Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

[psychoslice]

No, it it is not a sin to seek knowledge in my faith. I am continually "seeking knowledge" (learning stuff). I love to learn. If I stopped learning, what would be the purpose of living?

That
s a good positive way of looking at it, lets be honest, if we are wrong, how can we ever know if we don't search for knowledge ?.

 

[Greatest I am]

Not original sin or an original fall for mankind. All humans are individually responsible for the conscious thoughts they dwell on.

An individual fall through experience and separation. Conscious fracture. At the bottom, there is nowhere to go but up. You'd have to convince me that Eden was the bottom and that Adam wasn't whole before separating. At the top, there is nowhere to go but down. We learn through experience.

Sin means to miss the mark.

We all fall before rising. It's part of learning through experience. It's life.

IE:
For me, it is evil to call anyone a loser or judge anyone.
For you, it is good to call people losers and judge people.

There is a difference between knowing good and evil and having knowledge "OF" good and evil.

When a mind is separated, it cannot make rational judgements usually. It lives in the ego and deception, and cannot properly decipher right from wrong, it is slow to recognize and be aware, blasphemy of the "Holy Spirit" is this.

When a mind is whole, automatic awareness of environment internally and externally is wisdom and knowledge. Christ-consciousness. One becomes one with the absolute and sees life for how it truly is and others as themselves and as an extension of oneself.

Thinking one is "good" and "moral" is a mistake if we are separated of mind.

"The Jews were right and the Christians and you are wrong." A perfect example. A perfect example of a lower mind judging and labeling. They are human beings that have assigned labels to themselves based off of doctrine and religion that separates and divides the two. Strip away the labels that create divide and judgements which you love to make and assume, and the Jew label vanishes and and Christian label vanishes and they both become human beings and no different from each other. Having knowledge "of" these labels is evil, it indirectly creates division and separation based on religious conditioning and doctrine. They are both human beings. It's your "Jew" and "Christian" labels your ego assigns that causes separation and divide between the two.

If you think that a human is the best human when he has no morals sense, and that gaining one is a fall, then we have nowhere to go.

You tell me not to judge while you show quite a poor judgement yourself.

All religions and philosophies try to find the best morals to live life with and that means making judgements that are way more intelligent than your.

Jesus did say judge not, and many use the prostitute scenario to show he did not, but forget that he did judge that she was a sinner.

Regards
DL

 

[Windwalker]

The tree of knowledge to me is the tree of knowledge of everything as all things are subject to good and evil.

So if we are going to understand the trees in the Garden were in fact all knowledge trees, that they were metaphors for types of knowledge since you have one specifically called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by contrast to the other trees, (again I stress it does not say the "tree of knowledge", and leave it at that, but "knowledge of good and evil"), then the question is calling it the tree of the knowledge of "everything" what is meant? Again, I don't think so. I think this is a bit of a force-fit as you saying "all things are subject to good and evil". Are they? What is the "knowledge of good and evil", but a dualistic understanding, the world of opposites?

If you take a high-level overview of what the myth of Adam and Even in the Garden is saying at its core, it is about the awakening of human consciousness to the separate self. It is the myth of Paradise Lost, a fall from grace into separation, death, and suffering. It's a common theme in many culture's origin myths. The theme is about the existential condition of man, longing to reunite with Source, to be freed from death and suffering. So in light of that, when it speaks about eating from that tree, it speaks about a choice to discover ourselves in our own self-knowledge. A dualistic world is a world of suffering. It is the world of "other", of "good and evil". The Upanishads say, "Where there is other, there is fear".

This knowledge is a specific knowledge, not knowledge of "everything". In fact "knowledge of everything" would in fact be omniscience. But omniscience is not a knowledge of facts and figures and all thoughts and ideas. A knowledge of everything is exactly what they had previously in the myth! Omniscience is knowing the true nature of everything. It is the mind of God. I can experience omniscience, in that you see beyond the illusion of separation, the strictly dualistic view of reality held exclusively in conscious awareness. Omniscience sees the truth of the nature of reality, that emptiness is none other than form, and form is none other than emptiness. It is an awareness of Reality, not reading thoughts in the past and future.

Therefore, I liken the myth of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be like the Hindu's concept of Lila, where Spirit throws itself out into the world, into divine ignorance, all the way down the great chain of being, from Spirit, to soul, to mind, to body, to matter until it remembers itself no more. And then it starts the climb back up to knowing itself through form, until it finally awakens to Itself and says, "Oh there you are!", and starts the whole game over again. Eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, is as I said, casting oneself out of Unity as God, into forgetfulness, through which we experience the suffering of aloneness and the desire to reunite with God.

Read the myth of Adam and Eve in light of this, and tell me that doesn't make more sense? Now, I could go into another way read the myth of Eden, that goes slightly the other way. That what was experienced was an awakening to the pain of separation in the way a child first opens his eyes and realizes he is separate from Mother, whom he was fused with in divine slumber, the Oceanic nothingness of infantile bliss, and the eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is awakening to the differentiated self, and the rest of the story is about the ascent to self-knowledge and ultimate unity with God through knowledge of self. Adam and Eve were not thrown out of Eden, the stood up and walked out because they wanted to know God through self-knowledge, and God's warning to them was merely telling them what would happen if they made that choice. Actually I think the two go together.

What do you think?

Knowing good and evil is also having or gaining a moral sense. In this case, as good as Gods.
Gen 3;22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

I think you're thinking too narrowly. The moral sense is of course relative, not absolute. I think it may help you to think in terms of the relationship between the relative and the Absolute. The Absolute is not just the "right" relative point of view. It is not itself another point of view, but transcends relative points of view, not superimposes a great big one on the little ones. To have the knowledge of good and evil as God does would means God is aware of the whole game. Awakening to that is painful. But then release from the world of suffering means you now cannot go back into the mother's womb and sleep in divine ignorance anymore. The way back is barred by death. You can only now move forward, through life, with the goal of awakening and finding release back into the Divine, as a fully awakened soul.

The whole thing is a metaphor for our existential condition, our agnst, and our desire to return to God. But salvation is not to escape the world of suffering, but to awaken to ourselves in the world, in nonduality. "I and my Father are One". It is to eat of the trees in the Garden, trees of the knowledge of Reality itself.

If we cannot agree with these points we are not on the same page.

Which is an opportunity to learn.

 

[Greatest I am]

Again, perfect example of knowledge "of" good and evil.

You are assigning me to and labeling me as a Christian and assuming. I take nothing personal. Another assumption and label of the lower mind.

Homosexual is a label your ego judges and applies to a human being. This is knowledge of "good" for you.

For me, I don't assign or label, I see them as me, and a human being. Anything else, would be evil to me.

That is assigning labels while you say you do not.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Nay...that we make acquisition of knowledge and then die....
doesn't mean the tow events are related in consequence to each other.

One just happens to follow the other.

You could die without learning anything.
Some do.

and God seems to have some room for forgiveness.
Sin can separate you from God....but it might not.

No argument my friend.

FMPOV, we are Gods and we cannot separate us from ourselves. Not the miracle working fantasy God of course.

Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will
precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is
outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves]
will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you
will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

Be rich.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No, it it is not a sin to seek knowledge in my faith. I am continually "seeking knowledge" (learning stuff). I love to learn. If I stopped learning, what would be the purpose of living?

I thought you were a Christian.

If so, your God punished A & E for doing the same thing you are doing did he not?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The desire to reproduce was not resultant of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
That is an assumption. What they experienced after eating was shame. They sensed that somehow they were now unclean.
Remember Jesus is our other example of a perfect man. Are you saying he did not have a sex drive?

What about Jesus saying that Adam and Eve were essentially married by God prior to them eating from the forbidden tree? (Mt 19:4-6)
Sex between married individuals is promoted as something clean in the scripture. Married men are even told to lust after their wives.

May your own fountain (or "water source.") be blessed,
And may you rejoice with the wife of your youth,
A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. (or "ibex.")
Let her breasts satisfy (or "intoxicate.") you at all times.
May you be captivated by her love constantly.
- Proverbs 5:18,19

The fact that Adam and Eve did not have children till after they were kicked out of the Garden is by no means proof that they did not have sex before eating of the forbidden tree.

Is sex not good in some cases and evil in other cases?

Yes it is.

That means that A & E could not have known of sex as the knowledge of it would have been in the tree of knowledge and they had yet to eat of it.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

You also say that Jesus was the other perfect man.

He knew good and evil and Adam did not.

How then, being so different, can you say they were both perfect?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Nicely said, and I seem to agree with all you say, hey!, that's great, someone who talks my language lol.

Welcome fellow Gnostic Christian then.

Where two of us are gathered, even one sometimes, Christian had better look out because we have Jesus and God on our side. Just not the miracle working fantasy God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So if we are going to understand the trees in the Garden were in fact all knowledge trees, that they were metaphors for types of knowledge since you have one specifically called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by contrast to the other trees, (again I stress it does not say the "tree of knowledge", and leave it at that, but "knowledge of good and evil"), then the question is calling it the tree of the knowledge of "everything" what is meant? Again, I don't think so. I think this is a bit of a force-fit as you saying "all things are subject to good and evil". Are they? What is the "knowledge of good and evil", but a dualistic understanding, the world of opposites?

If you take a high-level overview of what the myth of Adam and Even in the Garden is saying at its core, it is about the awakening of human consciousness to the separate self. It is the myth of Paradise Lost, a fall from grace into separation, death, and suffering. It's a common theme in many culture's origin myths. The theme is about the existential condition of man, longing to reunite with Source, to be freed from death and suffering. So in light of that, when it speaks about eating from that tree, it speaks about a choice to discover ourselves in our own self-knowledge. A dualistic world is a world of suffering. It is the world of "other", of "good and evil". The Upanishads say, "Where there is other, there is fear".

This knowledge is a specific knowledge, not knowledge of "everything". In fact "knowledge of everything" would in fact be omniscience. But omniscience is not a knowledge of facts and figures and all thoughts and ideas. A knowledge of everything is exactly what they had previously in the myth! Omniscience is knowing the true nature of everything. It is the mind of God. I can experience omniscience, in that you see beyond the illusion of separation, the strictly dualistic view of reality held exclusively in conscious awareness. Omniscience sees the truth of the nature of reality, that emptiness is none other than form, and form is none other than emptiness. It is an awareness of Reality, not reading thoughts in the past and future.

Therefore, I liken the myth of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be like the Hindu's concept of Lila, where Spirit throws itself out into the world, into divine ignorance, all the way down the great chain of being, from Spirit, to soul, to mind, to body, to matter until it remembers itself no more. And then it starts the climb back up to knowing itself through form, until it finally awakens to Itself and says, "Oh there you are!", and starts the whole game over again. Eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, is as I said, casting oneself out of Unity as God, into forgetfulness, through which we experience the suffering of aloneness and the desire to reunite with God.

Read the myth of Adam and Eve in light of this, and tell me that doesn't make more sense? Now, I could go into another way read the myth of Eden, that goes slightly the other way. That what was experienced was an awakening to the pain of separation in the way a child first opens his eyes and realizes he is separate from Mother, whom he was fused with in divine slumber, the Oceanic nothingness of infantile bliss, and the eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is awakening to the differentiated self, and the rest of the story is about the ascent to self-knowledge and ultimate unity with God through knowledge of self. Adam and Eve were not thrown out of Eden, the stood up and walked out because they wanted to know God through self-knowledge, and God's warning to them was merely telling them what would happen if they made that choice. Actually I think the two go together.

What do you think?


I think you're thinking too narrowly. The moral sense is of course relative, not absolute. I think it may help you to think in terms of the relationship between the relative and the Absolute. The Absolute is not just the "right" relative point of view. It is not itself another point of view, but transcends relative points of view, not superimposes a great big one on the little ones. To have the knowledge of good and evil as God does would means God is aware of the whole game. Awakening to that is painful. But then release from the world of suffering means you now cannot go back into the mother's womb and sleep in divine ignorance anymore. The way back is barred by death. You can only now move forward, through life, with the goal of awakening and finding release back into the Divine, as a fully awakened soul.

The whole thing is a metaphor for our existential condition, our agnst, and our desire to return to God. But salvation is not to escape the world of suffering, but to awaken to ourselves in the world, in nonduality. "I and my Father are One". It is to eat of the trees in the Garden, trees of the knowledge of Reality itself.


Which is an opportunity to learn.

If we can decide who is the teacher and who is the student, for sure.

"Again, I don't think so. I think this is a bit of a force-fit as you saying "all things are subject to good and evil". Are they?"

Down to basics.

I say all things and concepts are subject to the adjectives good and evil.

I cannot name anything that is not.

You seem to think there is yet have not given any examples.

Teach me of something not subject to good and evil. A short list will do.

If we cannot agree on what the tree of knowledge represents then it is hard to proceed.


Regards
DL

 

[Windwalker]

If we can decide who is the teacher and who is the student, for sure.

Why this assume role of student and teacher? Can we not all learn from others? Do you have to assume the position of authority over others? If you do that with me in these areas, you will not get very far. My point is if you've put a lot of thoughts into these things, then we can discuss the merits of each others thoughts and learn from each other. If you want to be "right", then you are wrong already.

I say all things and concepts are subject to the adjectives good and evil.

Good and evil are not inherent qualities in anything. Good and evil are valuations applied to things from the relative perspective of the person evaluating a things worth. To the farmer, the locust storm is evil because it eats his crop. To the locust, the crop is good because it feeds them.

This makes me think of the rabbinical prayer, "Lord, hear not the prayer of the traveler!". The traveler wants good weather, so no rain is "good" to him. But to the farmer who needs the rain, no-rain is "bad". Hear not the prayer of the traveler is to make a relative judgment on what is considered good and what is considered bad. There is no inherent "good" or "bad" to anything.

I cannot name anything that is not.

Then you should have no problem listing a few short things that are inherently good and inherently evil, and then let's see if in fact they really are.

You seem to think there is yet have not given any examples.

I just did. Try this. Death. Is death inherently good, inherently evil, or is it relative good and relatively evil? In other words, it is in and of itself, neutral, neither good nor evil. Death is bad to the one who doesn't want to die. But death is good as it brings about the cycle of life.

You see, all of this "good and evil" has to do with assuming a relative point of view, not just the world of duality, but that of one's own perspective beyond the only true reality. That is the core of the existential problem. You don't see this, do you?

Teach me of something not subject to good and evil. A short list will do.

Everything is not, when viewed from a nondual set of eyes. It just is what it is, and it is us who make it good or evil.

If we cannot agree on what the tree of knowledge represents then it is hard to proceed.

If we are not willing to consider other points of view, it is impossible to grow our knowledge. Isn't that your complaint about the myth of the tree of knowledge?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?

Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?

Regards
DL

It was not knowledge, but knowledge of good and evil which was the sin. To regard as fact what is good and evil, like social darwinists for instance with their racial pseudoscience of eugencis, who perpetrated the holocaust. Good and evil should just be opinion, that with emotions it is expressed what is good and evil.

 

[ChristineES]

I thought you were a Christian.

If so, your God punished A & E for doing the same thing you are doing did he not?

Regards
DL

God punished A & E for disobedience, not for gaining knowledge.
On top of that, most of us don't take the A & E story as a literal story, anyway, but symbolic of something else. And the "tree" they ate of was symbolic of something else entirely. If you read the entire Bible, it is all about having faith.

 

[Greatest I am]

It was not knowledge, but knowledge of good and evil which was the sin.

Focus on the moral issues please.

Are you saying that learning what is good and what is evil is a sin?

Let's take rape.
Why would you not want to know if rape is good or evil and why is knowing which adjective to put to it it a sin?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

God punished A & E for disobedience, not for gaining knowledge.
On top of that, most of us don't take the A & E story as a literal story, anyway, but symbolic of something else. And the "tree" they ate of was symbolic of something else entirely. If you read the entire Bible, it is all about having faith.

If you read your bible, you see where it says that Eve was deceived and only Adam disobeyed.

Strange that Eden is now a symbol of faith when Christians have used it to discriminate against women for so long with their ---- he shall rule over you.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Why this assume role of student and teacher? Can we not all learn from others? Do you have to assume the position of authority over others? If you do that with me in these areas, you will not get very far. My point is if you've put a lot of thoughts into these things, then we can discuss the merits of each others thoughts and learn from each other. If you want to be "right", then you are wrong already.


Good and evil are not inherent qualities in anything. Good and evil are valuations applied to things from the relative perspective of the person evaluating a things worth. To the farmer, the locust storm is evil because it eats his crop. To the locust, the crop is good because it feeds them.

This makes me think of the rabbinical prayer, "Lord, hear not the prayer of the traveler!". The traveler wants good weather, so no rain is "good" to him. But to the farmer who needs the rain, no-rain is "bad". Hear not the prayer of the traveler is to make a relative judgment on what is considered good and what is considered bad. There is no inherent "good" or "bad" to anything.


Then you should have no problem listing a few short things that are inherently good and inherently evil, and then let's see if in fact they really are.


I just did. Try this. Death. Is death inherently good, inherently evil, or is it relative good and relatively evil? In other words, it is in and of itself, neutral, neither good nor evil. Death is bad to the one who doesn't want to die. But death is good as it brings about the cycle of life.

You see, all of this "good and evil" has to do with assuming a relative point of view, not just the world of duality, but that of one's own perspective beyond the only true reality. That is the core of the existential problem. You don't see this, do you?


Everything is not, when viewed from a nondual set of eyes. It just is what it is, and it is us who make it good or evil.


If we are not willing to consider other points of view, it is impossible to grow our knowledge. Isn't that your complaint about the myth of the tree of knowledge?

Greatest I am said: ↑
Teach me of something not subject to good and evil. A short list will do.

You replied:
Everything is not, when viewed from a nondual set of eyes. It just is what it is, and it is us who make it good or evil.

---------------

This type of question answer is why I wanted to engage my way.

You are what I call a long winded specialist, no insult intended, and I am a short winded generalist.

Not a good combination for a discussion. I cannot get into your mind set and I don't know if you can get into mine or nor but it does not look like it.

Regards
DL

 

[Sleeppy]

Knowledge is a tool.. How is it used?

 

[Greatest I am]

Knowledge is a tool.. How is it used?

??

Medical knowledge is used to cure the ill.

Mechanical knowledge is used to fix your car.

Did I misunderstand your question?

Regards
DL

 

[Sleeppy]

Did I misunderstand your question?

Regards
DL

Not if you didn't intend to. You're aware that knowledge is used for both good and evil.

 

[Greatest I am]

Not if you didn't intend to. You're aware that knowledge is used for both good and evil.

Absolutely.

That was never in question.

Are you saying we should keep ourselves stupid and stop our scientific progression just because e some of it might be used for evil purposes.

Flesh out your thoughts with more than one line so that I can know what you are on about.

Regards
DL

 

[Sleeppy]

Are you saying we should keep ourselves stupid and stop our scientific progression just because e some of it might be used for evil purposes.

Regards
DL

Yes and no. We need to direct our search away from evil intent completely, solely toward humanitarian and ecological endeavors.