The Tree of Life? I was talking about the Tree of Knowledge. And Buddhism? You have me down as a Buddhist now, do you? … even though I never mentioned Buddha. But since you bring them up, I’ll talk about them both.
Like Nietzsche, I have a love/ hate relationship with Buddhism. (But don’t assume I’m a Nietzschian, just because I mention Nietzsche) I admire the stoic mindset of the Buddhist master. But in the end, its still a nihilist philosophy. Why get uptight about this, that or other things, because, in the end, nothing is going to change, and it doesn’t really matter. Just accept things the way they are. I kind of hate Buddhism too, but there are worse things out there. But when I said that it was inevitable that they would eat from the Tree of Knowledge, I was talking about human nature, and the predictability of human nature; not fate, destiny, karma, or whatever you want to call it.
Now … the Tree of Life. As I said, I was talking about the Tree of Knowledge -the Tree of the serpent (Princess #1). Eve (Princess #2) took some fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and she and her man were chucked out of Paradise, and, as you say, denied ever again from partaking of the feast offered by the Tree of Life. This was the tree of Princess #3, although in the Genesis story, Princess #3 is conspicuously absent from this narrative.
Notice that Adam & Eve were not forbidden from the Tree of Life, as they had been the Tree of Knowledge. The story implies that the Tree of Life would make them immortal, but only after first eating from the Tree of Knowledge. What was it that would do nothing for them, before eating from ToK, but make them immortal after eating from it? The Tree of Life is simply the indictment entered against Princess #1, Princess #2 and their prince, Adam, by Princess #3. But since this story conveniently omits #3, we’re left to assume that this indictment is the judgement of God, not the condemnation of a jealous half sister.
The indictment, before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, meant nothing to them, because they knew not what it was about, or whom. The Tree of Knowledge opened their eyes, and they would have realized that they were the subject of the indictment. I say “would have”, because they were not interested in entertaining any negative opinions about themselves. When they saw that they were naked, their only thought was to conceal their nakedness. Their nakedness is a metaphor, and has nothing at all to do with people walking around with their genitals hanging out. It simply means there were parts about themselves (their nature), which they did not wish to acknowledge. This should have been obvious from the parable: When asked why he ate from the tree he wasn’t supposed to eat from, the man blames the woman, and the woman blames the serpent. Nobody wants to take responsibility for his or her actions.
This is the reason God denied them the Tree of Life. They did not yet have the maturity to own up to their shortcomings -not because they had disobeyed. The act of disobedience could be forgiven, but the unwillingness to admit one’s mistakes is indicative of a lack of desire to reform one’s nature. They would not know what was in the indictment if they were unwilling to acknowledge their basic faults.