(The theme of duality has been a popular one lately, so this post and participants' comments can also be found at the Christian Mystics site.)
“And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for when you eat of it you will surely die."(Gen 2:16-17)
We’ve all heard the story: God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of a particular tree; the serpent entices them to eat it by arguing they’ll be “like God”; they eat it; they are cast out of Eden; and now we all suffer the consequences of their “Fall.” The traditional script continues, in the logic of Augustine, to express that we all have been born into sin because our first parents ate from the fruit of the wrong tree.
Ironically, this “wrong” tree was called the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” One might expect “knowledge,” particularly of “good and evil,” to be a virtue, one that equips humans to be better equipped to make good choices. So we face an irony in the traditional doctrine: we are “sinners” because our first parents “fell,” and they “fell” because they sought something typically designed to help humans avoid sin!
A few questions naturally arise: Did they really “fall”? Who was the “serpent”? Was he really “deceptive”? Would they really be “like God”? If so, what does that mean? And why would it threaten “God” so much that He would pronounce them dead? Also, why would He command Adam and Eve against the knowledge of good and evil? Years later, are not Christians encouraged to acquire exactly what Adam and Eve were commanded not to acquire?
“Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant,
is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
But solid food is for the mature,
who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”(Hebrews 5:13-14)
Once we begin asking these questions, we find ourselves in a never-ending cycle of paradox. To use the same distinction noted in the tree Adam and Eve ate from, it is hard to know which figures in this story are really “good” and which ones are more “evil.” One could argue that choosing to overcome ignorance for knowledge is “good.” One could even argue that a command against something that ought to be “good” in order to protect one's own power is “evil.”is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
But solid food is for the mature,
who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”(Hebrews 5:13-14)
But what if none of the choices and none of the characters in this story are “good” and none are “evil”? What if the story is more about evolution in consciousness and those very distinctions – good and evil – are teased in order to help us see in a new way?
The story tells us their “eyes were opened” (Gen 3:7). This implies new development, new evolution. Such development expresses what the mystic desires: a forward path with eyes that can see better. But the story also suggests the cost of better eye sight. Those eyeglasses aren’t free! According to the warning given by God, this improved eye sight brings “death” and, according to the consequences, “separation.” As soon as the eyes are opened, one blames the other: “she made me do it” (v. 12). The illusion of separation begins. The man and woman who had been one from a single body now see themselves as separate and perceive in “good and evil,” suggesting a new name for the tree from which they ate: "the tree of duality."
The separation incurred by the improved eye sight also suggests what had been perceived through poor eye sight: connection, harmony. Before their eyes were opened, the man and woman not only felt unity between themselves, but also with God. Afterward, they felt separation particularly from God. This prompts us to return to the question of whether they “fell” or whether they “moved forward.” If they had been in harmony and now they were not, traditional logic says they moved backward, they “fell.” But prior to the separation, their eyes had been closed. In essence, they had a blind sense of harmony.
What becomes hard for traditional logic to follow is the notion that a movement that brings separation and suffering can still be a movement forward, something positive. But it would not be desired for the movement to end there. The “death” that came to our first parents was a form of amnesia: a separation they perceived from the divine. But God himself did not perceive this separation and wished to cure them of their amnesia. So He issued the first command and the most important prayer, the “Shema”: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut 6:4).
The Shema may have helped the Hebrew people affirm the Oneness of God, but their own separation from the Lord continued to persist. Through the greatest of blasphemies, Jesus then came to provide the next step: “I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). If that weren’t enough, he went further on behalf of his followers: “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me” (John 17:21).
When the eyes of our first parents were opened, a form of suffering and death resulted; it is to be expected that when our eyes open again, another form of suffering and death are to come. Often, Jesus warned us to so prepare.
Just as many have a nostalgia for childhood, many also have a nostalgia for Eden. There exists a wish to return to blissful innocence, spared from the conflicts of duality. But perhaps this wish is rooted in part by an aversion to suffering. But if we are willing to face the cost, even if it feels like a “fall,” then we can experience something much sweeter: a return to harmony with open eyes.
© 2012 by karina. All rights reserved. Please use only with permission from the author.