Tree of Duality

What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil. Friedrich Nietzsche

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Did God plant a dangerous tree in the garden and warn man not to eat of it and then plant the Tree of Life and did not insist man eat from it? A literal place? Or a descriptive place in man? A possibility since since the entire New Testament deals with Christ in you, God in you, You in Christ, and the kingdom being within. Was the garden inside of man? Were some of the trees our own planting? God's plantings good. Man's plantings perhaps not so good. This possibility makes Matthew 15:13 seen in a entirely new light. Every plant which my Heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up?'Matthew 7:15-20 discusses how a tree is known by its fruits and states a good tree cannot produce evil fruit and vice versa. So, how was this tree producing both?

When Adam exchanged the Tree of Life in the center of His heart/garden with the Tree of Knowledge, God became out of focus in many realms. This change in consciousness caused an immediate life change in him called deathseparation from God. It was in the garden that God walked and talked with man and there was no duality. Then man hides from Him.

The body of Adam was formed from the dust (apar) of the ground. The was technically not a handful of dust that blows in the wind but a clod of earth (NAB translates it as clay). In to this dirt clod after it was fashioned into the physical form of man God breathed the 'breathe of life' and man become alive. Both man and animals were given the breath of life but man is the only one who received it from God's face (Genesis 7: 22). So, to the body of clay God gave the principle of life and this union of clay and breath produced a 'living soul'. It is this soul that many picture is held captive until death. It is the Hebrew understanding that regards man as an animated body and not an incarnated soul. Hebraic thought considers this union of clay and breath as a function in unity and value rather than parts that have various destinations at death.

Fred Pruitt in his book, 'The Axe is Laid to the Root' says that man being made in the image of God is a reflective process in that God purposed our visibility to reveal the invisible God. I think man is a union of flesh (temporal, dust) and spirit (divinity) and has the distinct purpose of demonstrating a unique creation of God and that is the union of the temporal and eternal and we spend our time trying to separate what God has joined. We have placed them in contrast and God never did.

The incarnation is so much more than an indwelling, it is God giving us His life and us learning to live. This idea then poses the question if God is in man then is our life replaced? No, we did not have life. Do we stop being ourselves? Christ came into our being so we can become who we really are. He allows us to be who we areHis spirit causes it and the effect (the birth of the cause) is the I am.

Genesis 2:16-17 details God instructing man he is free to eat of the every tree but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which incurs a penalty of death while Hebrews 5: 13-14 in discussing milk and solid food states that solid food belongs to the one who has used and exercised his senses in discerning good and evil. The narrative describes man trying to attain something we use today to help understand rudiments of the Truth of God (v12) and teaching of Righteousness (v13) yet they were removed from the garden for it. Have we misapplied the tree and its effects? Was the tree a teaching tool? The fruit of the tree seemed to persuade man he had to bring about his own righteousness through futility or vanity of the law. With the definition of righteousness being the nature of God, God intended a transference of righteousness rather than the illusion of an earned righteousness. In reality however, righteousness was never lost only unable to be seen by them.

In Genesis 3:7 we find their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. As soon as the eyes were opened blame (Adam blames Eve and she blames the serpent) entered then separation was the perceived result. The man and woman from one single body now see themselves separated with distinct and differing motives. Most importantly they felt distanced from their Creator. In considering the words the Fall of man did they fall from a certain position (rank) or did they move backwards in perception, in understanding, in reality? Did they simply lose focus of their origin in God?

Even if the move was God designed the move was not away from Him but it was a separation in the forgetting of the man and his origin and it was God who did not perceive the separation at all but wanted to heal them of their perceived condition. Jesus prays for men in John 17 and in verse 20-26 he removes dualism from the equation and declares we are one with his God and then asks that we perceive or image it. In the last verse Jesus declares God's name which in this time period indicates the character of how one is identified. The name he declares God to beFather.

What was the perceived power in the Tree of Knowledge? Why did God not tell them to eat of the Tree of Life but were only commanded NOT to eat of the other tree? In defense of Adam it states that Eve was deceived but Adam was not (2 Timothy 2:14). So Adam chose his path in that he had full knowledge of the outcome I believe. They walked with God in the cool of the day, how could God not lay out the effects of the things He placed in the Garden. Adam and Eve were not without knowledge but were lacking experience only. There appears to be no evidence in Scripture that Adam and Eve had any concept of separation before eating the FRUIT of the tree, not the tree it self. They succumbed not to a poisonous tree but to the effects of the fruit. Is it not good and evil that is the problem but the consequences of knowing good and evil and the judgments that follow?

Is not the Tree of Life experienced when we understand nothing can separate us from the love of God. Love (union, without contrast) is the fruit of the Tree of Life just as fear (separation, duality, judgment) is the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. They ate of the tree and then their eyes were opened being a mental act and not one of sight for they KNEW they were naked and note they saw their nakedness. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was, I believe, a perceived fear manifesting in a perceived separation from God.

Could they have eaten the trees in the wrong order? Gen 3 says it is good they became as one of us to know good and evil. Is it possible had they eaten of the tree of life first they could have handled the knowledge of the other tree? God evidently had knowledge of good and evil as man did not, but it is a knowledge NOW shared by both God and man. Also Genesis 2:16-17 with 3:22 makes it apparent Adam and Eve did not have life as they had not eaten of the Tree of Life.

In the concept of Mathematical Multiplication, if you have nothing and multiply it by any number you still have nothing (0x1, 0x99, etc). In order for something to be multiplied you must have some of it already; it must be immediately present (1x2, 1x99, etc). In Genesis 3:16 we are told I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception. Sorrow must have been present to be multiplied. Also, if life was a promise of the Tree of Life and they were removed from it they apparently did not have it to begin with. Were sorrow and death present in the Eden of God along with other things we have not associated as being in the presence of God?

Martin Buber, an Austrian Jewish philosopher, says the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (tov va'ra) actually means any duality. Genesis 2:7 utilizes the word formed (vayitzer) which means impulse. Therefore, man was created with two impulses one good (yetzer tov) and the other evil (yetzer ra). The good being moral conscience and the other a selfishness without regard for moral conscience. 'Yazter ra' was not an entity to force one to do evil but an internal voice that focused on selfish fulfillment. This later became the understanding of satan in Judaism as satan was the inner self that pursued division from God.

God asks THEM (Both Adam and Eve) who told YOU (singular) you were naked? Another voice was present in the Garden which was in themselves who convinced them of their perceived condition enhancing their 'separation anxiety'. The voice was an inner voice as Eve saw the tree and its attributes (pleasant and good for food). The manifestation of self occurred here as man falsely perceived he could live without God giving light to Paul's truth I see another power within warring against me bring me into captivity to the law of sin and death. He exclaims who shall deliver me from the body of this death, from this double vision and the resounding answer is through Jesus Christ. As long as we remain a self and not realize we are a son then we will feel estranged from God.

Did mankind choose duality in the garden subjecting creation to dysfunction and unreality? As man evolved in the realm of duality we die to the awareness of all that is real manifesting the illusion of separation from the Creator. We lost the awareness of our image as we began to feel separated, alone, and needing to hide. I am coming to believe this was simply an event being neither good nor evil, neither planned nor unexpected by God but simply an occurrence that an awesome God who maintains His authority and still carries His ultimate goal to fruition.

In the realm of religious duality we have created a God to be feared, who is vengeful, and who punishes forever. We then assume we have the obligation to be like Him and we exact these same responses to our fellowman. We have built this warrior God who defends us while destroying others who are what? Unloved? Undeserving? We make Him big enough to handle the things we do not understand and use His sovereignty as an excuse. As we have not understood who we really are, we have allowed the teachings of Jesus to be our focus and worshiping him as a being we cannot become rather than understanding his teachings point to Father and realize He is us in the intent of a great God. A portrait of who we really are in the mind and purpose of God.

Illusion of Separation

Sometimes people do not want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

We know the story in Genesis with Adam and Eve and when we tell it we do not bat an eye as we say God removed them from the garden so they could not get back to the Tree of Life. I first came to the conclusion that God did not forsake Jesus to understand that there never was a separation.

The eye opening Adam and Eve experienced suggests a new development in their maturity and it also began their concept of separation. They were 'one flesh' but now they saw themselves as separate from each other and from their Creator. It also hints at their separation from creation in that they were tillers (co-workers) of the garden and they became subject to the produce of the garden (thrones and thistles shall it bring forth and returning to the ground from which you were taken).

In Colossians 1 Paul is talking about all mankind being reconciled in the Christ and in verse 20 he clarifies the reason this message must be clear to us all. He says you were alienated and enemies IN YOUR MIND... and he goes on to say because of this perception (this image) you acted out what you believed to be true. Your perception of distance from God caused you to perceive separation and based on that concept you built a God up there rather than God with us.

Here is the text in the NKJV. Colossians 1:19-22
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled
22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight--

The word 'alienate' is the Greek word apallotrioo which means to shut out from fellowship or intimacy. It also carries the meaning of being separated from one's origin because of belonging to another. The word for enemy is echthros and means opposing God in the mind. This person who has perceived himself distanced from God does not realize this opposition has never been declared by God as truth, meaning it is only perceivedonly an illusion in the mind of the man who has accepted it.

Ephesians 4:17-19 (NKJV)
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the {NU-Text omits rest of the.} Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

How can understanding be 'darkened' when understanding is a mental act not a sensual one using the eyes which interpret light and dark? This verse also indicates the estrangement is perceived because alienation is present due to ignorance and ignorance is present because of blindness of the heartnot eyes and not the beating organ. All of these verses indicate a perception that is perceived from the senses and acknowledge it is a flawed perception.

Look at Jonathan Mitchell's Translation: Jonathan Mitchell Translation Colossians 1:21
21 And you folks, being at one time people having been alienated away (being estranged; being rendered as belonging to another; = having been put out of the family) and enemies (or: hated ones) by the divided thoughts (in the dualistic perceptions [images] and things going through the mind in every direction) and by (or: in) the miserable deeds (gushes of wicked actions; laborious and painful works).

Jonathan Mitchell Ephesians 4:18 18 being folks having been, any still yet being, darkened in (or: by) the divided thought and the thing passing through the mind, having been and continuing being alienated (estranged) away from the Life of God (or: God's life; or the life which is God) through the ignorance continuously existing (or: being) within them [and] through the petrifying (becoming stone) of their heart,

These verses seem to indicate the idea of separation came from the perception of evil (lack of functionality) and its power to cause a division. The parameters of evil are not solely locked up in a devil with or without horns, or even whether an evil entity exists but it also encompasses hostility, hatred, and violence and these are all antithetical to love. In virtually every culture and basis of religion, evil is typified as a universal presence of a power that is capable of bringing sorrow, calamity, distresses, and misfortune. Evil seems to be a distinct occurrence in the human world as animals know nothing of it and at the same time there is not a religion, culture, or race of people that considers evil to be impotent. Mankind seems to be the primary progenitors of evil in that man sets the definition and also perpetuates it.

Most religions tend to imply that evil is necessary in order for man to know good. Then, satan is necessary in order for us to know God. Dualism tends to see the world as a battlefield for the universal struggle for good to triumph over evil one day in the future. In the cosmic scenario, God is good and the devil bad and God is going to win some day. The constant stream of battles are the popular reasons for unpleasantness in life.

In understanding evil one seems to find it is the absence of good. In dualistic understanding evil being a force and good also a force one must out do the other, however in a non dualistic approach God in His goodness and kindness is exercised and the bad is simply the absence of the manifested operation of God's goodness. In this concept, there is no active evil just a failure to do good.

In this approach, good is no long bound to evil as an opposite nor is evil needed to define good. So, if evil is not the opposite of good then what is it? I think the root of evil is fear and evil being an antithesis to love typifies hate. God does not need evil to define or balance good so why do we in defining it? In redefining God we begin to see the life that God gave to us does not depend on man measuring good and evil, pleasure and pain, love and fear, or comparing God and satan. It is evident God is not concerned with these dualistic principles as they seen to detract from God rather than help us gain an understanding of Him.

Consider the verses found in Jeremiah 5:22-25 in conjunction with Matthew 5:44-45. Jeremiah 5:22-25 (NKJV)
22 Do you not fear Me? says the LORD. Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, Yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it.
23 But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart; They have revolted and departed.
24 They do not say in their heart, "Let us now fear the LORD our God, Who gives rain, both the former and the latter, in its season. He reserves for us the appointed weeks of the harvest."
25 Your iniquities have turned these things away, And your sins have withheld good from you.

Matthew 5:44-45 (NKJV) 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That you may be sons of your Father in heaven: for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

One of the things that I want to make apparent in this section is how we tend to confuse the natural law of cause and effect and claim God's chastisement. The concept of cause and effect is a biblical concept know as sowing and reaping (Galatians 6:7). Mankind, when going through a period of trouble and forgetting what got him in the predicament exclaims God is sure chastening me today when in reality they are reaping what they have sown, or more simply put, enduring the consequences of previous actions.

The law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an antecedent cause. As the idea of this law matured its meaning has also been refined. In 1781 Emmanuel Kant said everything that happens presupposes a previous condition. In 1934 W. T. Stace, a professor at Princeton said everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen. In 1977 in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, Robert Jastrow added a much fuller comment still. He says the Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began. In the law of First Cause God alone is the initiator while cause and effect occur outside of God's initiation.

In the article by Robert Clark entitled In the Christ Mind Clark says cause and effect are not two different things as an effect is the manifestation of the cause. The cause first occurs in the mind (Let there be...) which is the birthplace of ideas and thoughts. Everything that exists does so because of a thought (cause) that initiated the effectthe physical demonstration of the thought. God imagined us (cause) and the living soul is the effect. Consider the birth of a child which is the effect and we have the privilege of witnessing the birth of a cause (being the desire for a child). In God we are the glorious birth of His cause (His thought out desire)His intent becoming flesh.

Where are we then? We begin looking for God in a mindset of already being separated by His hand. We are told we are sinners in the sight of God, He is angry with us, and has cast us from His presence. But we quote Psalms 139:1-12 Where shall I go from thy Spirit or where shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up to heaven or if I make my bed in Hellno, in the grave, thou are there. One who accepts the illusion of separation is in their own hell and in this position sees every problem as a punishment from God and the forecast for the world is impending doom now with a date of December 21, 2012.

This is an idea of the depth of the ideology that man is lost from His Creator. Acts 17:26 details the flow of blood through all mankind coming from one blood. Paul goes on to say that in this God that you are not sure who He is rests our causative movement and purpose and he closes with we are all the offspring of this very God (birth of God's cause, His intent, His thought manifested). And then it perhaps makes sense that we have been looking in the wrong place for God. He is not out there but in us. Discover God rather than trying to believe in Him. The Tree of Knowledge has lost its power and its consequences are being brought to an end.

What if we really studied the concept of 'first cause where would we end up? In our viewing the outcomes of cause we allow our perception to alter the real outcome and see God as the instrument of our pain, our sickness, and even death of our loved ones. It is not God being angry but a self imposed effect based on our own actions and interpretation of the cause. In truth, the law of cause and effect has maligned the righteousness of God into something that is even worse than man would do to his offspring