In my last post, I ended my reflection triggered by the Viagra patent invalidity case with a comparison of Christian and Hindu interpretations of the procreating energy symbolized in serpent as different as being sinful and sacred, respectively. These two opposite positions are nicely illustrated by the names they give to the same concept: original sin and sacred seed. Not intending to challenge the doctrine of original sin, I have just naively interpreted the symbols of the garden of Eden, snake, forbidden fruit, fall from the paradise, and the less symbolic punishment of "pain of childbirth". Not wanting to touch on what the church means by the original sin (apart from that fact that it's a well-known doctrine), I would like to advance my understanding of the sacred seed: it is a divine human potential which lies latent at the base of spine waiting to be awakened by spiritual efforts. Spontaneously, I cannot help thinking at this juncture that the original sin and sacred seed are the same principle, only with opposite emphases: the former pointing to a negative act already committed (retrospective) and to be overcome only through divine grace (passive) and the latter describing a positive potential yet to open up (prospective) by self efforts and/or divine grace (proactive). For me, both are the primordial energy of creation, neutral in nature (nature does not know the difference between good and evil), neither sinful nor holy, which keeps this universe moving.