Analogue 55

Analogue 55 

The Trees of Paradise

God created the garden of paradise and humankind dwelt there, but God’s desires were not in their hearts. Their longings were elsewhere. And in this garden it was said—even to me—“You may eat of this, but you cannot consume that, though you desire it.” That is the place, therefore, where I myself ate many different things, and also the place where the Tree of Knowledge killed Adam. Yet it is that same Tree of Knowledge which shall also enliven humanity.

In the past, the commandments were the Tree for they gave us knowledge of what is good and evil, but they could not cure humanity of evil, nor preserve us in that which is good. Instead, they caused those who took them into their hearts to die. And so the commandment, “Eat this! Do not eat that!” became the origin of death.

SYNOPSIS

• This is a very nuanced and even metaphysical view of the Garden of Paradise. 
• The statement that “he himself ate there” may indicate Philip’s (or even Yeshua’s) understanding of his pre-existent participation in those first acts and decisions of humankind.
• Two agendas and differing sets of desires are existent even at the beginning in Paradise. 
• Is it important for humans to have evolved in this manner? Is this a set-up created by divine design? 
• The eating of the Tree of Life is the death of Adam — Adam dies perhaps from an “over-dose” of knowledge. 
• Future enlivening comes not through the commandments but through another living Tree.
• The ten commandments and the letter of the law (even the Torah) are forms of knowledge that do not cure nor do they keep us stable in the realm of the good. 
• Rules and commandments cannot maintain original goodness. Furthermore, often they become toxic at the level of the heart. This sentiment is in agreement with the teachings of the Apostle Paul in the West. 
• The Tree that Kills with an over-dose of knowledge will also ultimately enliven humanity but not simply through the conceptual knowledge of good and evil, nor by the keeping of the rules and commandments — which cannot cure, keep us alive, or safe. 
• Something else must be present at a kardial level in the form of direct knowing. 

Video link to You Tube recording

COMMENTARY

The Tree of Life

This is a text that is very dependent on the teachings and sensibilities of the Jewish tradition. It illustrates the various hermeneutical approaches that the first century communities took in their use for the life and practice of the community. This is especially true in the way in which the Torah’s ten commandments were applied and lived. The interpretative strategy used here equates the practice of Jewish law and its ordinances with eating from the Tree of Life in the garden. A similar questioning about the nature of the Law and its life-giving or death-dealing effects is also found in the early writings of Paul (in particular in his letter to the Galatians). In some respects these viewpoints are similar and in other ways they represent another significant contrast. In both cases, to possess the knowledge of good and evil it is not sufficient to keep humanity from experiencing evil in any significant way. Knowing the Torah, its law and commandments, will not cure humanity of its ills nor will it keep humanity safe or free from the experience of evil. This is the fundamental premise of this passage, but there is considerably more to learn from the viewpoint that Philip takes. 

First, the analogue establishes a core principle concerning the inner condition of humanity which has to do with the level of desire (or the intention in the heart). This kardial condition is key to understanding what occurred both in the past and what is occurring now in the present. It is the heart’s interior state that prevails and shapes the destiny of each human being, determining its trajectory and pathway. The only cure for what is ailing us cannot be affected by external authority or the even by the continual practice of the commandments. Real change can only come from the inside, at a much deeper level of being. 

It is the heart’s interior state that prevails and shapes the destiny of each human being, determining its trajectory and pathway. 

Personal Presence in the Garden

Interestingly (perhaps even strangely), the author speaks of actually being present in the Garden of Paradise at the time these decisions were made. The analogue seems to suggest that all humanity (and each human being) was present at that very moment as part of the collectivity. Together we made these first decisions and took the original steps leading to our current pathways and subsequent actions. It is not that most of us came into existence later and have no connection to these first events, but that we all participated and, more importantly, were complicit in everything. These were our own original desires as well, not simply those of our ancestors. Metaphysically this points to the original pre-eternal condition of humankind as a collectivity, created together as a unity. This viewpoint has a long pedigree in Perennial Wisdom.

A choice and variety of foods (the “many things”) is something that happily we experience on earth. One of our greatest human desires is to taste everything: sampling, trying and perhaps even “overdosing” on the “taste” of food. We are driven by our hungers. Compelled, perhaps, in this quest for new tastes, new knowledge, new experiences. Some modern philosophers like Ken Wilber take this to be a necessary part of the evolution of humankind. In some fundamental way, we did not have a choice except to try everything—to know everything by trial and error. We needed to make our way out of the pristine conditions of paradise into the murky world of possibilities where the knowledge of good and evil as part of its dualities appeared to us in very direct ways. Not only does good and evil contrast one another, between their extremes there are also multiple shades of grey. How else can humankind gain true knowledge except by experiencing the entire spectrum from darkness to light and everything in between? As difficult as this condition is for us, stepping out onto the path that leads us away from the Garden, it all appears necessary for our becoming.

The Paths of Knowledge

Humankind, at least in the modern era, seems to have “overdosed” on knowledge-by-reason and rational thought. This ascendent form of human knowledge has brought us to tipping points throughout history, and perhaps trapped in the cul-de-sac where we now find ourselves to be, with no clear way forward. It seems we cannot reason our way out of our current dilemmas. The contemporary human condition where conflicts between the competing forces are so strong, has left us utterly confused and with fewer and fewer alternatives. It is a strange journey for us, but perhaps the only way to true wisdom is through the sufferings that we are currently experiencing (because of the choices we have made). Looking back, we can see our journey has been extremely difficult. We are in a place of deep uncertainty about future outcomes. It more and more obvious that knowledge could destroy us. In the form of wisdom, however, it can also enliven, renew and restore us. 

The path into the future, however, will not be through the accumulation of more empirical knowledge (information, data, facts of whatever kind), nor by following new social rules (laws and commandments), as good as those may be. A future worth pursuing must come from another epistemological domain entirely, located not outside of us but at our core, in the heart.

 

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. This analogue concerns the philosophical category of knowing (epistemology)—how do we come to know anything? What is the most reliable way to attain certain knowledge? In your mind contrast and compare all the following ways you have used for learning in your life: formal instruction, rational analysis, by experience, intuitively by the heart. How do each of these (as well as other ways you might add) teach you? How lasting or certain is the knowledge you gain from each of these domains? Journal your reflections. 
2. There is something strangely interesting in this analogue that has to do with ancestral memory. It suggests that every soul participated in humanity’s learning process from the beginning of creation to the present moment. Do you have any such learned ancestral memories or of paradise? What might those be? Journal your reflections. 
3. If this way of interpreting the text is correct, who do you imagine the figure of Adam to be?
4. Can you imagine that you (or at least some part of you), along with the rest of humankind gave assent to the original conditions and actions that took place in the Garden of Paradise? If that is true, how does that change your thinking about human history and the processes you are undergoing now?
5. Why is it that having laws, even good laws, does not fundamentally change the nature of human beings? Is there a way to ontologically change humanity? What do you imagine that to be?
6. How is it that the Tree of Knowledge can both kill and enliven us?

 

NOTES FOR FURTHER STUDY 

AND REFERENCE

1. Since there is no way that a human being can consistently or successfully keep the divine Law, the Apostle Paul’s concludes that the Law is our enemy—it kills us by condemning us for our failures and inconsistencies. Also, he does not view the Torah as a standard by which humankind can adequately assess its own actions, nor is it a norm that allows us some degree of social stability and peace. Instead, he primarily sees the Law through the lens of a theological determinism that bars us from a right-relationship with God (i.e., set against the Law, we are fundamentally flawed by original sin). Since the Law cannot help us, its only role is as a bringer of death (See his letter to the Galatians in the Christian Scriptures). From his vantage-point, only the Messiah’s death can save us from the consequences of the Fall when humankind first violated the original commandment made in the Garden of paradise against eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. These texts and scriptures all agree that laws and commandments do not fundamentally change human behavior—we violate them at will. They may temporarily put constraints on our actions, but they do not change human nature itself. From that perspective, therefore, only something deeper and more fundamental can do that. This is seen, then, to be the work of the Messiah, but from this Gospel’s perspective, not as a result of his dying, but because of his resurrection. He gives us back our life again and allows us to stand up inwardly as he did along the vertical axis. These are important distinctions which are often missed. 
2. In the Islamic faith (and from the Qur’anic viewpoint), there is a very different story told about original humankind. Both the Qur’an and the Hadith (the oral traditions) give an interesting account of the creation of Adam. When God informed the angels about putting human beings on earth, they argued that humankind would cause great damage and destruction. The angels were informed, however, that God was doing something important (and perhaps hidden) which they did not yet understand but which would later be revealed. So God created humans from mud or clay, and breathed life into that first form. The angels are then commanded to prostrate before Adam. All obeyed except one, Iblis (Satan), who claimed to be superior to  humans, saying, “You created me from fire, and Adam from mud.” From this telling, this was the first enmity between Satan and humankind and so Satan sought to subvert humans by tricking them into eating the wrong kind of food. 
3. The modern writer and philosopher, Ken Wilber, makes an important case about the evolution of humanity and what is necessary for us to evolve into maturity as a species. He believes that the events in the Genesis story concerning the expulsion from paradise are in fact mythologically necessary. We needed to leave paradise in order o change us from a naive state of innocence into creatures possessing true wisdom. He makes his case in a text Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution (2007). This viewpoint is consistent in many important ways with that which is taken in this Gospel. 

Notes ON the Translation 

• In the second paragraph is a lacuna. After saying that God created paradise and humankind, some letters and words are missing which have been reconstructed in this particular way: “but God’s desires were not in their hearts. Their longings were elsewhere.” All the rest that exists in the text suggests that this may be an accurate reconstruction.
• The parenthetical remark “even to me” is in the text almost as an exclamatory statement, as is the phrase, “I myself ate many different things.”
• The Tree of Knowledge translates the original word “gnosis” being the word for knowledge, perhaps most importantly as a form of direct or inner knowing.