THREE

A DIALOGUE OF THE AGES

The experience of awakening higher consciousness within us is as old as the stories of the gods. The fact that the concept is rarely considered in our time is a sobering reminder of how limited the approach of Western culture has been to the difficult questions of reality. In our time we seem confined to differentiating between the dichotomy of “reality” and “illusion.” Those interested in questions of reality therefore must endeavor to reestablish a fully dimensional perceptual world to provide a context for the wisdom that is embedded in ancient myths. Despite one’s impulses to take action that could remedy this situation, history shows that our natures are not readily open to the required sense of order, even when we believe the undertaking to be of great importance. However, it is sometimes seen, in studying one’s direct experiences, that our personal impulses to take action can cooperate in creating a requisite level of being.

That special part of our natures that connects with the requisite level of being is spiritual. Spiritual nature is continually opposed by the illusory. We seem adrift in a sea of uncertainty that suggests that this area of our nature has its own illusions. The solid ground of reality is clearly not easy to discover. The desire to clarify our wish for this higher consciousness is the main reason for studying ancient myths. The important objective for readers is awakening to see the illusory world in which we live our daily lives.

One of the oldest and best known of the Hebrew myths deals precisely with this important question. The story of Adam and Eve contained in the second and third chapters of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament can be seen to relate to the story of the creation of humankind. But in paying special attention to the translation of this passage, we may discern certain lessons about what constitutes illusion and what is the nature of true knowledge.

The Kabbalistic studies of the Hebrew texts specify four levels of interpretation: literal, allegorical, moral, and esoteric. We prefer to use the term hieroglyphic rather than moral. This is similar to R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz’s concept of the symbolique (Symbol and the Symbolic). The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden can be viewed with these four levels in mind. While many interpretations scarcely go beyond the literal, there can be little doubt of the great possibilities the story offers as symbolism, and many books have been written in explanation of one view or another. It is an important and familiar example of an ancient myth and is, therefore, an appropriate place to test our perceptions.

French author, poet, and composer d’Olivet (1767–1825) interpreted the story of the Garden of Eden in The Hebraic Tongue Restored.1 The Garden of Eden story directly follows the principal Hebrew myth of the creation of the world, thus implying questions about the place of humans in this creation. At a literal level these passages can be taken simply as a description of the creation of physical bodies, such as the planets (figure 3.1 below), but the Sumerian and Egyptians myths previously discussed remind us that the myths are concerned with an esoteric process of creation of our inner selves. Only through a process of self-creation or opening are we able to undertake a deeper inquiry into the meanings of our experiences in the world. Through mythology, readers of this book should be able to distinguish between the “institutional” renderings commonly encountered in the everyday world and the point of view that we have been undertaking in our explorations in this book.

In the following passages we undertake an experiment in using dialogue. From the Upanishads of India to the dialogues of Plato, a most important ancient literary vehicle for conveying the meaning and flavor of philosophical stories that were once recited to audiences has been the presentation of their content in the form of conversations between a pupil and teacher. This device allows the reader a measure of objectivity in the point of view of the story that may not appear in a more direct confrontation between reader and writer. We therefore propose to listen in on a conversation between two friends who, because of their celestial stature, communicate over a span of especially large geographies and times. In addition, because of differences in their “ages,” they bring different perspectives to the exchange of esoteric knowledge.

A Conversation between Friends

Aquarius crossed the star garden and seated himself near his aging friend Pisces. Pisces felt the younger individual’s presence, and a more relaxed breathing filled his aging frame. A few moments passed before the younger man broke the easy silence.

“I have looked at the Hebrew stories of which you spoke,” Aquarius said, “and I need to ask you about the questions they have aroused in me. I understand that the God who created humankind must introduce his creation, Adam, to the laws of the universe, but some of these seem to be merely restrictions of Adam’s freedom for which I cannot see the reason. Because he is created an individual, do the stories intend to point out his need to develop a sense of responsibility for his own actions?

“I also see that all of the living beings he meets in the garden must have been influenced by forces acting at many different levels. But what is this figure the story calls the snake? I don’t understand it or why it speaks to Eve rather than Adam. How in this incident is Adam related to her actions? Is he just an innocent bystander who unwittingly agreed to bite forbidden fruit? And why should the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge be forbidden anyway? How could a genuine knowledge of good and evil bring shame and fear?

Figure 3.1. Jupiter as seen through the pillars of the Hypostyle Hall in the Luxor Temple, Egypt.

“I don’t understand how what is called ‘the fall’ could be considered a fall from grace. Why was it not just an awakening awareness of their newly created state of being alive? I have to ask myself if they were so ignorant of their underlying animal natures that they could not accept they would have urges that would be felt at various levels within themselves. Is there something missing in their natures that is being hinted at, but is not yet known by them without special help?”

Aquarius continued, “I see hints of a deeper meaning in these stories, but many of the images are so indistinct that it is difficult to understand them. Apparently their power to evoke understanding is so strong that they have been preserved from the beginning of the time of Aries; perhaps Moses even took them from an earlier teaching! But they raise more questions than answers for me. Is it possible for me to comprehend what is contained in them? Or are the meanings deliberately hidden from us? Could I learn to make such stories my own?”

Pisces smiled. In the brief overlap of their lives he had been able to taste youth again in the intensity of his young friend’s desire to get directly to the heart of questions. He had also glimpsed the signs of insight that spoke of new possibilities. He found reason for hope in his friend’s openness.

“You have begun a most difficult inquiry,” Pisces said. “I recall that you’ve told me many times how you have seen that new understanding depends on a special relation between what is perceived as coming from without and what lies within. Real perceptions pass so quickly! I am sure that the insights you seek can be found, but they require great patience and effort.

“At the same time, you are right to be wary that original meanings may be buried or obscured. This often happens in repeated transcriptions and translations, and may be unintentional. Those who wrote down and those who translated the Hebrew in the accounts that are known today were as constrained by their own times and experiences as we are. Even so, we need to be on our guard against reading them in an ordinary way. It is necessary to search oneself for meaning as thoroughly as one searches the texts. Meanings at first hard to discern are often invitations to special efforts of pondering. The results of the efforts show better than anything else whether the old texts have remained true to the original intentions.”

Pisces’ remarks led Aquarius to recall the joy of discovery he had found in moments of earlier learning, but the sense of again being surrounded by invisible barriers was strong. He felt caught and unable to respond to the urge to reach out and grasp something new. “When I try the hardest to approach these ideas, they seem the most elusive,” he replied. “They continually slip beyond my grasp! They almost seem to mock my efforts to capture a new idea.

“I know that when the new perceptions arise they are not really ‘mine,’ but they are something in which I participate,” Aquarius continued. “And it is true that a sense of sharing in them does not arise at all unless I have been trying. And so the feeling that I must try harder arises despite my best wishes. The paradox I see is that this trying harder creates tensions that continually pull me away from my intentions to be open to the images!”

“Yes,” answered Pisces. “When this happens to us we feel sympathy for Tantalus, eternally punished in Tartarus. His conditions were more like ours than we like to think. He was prevented from satisfying his hunger or thirst, and continually reminded of the impossibility of grasping objects that seemed so close at hand. Even after repeated trying we are sometimes unable to satisfy our desires, let alone our real needs. Yet, even without the power to change our circumstances by ourselves there is still within us a sense of other possible approaches, perhaps even the path of learning how to remove ourselves from desires!

“There seems to me to be a kind of magnetism in our world that helps to orient our efforts,” continued Pisces. “With patience and the determination to relax and be open to the present, opportunity arises. This state may enable us to learn how to use the help that is offered to us.”

“I have experienced something like that in the past,” said Aquarius with visible relaxation. “But how do I address this strong feeling that something of great importance calls to me, and yet I do not know how to approach it?”

“I believe we need to accept that there may be an order in our learning that perhaps cannot be seen except with help,” replied Pisces. “But it is difficult for us. Being helped depends on influences that are not obvious. In part it even depends on finding the right material at the right time.

“There is a lawful sequence in which important ideas can be assimilated, and that sequence was expressed in tales that belong to a long tradition. Perhaps it is useful to realize that the Hebrew texts from the Age of Aries echo even older sacred writings of the ancient Egyptians in the Age of Taurus. According to ancient knowledge, not only the stories but also the words themselves have been constructed with such care that where the originals are still accessible, the meanings intentionally placed in them long ago can still help us reach new levels of understanding.

“The method used by the ancients allowed for the transmission of thoughts of the most subtle nature by the important device of drawing on the inner knowledge of the inquirer. As can be seen in the Egyptian hieroglyphs and ancient Hebrew, each glyph, like the words themselves, stands for a concept that we need to understand at different levels of interpretation: literal, allegorical, hieroglyphic, even esoteric! The concepts at each level are in turn linked with others to form a new concept that embodies the parts, yet is greater than their simple sum. It is said that the positions of the glyphs in relation to each other, both their order and their interaction, also impart meaning.

“While it sounds complicated when it is described in this way, there is actually a simplicity and directness about the technique, provided the reader understands the invitation to participate in the story. It is a very old technique, strongly related to the oral traditions that are so rare now. Its simplicity allows subtlety and exactness without the need for restrictive definitions. Meaning arises from the very lack of limitation rather than from the logician’s narrow propositions.

“There is the possibility here of the kind of deep meaning that in the present day is commonly encountered only in poetry, music, and painting. Certain concepts seem unapproachable in any other way.”

As Pisces spoke, Aquarius felt his attitude gradually change from one of anxiety to a sense of the larger order he had felt in a recent moment of discovery.

Aquarius then continued, “What you say reminds me of the feelings I first had when I was trying to ‘hear’ the internal sound of the Hebrew word for God, Jehovah or IHOAH (: Yod/Heh/Vav/Heh).*5 At one point I found an unexpected correspondence with the Egyptian god word IA-AW (). Something in the flow of the sounds that connect the glyphs convinced me that in each of the languages the names have arisen from the same source.

“My experiences made it seem almost possible for me to share in the understanding of peoples of ancient times simply through the internal repetition of the sounds. It is strange, because we cannot even be sure how the ancients spoke these words! Yet I know that they must have felt in the sound of these sacred words something of what I felt in trying to approach their meaning—it seemed like a movement or music inside me.”

“Yes,” replied Pisces. “I am sure that we can and do communicate in this way. Real knowledge certainly does not depend on the simple concepts of learning a new fact. What you have said about the sounds used for sacred words by the Egyptians and Hebrews is true of sounds used by many peoples. It was true of the god words used in ancient Sumer and can still be heard today in god names used by the Inuit of North America. Acquiring deeper knowledge through sound is not based on contrived ideas gleaned from early peoples or on the mechanical properties of human speech. It depends more on the sincere efforts of ordinary individuals who seek to relate to the higher levels of perception called ‘God.’ It seems that at the present time, in so-called scientific explanations, there is little recognition of the need to distinguish what is above from what is below, the higher consciousness from the lower such as morality. Until this is realized it is very difficult for anyone to learn from the great traditions.”

“How can I gain a better sense of the breadth of understanding that must be represented in these ancient stories?” asked Aquarius. “The sense of meaning that arises from the names for the gods makes me feel that there must be much more to be understood. What about the meanings of the other ancient words? Could I learn to understand their meaning?”

Pisces thought for a moment and then began. “I believe that the particular words you noticed show quite precisely how both the Egyptians and Hebrews approached sacred language. Studying them may help us see just how one might extend the analysis and appreciation to other words. The Egyptian god word you mentioned, which conveys the meaning of ‘the One who is the source of all being,’ consists of two parts.*6 The first part, IA (), conveys the idea of Supreme Being by the joining of two sounds: I (), which literally means ‘me,’ and A (; figure 3.2 below), which means ‘not me.’ At the figurative level for A, the sign corresponds with the Hebrew glyph Aleph, which is used to evoke a sense of universality. Their combined meaning in the Egyptian root is best seen in other words. For example, the Egyptian word for brain is ‘AIS’ (  ), in which the added glyph S () introduces the meaning of discrimination, or distinction. Thus the word for brain quite literally signifies it as the place in which we can distinguish ‘not me’ from ‘me.’ The glyphs in reverse order form the word SIA (), which means ‘the intelligence of the heart.’ Taken together, these different usages suggest that it is possible with patience and silence to work toward both the allegorical and hieroglyphic levels of understanding of a word such as IA.

Figure 3.2. Egyptian hieroglyph AS. British Museum.

“In the second part of the word, ‘AW’ (), we find the A () repeated, but now it is reinforced by the vowel sound, W (). This sound conveys a sense of place or perspective. The combination suggests the concept of the place of manifestation of universal being: IA-AW (). In this way, the word directs attention to the special intelligence in us—an inner sense of presence. Prolonged study and awareness of this presence can lead to the manifestation of the Supreme Being within us as individuals. Clearly the ancients saw this occurring through our ability to distinguish between what is ‘me’ and ‘not me.’ The silent breathing of the vowel ‘sound’ is a particularly important aspect of the spoken word.

“We see something similar in the Hebrew word IHOAH () with the repetition of the glyph Heh (), which refers directly to a sense of ‘being.’ Heh is pronounced with a soft exhalation of breath. The repetition of the Heh sound in the Hebrew root (: Heh/Vav/Heh) acts in somewhat the same way as the repetition of A () in the Egyptian word IA-AW. In the Hebrew word this is an important combination that further develops the concept of ‘being.’ The glyph Yod (), with its sense of the potential for manifestation, has the force of the Egyptian short I sound, which is often left unwritten. The concept of perspective conveyed by Vav () signifies the point that separates nothingness from being. So this simple Hebrew word also seems intended to evoke the idea of ‘the place of being’ within the individual.

“By seeing all these ways of communicating in both sound and form, we begin to perceive the scope of the truths that are presented in these ancient sacred texts. In much the same way that you glimpsed them in your initial readings, some of the translations support the possibility of sensing the concepts directly through the beauty of their poetic expression. But movement from the literal to the deeper levels of meaning needs the support of further content. The meaning incorporated in the glyphs helps to serve this need.

“What we always seem to forget is that finding meaning in either the form or the sound of any word can take place only if we have prepared ourselves for it. And even then it is very important to remember that the effort of attention has to be jointly directed toward both the words that are being examined and toward us as examiners. Understanding cannot be the responsibility of the texts alone!”

Aquarius heard these explanations with a growing sense of appreciation for the prospects that were opening in front of him. “Yes, I see that these books of Moses can lead to the evocation of profound images. If only I could learn how to read them!”

“We could perhaps learn much that is important for us from the ancient texts,” replied Pisces. “But special problems may arise when we are unable to gain access to the original languages. Take, for example, the third book of Moses to which you referred, with its story of ‘the fall,’ or what is sometimes called ‘the temptation in the Garden.’ We must respect the understanding of the early translators in relation to their time. But important meanings may have been lost, so to understand what has been said we need to have help from the original texts. Fortunately, they seem to have been most carefully preserved, even if not well understood.

“You referred earlier to the three principles in the story: Adam, Eve, and the snake. We have access to the original three-glyph names used in the Hebrew text, which are Adam, Ashah, and Nahash. In Hebrew the names are spelled as:

Adam: Aleph/Dalet/Mem ()

Ashah: Aleph/Shin/Heh ()

Nahash: Nun/Het/Shin ()

“Each of the individual glyphs stands for concepts or qualities. But even without knowing this we can see that Adam and Ashah share the ‘Aleph’ quality, and Ashah and Nahash share the ‘Shin’ quality. Each of these qualities is combined with other glyphs that give the words their whole meaning.

“We can try to approach a more comprehensive understanding by looking at the concepts suggested by the individual glyphs. For example,

Aleph/Dalet/Mem suggest:	Universality/Divisibility/Passive movement
Aleph/Shin/Heh suggest:	Universality/Active movement/Being
Nun/Het/Shin suggest:	Individuality/Relative existence/Active movement

“At best these ‘meanings’ are only approximate abbreviations for the concepts represented by the glyphs. But if we begin with something like them it is possible to start to understand.”

“It appears strange to me,” said Aquarius, “that by the glyphs Adam is associated with passive movement, while Ashah is active movement. If Adam is a man and Ashah is a woman, are their traditional roles deliberately reversed in this story?”

“No one translation conveys the full sense of the original,” replied Pisces. “Where the translators have lost contact with the intentions of the original, it is a law of the universe that the direction is also lost, and what appears is manifested in an opposing direction. While some of the translations maintain this intention in other ways, in the original Hebrew the story is explicit about important relationships. But this is so nearly completely lost in our time as to require a new understanding, a kind of shock to our way of seeing, before the intended meanings can be rediscovered.

“In an earlier chapter of these books of Moses it was shown that because Adam, the Universal Man, was created in the image of God, he had within him both active and passive principles. However, in tracing the evolution of Adam from the Universal Man, when he was first created, to the Adam found in chapter 3 of Genesis, the translations have emphasized the literal aspect, which encourages us to see him as a physical being. In this false sense, if Adam is a man, then Ashah, Adam’s ‘helpmeet,’ must be a woman.

“We have to be careful not to let the more recent translators’ emphasis on the literal cloud a wider perception. For example, once they were committed to Adam and Eve as man and woman, there was no room left to recognize the aspect of Adam that the original called Aish (Aleph/Yod/Shin: ). It is a Hebrew word that also means ‘man.’ Failure to distinguish Aish from Adam causes many problems. For example, in the creation of Ashah the story uses one aspect of the whole Adam, an aspect called Tsalla (Tsade/Lammed/Ayin: ). The translators called this the ‘rib.’ However, when the concept relating to the Tsal glyph was introduced much earlier in the story, it actually represented a particular relationship between God and man. It is reminiscent of what the Egyptians called the image, or sekhem, and later psychology calls ‘the shadow.’ By not recognizing this relationship, translators missed some of the special qualities of Tsalla. The translation then failed to allow recognition of the properties of Aish that are, in fact, prime attributes of collective humanity, perhaps essential to the wish for action that characterizes this less general level of being.

“A recognition of Aish and his potential for manifestation, as represented in Yod (), as well as active movement conveyed by Shin (). assists us in understanding the relation between Aish and Ashah in the tasting of the apple. Adam, Aish, and Ashah are three interrelated principles that are important at different levels of being and are not confined to the qualities of the masculine and feminine. Overemphasis on gender qualities limits the usefulness of the story as a guide to the search for a deeper understanding.”

“What is the role played by this unperceived Aish in relation to Adam and Ashah?” asked Aquarius. “Is the fact that three forces are involved of importance here?”

Pisces paused for a moment before replying. “The idea is certainly important,” he began. “But we should first consider the figure of the serpent, Nahash. You will notice in the meanings of the glyphs that Nahash alludes to the idea of the separate individual, what has been called ‘the repose of existence,’ perhaps an expression of what in narrower, modern terms is sometimes called our nature and in psychological terms the ego.2

“If we look a little deeper we can see that our wish for individuality, represented by Nahash, suggests to Ashah, representing our wish for creative action, that it is better to eat of the fruit heh-etz (), which grows on the Tree of Knowledge (figure 3.3), than to feed on the usual nourishment, etz-heh (), which is available elsewhere in the Garden. The reversal in the order of the syllables in these Hebrew words gives rise to a particularly important contrast of ideas.

“As we noted earlier, the glyph Heh () means ‘being.’ The syllable etz () conveys the idea of physical substance or materiality. Thus if ‘materiality’ is given precedence over ‘being,’ as in the ordinary fruit etz-heh, ordinary nourishment takes place. Something very different must be true when precedence is given to ‘being’ as with the fruit hehetz from the Tree of Knowledge!

“In the original story, Adam had been cautioned to maintain a diet of etz-he if he was not to face death. This new fate has been translated elsewhere as if he was not to ‘face unavoidable death’3 or be ‘doomed to die.’4 By eating of the fruit heh-etz, it is Ashah, together with Aish, who attain the knowledge of the gods, knowledge that is necessary for them if they are to see the void that they are—living their lives in sleep.

“By taking into account some of these aspects of the originals, it is possible to see that the story is speaking of forces that are manifested in us in different ways at different levels. At one level these forces may create a tension between such apparent opposites as the need for individuality and the requirement for unity. However, when they are put together as conflicting movements within a single individual, they become elements that need to be balanced within us. Instead of elements opposed to one another, they may become the active and passive forces through which the third force is able to achieve the balance that is a sign of the appearance of a new level of understanding.

Figure 3.3. A tree of nourishment, from the tomb of Tuthmosis III, Valley of the Kings, Luxor, Egypt.

“The ancient writers appear to require that the readers recognize the oneness from which new being arises within us. They saw that in human attempts to make a whole from its parts, we miss the third quality or force that raises the parts to the level of possible participation in the whole. The process is a little like trying to reassemble into life an organism that has been dissected, when all one has are dead parts. The story points to the necessity for a third force, perhaps the unifying force that resides only in Adam, who was the original creation in the image of God.”

After a brief pause to take stock, Pisces continued. “But the story explores these ideas even further. We need to recognize that special difficulties arise when we wish for a relationship between individual and collective existence. Did Nahash, by leading Ashah to taste of the forbidden knowledge, feel the urge to strive toward a knowledge of unity at one level at the expense of a connection with the source of life at another? Did Ashah forget her wholeness in responding to her creative volition? Did the original story intend to remind us of these different levels of being and to question our perceptions of the conditions for their existence? Like Prometheus’s fire stolen from the gods, which when given to humans can both warm and burn, the precious nourishment derived from the forbidden tree can either nourish or poison, depending on the state of the receiver. The fruit heh-etz can thus in one case result in despair at the sight of one’s nothingness. This would certainly be the case if one holds to the merely personal. On the other hand, it may give rise to great hope if a sense of awareness of a presence greater than the personal has been allowed to remain alive in us.”

As Aquarius pondered this insight, the silence grew to several moments. Then he began, “At the level above my usual individuality, I have a sense of my incompleteness. In some ways it even seems that in seeing what I am not, I am better able to appreciate my possibilities, rather than take for granted that I possess special qualities. Can we actually comprehend the universal without an awareness of this lack in ourselves?”

“I believe that what you say is of utmost importance,” said Pisces, “That may be why the Hebrew story speaks of a necessary or unavoidable death. Could the personality of an individual, by itself, be expected to understand its own death as a necessary step for transformation? The story reminds us that the knowledge of the meaning of death, like that of life, is truly god knowledge, which cannot be sustained by ordinary nourishment—at least, not by the isolated aspects of personality.”

Aquarius understood that it was beyond his capacity to grasp fully, even as the impression settled. “It is a wonder to me,” he said, “that Adam, Ashah, and Nahash could be said to be cursed for this acquisition of knowledge.”

“You are right!” exclaimed Pisces. “Again, perceptions are too often clouded by our habit of reducing the unknown to the level of our ordinary living, rather than allowing the glimpse of what is higher to lift us above our usual understanding. What is translated as ‘curse,’ the word arour (Aleph/Resh/Vav/Resh: (), is based on the repeated letter Resh (), which stands for renewal, so the word conveys the possibility of a return to one’s real fate. What has been treated in the translations as a sentence passed by a merciless god on his disobedient creations might better be seen as a statement of their possibility of perceiving their ‘incompleteness.’ Is it then possible that their proper function could be a better experience of themselves in relation to additional levels of consciousness?

“It must be remembered that IHOAH/AELOHIM proclaims that the desires of Ashah will cling to Aish, not to Adam. Aish represents the capacity for manifestation and action, and he is the one who Ashah, the creative spirit, will take as the ‘ruler’ in their future joint life. This is a long way from the literal rendering that saw only a dictum that a woman would be condemned to be bound to a man. This need for a union is further emphasized later in the story when the Nahash, the ‘snake,’ is told that in the world outside the Garden, the children ‘will strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.’ Of course, the separate parts of an individual can only be seen to fight if they remain separate from one another. IHOAH/AELOHIM appears to be instructing Adam, and all his aspects, in the universal law that no evolution is possible without the effort that is required to bring our parts into relationship with one another. As humans, we must suffer the many separate aspects of ourselves that are not pleasant to see. But the seeing itself may be the only means of finding the objectivity that permits a conscious striving for a return toward the unity that is found at the level of the gods.

“If these stories can be interpreted as speaking to us of the burdens and sufferings of a conscious person, it is not so hard to understand why great efforts have been made throughout the ages to preserve and interpret them. Humankind in all ages has searched for the best ways to express the wish to try to live responsibly.”

The pair again fell silent. Aquarius searched his experiences for the elusive echoes of the truth that they seemed to have just touched, but that were already becoming faint memories. The conversation had come far from his initial questions. While he felt the challenge to make these things more explicit to himself, there was at the same time a sense that the real world was there to touch him and to be touched by him, as though it were the unfamiliar essence of a new age.

Pisces recognized his effort. “I have tried to share with you something about the ways in which I, in my time, have learned that we might begin to perceive meaning in one small portion of these ancient writings of Moses. These perceptions seem to follow naturally from our efforts at creating self-awareness. You will have to go back to your home and life. That is where you can verify for yourself the lessons in the stories. I see that you already understand that there is much more to be seen, that you have the wish to see it, and that you have begun to understand how to work toward fulfilling that wish. It is most necessary to become familiar with what stands in the way of fresh perceptions.”

Aquarius rose, and as he turned to leave, he tripped over a falling star and made a wish.

Final Comments

Perhaps it is always the same: attentively listening in on a conversation in which we are not participants leads to unexpected results. The subjects of main concern to the participants in this discussion may have initially seemed well circumscribed. But as the discussion proceeded, it diverged into new areas that were not foreseen—or at least had not been pointed out in the earlier parts of Genesis. While we will not return to the questions that arose during the conversation, it is certainly appropriate here to make reference to the themes of Genesis and to recognize one theme that is especially important for this chapter. It concerns the difficulty of distinguishing between “reality” and “illusion.”

We need to recognize that teachers have been emphasizing the literal meanings of ancient stories because they have no access to the early accounts and have little basis for critiquing or truly understanding them. The ancient accounts are thus treated as just “stories,” told as entertainment rather than as learning tools.

The reinterpretations made possible by Pisces in his answers to Aquarius serve a quite different purpose here. In the first place, we hope they might suggest lines of inquiry about this particular myth that would lead well beyond the level of entertainment. We hope to supplement it with additional myths in succeeding chapters. Readers may be interested in pursuing private study in this vein or in sharing observations with other interested parties.

What we have not emphasized, however, is a second concern that a totally mistaken view may have been promulgated largely through the inevitable loss of meaning that has accompanied the wide dissemination of all stories, particularly those that became parts of freely available religious texts. Of course, it helps to be aware that all literature is liable to the forces of dissipation that our society calls “entropy.” This includes the physical loss of written material, poor translations from different languages, direct modification by the religious leaders, and so forth. The ancient Egyptians were especially sensitive to this particular problem and went so far as to recognize it as inevitable, as a universal neter of nature. The tendency for our works all to be subject to entropy was recognized as one of the most important of all. It is represented in Egyptian myths and illustrations by the god Seth, brother of Osiris. We shall have more to relate about them and their myths later in this book.

We wish here, however, to draw attention to one aspect of the danger of illusion. This problem arises when the search for word interpretation takes us down unhelpful deviations from our central path. By looking at the myths of Genesis along with the Sumerian and Egyptian creation myths, we explore a body of parallel literature that we believe provides us with a perspective on the succession of civilizations over millennia. The challenges of understanding myths represented in Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs persist into the challenges of interpreting the Bible in spite of it being presented to us in our modern day English. It is our impression from an all-too-superficial acquaintance with the writings of d’Olivet, with respect to the Old Testament, that the realization of the problems of communicating through long periods of time and across very different cultures is in keeping with many other areas of investigation.5 They are of such magnitude that one almost despairs of being able to undertake sufficient study of all of them and to truly make the remarkable results that surface a part of one’s own understandings.

It is, of course, the age-old problem of communication that serves to remind us of the duality of all our perceptions—esoteric and exoteric, internal and external, reality and illusory. This external study of myth can help one to find the place within us that is discovered through them. The study of such opposites leads to discoveries that are supported by insights that lift us to an unexpected level of understanding, maybe even an awakening of higher consciousness. We cannot help but comment on the great good fortune that seems to be ours in this age, the beginning of the twenty-first century, when such new discoveries, both external and internal, seem to be more and more frequent. We wish here to draw additional attention to the importance of maintaining the internal quiet patience that is necessary if we are to find ourselves in the sudden presence of new perceptions.