The Fall
-
93
aum418
"That they are, in reality, two sides of One coin?"
I don't think of One as 2 dimensional, more spherical, but I believe in essence we are saying the same thing...
aum418
"You are beginning to SOUND like Kenneth Grant... incoherent qabalistic identities and speaking of 'entities...' I personally am not fond of this. "
I suppose me being at just a student level sounding like Kenneth Grant is a decent accomplishment
I'm sorry if I offended you. I suppose like I said I am then just a thought passing through- what I was getting at there is it's all just a matter of perspective. How are we to know if anyone truly exists and are not just a figment of our imagination? The same can be said for Left and Right Hand paths: How are we to be sure we are not looking in a mirror? -
I have always thought of the Fall as representing mans worship of form over spirit.
Rather than looking upon God, Adam instead takes a gander at that naked Eve...
Not to be taken as a moral 'fall' , but how people tend to follow what they can see rather than what they believe.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I have always thought of the Fall as representing mans worship of form over spirit.
Rather than looking upon God, Adam instead takes a gander at that naked Eve...
Not to be taken as a moral 'fall' , but how people tend to follow what they can see rather than what they believe."
The Fall has NOTHING to do with Adam 'looking' at Eve. It amazes me that anyone could misread the story this poorly. The Fall occurs from Eve taking a bite from the apple that the serpent shows them and Eve gives the apple to Adam... did you really not know that?
IAO131
-
@aum418 said
"
The Fall has NOTHING to do with Adam 'looking' at Eve. It amazes me that anyone could misread the story this poorly. The Fall occurs from Eve taking a bite from the apple that the serpent shows them and Eve gives the apple to Adam... did you really not know that?
"The first line in the Torah after Adam and Eve eat the apple involves them sewing fig leaves to make covering.
To me, that implies that up until then they had never really looked at one another's bodies.
Since the tree is of 'good and evil' that means it is also of dualities. Before then, it seems to me, that they were 'one' with God and creation. Their eyes looked towards spirit (where all things are united) as opposed to form ( where they appear separate).
-
@Uni_Verse said
"The first line in the Torah after Adam and Eve eat the apple involves them sewing fig leaves to make covering.
To me, that implies that up until then they had never really looked at one another's bodies."
To me, that implies that up until then they had never been ashamed of their nakedness.
-
@Almighty Creator said
"
To me, that implies that up until then they had never been ashamed of their nakedness.
"I always thought of it more as being they never realized they were naked. Before the 'Fall' there was nothing to cover up, there was nothing to be ashamed of (there was no difference).
There still wasn't. But the idea that there was, wormed its way into their minds. Adam and Eve, looking towards each other saw only the differences : one was male, the other female. And so they attempted to conceal that difference by covering their 'nakedness'.
-
In esoteric Christianity, this reference to putting on clothes means MATTER. Before the fall ADAM KADMON was a spiritual being and ruler of the material universe (hence the power of naming of all things) but after the fall he was clothed in matter. That is the usual esoteric interpretation of the clothing, not in morals such as being ashamed, etc.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
@aum418 said
"
The Fall has NOTHING to do with Adam 'looking' at Eve. It amazes me that anyone could misread the story this poorly. The Fall occurs from Eve taking a bite from the apple that the serpent shows them and Eve gives the apple to Adam... did you really not know that?
"The first line in the Torah after Adam and Eve eat the apple involves them sewing fig leaves to make covering.
To me, that implies that up until then they had never really looked at one another's bodies."
Perhaps you should read Genesis closer? Genesis 2:25 says quite clearly "25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Genesis 3:6-7 says clearly, "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings." It says quite clearly that once they ate of the apple, the knowledge of Good & Evil, they felt naked and therefore ashamed. It has nothing to do with them never looking at each other before. In fact, it says clearly that she could see.
@Almighty Creator said
"
To me, that implies that up until then they had never been ashamed of their nakedness."
Quite right as Genesis 2:25 says quite clearly "25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." before the eating of the fruit. I really wish people would take the 30 seconds it takes to read the first 4 or so chapters of Genesis before such speculation as Uni_verse's
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Almighty Creator said
"
To me, that implies that up until then they had never been ashamed of their nakedness.
"I always thought of it more as being they never realized they were naked. Before the 'Fall' there was nothing to cover up, there was nothing to be ashamed of (there was no difference).
There still wasn't. But the idea that there was, wormed its way into their minds. Adam and Eve, looking towards each other saw only the differences : one was male, the other female. And so they attempted to conceal that difference by covering their 'nakedness'."
Again, your "thought" could easily be rectified by reading the actual chapter in Genesis which is really quite short. They realized they were naked, they just weren't ashamed. It wasn't the realizing they were naked or seeing each other that made them ashamed, it was a direct consequence of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
@DavidH said
"In esoteric Christianity, this reference to putting on clothes means MATTER. Before the fall ADAM KADMON was a spiritual being and ruler of the material universe (hence the power of naming of all things) but after the fall he was clothed in matter. That is the usual esoteric interpretation of the clothing, not in morals such as being ashamed, etc."
In one interpretation, the Yod of YHVH is Adam which is the perfect unity (Adam Kadmon before the fall/split). When Y goes through the process of HVH (EVE), it manifests as the World. When they reunite, the 'universe' is 'destroyed' or 'rectified.'
IAO131
-
I am talking about perceptions. How it would appear from their view point.
Yes, it says in 2:25 they were both naked. But does it say that they KNEW they were naked ? No, as it clearly states in 3:7 it is not until partaking of the apple that they come to the realization that they are naked.
(bold added by me in the quotes)@Genesis 3:7 said
"
Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked... "
"Then, a few lines after...
@Genesis 3:9 said
"
HASHEM God called out to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
"@Genesis 3:10 said
"
He (Adam) said "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked, so I hid."
"To which God replies:
@Genesis 3:11 said
"
And He (God) said, "Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree form which I commanded you not to eat?"
"So while they were naked, the difference in their behavior before and after eating the apple clearly shows they were not aware of their nudity.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I am talking about perceptions. How it would appear from their view point.
Yes, it says in 2:25 they were both naked. But does it say that they KNEW they were naked ? No, as it clearly states in 3:7 it is not until partaking of the apple that they come to the realization that they are naked.
(bold added by me in the quotes)@Genesis 3:7 said
"
Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked... "
"Then, a few lines after...
@Genesis 3:9 said
"
HASHEM God called out to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
"@Genesis 3:10 said
"
He (Adam) said "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked, so I hid."
"To which God replies:
@Genesis 3:11 said
"
And He (God) said, "Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree form which I commanded you not to eat?"
"So while they were naked, the difference in their behavior before and after eating the apple clearly shows they were not aware of their nudity."
Seeing as how naked only has meaning when juxtaposed against the opposite/completement of 'clothed,' it seems obvious that they could literally be naked before eating of the fruit but the concept would have no meaning before teh split into dualities. "Naked" has no meaning when it is not differentiated from "Clothed," and so after eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge also allows them... Knowledge. To 'know' that they are X or Y or Z. They were not ashamed because even 'ashamed' is meaningless without 'proud' being juxtaposed next to it...
IAO131
-
@aum418 said
"
Seeing as how naked only has meaning when juxtaposed against the opposite/completement of 'clothed,' it seems obvious that they could literally be naked before eating of the fruit but the concept would have no meaning before teh split into dualities. "Naked" has no meaning when it is not differentiated from "Clothed," and so after eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge also allows them... Knowledge. To 'know' that they are X or Y or Z. They were not ashamed because even 'ashamed' is meaningless without 'proud' being juxtaposed next to it...
"Yes, as I see it before they ate the fruit, the fact that they were naked was meaningless. It was not the naked that stands as a complement/opposite to clothed but rather they were naked because there was nothing to hide and therefore nothing to be ashamed of.
Which is where I derive the idea of the Fall as being Adam , for the first time, looking upon Eve and seeing her as a woman. As, the complement/opposite of knowledge could be said to be ignorance. Having eaten the apple, Adam no longer recognized Eve as a part of him (she having been born from a piece of him ). Instead, he now sees her as something apart, and different from him.
Edit: Could not get the quote to work :X
-
Greetings, this is my first post on this forum (hello AUM418).
If I can return to the question of the Fall, perhaps someone more experienced would be willing to shed light on the theory of emanations (“degenerative monism”) in Kabbalah, namely how does Malkuth result from Kether?
Rabbi Luria’s theory of emanations states that each sephirah on the Tree of Life consists of emanations from the higher sephiroths: Chokmah receives the emanation from Kether, Binah receives the emanations of Chokmah and Kether, Chesed receives the emanations from Binah, Chokmah and Kether, Geburah receives the emanations from Chesed, Binah, Chokmah and Kether, etc and so forth down the Tree until we arrive at Malkuth.
If my understanding is correct, a “blockage” or “degeneration” of emanations occurs at each sephirah that passes down to the lower sephiroths.
My question:
What is the nature of this blockage/degeneration/veiling of emanations occurring at each sephira? -
@h2h said
"Greetings, this is my first post on this forum (hello AUM418). "
Hullo
"If I can return to the question of the Fall, perhaps someone more experienced would be willing to shed light on the theory of emanations (“degenerative monism”) in Kabbalah, namely how does Malkuth result from Kether?"
The Lightning Flash of creation is a traditional answer. The creation of things below the Abyss is often associated with the Fall / the Demiurge.
"Rabbi Luria’s theory of emanations states that each sephirah on the Tree of Life consists of emanations from the higher sephiroths: Chokmah receives the emanation from Kether, Binah receives the emanations of Chokmah and Kether, Chesed receives the emanations from Binah, Chokmah and Kether, Geburah receives the emanations from Chesed, Binah, Chokmah and Kether, etc and so forth down the Tree until we arrive at Malkuth. "
That would be the image of the Lightning Flash.
"If my understanding is correct, a “blockage” or “degeneration” of emanations occurs at each sephirah that passes down to the lower sephiroths. "
Perhaps; this could refer to the Qliphoth which are often said to be the extra excrement of the Sephiroth.
"My question:
What is the nature of this blockage/degeneration/veiling of emanations occurring at each sephira?"Are you asking about in Qabalistic theory or in reality? I would say there is no blockage, degeneration, etc., only the veil of your ignorance (and the veil is simply the complexity of ideas and is smoothed out by Simplicity).
IAO131
-
@h2h said
"If I can return to the question of the Fall, perhaps someone more experienced would be willing to shed light on the theory of emanations (“degenerative monism”) in Kabbalah, namely how does Malkuth result from Kether? [...]
If my understanding is correct, a “blockage” or “degeneration” of emanations occurs at each sephirah that passes down to the lower sephiroths."
I wouldn't agree at all that each successive Sephirah results from a blockage or degeneration of the one before. This presumes something inferior about it - yet, a basic premise of the Tree of Life is that all Sephiroth are equally holy.
"Emanation" (about which you primarily ask) is a pouring forth. (The word literally means "to flow out" - Latin emanare.) This is a creative and progressive act.
And yet, at least in Atziluth, the Sephiroth are said to come into existence simultaneously. (The "Lightning Flash" isn't progressive but, rather, instantaneous / simultaneous.) This may be for so simple a reason as that time doesn't exist in Atziluth and, therefore, all things are eternal (and, thus, simultaneous). But in the lower worlds, there is certainly the appearance of sequentiality.
I think the key concept of how the progressive differentiation occurs is increase in complexity. It's the Tao Teh Ching's differentiation of "the one thing" (in Kether) and "the ten thousand things" (in Malkuth). Multiplicity of expressions of the life-force coexists with increased differentiation and specialization, and a progressively more complex-seeming whole.
If the Sephirothic numbers are taken as the number of geometric points under review, then the number of dimensions inferred is always one less than the number of the Sephirah. (For example, Chesed, or 4 points, represents the emergence of 3-dimensional space. Gevurah, or 5 points, signifies 5-dimensional space.) This holds up well analytically as far as Tiphereth, at which point it becomes pretty unmanageable; but it does give a sense of how the process is set in motion. Each new idea exists at right-angles to the whole of the prior. Ultimately this is not a change of content or form, merely of point of view. It's an extension of the basic 0=2 equation: There is really nothing changed when 0 becomes 2 or 2 becomes 0 except the way you're looking at it.
-
Aum418, Jim – thanks for your replies.
If emanation is a creative and progressive force that increases in complexity down the Tree, why should it stop at Malkuth rather than continuing down into unknown realms of ever-increasing dimensional complexity? Where is the limiting or restricting force to the creative act of emanation? Or is Malkuth as the “lowest” sephiroth merely a perception of our world and the ten sephiroths a relative frame of reference?
Further, I don’t quite understand how the sephiroths can increase in complexity down the Tree yet ultimately not change in form, merely in point of view.
My question is aimed at trying to understand Malkuth, how it is constituted, since the alchemical Great Work is to “fix the volatile and volatilize the fixed” (i.e. materialize spirit and spiritualize matter).
-
@h2h said
"If emanation is a creative and progressive force that increases in complexity down the Tree, why should it stop at Malkuth rather than continuing down into unknown realms of ever-increasing dimensional complexity?"
Observation in the field of Malkuth those us that there is increasing complexity, and layers of complexity. This leads to the conclusion that by "Malkuth" we mean a field large enough to include a wide range of ever-increasing complexity.
This doesn't mean that there isn't anything more complex, though it may mean that there isn't anything more complex that the human psyche can grok. I'm drawn to the view that, within the term "Malkuth" (a Kingdom being a realm of diverity) there is anticipation of all subsequent magnitudes of complexity.
"Further, I don’t quite understand how the sephiroths can increase in complexity down the Tree yet ultimately not change in form, merely in point of view. "
Look at some object head-on, up close, so that you only see one side of it. If it has a flat surface, it will actually look two-dimensional. Then pull back and see the whole of the object so that it actually looks 3D to you. The object hasn't changed but, within actual perception (rather than ideation) your experience of it has changed.
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Asraiya said
"93 I think the concept of "the fall" comes more from Kenneth Grant than Crowley and there's often confusion between the Left hand path and Black brothers"The concept of the "Fall" comes, without a doubt, from Judaism and spread by Christianity & Islam in peculiar ways.
"t?"
1"
wasn't it a Gnostic concept? Demiurge etc
-
I'm going to reiterate my recommendation of Elaine Pagels's Adam, Eve, and the Serpent -- she really gives a thorough and entertaining history of the way the Biblical story of the fall has been viewed throughout history. (Just get it from a library.)