Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

It is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which means that it brings awareness of the opposites, the specific feature of consciousness. Thus, according to this myth… consciousness is the original sin, the original hybris.

Edinger identifies the Tree’s fruit as the archetypal symbol of consciousness-as-awareness-of-opposites, reading the Fall as the mythic encoding of ego-birth and the estrangement from pre-conscious wholeness.

Edinger, Edward F., Ego and Archetype: Individuation and the Religious Function of the Psyche, 1972thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

When you eat the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, however, you know about pairs of opposites, which include not only good and evil, light and dark, right and wrong, but male and female, and God and Man as well.

Campbell interprets the eating as the mythological inauguration of dualistic consciousness, marking the expulsion from primal unity and raising the question of how humanity may return to that wholeness.

Campbell, Joseph, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor, 2001thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Because of this the knowledge of good and evil was an insurmountable curse. But if you return to primal chaos and if you feel and recognize that which hangs stretched between the two unbearable poles of fire, you will notice that you can no longer separate good and evil conclusively.

Jung’s Red Book frames moral knowledge as a paradoxical curse that can be transcended only in the living experience of growth, where the opposition of good and evil momentarily dissolves.

Jung, Carl Gustav, The Red Book: Liber Novus, 2009thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

There is a great and unutterable difference between the tree of life and the one which is not the tree of life… the tree of the knowledge of good and evil… Unquestionably, the tree of life is productive of life; the tree that is not called the tree of life… is obviously productive of death.

Maximos the Confessor establishes a categorical theological hierarchy between the two trees, equating the Tree of Knowledge with mortality and opposing it to Wisdom, which alone is life-giving.

Palmer, G. E. H. and Sherrard, Philip and Ware, Kallistos (trs.), The Philokalia, Volume 4, 1995thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

It is on account of this, I think, that the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For only those fully established in the practice of divine contemplation and virtue can have concourse with things strongly attractive to the senses without withdrawing their intellect from the contemplation of God.

The Philokalia reads the Tree as the domain of sensory experience, permissible only for those already grounded in divine contemplation, making its danger a function of spiritual immaturity rather than intrinsic evil.

Palmer, G. E. H. and Sherrard, Philip and Ware, Kallistos (trs.), The Philokalia, Volume 4, 1995thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

eating always from the tree of disobedience - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - in this way he acquired experientially through sense-perception a knowledge in which good and evil were intermingled. And it would not be untrue to say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the visible created world.

Maximos the Confessor identifies the Tree with the visible material world in its entirety, so that ongoing sensory attachment constitutes a perpetual re-enactment of the primordial transgression.

Palmer, G. E. H. and Sherrard, Philip and Ware, Kallistos (trs.), The Philokalia, Volume 2, 1981thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The tree of mortality (or death) is also the tree of consciousness---you can’t have one without the other---the lesson being that increased consciousness is accompanied by a spiritual death, a gift from the gods even more precious than eternal life in their presence.

Peterson synthesizes depth-psychological and mythic readings by arguing that mortality and consciousness are inseparable co-products of eating the forbidden fruit, reframing the Fall as a necessary and even precious developmental gift.

Peterson, Cody, The Shadow of a Figure of Light, 2024thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

That fall is his deviation from the full and pure acceptance of God and himself… into a dividing consciousness which brings with it all the train of the dualities, life and death, good and evil, joy and pain, completeness and want, the fruit of a divided being.

Aurobindo reads the Eden narrative as the universal archetype of the soul’s fall into dualistic consciousness, identifying the fruit with the emergence of existential division across all polarities.

Aurobindo, Sri, The Life Divine, 1939supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Seth knew that this was the tree of whose fruit his parents had eaten, for which reason it now stood bare… When Seth took a second look at paradise he saw that the tree had undergone a great change. It was now covered with bark and leaves, and in its crown lay a little new-born babe wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Jung traces the alchemical motif of the post-Fall withered tree and its miraculous renewal, linking the Tree of Knowledge typologically to the Cross and to Christ as the second Adam who restores what was lost.

Jung, Carl Gustav, Alchemical Studies, 1967supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Jesus was the paradisal tree, indeed the Tree of Knowledge, in Manichaean tradition: ‘The trees which are in paradise are the lusts and other temptations that corrupt the thoughts of men.’

Jung cites Manichaean tradition to show how the Tree of Knowledge was radically reinterpreted as Christ himself, illustrating the gnostic inversion whereby the forbidden object becomes the agent of salvation.

Jung, Carl Gustav, Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy, 1955supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die… We recognize the old Sumerian garden, but with two trees now instead of one.

Campbell situates the biblical Tree of Knowledge within its Sumerian mythological antecedents, arguing that the single sacred tree of enlightenment and immortality has been divided into two opposing trees in the Genesis account.

Campbell, Joseph, Occidental Mythology: The Masks of God, Volume III, 1964supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

commanded him freely to eat of all the heavenly trees therein, but forbade him wholly the taste of a certain one which was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus saying, ‘In the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die.’

John of Damascus presents the orthodox patristic framing: God’s prohibition of the Tree of Knowledge is absolute, and transgression is identified directly with death, establishing the doctrinal baseline against which psychological interpretations contend.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The tree of life, on the other hand, was a tree having the energy that is the cause of life, or to be eaten only by those who deserve to live and are not subject to death.

Damascus contrasts the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge, defining the former as ontologically life-producing and the latter as implicitly productive of death, reinforcing the patristic binary.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

This symbol is the cross as interpreted of old, viz. as the tree of life or simply as the tree to which Christ is inescapably affixed. This particular feature points to the compensatory significance of the tree.

Edinger, following Jung, traces the symbolic equivalence of the Cross with the Tree of Life, arguing that Christ’s crucifixion compensates for the original severing of moral opposites enacted at the Tree of Knowledge.

Edinger, Edward F., The New God-Image: A Study of Jung’s Key Letters Concerning the Evolution of the Western God-Image, 1996supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Had there been no Tree of the Fall, there would have been no Tree of Redemption, no Holy Rood, as the Cross was called in the Middle Ages.

Campbell establishes the typological necessity of the Tree of Knowledge for Christian soteriology, showing how the Fall and Redemption form a single mythological arc in which both trees are structurally required.

Campbell, Joseph, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor, 2001supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden lest they should ‘take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’… In Buddhist legend, on the other hand, the whole sense of the teaching is that one should penetrate that guarded gate and discover that tree.

Campbell contrasts the Yahwistic prohibition of the Tree of Life after the Knowledge-eating with the Buddhist imperative to seek the Bodhi-tree, reading both as variant mythological solutions to the same human problem of consciousness and mortality.

Campbell, Joseph, The Mythic Image, 1974supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The ancestors of our race willfully desisted from mindfulness and contemplation of God. They disregarded His commandment, made themselves of one mind wi[th sensory existence].

The Philokalia reframes the Fall as a failure of contemplative attention rather than mere disobedience, providing a contemplative-ascetic reading of the transgression associated with the Tree.

Palmer, G. E. H. and Sherrard, Philip and Ware, Kallistos (trs.), The Philokalia, Volume 4, 1995aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the humans will not be able to re-enter the Garden, psychologically speaking, until that ‘paradoxical knife-edge’ [is navigated].

Peterson argues that the flaming sword guarding the Garden after the Fall represents a psychological threshold that must be consciously traversed in the individuation process.

Peterson, Cody, The Shadow of a Figure of Light, 2024aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →