Original Sin

This weekend, I read about the Aztec and the Mayan story about a goddess that was in charge of a beautiful and bountiful garden. She partook of one of the red fruits of the garden and was banished, by the creator of the garden, to live with the humans. Sound familiar?

Its coincidental that I learned of historic original sin stories during the easter holiday, when I also learned that there is an historic ressurection story. In other words, its not surprising to think that monotheism's "Great Stories" are really just plagiarisms.

Its also not far-fetched to restate the intended meaning behind these stories. For example, banishment to live among the human animals for an act of consumption makes a lot more sense, especially to persons living 3000 years ago, when the moral of the story is "Nature provides for you, but don't overdo the consuming of it."

Some "rules" are easy to agree exist and to live by. The sun comes up in the east, it sets in the west. Humans can't breathe immersed in water. Trees make good shade. Birds can fly long distances. Humans can't fly at all. It seems that we have no need to revamp the stories educating us about those facts of existence.

But, with the more complicated or esoteric rules, human's early stories survived the centuries as they continued to prove useful to new peoples, to demonstrate rules that had difficult meaning to teach our youth. There is little doubt that Aztecs and Mayans and Jews had found ways to provide their vessels with nutrition. Techniques, tools, and rituals to provide and to give thanks were apparent. It could not have been that difficult to agree that overconsumption or rampant consumption, or just plain unthoughtful consumption, would prove to be incompatible or unsustainable. So, how to  press that point? You remind your people that this nature is a garden of abundance and beauty and that consumption of it must be thoughtful, at a minimum. Some types of consumption are sustainable and are compatible with natural processes, some types are not. Therefore, some types of consumption of nature are allowed, and some types are not.

And what is the consequence of violating this rule? Well, its the old "you get what you ask for" dilemma: if you treat nature as if its all a commodity or consumable, that's what you'll get. You will get a living situation that is more like a market than a natural environment. You will get a place where abundance and beauty is foregone, threatened, etc.  Thus, the punishment of banishment from the beauty and abundance to live with the humans is the demonstration of the creation of and immersion in a community or environment in which suffering and struggle--the fight against the failure of abundance and beauty, is the theme.

This historic story has little, if anything, to do with the concept of original sin and the alleged need for us all, as individuals, to repent, to be reborn, or to recognize that any other human has sacrificed himself for any of us. It is a creative reminder that we are but one type of animal in a complicated but satisfying beauty that has the power to deny us a satisfying existence.