human nature - inherently good or evil?

[Lunitik]

Um, no we do not begin as a "blank slate." We begin with the qualities of being human. We are born innocent, not having had a chance to partake or abstain from good or evil.

We are the most useless creatures at birth on this planet, you cannot even call our babies innocent because they simply aren't even functional.

An innocent Lion cub approaches a snake and gets poisoned within a month of birth... our children wouldn't even notice the snake, they are completely oblivious to everything for much of their early life - just aware of their own needs, crying when something is wrong.

 

[luecy7]

Um, no we do not begin as a "blank slate." We begin with the qualities of being human. We are born innocent, not having had a chance to partake or abstain from good or evil.

Similar though. I would take that a step further and question whether anyone is born innocent. People may appear innocent to a stranger who does not know them, and appear innocent by being ignorant of any past, genes, state of things here, and the people that surround them. So, if someone suffers amnesia and ends up among strangers, are they truly innocent? Have they completely changed themselves? It seems to me that ignorance, and an absence of memory, is the innocent "blank slate" that Lunitik has described, which is not about forgiving and being forgiven. It is about remaining ignorant: plausible deniability, and about having others remain ignorant: being anonymous. In my view, ignorance brings peace and bliss not by people being kind and forgiving, but by people being unaware and ignorant.

With databases of strangers, with computer technology now, members of society and governments have cultivated the value for keeping a record of people they don't really know... for power and control. A credit record. A criminal record. A medical record. A driving record. A history. These records are mere pointers that may point to a fact, or they may point to fiction, like a person's fabrication. These records may be easily falsified, not just because someone entered in false or incorrect information, but because: people may change. For that reason, if a person takes action by such a record, especially without personally knowing the person, then in my view they commit a sin, a serious error, clearly counter to the golden rule. Not everyone will agree that: people may change, but they sure reserve that right for themselves.

So there are seemingly two ways to alter the cycle: destroy or deny all records and remain ignorant or impotent, so that we view everyone as children, or strangers; or, learn to forgive, suffer each other, encouraging people to be good towards one another regardless of their record.

 

[luecy7]

I submit that our ultimate nature is not that of a person at all.

If you believe that there is nothing brought with you, and nothing left of you, and essentially you were just a figment of your ego's imagination, a clinging to something temporary... then why do you persist to waste your time here? You testify against your self, and you are a testament against yourself. While you say that you are one with the Ultimate, from my viewpoint you are divided and conflicted with yourself.

 

[Lunitik]

If you believe that there is nothing brought with you, and nothing left of you, and essentially you were just a figment of your ego's imagination, a clinging to something temporary... then why do you persist to waste your time here? You testify against your self, and you are a testament against yourself. While you say that you are one with the Ultimate, from my viewpoint you are divided and conflicted with yourself.

I am not this body or this mind, ego is exactly the identifications with these things. I have experienced something which is amazing and I want all to experience it, to know what they really are. Brain will deteriorate along with the body, the identification makes it very plain why people fear death. Nothing of you will just vanish after death though, it will simply change form. I want all to know that which does not change, that which is permanent.

Discovery of THAT is exactly the purpose of religion, it is not about how to live at all, it is about knowing what has provided that life. THAT is what religion refers to in its root definition "to re-bind", we are each to discover that which we already are but have forgotten time and again, in every life we have lived.

 

[luecy7]

Nothing of you will just vanish after death though, it will simply change form. I want all to know that which does not change, that which is permanent.

Which part do you say will vanish or not vanish? Which part do you say does not change, and is permanent?

Discovery of THAT is exactly the purpose of religion, it is not about how to live at all, it is about knowing what has provided that life. THAT is what religion refers to in its root definition "to re-bind", we are each to discover that which we already are but have forgotten time and again, in every life we have lived.

It has certainly been educational to hear from your viewpoint. Honestly though, I have thus far regarded your testimony as an indication of how to not live life, and here it seems to fit your definition of religion.

 

[Lunitik]

Which part do you say will vanish or not vanish? Which part do you say does not change, and is permanent?

God is the only permanent, God resides within and without you.

Your material form will disintegrate and provide fertilizer, that which provides you with life will return to its source as well - dust to dust, spirit to spirit, so to speak.

God and spirit is not different, though... what they reference is fundamentally identical.

 

[luecy7]

God is the only permanent

False

God resides within and without you.

True

Your material form will disintegrate and provide fertilizer

True and False

that which provides you with life will return to its source as well

Fabrication

dust to dust

True

spirit to spirit

False

God and spirit is not different, though... what they reference is fundamentally identical.

False. God is a spirit though.

 

[Lunitik]

God is the only permanent
False

You think you are permanent, and that all souls are permanent. What proof do you have though? Just a book, why is it any more valid than what I say? Because God has manifested in his creation - thus becoming divided? This is what the Christians teach of God, it is not so, it is simply an enlightened man saying "I and my father are one" that they have decided this. It is a device though, I go on saying the same: merge object and subject, other and self. It is not different at all, only the words differ because I do not wish to bring in prior concepts which you have - yet at times I must because no other words explain.

God resides within and without you.
True

So you know yourself to be a barrier between object and subject, yet you uphold "God" and "I". This is exactly why you have not become enlightened if you could but know it. God is a concept, and you also have a concept that you refer to as I - it will be at the beginning of most thoughts you think.

These are tricks of mind, they are the very nature of ego, it has to be transcended or you will remain mediocre.


Your material form will disintegrate and provide fertilizer
True and False

We can see that it is true, we can dig up graves and see the process, what is false of it? Have you ever seen a graveyard that isn't plush with plants? There are other practices for what to do with the dead, you can burn the body, perhaps this is what you mean by false? Even here, though, that energy is reused in some way.

Science has shown that energy cannot be subtracted or added to the whole, it can only change form. To dispute something else is to dispute semantics, I merely say your physical body will be used.

that which provides you with life will return to its source as well
Fabrication

What is fabricated in your view? What do you think provides us with life? We can build biological structures like ears and noses today, if we put a whole human body together in this way, do you think we could bring this creation to life? If no, what is missing?

I say it is consciousness which is missing, awareness, the essence of each of us is the absolute and that cannot be created by man.

dust to dust
True

How do you know?

spirit to spirit
False

Why do you feel this is false? You do not believe in heaven? What exactly do you think heaven is? If it is a place, why have we never found it? I tell you I am sat in heaven at this very moment, how could it be? It is because I am currently experiencing the love of the whole, the oneness that will be each persons last experience.

You are correct though, it is not dual so the statement is technically false, we already are one with that, it is just that it is not our experience because we are too caught up in life.

God and spirit is not different, though... what they reference is fundamentally identical.
False. God is a spirit though.

So you disagree with the trinity?

Your disagreement will be in your insistence that duality is valid though, in the ego's insistence that it will continue after death, that it will see its relatives and the like after death. It is purely fabrication but very appealing to our egos.

 

[Etu Malku]

Hatred is a product of love, it is love + feeling wronged.

It is not the same as anger, which can manifest as just a lashing out at random people.

Who's talking about anger?

 

[Lunitik]

Who's talking about anger?

I have included to differentiate, in case someone might have said they have hated someone they have not loved first.

 

[radarmark]

Hatred is a product of love, it is love + feeling wronged.

It is not the same as anger, which can manifest as just a lashing out at random people.

Well, I hate Nazis. Never met them, do not care to. Never loved them. Not really angry at them. Ditto for KKK, Nation of Islam, Kachists, Al-Queda and a few other groups.

For your definition to work, there cannot exist a counter-example.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[Lunitik]

Well, I hate Nazis. Never met them, do not care to. Never loved them. Not really angry at them. Ditto for KKK, Nation of Islam, Kachists, Al-Queda and a few other groups.

For your definition to work, there cannot exist a counter-example.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

Your love is probably for a particular Quaker which has spoken against these groups, else why reserve so much hostility towards such people? This often happens, to secure our love for one group we decide to hate all others which compete. We even see this in normal social interaction, people will secure their love for themselves by putting down others. It is perceived as easier to bring down everything else rather than bring yourself up. How much more difficult to allow that love to bloom without any projection?

Either that or you simply do not actually mean hate, you could be using it loosely in place of dislike. It is rather ponderous how one might legitimately hate a group or organization as a whole...

 

[radarmark]

Wow! An I did not even have to see a pshrink! No, Lunitik, I am just pointing out that your use of "all", as usual is misplaced. Because you think one must have to love to hate you project it out there as if truth. I just point out that my experience is different.

It only takes one counterfactual to deflate your "hatred is a product of love" hypothesis.

Stick to truths that are universal when you use "all".

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[seattlegal]

We are the most useless creatures at birth on this planet, you cannot even call our babies innocent because they simply aren't even functional.

An innocent Lion cub approaches a snake and gets poisoned within a month of birth... our children wouldn't even notice the snake, they are completely oblivious to everything for much of their early life - just aware of their own needs, crying when something is wrong.

I know that this is not the case--I'm a mom! Babies are very much aware of their surroundings--in fact, they are like little sponges in this regard!

Babies are quite limited in their means of communication, however. Their vocal cords don't develop for normal speech until around 5-6 months (if they really focus,) but younger infants do occasionally speak a word or two (in context) in the freaky-strange and startling voice from underdeveloped vocal cords, often before they even reach one month of age. (If you show that you are startled when they do it, they probably will not do it again, so as not to upset you.) However, very young infants are quite capable of communicating with simplified sign language once they have even rudimentary gross motor control.

 

[radarmark]

Gee, give we other half of humanity a break! As a Dad, I quite agree... my baby saw the snake and played with it. Read some human developmental psychology, Lunitik.

 

[Etu Malku]

My children made the snake eat the apple . . .

 

[seattlegal]

Gee, give we other half of humanity a break! As a Dad, I quite agree... my baby saw the snake and played with it. Read some human developmental psychology, Lunitik.

Dads are people too!
I would say the developmental psychology books highly underrate babies!

My children made the snake eat the apple . . .

LOL

 

[Lunitik]

Wow! An I did not even have to see a pshrink! No, Lunitik, I am just pointing out that your use of "all", as usual is misplaced. Because you think one must have to love to hate you project it out there as if truth. I just point out that my experience is different.

It only takes one counterfactual to deflate your "hatred is a product of love" hypothesis.

Stick to truths that are universal when you use "all".

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

It is not a projection at all, love and hate are one... that level of passion which is part of hate is exactly the negative stream for which love is the positive. It is not a hypothesis, simply watch next time hate sprouts, remember that sensation and look at the next time you feel love.

 

[seattlegal]

It is not a projection at all, love and hate are one... that level of passion which is part of hate is exactly the negative stream for which love is the positive. It is not a hypothesis, simply watch next time hate sprouts, remember that sensation and look at the next time you feel love.

Passion can be like putting dye, paint or mud into clear water so you can easily see the currents/movement within the water without being in the water. But then it clouds the water and makes it difficult to see through the water when you are in the water. In this manner, passion can cloud an individual's mind, while highlighting the inner workings of the individual's mind to others.

 

[Lunitik]

I know that this is not the case--I'm a mom! Babies are very much aware of their surroundings--in fact, they are like little sponges in this regard!

Babies are quite limited in their means of communication, however. Their vocal cords don't develop for normal speech until around 5-6 months (if they really focus,) but younger infants do occasionally speak a word or two (in context) in the freaky-strange and startling voice from underdeveloped vocal cords, often before they even reach one month of age. (If you show that you are startled when they do it, they probably will not do it again, so as not to upset you.) However, very young infants are quite capable of communicating with simplified sign language once they have even rudimentary gross motor control.

No other creature is born so utterly dependent, this is all I am pointing to...