The chief on the top, then the harem of the ladies whom he controls, then the brownnoses! And then you come down to lower categories of the hierarchy. On the lowest branches are the poorest monkeys, without girlfriends, boyfriends – servants. But perhaps from this very group humanity has grown.
Even in this group there may have been a few people who were so weak that they could not even manage to stay on the lowest branches. They were pushed, pulled, thrown, and somehow they found themselves fallen onto the earth. That is the original fall.
Monkeys still go on laughing at man. Certainly if you think from the monkey’s side, a monkey walking on two legs…if you are a monkey and you think from its side, seeing a monkey walking on two legs, you will think, “Has he joined a circus or something? And what happened to the poor guy? He just lives on the ground; he never comes to the trees, the wild freedom of the trees, the higher status of the trees. This is really the fallen one, the downtrodden.”
Except for this, religions don’t have any logical support for the idea of the original fall. Stories they have, but stories are not arguments, stories are not proofs. And stories can have just the opposite meaning to that which you wanted to give to them. For example, the original fall in Christianity makes God the real culprit, and if anybody needs saving it is the Christian God.
A father preventing his children from being wise, from living forever, is certainly insane. Even the worst father would like his children to be wise, intelligent. Even the cruelest father would like his children to live forever.
But God prevents man from eating of two trees – the tree of knowledge and the tree of eternal life. This seems to be a strange kind of God; it is not in any way possible to conceive Him as fatherly. He seems to be the enemy of man. Who needs saving? Your God is jealous: that’s what was the argument of the devil who came in the form of a serpent and seduced the mind of Eve.
To me, there are many significant things to be understood. Why did he choose Eve and not Adam? He could have chosen Adam directly, but men by nature are less sensitive, less vulnerable, more arrogant, egoistic. Adam may not even have liked to have a conversation with a serpent, may have thought it was below his dignity. And to be persuaded by a serpent’s argument would have been impossible for man. He would have argued against him; he would have struggled, fought – because to agree with someone seems to the ego as if you are defeated.
The ego knows only disagreement, struggle, victory or defeat – as if there is no other way, as if there are only two ways: victory and defeat. For the ego certainly there are only two ways.
But for a sensitive soul there is only one way – to understand whatever is true. It is not a question of me and you, it is not a question of somebody being defeated or victorious. The question is: What is the truth?