reason I like Buddhism, > because they believe that there was never a first > Creation. The universe always was, is now, and will > always be. There was never a "start" to all of this, > and there will never be an "end" to it. It is eternal. > > With that perspective, one doesn't tend to dwell on > "cause" the "fall" or seeming difference between the > relative and the absolute. There has always been the > relative; there has always been the absolute; they have > always danced this dance and always will. There is > nothing *wrong* with the seeming difference between > relative and absolute; that's all it is, a "seeming." > > From this point of view, *nothing happens* when one > realizes enlightenment except that the "seeming" falls > away, and one sees that there has never been any > difference between relative and absolute at all. > > Unc
Scientific observation has shown that the universe is expanding in all directions at an ever accelerating rate. When you play the data "backwards" it leads back to a state where this ever expanding universe existed as a single point. The linear picture that is created is one of a still point that explodes outward and continues to expand. It indicates a begining of some sort and then an arrow of time. Personally I'm with you on the idea that there was no distinct beginning and that there will be no distinct end, so how do we explain the expansion of the universe? Maybe the universe is expanding and contracting at an infinite rate, as if it is being created and destroyed simultaneously. However our body bound minds think in a linear fashion and when infinite creation is seen through finite eyes it is seen/forced into a linear model. This idea of the "fall from grace" certainly implies a beginning or a start or an event that occured back then, just as the astronomical observations imply a beginning or a start or an event that occured back then. But maybe that is just another example of infinity being forced to fit into a model that the waking mind can comprehend. Perhaps the "falls" from grace are occurring at an infinite rate also. Every moment that we identify as waking state awareness, is a fall from grace, a bite out of the apple of the tree of knowledge. Some teach that time ceases to exist when awareness is in the transcendant. Without time there can be no beginnings nor ends. Rick Carlstrom To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
