Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The ECK Myth of the (Polarian) Garden of Eden (another look)

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    I found these comments about the Christian Garden of Eden Myth on the Internet. ECKists should ask themselves, Why do they share the same myth/belief?
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 21, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I found these comments about the
      Christian Garden of Eden Myth on
      the Internet. ECKists should ask
      themselves, Why do they share the
      same myth/belief?

      Basically, Twitchell either distorted
      or lied about anything and everything
      in order to create his vocation as a
      modern day master/savior... the EK
      mahanta!

      The similarities between this Eckankar
      myth and the Christian myth allow these
      comments to apply for both religions:

      ***********************************
      "Analysis of the "Garden of Eden," Story

      The Garden of Eden story is principally a creation story fashioned in the
      same style that the Greek story of "Pandora's Box," was written. Curiously,
      both these stories indict the female and her strong inquisitiveness as being the
      sole reason for the fall of humanity. Due to this mistranslation, The Garden of
      Eden story has become one of the most dangerous stories in existence. If it was
      viewed primarily as a harmless story filled to the brim with allegorical
      language, the story would have been bereft of any dangerous consequences.

      Yet, Christianity has besmirched the story with their own arrogance. The
      Jews had never meant for the story to be handled as some literal account of
      creation. Either way, Christianity historically misconstrued the old testament,
      the Torah and forced it to be filled with underlying secret messages that tell
      of their place of supremacy among all the major world religions. If one of the
      noted writers of the Bible who were neither Moses or Abraham were even to have
      heard of Biblical literalism, they would have greeted this absurd idea as
      something that is not just purely idiotic but sacrilegious as well.

      In Sunday School, kids are indoctrinated into the literary falsehood of reading
      text literally and superficially. We are supposed to discredit the rational idea
      of imaginative constructs and denounce those in favor of deluding our mind into
      the idea that Adam and Eve had Godiva hair, insatiable lust issues, and God was
      both tyrannical and petty.

      My main scruple with the creation account was the loony idea that an apple
      literally represented the unacknowledged existence of the polar opposite forces
      of good and evil. Even at the age of six, the idea of an apple literally
      representing those things was pure idiocy. I was accustomed to the force of
      imagination and it was proven to be something worthwhile. It could create some
      very alluring tapestries and stories which promised deeper meaning underneath
      the surface.

      In literary terms, delving below the surface is finding the anagogical meaning.
      Some could interpret this as finding the subtext: What is the true significance
      of this story below the magnetic facade? Many religious individuals misread the
      Bible with an intent to read without the inclusion of their analytical lens.
      Perhaps, the child's mind that has not been naturally worked to utilize this
      cognitive power of seeking true comprehension through questions is a wiser
      method of understanding cryptic Biblical texts.

      When we plunge below the surface, we sense that this story was never meant to be
      a literal, scientific account of creation. Instead, it elaborates upon the
      ineffable place of being in spiritual communion with some benign, enigmatic God.
      The "God," figure within the Creation story is not meant to be a literal God
      just like "Aslan" within Narnia was never meant to be a real deity within the
      imaginary world of Narnia. He's not something our mind can synthesize and even
      constrain with gender specific nouns. He, She, or it might easily be a profound
      supreme being that can only be seen through the human lens of being nonexistent
      in our terms of existence.

      Maybe, our artistic powers endow us with the power to envisage a relational God.
      We feel disconsolate by the unapproachable God, the agnostic God. Therefore, we
      must place him within the framework of a story and then extrapolate the way in
      which he reacts to our vices and mistakes. Whenever God commands something, he
      is the indistinguishable voice of reason or superego within our minds.
      Sometimes, like in Noah's Ark story, God instead could be shaped into someone as
      vengeful and conceited as Noah who never expended any mental energy to empathize
      with all the people who died in this great deluge. Another post of mine will
      show the faults of Noah rather then the benevolent "Noah" who receives so much
      adulation that many Christians have forgotten about the elements of Greek
      tragedy that persist in the Noah tale.

      What can we learn from the "Garden of Eden," story? Perhaps our efforts to
      understand God are thwarted whenever we sought to impose our will on his. The
      true underlying purpose of the "Garden of Eden," myth lies with the
      subversiveness of fettering God to our obstinate will. Whenever we do something
      "in the name of God," we could be doing something definably immoral. But, we
      still beseech our psychological preferred God construct to support us even if we
      are engaging in malicious activities. Is God commonly used as the "ends that
      justified the means," which is the root source of encouragement for our actions?
      Within this Machiavellian equation, God is nothing but a motivator for our
      selfish actions.

      Is this the fall of humanity then? It is not a literal fall as vividly described
      in this myth. Rather, it is a psychological pull towards our selfish cortex that
      resides in our brain. We depart from the enigmatic, wondrous God who is rightly
      higher than our futile systems of languages and constructs. Soon enough, our
      Freudian egos conceptualize a smaller God. When Eve and Adam *[Ede and Adom
      according to Eckankar] are consuming the apple, they are satiating their egos
      with a God that will do their will only. This apple can allow us to hate, maim,
      and ignore the victims of humanity's selfish actions. Instead, our new sovereign
      "ego" God will allow us to be sanctimonious and control those of a lower
      hierarchy with stringent dogmatic rules that are never truly God ordained."

      *Note: My bracketed addition

      Prometheus
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.