Eat from the Tree of Knowledge and You Will Die?

[seattlegal]

Actually I think it says to follow the "love" that's in your heart instead of what's in your head, meaning not to over think things. We often get caught up in our thoughts, and by doing so we sometimes lose sight of what's important. When it came to Eve, her thoughts deceived her into thinking the tree would somehow make her wise.

It was desire that was in her heart, no? (See Proverbs 13:12 below! -- Delayed hope makes one "sick of heart!)

Besides, if we all loved one another there would be no crime, no violence, no wars, etc., which is why I view love to be the tree of life, the path of heavenly wisdom, and as Solomon alluded to: Wisdom is a tree of life. With that being said, I think we sometimes think too much (we lean on our own understanding) when we ought to be learning how to lean on love instead.

Yes, Solomon did call wisdom a tree of life in Proverbs 3.

He also called other things a tree of life: it's quite interesting to compare them all to this topic:

Proverbs 11:30
30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,
but violence takes lives.

Proverbs 13:12
12 Delayed hope makes the heart sick,
but fulfilled desire is a tree of life.

Proverbs 15:4
4 The tongue that heals is a tree of life,
but a devious tongue breaks the spirit.​

 

[Gatekeeper]

It was desire that was in her heart, no? (See Proverbs 13:12 below! -- Delayed hope makes one "sick of heart!)

You might say that her desire stemmed from her heart, just as I suggested that love stems from the heart. Despite how deceitful and wicked our "hearts" can be, there is still enough love present in them to follow, even if it is as tiny as a mustard seed. But, we both know that I use the term heart loosely, right? Our minds are where our emotions, desires, etc. originate. Even so, there is a distinction between our thinking processes, our emotional desires, and love, wouldn't you agree?


Eve's emotional desire was to be wise like God. Her thoughts tricked her into believing the fruit would give her wisdom, but as you well know, wisdom is not a thing we can attain in a moments time. I think most want to be wise, most of us want to look smart and clever, most of us want to believe our views are superior to the views of those we disagree with, but is this truly what it means to be wise?


Isn't true wisdom about possessing the ability to live an upright life, a life that enables us to be a fountain of life to others? Had Eve listened to God's voice instead of entertaining the conflicting thoughts of her inner voice, she would have had her desires met and known fully the wisdom of God. Instead, she deceived herself, and by doing so, she in a sense became her own god. She chose her idea of wisdom over the wisdom of our Creator.

Yes, Solomon did call wisdom a tree of life in Proverbs 3.

He also called other things a tree of life: it's quite interesting to compare them all to this topic:

Proverbs 11:30
30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,
but violence takes lives.

Proverbs 13:12
12 Delayed hope makes the heart sick,
but fulfilled desire is a tree of life.

Proverbs 15:4
4 The tongue that heals is a tree of life,
but a devious tongue breaks the spirit.​

Would you agree that the way of the righteous is love? I can think of nothing more empowering, more comforting, or more enduring than love. On that same note, I can only foresee good things branching out from love. I can see delayed hope turning into fulfilled desire, and gentle words of comfort and love coming from the mouths of the righteous. On the other hand, it would seem that mankind's idea of wisdom could become a source of conflict.

 

[seattlegal]

You might say that her desire stemmed from her heart, just as I suggested that love stems from the heart. Despite how deceitful and wicked our "hearts" can be, there is still enough love present in them to follow, even if it is as tiny as a mustard seed. But, we both know that I use the term heart loosely, right? Our minds are where our emotions, desires, etc. originate. Even so, there is a distinction between our thinking processes, our emotional desires, and love, wouldn't you agree?


Eve's emotional desire was to be wise like God. Her thoughts tricked her into believing the fruit would give her wisdom, but as you well know, wisdom is not a thing we can attain in a moments time. I think most want to be wise, most of us want to look smart and clever, most of us want to believe our views are superior to the views of those we disagree with, but is this truly what it means to be wise?


Isn't true wisdom about possessing the ability to live an upright life, a life that enables us to be a fountain of life to others? Had Eve listened to God's voice instead of entertaining the conflicting thoughts of her inner voice, she would have had her desires met and known fully the wisdom of God. Instead, she deceived herself, and by doing so, she in a sense became her own god. She chose her idea of wisdom over the wisdom of our Creator.






Would you agree that the way of the righteous is love? I can think of nothing more empowering, more comforting, or more enduring than love. On that same note, I can only foresee good things branching out from love. I can see delayed hope turning into fulfilled desire, and gentle words of comfort and love coming from the mouths of the righteous. On the other hand, it would seem that mankind's idea of wisdom could become a source of conflict.

I must have posted this quote about 3 times already within the past few days. One more time won't hurt.

Therefore [the Yi says], "Establishing the Way (Tao) of Heaven, [the sages] speak of yin and
yang; establishing the Way (Tao) of Earth they speak of yielding and firm [hexagram lines];
establishing the Way (Tao) of Humanity they speak of humanity and rightness. (Love and Righteousness)"
~Zhou Dunyi, Taijitu Shuo​

 

[Gatekeeper]

I must have posted this quote about 3 times already within the past few days. One more time won't hurt.

Therefore [the Yi says], "Establishing the Way (Tao) of Heaven, [the sages] speak of yin and
yang; establishing the Way (Tao) of Earth they speak of yielding and firm [hexagram lines];
establishing the Way (Tao) of Humanity they speak of humanity and rightness. (Love and Righteousness)"
~Zhou Dunyi, Taijitu Shuo​

Nice quote, but I'm not certain your implications in regard to my post. What 'does' yin yang represent? Does it represent polarity, as in good and evil, light and dark, etc.? What are the implications of the earth being yielding and firm in your view? Also, are we in agreement that the "Tao" of life for humanity is love and righteousness?

 

[seattlegal]

Nice quote, but I'm not certain your implications in regard to my post. What 'does' yin yang represent?

Descriptors of different states of change.

Does it represent polarity, as in good and evil, light and dark, etc.?

Not really. Different methods of and states of change--expansion and contraction, being soft, being firm, etc.

What are the implications of the earth being yielding and firm in your view?

Physical characteristics, as contrasted with mental or emotional characteristics. <amend> However, you can be firm or yielding in mental or emotions--back to the drawing board!>

Also, are we in agreement that the "Tao" of life for humanity is love and righteousness?

I think so. That is our most powerful part of how we contribute to positive change.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Descriptors of different states of change.

Not really. Different methods of and states of change--expansion and contraction, being soft, being firm, etc.

Like being both difficult an easy, pleasant and unpleasant? It does sound a bit like polarity if so. I have always loved the symbol, but never studied much about what it represents.

Physical characteristics, as contrasted with mental or emotional characteristics.

Cool, I was thinking more along the lines of atmosphere (yielding) and dirt/rock (firmness), hehe!

I think so. That is our most powerful part of how we contribute to positive change.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Lunitik]

What 'does' yin yang represent?

You are correct, yes, it represents polarities, and that they are not so. In the black there is a dot of white, in the white a dot of black, it is representative of the middle Way. You will also note that each is exactly half the circle, yet they make up the whole circle together - both exist together in harmony to create the whole.

What are the implications of the earth being yielding and firm in your view?

Examples include earth and water, solidity and space, etc. It is saying the way of this place is duality...

Also, are we in agreement that the "Tao" of life for humanity is love and righteousness?

Love is all there is, righteousness is living from the heart, living in love. Yet it is a detached love, metta - loving compassion - and yet allowing the others freedom and celebration, not trying to control or repress them in any way.

 

[Lunitik]

Tao is that oneness which the opposites point to, the balance which the opposites maintain.

This entire existence is built on it, they provide contrast that we might recognize and interact. If we are never sad, what meaning does happiness have? If there is no hate, what meaning does love have? If there is no war, what can be said of peace? All must exist for us to have a meaningful life...

 

[seattlegal]

Like being both difficult an easy, pleasant and unpleasant? It does sound a bit like polarity if so. I have always loved the symbol, but never studied much about what it represents.

They are parts of cycles--yin is expanding, yang is contracting. Breathe in--expand lungs, breathe out--contract lungs. That is the "way" (tao) of breathing.

 

[Gatekeeper]

You are correct, yes, it represents polarities, and that they are not so. In the black there is a dot of white, in the white a dot of black, it is representative of the middle Way. You will also note that each is exactly half the circle, yet they make up the whole circle together - both exist together in harmony to create the whole.

This is much like hot and cold, correct? Only Cold is the absence of heat, just as darkness is the absence of light? They are essentially the same, only the two poles vary in degree. You cannot separate cold from heat, or darkness from light.

Examples include earth and water, solidity and space, etc. It is saying the way of this place is duality...

That makes sense, only I might argue that duality doesn't quite fit as a descriptive term. I mean, is life really dualistic, or does it simply seem to be?

Love is all there is, righteousness is living from the heart, living in love. Yet it is a detached love, metta - loving compassion - and yet allowing the others freedom and celebration, not trying to control or repress them in any way.

Agreed!

 

[Gatekeeper]

They are parts of cycles--yin is expanding, yang is contracting. Breathe in--expand lungs, breathe out--contract lungs. That is the "way" (tao) of breathing.

I can see this as well, it is a complete cycle of what breathing is. The same would be true for good and evil, correct? Evil is a contraction of goodness, while good is an expansion of goodness. Light is an expansion of light, while darkness is a contraction of light. Perhaps the cycles would be more appropriately termed, "fullness and emptiness"?

 

[seattlegal]

Like being both difficult an easy, pleasant and unpleasant? It does sound a bit like polarity if so. I have always loved the symbol, but never studied much about what it represents.





Cool, I was thinking more along the lines of atmosphere (yielding) and dirt/rock (firmness), hehe!





I couldn't agree more!

Putting the interconnectedness of the Tao of love and righteousness into a Christian perspective of people "losing the way:"
Matt 24:12

12 Because lawlessness will multiply, the love of many will grow cold.​

 

[Gatekeeper]

Putting the interconnectedness of the Tao of love and righteousness into a Christian perspective of people "losing the way:"
Matt 24:12

12 Because lawlessness will multiply, the love of many will grow cold.​

May I ask you a question? I've seen you on these boards for years, but I've never bothered to ask what path you follow. Are you a Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, or a bit of a theological mutt like me?

 

[seattlegal]

I can see this as well, it is a complete cycle of what breathing is. The same would be true for good and evil, correct? Evil is a contraction of goodness, while good is an expansion of goodness. Light is an expansion of light, while darkness is a contraction of light. Perhaps the cycles would be more appropriately termed, "fullness and emptiness"?

Not necessarily. Emptiness can be fullness, and fullness can be emptiness. Good and evil are a bit more complicated than that when it comes to the tao. Evil is not a contraction of goodness, a lack of goodness is not necessarily evil, but a lack of evil (especially evil intent or agenda) is usually good.

Tao Te Ching 38

High virtue is not virtuous
Therefore it has virtue
Low virtue never loses virtue
Therefore it has no virtue
High virtue takes no contrived action
And acts without agenda
Low virtue takes contrived action
And acts with agenda
High benevolence takes contrived action
And acts without agenda
High righteousness takes contrived action
And acts with agenda
High etiquette takes contrived action
And upon encountering no response
Uses arms to pull others


Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos
Those with foreknowledge
Are the flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of ignorance
Therefore the great person:
Abides in substance, and does not dwell on the thin shell
Abides in the real, and does not dwell on the flower
Thus they discard that and take this​

​

 

[seattlegal]

May I ask you a question? I've seen you on these boards for years, but I've never bothered to ask what path you follow. Are you a Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, or a bit of a theological mutt like me?

I'm still trying to figure that out.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Not necessarily. Emptiness can be fullness, and fullness can be emptiness. Good and evil are a bit more complicated than that when it comes to the tao. Evil is not a contraction of goodness, a lack of goodness is not necessarily evil, but a lack of evil (especially evil intent or agenda) is usually good.

Tao Te Ching 38

High virtue is not virtuous
Therefore it has virtue
Low virtue never loses virtue
Therefore it has no virtue
High virtue takes no contrived action
And acts without agenda
Low virtue takes contrived action
And acts with agenda
High benevolence takes contrived action
And acts without agenda
High righteousness takes contrived action
And acts with agenda
High etiquette takes contrived action
And upon encountering no response
Uses arms to pull others


Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos
Those with foreknowledge
Are the flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of ignorance
Therefore the great person:
Abides in substance, and does not dwell on the thin shell
Abides in the real, and does not dwell on the flower
Thus they discard that and take this​

​

I see your point (kinda). I can see how the absence of evil intent would be good. Even so, if my view is correct, then there is only good that truly exists. Evil would be a no thing, right?


My question is what is evil in your view? If evil is not the absence of good, then what is it exactly? I might also suggest that much like light and darkness, it is difficult to determine where good ends and "evil" begins.


At what point do we consider the absence of good to be evil in other words? Likewise, at what point do we consider the absence of light to be dark, or the absence of heat to be cold?


It would seem to me that all of this is quite subjective and dependent upon our personal perceptions, which is another reason I suggest that evil does not truly exist, but is rather an absence of goodness.

 

[seattlegal]

I see your point (kinda). I can see how the absence of evil intent would be good. Even so, if my view is correct, then there is only good that truly exists. Evil would be a no thing, right?


My question is what is evil in your view? If evil is not the absence of good, then what is it exactly?

Good question. (pardon the pun)
I would say evil is harmfulness.

I might also suggest that much like light and darkness, it is difficult to determine where good ends and "evil" begins.

Especially if they are not part of the same cycle! Good and evil are value judgement descriptors we use--they are connected in our minds by the use of our judgement. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I don't see them as being analogous to the connection between darkness and light.

At what point do we consider the absence of good to be evil in other words?

I would put it conversely--at what point do we consider the absence of evil as being good? Not knowing something is good is simply not knowing--not necessarily evil--not necessarily doing harm--so in that respect it is a false dichotomy. However, not knowing something is evil does nothing towards stopping the harm.

Likewise, at what point do we consider the absence of light to be dark, or the absence of heat to be cold?

That would be a matter of labeling relative measurements.

It would seem to me that all of this is quite subjective and dependent upon our personal perceptions, which is another reason I suggest that evil does not truly exist, but is rather an absence of goodness.

I say that evil does exist, simply because harmfulness exists, and that an absence of evil or harmfulness might be labeled as "good."

I might ask, what is this 'goodness' that a lack of leads to a label of {non-existent} evil or harm? Is 'goodness' active or passive?

 

[Lunitik]

This is much like hot and cold, correct? Only Cold is the absence of heat, just as darkness is the absence of light? They are essentially the same, only the two poles vary in degree. You cannot separate cold from heat, or darkness from light.

They are simply the same thing going in different directions... existence creates contrast that it can be known, else how will you interact and enjoy it?

That makes sense, only I might argue that duality doesn't quite fit as a descriptive term. I mean, is life really dualistic, or does it simply seem to be?

I cannot answer that for you, because then it is something intellectualized. Can you go deeply into it and find the answer for yourself? If there are no distinctions, if all is merely to create a contrast but are not actual, what remains? Are you a distinction as well?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Good question. (pardon the pun)
I would say evil is harmfulness.

Wouldn't harmfulness be an effect of a lack of goodness?

Especially if they are not part of the same cycle! Good and evil are value judgement descriptors we use--they are connected in our minds by the use of our judgement. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I don't see them as being analogous to the connection between darkness and light.

What is good, then? How would you define good? Would good be considered something beneficial, pleasant, or positive? Why would you suggest that our concepts of good and evil are not part of the same value judgment cycle? The cycle is very similar to light and darkness, heat and cold, etc. Surely you can see the connection.

I would put it conversely--at what point do we consider the absence of evil as being good? Not knowing something is good is simply not knowing--not necessarily evil--not necessarily doing harm--so in that respect it is a false dichotomy. However, not knowing something is evil does nothing towards stopping the harm.

We make judgments based on our personal perceptions of what we deem to be wrong and right. Our judgement of these things evolve just as we evolve as a people. Take gay marriage for instance. Would it have even been an issue 50 years ago? As we further develop as a society, I think our judgement of such things evolve.


Stoning adulterous woman was once considered good and perfectly acceptable, right? The point is that our perceptions of good and evil change as we continue to develop our sense of morality. Perhaps it would be best to call [good] "pro-social" behavior and [evil] "anti-social" behavior? It doesn't matter in the end, as they are and will continue to belong to the same value judgement cycle.

That would be a matter of labeling relative measurements.

Would it? Who decides when the one ends and the other begins?

I say that evil does exist, simply because harmfulness exists, and that an absence of evil or harmfulness might be labeled as "good."

It can be argued both ways, but the active component of the two would surely be pro social (good) as opposed to anti social (evil).

I might ask, what is this 'goodness' that a lack of leads to a label of {non-existent} evil or harm? Is 'goodness' active or passive?

Pro-social behavior, and yes it is active (imo).

 

[Gatekeeper]

They are simply the same thing going in different directions... existence creates contrast that it can be known, else how will you interact and enjoy it?

Well said ....

I cannot answer that for you, because then it is something intellectualized. Can you go deeply into it and find the answer for yourself? If there are no distinctions, if all is merely to create a contrast but are not actual, what remains? Are you a distinction as well?

Distinct? Yes! Separate? No! We all belong to and are a part of the "All", the great "I Am". All is one and one is all (if that makes any sense).