Unpopular Opinions

[Taoist Texts]

44 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

strengthens their bones.

calcium supplements

[Mark Foote]

13 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

According to the story, determinate thought pre-existed eating from the tree of knowledge-of-good-and-evil.  The serpent asks:  "Although... Did God tell you not to eat from any tree in the garden?"  Eve answers confidently ( but inaccurately ) "we can eat from any tree but the not the fruit from the of the tree in the middle of the garden... we cannot eat from it and not touch it else we die."

 

So before they ate the so-called forbidden fruit, they had determinate thought.  They were designed with it.  There is nothing wrong with it.  
 

 

 

Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

(NKJV Genesis 2:16-7)

 

But in what sense, "die"?  

 

Whoever finds the explanation of these words will not taste death.
 

(The Gospel According to Thomas, coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont, H.-CH. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd Al Masih, p. 3 log. 1, ©1959 E. J. Brill)
 

 

As (one) dwells in body contemplating body, ardent… that desire to do, that is in body, is abandoned. By the abandoning of desire to do, the Deathless is realized. So with feelings… mind… mental states… that desire to do, that is in mind-states, is abandoned. By the abandoning of the desire to do, the Deathless is realized.
 

(SN V 182, Pali Text Society V p 159)

 

The relationship between "determinate thought" and action is at the core of Gautama's teaching:
 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.

 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III p 294)

 

 

But how can a person relinquish "determinate thought", volition, that is based on the  knowledge of good and evil?  "This is right, I must do this"--"this is wrong, I must not do this." 

 

 

(One) cultivates right concentration, which is based on detachment, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender, which plunges into the deathless, which has the deathless for its aim, which has the deathless for its end.

 

(SN V 54, Pali Text Society V p 44)

 

 

 

The difficult thing for most people is to realize that action can take place in the absence of "determinate thought", in the absence of volition.  Here's an example I gave stirling over on the "Bliss and Enlightenment by James Swartz" thread:
 

One day in 1975, i made a determination that I was going to try to be mindful of each inhalation and exhalation, no matter what I was doing.  Sometime in the afternoon, I was sitting at my desk when my body got up and walked to the door of the room, but not because I exercised the will to walk to the door.

 

 

Years later, at the end of a lecture at the S. F. Zen Center,  Kobun Chino Otogawa admonished his audience:

 

You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

 

 

Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

(NKJV Genesis 2:16-7)

 

But in what sense, "die"?  

 

Whoever finds the explanation of these words will not taste death.
 

(The Gospel According to Thomas, coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont, H.-CH. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd Al Masih, p. 3 log. 1, ©1959 E. J. Brill)
 

 

As (one) dwells in body contemplating body, ardent… that desire to do, that is in body, is abandoned. By the abandoning of desire to do, the Deathless is realized. So with feelings… mind… mental states… that desire to do, that is in mind-states, is abandoned. By the abandoning of the desire to do, the Deathless is realized.
 

(SN V 182, Pali Text Society V p 159)

 

The relationship between "determinate thought" and action is at the core of Gautama's teaching:
 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.

 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III p 294)

 

 

But how can a person relinquish "determinate thought", volition, that is based on the  knowledge of good and evil?  "This is right, I must do this"--"this is wrong, I must not do this." 

 

 

(One) cultivates right concentration, which is based on detachment, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender, which plunges into the deathless, which has the deathless for its aim, which has the deathless for its end.

 

(SN V 54, Pali Text Society V p 44)

 

 

 

The difficult thing for most people is to realize that action can take place in the absence of "determinate thought", in the absence of volition.  Here's an example I gave stirling over on the "Bliss and Enlightenment by James Swartz" thread:
 

One day in 1975, i made a determination that I was going to try to be mindful of each inhalation and exhalation, no matter what I was doing.  Sometime in the afternoon, I was sitting at my desk when my body got up and walked to the door of the room, but not because I exercised the will to walk to the door.

 

 

Years later, at the end of a lecture at the S. F. Zen Center,  Kobun Chino Otogawa admonished his audience:

 

You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around.

 

 

 

So do sleepwalkers!

 

[old3bob]

well it can get complicated...

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

I wish more of that happened in this world LOL 😂🤭

 

Hmmm .....   I think a lot , not sure it helps  as much as I ...... thought .

 

My friend is very 'quiet'  ... she says she is an introvert   (my GOD ! and she associates with me ! ) .  I find it very unusual and different , a distinct 'lack' of verbal communication - I persevere and patience  and I find 'things get through'   to me via other (more 'mysterious' ) methods   ... dont know how she does that . 

 

Anyway, I am wondering what , how much, in what way , 'quiet' or 'introverted people'   ... think / run mental process / have internal dialogue  .... or is it just  'quiet'    ' in there'  ?

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Was it after you got arrested?

 

The pure innocence of pre-arrest ...... age   ;

 

having dinner at sisters many years back , our Mum and her friend present  and other family members . My sisters little boy comes out the bathroom, shuffling, pants around ankles ;  " Mum !  Mum ... help ! "

 

" What's wrong ? "

 

" My willie swelled up and got all big ... look ! "

 

" Goodness !  ... and how did that happen ? "

 

" I dont know !  .... I was  rubbing it and it just started happening all by itself ! "

 

- me, sister's friend  are cracking up , Mom and friend finding interest in another direction . sister ?  cool as a cucumber ;

 

" Well, maybe if you stop rubbing it, it will go back down again .  "

 

[old3bob]

7 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Hmmm .....   I think a lot , not sure it helps  as much as I ...... thought .

 

My friend is very 'quiet'  ... she says she is an introvert   (my GOD ! and she associates with me ! ) .  I find it very unusual and different , a distinct 'lack' of verbal communication - I persevere and patience  and I find 'things get through'   to me via other (more 'mysterious' ) methods   ... dont know how she does that . 

 

Anyway, I am wondering what , how much, in what way , 'quiet' or 'introverted people'   ... think / run mental process / have internal dialogue  .... or is it just  'quiet'    ' in there'  ?

 

Where, behind a brick wall?  Nah, just kindly remove a few bricks...

[Nungali]

3 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

Where, behind a brick wall?  Nah, just kindly remove a few bricks...

 

I detect no wall at all between us  . So I dont know what you mean .

 

We all have an 'in there' and by that I mean  our internal thought processes that are not expressed outwardly .

 

One thing that does surprise her though is how I can  'read' / know  what is going on 'in there ' ... when it is active , and especially excited ... I often pre- empt something, just as she is about to  burst it forth , and a few times she is incredulous ; " How could you possibly know that ! ? "  -  I have no explanation but a shrug and "I'm psychic. " .

 

So its not a case of a wall being there , or me putting up a wall, or me needing to remove bricks or whatever . However I think we are all entitled to a 'private place ' in our minds and memories , and I would not attempt to penetrate that in her ... or anyone else ... call it 'psychic ethics' if you want .

 

My question still stands  .... does  a person who is quiet / introverted  on the 'outside'  reflect that in their inner thought processes .

[whocoulditbe?]

5 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Interesting idea, but it's troubling to base such a subtle analysis on the English version. In Genesis 2:9, 3:5, and 3:22, the knowledge of good and evil is הדעת/ידעי/לדעת טוב ורע in the original, and γνωστὸν/γινώσκοντες/γινώσκειν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ in the Septuagint. I have weak knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew, but I can see that the conjunction is ו in Hebrew, and καὶ in the Greek. καὶ is sometimes used disjunctively, and apparently ו also has other uses. According to Strong's Concordance, טוב and רע can be adjectives or nouns, but καλοῦ and πονηροῦ are only ever adjectives (and the Hebrew words wouldn't be in the genitive if they were nouns anyway). That's pretty weird at 2:9, because it looks like it could mean something like "knowledge which is good and evil," but the verbal forms of the phrase at 3:5 and 3:22 rule out that interpretation. So does it mean something like "knowledge of good (things) and evil (things)"? If so, maybe Daniel could respond with "knowledge of good-and-evil (things)"?

When I wrote this, I hadn't heard of hendiadys. Now I'm a bit more inclined to believe Daniel's interpretation.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

I detect no wall at all between us  . So I dont know what you mean .

 

We all have an 'in there' and by that I mean  our internal thought processes that are not expressed outwardly .

 

One thing that does surprise her though is how I can  'read' / know  what is going on 'in there ' ... when it is active , and especially excited ... I often pre- empt something, just as she is about to  burst it forth , and a few times she is incredulous ; " How could you possibly know that ! ? "  -  I have no explanation but a shrug and "I'm psychic. " .

 

So its not a case of a wall being there , or me putting up a wall, or me needing to remove bricks or whatever . However I think we are all entitled to a 'private place ' in our minds and memories , and I would not attempt to penetrate that in her ... or anyone else ... call it 'psychic ethics' if you want .

 

My question still stands  .... does  a person who is quiet / introverted  on the 'outside'  reflect that in their inner thought processes .

 

well I'd say by various degrees that various "introverts" by general definition (thus not your friend who I was not specifically pointing at) tend to have more of an inner private (as you say) which they don't share at any time with anyone...but if someone knocks kindly on the bricks so to speak then there may be easier or greater communication.

Edited August 14, 2023 by old3bob

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So do sleepwalkers!

 

And people under hypnosis, given the suggestion.

Watch out for the hypnic jerk, though...


 

[Daniel]

11 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Daniel, Mark, and others,

 

One way to read the narrative of The Fall rests on the assumption that Man, by learning about the "good" or "evil" consequences of their actions, lost their capability of spontaneous, "innocent" action.

 

However, this kind of interpretation raises the question in what way the knowledge of good and evil would make Man more God-like -- when at the same time it led to the Fall from Grace and the loss of immortality. 

 

Please share your thoughts on this.

 

And that's the problem with the assumption that the knowledge gained was a net loss that resulted in a "fall".  So, I don't read it that way.

 

 

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

(NKJV Genesis 2:16-7)

 

But in what sense, "die"?

 

The conventional answer in Judaism is this is a legal phrase showing a liability for death at the hands of heaven, not an earthly court.  Other examples:  Gen 20:7, 1 Sam 14:14, 1 Kings 2:37.   

 

Some people take it to another level.  In hebrew, mot-tamoot.  The m-v-t (to die) verbal root is repeated twice.  When a word is repeated it's for emphasis.  For verbs it indicates certainty.  For nouns it indictes "each and every"  Examples:  Exo 23:4, Num 27:7 ( verbs repeated) Exo 36:4, (noun repeated ).  The tav prefix on the second repetition makes it imperfect ( future tense ).  

 

So, the penatly for the prohibition ( which was only incumbent on Adam, and said nothing about eating the fruit, only prohibited eating FROM the tree ) was "certain death, body and soul, total annihiliation, at the hands of heaven, your name will be erased from the book of life as if you were never born."  Yimach Sh'moh.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yimakh_shemo

 

8 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Whoever finds the explanation of these words will not taste death.
 

(The Gospel According to Thomas,

 

^^ clearly a determinate proclaimation

 

8 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

As (one) dwells in body contemplating body, ardent… that desire to do, that is in body, is abandoned. By the abandoning of desire to do, the Deathless is realized. So with feelings… mind… mental states… that desire to do, that is in mind-states, is abandoned. By the abandoning of the desire to do, the Deathless is realized.
 

(SN V 182, Pali Text Society V p 159)

 

^^ clearly a determinate proclaimation

 

8 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

The relationship between "determinate thought" and action is at the core of Gautama's teaching:
 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.

 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III p 294)

 

But how can a person relinquish "determinate thought", volition, that is based on the  knowledge of good and evil?  "This is right, I must do this"--"this is wrong, I must not do this."

 

There is no reason to abandon determinate thought, unless....

 

8 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

(One) cultivates right concentration, which is based on detachment, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender, which plunges into the deathless, which has the deathless for its aim, which has the deathless for its end.

 

(SN V 54, Pali Text Society V p 44)

 

 

(One) cultivates right concentration, which is based on detachment, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender, which plunges into the Lifeless, which has the Lifeless for its aim, which has the Lifeless for its end.

 

For those who are deeply suffering, or wish to avoid personal resposibility for themselves and for others... Sure!  There's a way to do that!  If I'm ever in extreme pain, I'll know what to do.  But I'll retain my personal responsibility, thank you very much.  

 

8 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

The difficult thing for most people is to realize that action can take place in the absence of "determinate thought", in the absence of volition.  Here's an example I gave stirling over on the "Bliss and Enlightenment by James Swartz" thread:
 

 

If this is your ideal, then that is what you have determined.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

This reminds me that Brook Ziporyn wrote a book–which I still haven't read–called Evil and/or/as the Good about Tiantai. Interesting idea, but it's troubling to base such a subtle analysis on the English version. In Genesis 2:9, 3:5, and 3:22, the knowledge of good and evil is הדעת/ידעי/לדעת טוב ורע in the original, and γνωστὸν/γινώσκοντες/γινώσκειν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ in the Septuagint. I have weak knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew, but I can see that the conjunction is ו in Hebrew, and καὶ in the Greek. καὶ is sometimes used disjunctively, and apparently ו also has other uses. According to Strong's Concordance, טוב and רע can be adjectives or nouns, but καλοῦ and πονηροῦ are only ever adjectives (and the Hebrew words wouldn't be in the genitive if they were nouns anyway). That's pretty weird at 2:9, because it looks like it could mean something like "knowledge which is good and evil," but the verbal forms of the phrase at 3:5 and 3:22 rule out that interpretation. So does it mean something like "knowledge of good (things) and evil (things)"? If so, maybe Daniel could respond with "knowledge of good-and-evil (things)"?

 

 

The example of a good-and-evil thing from this specific story is "double-speak" which is employed by Adam, Eve, the serpent, and even God in this story.  I'll give the example of the serpent's double-speak, because, I think it's the easiest to show.

 

In Gen 3, when Eve states the prohibition ( as she was told by Adam, presumably ) the serpent responds "לא־מות תמתון".  This has a double meaing.  It could mean, "No, surely-die" which is correcting Eve (technically she quoted the rule incorrectly ) and avoids any accusation of lying.  Or, as it is translated into english, it could mean "Not surely-die" which is also true, because the prohibition wasn't given to Eve, but the serpent has no way of knowing this, it wasn't there when the prohibition was given.  It's possible the serpenthad an accomplice hiding inplain sight.  But that's not important right now.  What's important is the serpent was able to speak truth and lies simultaneously, "double-speak".  It's typical serpent behavior, speaking with the silvery forked tongue.

 

After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they both gain knowledge of how to use double-speak.  This can be seen in the confessional.  They also pass this knowledge to Cain who employs it against God to save his own life which ultimately leads to the corruption of everything that moves and the global flood.  Abraham uses it later, so does Aaron, so does Moses.  

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The conventional answer in Judaism is this is a legal phrase showing a liability for death at the hands of heaven, not an earthly court.  Other examples:  Gen 20:7, 1 Sam 14:14, 1 Kings 2:37.   

 

Some people take it to another level.  In hebrew, mot-tamoot.  The m-v-t (to die) verbal root is repeated twice.  When a word is repeated it's for emphasis.  For verbs it indicates certainty.  For nouns it indictes "each and every"  Examples:  Exo 23:4, Num 27:7 ( verbs repeated) Exo 36:4, (noun repeated ).  The tav prefix on the second repetition makes it imperfect ( future tense ).  

 

So, the penatly for the prohibition ( which was only incumbent on Adam, and said nothing about eating the fruit, only prohibited eating FROM the tree ) was "certain death, body and soul, total annihiliation, at the hands of heaven, your name will be erased from the book of life as if you were never born."  Yimach Sh'moh.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yimakh_shemo

 

 

^^ clearly a determinate proclaimation

 

 

^^ clearly a determinate proclaimation

 

 

There is no reason to abandon determinate thought, unless....

 

 

(One) cultivates right concentration, which is based on detachment, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender, which plunges into the Lifeless, which has the Lifeless for its aim, which has the Lifeless for its end.

 

For those who are deeply suffering, or wish to avoid personal resposibility for themselves and for others... Sure!  There's a way to do that!  If I'm ever in extreme pain, I'll know what to do.  But I'll retain my personal responsibility, thank you very much.  

 

 

If this is your ideal, then that is what you have determined.

 

 

Sounds to me like you enjoy determining your course of action, and you're thinking if you exercise your will according to law, you can bring heaven to earth.  Am I close?

As far as the Gautamid:

 

And I… at the close of (instructional discourse), steady, calm, make one-pointed and concentrate my mind subjectively in that first characteristic of concentration in which I ever constantly abide.

 

(MN I 249, Pali Text Society vol I p 303)

 

 

I take that to mean that he was not in a state of concentration when he spoke.  So, yes, there would be determinate thought involved.  But as to the truth of what was said?  And the return to a cessation of "determinate thought", first in speech, then in deed, and lastly in thought, that doesn't seem like a return to the garden to you?

As to my determination:  well, there are a couple of things that are like gravity to me now, in my life.

 

When the location of attention can shift anywhere in the body as a function of the movement of breath, and the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation follows solely from the location of attention, there is a feeling of freedom.

 

... automatic activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation follows from "one-pointedness" that moves as though in open space.  The effortlessness of the generation of automatic activity, even if the activity is strenuous, is a natural draw. 

 

 

I'm just looking for a rhythm in my life that includes these things, and has room for the inconceivable:

 

Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent.

(Dogen, “Genjo Koan”, tr Kazuaki Tanahashi)

[Michael Sternbach]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The example of a good-and-evil thing from this specific story is "double-speak" which is employed by Adam, Eve, the serpent, and even God in this story.  I'll give the example of the serpent's double-speak, because, I think it's the easiest to show.

 

In Gen 3, when Eve states the prohibition ( as she was told by Adam, presumably ) the serpent responds "לא־מות תמתון".  This has a double meaing.  It could mean, "No, surely-die" which is correcting Eve (technically she quoted the rule incorrectly ) and avoids any accusation of lying.  Or, as it is translated into english, it could mean "Not surely-die" which is also true, because the prohibition wasn't given to Eve, but the serpent has no way of knowing this, it wasn't there when the prohibition was given.  It's possible the serpenthad an accomplice hiding inplain sight.  But that's not important right now.  What's important is the serpent was able to speak truth and lies simultaneously, "double-speak".  It's typical serpent behavior, speaking with the silvery forked tongue.

 

After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they both gain knowledge of how to use double-speak.  This can be seen in the confessional.  They also pass this knowledge to Cain who employs it against God to save his own life which ultimately leads to the corruption of everything that moves and the global flood.  Abraham uses it later, so does Aaron, so does Moses.  

 

 

So it was learning the art and science of double speech that got us kicked out of Paradise?! Original thinking granted, but I do think you're going out on a limb with this theory.

 

 

On the other hand, if we assume "the knowledge of good and evil" to metaphorically refer to the ability of discursive thinking, then yes, this certainly made us more "God-like" in the sense that it contributed a lot to making us the dominating species on the planet and shooting rockets into outer space.

 

I maintain though that reaching the true divine state would be in transcending the duality of the discursive mind and finding back to original "innocence" -- and ideally, immortality. 

 

But wait -- there's yet another tree standing in the Garden of Eden...

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Sounds to me like you enjoy determining your course of action, and you're thinking if you exercise your will according to law, you can bring heaven to earth.  Am I close?

 

Exercising my will according to the law is a contradiction.  I enjoy many things and nothing.  Although I find avoiding personal responsibility repugnant.  

 

4 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I take that to mean that he was not in a state of concentration when he spoke.  So, yes, there would be determinate thought involved.  But as to the truth of what was said?  And the return to a cessation of "determinate thought", first in speech, then in deed, and lastly in thought, that doesn't seem like a return to the garden to you?

 

Not like the garden at all, to me.  

 

4 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I'm just looking for a rhythm in my life that includes these things, and has room for the inconceivable:

 

As long as you're healthy, happy, and aren't abusing the innocent and defenseless, then I'm very happy for you and wish you only good things.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

So it was learning the art and science of double speech that got us kicked out of Paradise?!

 

This was the last phase of creation.  We were never intended to live in the garden.  

 

17 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Original thinking granted, but I do think you're going out on a limb with this theory.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

On the other hand, if we assume "the knowledge of good and evil" to metaphorically refer to the ability of discursive thinking, then yes, this certainly made us more "God-like" in the sense that it contributed a lot to making us the dominating species on the planet and shooting rockets into outer space.

 

I maintain though that reaching the true divine state would be in transcending the duality of the discursive mind and finding back to original "innocence" -- and ideally, immortality. 

 

There's many stories in this one story.  Although, the reason I can say that is because I have eaten the fruit.

 

21 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

But wait -- there's yet another tree standing in the Garden of Eden...

 

Multiple trees, all with the same source.

 

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

...

 

So, the penatly for the prohibition ( which was only incumbent on Adam, and said nothing about eating the fruit, only prohibited eating FROM the tree ) was "certain death, body and soul, total annihiliation, at the hands of heaven, your name will be erased from the book of life as if you were never born."  Yimach Sh'moh.

 

 

 

So .... to be accurate in one's translation ... exactingly  .....     and its implications ;

 

One could eat the fruit of the tree if someone else picked it , but not   FROM the tree ... what ? No picking it yourself ?

 

If  an apple fell from the tree and rolled down hill and you found it and ate it ?  All Good .

 

if you picked the apple direct   FROM   ( not 'of'     ) the tree  "certain death, body and soul, total annihilation, at the hands of heaven, your name will be erased from the book of life as if you were never born." 

 

I just luv theology !    ... especially from the 'experts '  .

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So it was learning the art and science of double speech that got us kicked out of Paradise?! Original thinking granted, but I do think you're going out on a limb with this theory.

 

 

On the other hand, if we assume "the knowledge of good and evil" to metaphorically refer to the ability of discursive thinking, then yes, this certainly made us more "God-like" in the sense that it contributed a lot to making us the dominating species on the planet and shooting rockets into outer space.

 

I maintain though that reaching the true divine state would be in transcending the duality of the discursive mind and finding back to original "innocence" -- and ideally, immortality. 

 

But wait -- there's yet another tree standing in the Garden of Eden...

 

And on that Tree the 'fall of man is depicted as different and a little more complex  than 'double speak ' . 

 

 

Clearer images and and a study of the symbology involved might reveal more than  a tendancy to 'double speak' (based on a minor  grammatical rule ... than can change   - depending on circumstances

 

 

[  and I would venture to suggest that constant 'speaking with forked tongue ' , would not have been said by Amerindians  if they didnt detect a behavioral difference  between Amerindians and  IE 'white folks' in the first place ... so I am seeing it as a method of invading war lord cultures ( like the ancient Hebrews and all the other IE 'white folks' .  Same thing happened here ; lies lies lies , and not from the indigenous )  . ]

Edited August 14, 2023 by Nungali

[Daniel]

25 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

So .... to be accurate in one's translation ... exactingly  .....     and its implications ;

 

yup.

 

Quote

One could eat the fruit of the tree if someone else picked it , but not   FROM the tree ... what ? No picking it yourself ?

 

Nope.  No picking from the tree.

 

Quote

If  an apple fell from the tree and rolled down hill and you found it and ate it ?  All Good .

 

Yup, that's the signal that the owner didn't want it and it was just going to spoil and make a mess if it wasn't eaten.  Fruit that's fallen is free for the taking.

 

Quote

if you picked the apple direct   FROM   ( not 'of'     ) the tree  "certain death, body and soul, total annihilation, at the hands of heaven, your name will be erased from the book of life as if you were never born." 

 

That specific fruit, while it is still attached to the tree is not hefker (ownerless).  Once it has fallen, then God has disowned it.

 

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hefker

 

"And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not make clean riddance up to the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them to the poor, and to the stranger; I am the Lord your God."

 

Quote

I just luv theology !    ... especially from the 'experts '  .

 

It's philosophy of law.  There's the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law.  By the letter of the law, it's perfectly fine to eat the fruit that is unwanted and discarded as ownerless.  The question is, did God **actually** want them to eat the fruit or not.  I can see it both ways.  Can you?

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

I can see some old landowners law  that got embedded in religion to justify it .

 

You poor people , eat the fruit on the ground , but if you touch the fruit on my tree , then you will suffer ! 

 

I have to say i prefer a certain Indian method better ;  harvest  or buy what you can , make food out of it , and offer that to the poor and hungry .   

[Daniel]

18 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I can see some old landowners law  that got embedded in religion to justify it .

 

You poor people , eat the fruit on the ground , but if you touch the fruit on my tree , then you will suffer ! 

 

I have to say i prefer a certain Indian method better ;  harvest  or buy what you can , make food out of it , and offer that to the poor and hungry .   

 

So wandering into a foreign territory and harvesting their crop is fine?  How does a traveler, a stranger, know what's free for the taking?  Or is it just a free for all?  I invest time and energy plowing and working the soil, then someone wanders through and helps themself?  That's OK?

 

Maybe in primitive times when there was very much open spaces, but, what about a deity?  How does a person know that tree is permitted to a human?

 

Answer:  It's so abundant and there's so much fruit it's falling to the ground and rotting.  In that case, it's probably OK to take some fruit, especially if it's on the ground.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Daniel

[old3bob]

I don't see any way to reconcile all of the stated contradictions (given by their prophets or founders) among or within the Abrahamic religions;  which also extends to whatever degree (?) even in their esoteric versions... granted there is some important and related common ground but that can only reach so far imo.  Good luck

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Exercising my will according to the law is a contradiction. 

 

 

How is it that you keep to the law, then, if not through the exercise of will?