human nature - inherently good or evil?

[NiceCupOfTea]

I've been pondering the inherent nature of humans. Rasied as a Christian, I was taught that humans have an inherently evil/sinful nature (selfish, wicked, greedy, deceitful, etc) and need divine intervention (God/Jesus) to redeem us and make us "good".

I recently have been reading some of Dalai Lama's writings. He believes humans are inherently good (non-violent, gentle, truthful, affectionate, etc), and thinks this belief allows him to be more compassionate to his fellow humans.

Some Native American pantheist beliefs that I have studied seem to suggest a neutral human nature; one with nature, nature is indifferent, etc.

Question to the forum: in your religious/spiritual belief do you think human beings are inherently good or inherently evil? Or neutral? Or does it even matter?

How does your viewpoint of human nature factor into your day-to-day life and actions towards others? How does it affect your poilitical views of modern violent conflicts in the Middle East or the political/class struggles we see here in America?

Thanks,
Iowa Guy

we are all capable of good and evil all of us. i suppose in my day to day life how can i judge anyone, when I dont know what its like to live their life, we are all the same at the end of day imo capable of great evil and amazing love.

 

[radarmark]

I've been pondering the inherent nature of humans. Rasied as a Christian, I was taught that humans have an inherently evil/sinful nature (selfish, wicked, greedy, deceitful, etc) and need divine intervention (God/Jesus) to redeem us and make us "good".

Not all Christians believe that way.


I recently have been reading some of Dalai Lama's writings. He believes humans are inherently good (non-violent, gentle, truthful, affectionate, etc), and thinks this belief allows him to be more compassionate to his fellow humans.

Just think of anyone you interact with as (1) your own Mother or Grandmother reborn or (2) as a piece of G!d (to name two other ways to approch this) and you get a similar compassion.


Some Native American pantheist beliefs that I have studied seem to suggest a neutral human nature; one with nature, nature is indifferent, etc.

Again, not all Natives believe this. Hopi and Zuni strongly believe in the innate goodness of an individual.


Question to the forum: in your religious/spiritual belief do you think human beings are inherently good or inherently evil? Or neutral? Or does it even matter?

I believe we are born not just good, but wholly perfect. It matters to me because it allows me to interact with others in a more compassionate and caring manner. In the whole of things (the history of what we laughingly call civilization or call society today) it probably does not matter to any individual.
In the the greater whole of things (in a spiritual or metaphysical or religious sense) it matters a lot. The divine provides revelation (direct intercession within our higher consciousness) and wants, no needs, us to react to redeem ourselves (act in the spirit of love and peace and goodness).

How does your viewpoint of human nature factor into your day-to-day life and actions towards others? How does it affect your poilitical views of modern violent conflicts in the Middle East or the political/class struggles we see here in America?

My optimistic view allows me great lattitude in aiding others (having homeless in for dinner, providing a home for someone not my flesh and blood, taking abuse in stride when I march or protest). With the definition of redemption given above, it makes me a pretty classic liberal, almost a libertarian (except I believe society and government have the right to regulate "capitalism" as it has degenerated from the conceptions of Smith, Ricardo, and Mills). The Middle Eastern violence is something I protest each week about (the USA's crusade called "global war on terror") and our growing threat due to dominationism or reconstructionism is why, though once a Republican, I shall never vote Republican again.

 

[Thomas]

... but when you talk from a point higher than mind they are quite impotent.

Ah ... no, that is not the case. This is the problem when one 'does one's own thing', it's not so much a lack of experience, rather an inexperience in discerning just what it is one is experiencing.

If one is talking from 'higher than mind' then one is (presumably) talking in the spirit, and it is quite possible for the words to 'wash over' the listener without their spiritual sense being awakened or disturbed.

However, if the listener possesses a spiritual sensibility, then the spirit of the message will be received as well as the words ... indeed it is possible to understand in the spirit, even when one fails to comprehend in the letter.

Spiritual transmission by its very nature transcends the sensible (words) and the intellectual (ideas), although can and does often 'resound' down through the being of the person, although this is not guaranteed.

Examples in my own tradition are many, but one of my favourites is from Buddhism, the Flower Sermon, in which the Buddha transmitted wisdom to his disciple Mahākāśyapa without words — the spirit was transmitted by a gesture.

Likewise, the sensible and the intellectual can provide a platform or foundation for the spiritual ... hence the various yogic practices, the methods of meditation, the methods of prayer, and so on.

Would you agree if I said it is possible to remove object/subject distinction entirely, and thus attain a clarity not filtered through such constructs?

It depends.

If you're talking of the domain of the created, then yes. If you're talking about a relation between the Uncreated and created, then no ... it is not possible for the created to draw aside the veil, it lies within the gift of the Uncreated to do so, the veil is there for the created's benefit, and there are many, many warnings against trying so to do (an act which speaks of pride and envy), from the myth of the gorgon to Pandora's box ...

Of course, the transcendent unity of 'I and Thou' is fundamental to Christian doctrine, if you could only see it.

Would you agree if I said it is possible to attain the same clarity by a focus upon the object/subject distinction?

The mechanisms are not the issue.

This is the mistake many make though, now the ego will identify with a given sage.

No, the ego will identify on the words of a given sage ... we're back to hearing without understanding. That is why books are the most dangerous thing in the world.

This decision based on avoiding the flaws of ego can become a subtle egoistic pursuit.

It's the ego playing hide 'n' seek.

You begin to gain knowledge about that particular sages teaching and many become very fanatical. This is bound to happen, it is not your own experience so you are convincing yourself in the dispute with another.

You continually refer to the worst case scenario, or lowest common denominator ... and fail to see it ... this is your ego telling you that 'your' way is better.

This experience is exactly the type of thing words are impotent at conveying though...

In your experience.

This is incompetence, rejection is a repression and is deeply unhealthy.

D'you think so? You are wrong. Discernment is regarded in every tradition as a spiritual gift to be sought after, otherwise you are prey to every whim and fancy that passes your way.

The fact that you use terms such as 'incompetence', 'rejection' and 'repression' say more about you than they say about the comment I made.

Instead, you are to avoid identification with anything impermanent.

Everything is impermanent but God.

Phenomena is very real, you must interact with it whether you reject it or not, and phenomena is not just physical - all thought is a phenomenon too, a temporary occurring.

Ever heard of a mirage?

All phenomena is temporal, fleeting ...

Ignore a wall and you're going to end up with a bruise, it might not seem like a temporary phenomenon but it certainly is.

Again, I offer subtlety, and I get 'a statement of the bleedin obvious' which misses the point entirely.

You can overcome walls,
you cannot overcome your own ego.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

you cannot overcome your own ego.

Is that a weak attempt for the ego to reinforce itself?

 

[Lunitik]

If one is talking from 'higher than mind' then one is (presumably) talking in the spirit, and it is quite possible for the words to 'wash over' the listener without their spiritual sense being awakened or disturbed.

We have a fundamental disagreement here: your statement is that duality is valid. We will not agree on this subject although your overall statement is true. When functioning solely of mind, without any capacity for something higher it will simply appear nonsensical. For me, this is perfectly good, it is not right to wake people from a pleasant dream. Yet there is a certain sympathy that they are not awake to see what is happening.

Spiritual transmission by its very nature transcends the sensible (words) and the intellectual (ideas), although can and does often 'resound' down through the being of the person, although this is not guaranteed.

You are correct, this is why the Christian method is that of devotion and love: you must receive the words by the heart not the head.

If you're talking of the domain of the created, then yes. If you're talking about a relation between the Uncreated and created, then no ... it is not possible for the created to draw aside the veil, it lies within the gift of the Uncreated to do so, the veil is there for the created's benefit, and there are many, many warnings against trying so to do (an act which speaks of pride and envy), from the myth of the gorgon to Pandora's box ...

Again we will not agree because your understanding is fundamentally dualistic. There is no created, there is only creativity - nothing is ever added or taken away, there is only constant change on this plane. This is an understanding from drawing back that veil, but of course it is dangerous if ego is maintained...

Of course, the transcendent unity of 'I and Thou' is fundamental to Christian doctrine, if you could only see it.

Hmm, this is the very process of drawing back the veil, everything I say is based on the experience of that intimate unity. It is strange, then, that you would highlight warnings against it...

Would you agree if I said it is possible to attain the same clarity by a focus upon the object/subject distinction?

It is utterly impossible, subjectivity is always projected onto the object, you see what you want to see. Again, this is an aspect of the unity and oneness I have been discussing - subject is I and object is thou... you just said this can be transcended.

No, the ego will identify on the words of a given sage ... we're back to hearing without understanding. That is why books are the most dangerous thing in the world.

Exactly, which is the problem.

Identification with something that is not your own causes you to more fervently defend it, this is the nature of fanaticism. If you know it with a certainty, you will simply laugh at those refusing to accept.

You continually refer to the worst case scenario, or lowest common denominator ... and fail to see it ... this is your ego telling you that 'your' way is better.

Do you not see how your ego is insisting on this perception?

D'you think so? You are wrong. Discernment is regarded in every tradition as a spiritual gift to be sought after, otherwise you are prey to every whim and fancy that passes your way.

noun /diˈsərnmənt/ 
discernments, plural

(in Christian contexts) Perception in the absence of judgment with a view to obtaining spiritual direction and understanding

Other traditions call this intuition. (I would rather they said reception than perception, but this is a direct quote)

Seeking is a function of ego, else who is seeking?

Everything is impermanent but God.

Indeed.

you cannot overcome your own ego.

There is only one way: death.

Can the "I" die before the physical body? I posit that this is the intent of Jesus saying some will see the Kingdom of God before they taste death. Entry into the Kingdom requires a type of death.

 

[Lunitik]

Fanaticism is always founded on doubt, you over-compensate trying to prove your loyalty - to yourself and others.

 

[Lunitik]

Ego is a function of mind, it is an identification with certain thoughts, a sequence of conclusions. Jesus says you must become as a child, the original fall is due to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, this is significant. A child is utterly receptive, it has drawn no conclusions and identifies with nothing - it is completely trusting of its parent. You must drop everything, every idea you are clinging to.

A lot of people seem to conclude that this is now a vegetative state, thus is false. Brain becomes what it is intended to be: a highly efficient computer. Brain is as transient as any other matter though, you are not the physical brain or the sequence of thoughts we call mind. You are consciousness, God is the ultimate consciousness. You are as a drop and God is the ocean, ego is a friction stopping the drop from falling down the leaf into the ocean - let go, trust.

The drop has died, yet now it is the whole ocean - it is completely indistinguishable. The only difference is that God is omnipresent, you will still witness relatively in my experience, you will just flow with the stream rather than unknowingly against. You are now doing God's will rather than your own...

For me, all suffering, all negativity stems from fighting the current of existence.

 

[Lunitik]

Upon physical death, you are no more relative, you merge completely because you no longer have to function on this plane. Until then, you are still alive so there is still more for you to do - if you cannot find your vehicle, traversing that road becomes difficult.

 

[Paladin]

Is that a weak attempt for the ego to reinforce itself?

I can't speak for Thomas, but I think his statement is reminiscent of Buddhist ideas about self and non-self. After all you can't overcome that which has no real substance. Trying to do so only reifies it to some extent don't you think?

 

[Lunitik]

I can't speak for Thomas, but I think his statement is reminiscent of Buddhist ideas about self and non-self. After all you can't overcome that which has no real substance. Trying to do so only reifies it to some extent don't you think?

When Buddha speaks of the soul, this is essentially the same as ego... you must overcome maya though to realize and drop such concepts of separation. It really depends on how you approach Buddha's teachings here though, my understanding is that ego must be transcended for enlightenment to occur. This enlightenment is his awakening, but it is difficult to know because Buddha doesn't write anything and his followers have written in Pali.

 

[donnann]

When Buddha speaks of the soul, this is essentially the same as ego... you must overcome maya though to realize and drop such concepts of separation. It really depends on how you approach Buddha's teachings here though, my understanding is that ego must be transcended for enlightenment to occur. This enlightenment is his awakening, but it is difficult to know because Buddha doesn't write anything and his followers have written in Pali.

Your right and ego says I am god instead of I am like god.

 

[wil]

Your right and ego says I am god instead of I am like god.

But I am isn't like G!d, I am is G!d.

I am = G!d.

Who should I say....

 

[Lunitik]

Your right and ego says I am god instead of I am like god.

Saying you are like God is inherently dualistic, it is not an ego statement though for the simple reason that in the realization I have realized I am not at all - only God is. I would go so far as to say that saying you are like God is the ultimate ego statement, unforgivable. You are saying that there is something similar to God, it is utter blasphemy.

No, you are an expression of that, a role God is playing - you do not exist as a separate entity in truth, you have only forgotten what you are. For me, true spirituality or mysticism or whatever you wish to call it is about rediscovering your true self.

 

[Thomas]

Is that a weak attempt for the ego to reinforce itself?

No ... it's just that no matter how clever we thing we are, the ego is as clever.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

I've been pondering the inherent nature of humans. Rasied as a Christian, I was taught that humans have an inherently evil/sinful nature (selfish, wicked, greedy, deceitful, etc) and need divine intervention (God/Jesus) to redeem us and make us "good".

Even though I have a "Christian" background, I personally find labels like "good" and "evil" to be unhelpful. I have found from looking into Judaism and the Jewish thought system that Jews tend not to think in terms of "good" and "evil" -- at least not half as much as Christians do. Jews tend to think more "sociologically" and this Jewish approach has influenced me to think sociologically as well.

The Christian obsession with good and evil comes from Zoroastrian and Essenic dualism and this Zoroastrian/Essenic dualism is an oversimplification of things happening in the surrounding world. There are much more helpful terms and concepts like fundamentalism, racism, rebel, hero, propaganda, liberal, conservative, idolatry, corruption, charity, hospitality, war monger, terrorist, etc.

I prefer to think socially, politically, economically and scientifically rather than in terms of "good" and "evil." These two terms convey very little information. The word "evil" is used to demonise. The word "good" is used to promote, honour and worship someone or something. But these two words do not describe meaningfully the reasons for the positive or negative treatment of the person or thing that is receiving attention.

People generally use the words "good" and "evil" to speak of things they don't truly understand and it simply reinforces in-grained prejudices.

The dualism of good and evil is an anachronism that emerges from Abrahamic tradition and every time someone mentions these two concepts, they are invoking tradition.

I do not deny that there is "good" and "evil," or that good and evil exist as identifiable phenomena in our world. The trouble with the terminology is that it implies that these phenomena are part of a linear spectrum when they are not. I would prefer to think in terms of a circular/spherical scale where the further you are from the centre, the more extreme the "good" or "evil" becomes. The centre represents the balanced majority. The outer fringes represent people biased towards extreme attitudes and behaviours and no longer fit into mainstream society, like serial killers, fundamentalists, terrorists, child abusers, slanderers, demagogues and crackpots.

I am not disputing tradition, but the way it is used to interpret our world. It should be the other way round. Tradition reminds us of something that happened in the past that our ancestors regarded as important. We should be using our experience of the world around us to interpret tradition.

Question to the forum: in your religious/spiritual belief do you think human beings are inherently good or inherently evil? Or neutral? Or does it even matter?

We are whatever our biology, physiology and social environment influence us to become. That is our nature. Fifty years ago, Americans were pretty racist. Does that mean racism is part of the nature of American humans? Racism is "evil" and it was the pre-existent racism into which a white or black baby was born that influenced that baby to also be racist. That baby eventually grew up with the prejudices he/she was taught, learning behaviours that his/her white or black family and friends told him/her was good.

The child was taught to believe that racism was good. People aren't born good or evil. They learn it from somewhere. If everyone else is racist, you become racist too. If everyone else is greedy and selfish, you become greedy and selfish too. If classism dominates your society, you become classist too, because that's the best way to relate to everyone else. If you are political, that encourages others to be political. If you write polemic. Others will also write polemic.

Those who realise this is happening will try to prevent others from catching the same disease through education.

How does your viewpoint of human nature factor into your day-to-day life and actions towards others? How does it affect your poilitical views of modern violent conflicts in the Middle East or the political/class struggles we see here in America?

Because I see things socially, politically and economically, I think, act, speak and behave as I should: as another component of the system. I treat people as people, not as demons and angels, but just people.

 

[Saltmeister]

Ah, the ego! I am aware of the ego, that is why I listened to the wisdom of the sages, and follow a tradition

Listening to the wisdom of the sages will not disconnect you from your own ego. The ego is you, it is the self and you are you.

whereas the ego will say 'do your own thing!

Everything you do is your own thing. Even if you were a slave, it is still your very own choice to follow your master. You can rebel.

No-one knows better than you about you ... ' it's a very modern dialogue, actually.

But it's true that nobody does know better than you about you. Who could possibly know what goes on in that mind of your's?

This experience, though, is only accessible through the death of ego - it cannot be otherwise.

The ego cannot die unless you were to cease to be you because the ego is you. There is no point fighting the ego because the ego is your "self" and it is impossible for you to do anything without your "self." No thought can come to your mind without your "self."

The ego wills whatever you will. The ego says, thinks and does whatever you say, think and do.

You cannot fight, kill, resist and become immune to the ego and therefore eliminate the ego because that means that the ego wills its own elimination. The ego cannot be eliminated without its own will. As soon as the ego disappears, you have to fight the battle all over again.

The desire to eliminate the ego comes from the concern for one's own "spiritual condition," or "spiritual purity." People say the ego is "bad" and that is why you want to eliminate the ego. Unfortunately, elimination of the ego involves the "self." Without the "self" willing the elimination of the ego, the ego cannot be eliminated. Because this is a desire of the self, this is an ego trip and alas the ego is involved!!! Attempts to eliminate ego require ego.

For the ego to die, you must die. Can you make the ego die without dying yourself? No, this is impossible.

There is no point fighting the ego. I do not see the ego as an enemy or corruption because the ego is me. "Ego" is another word for "self." I no longer fight my own ego. Selfishness isn't always bad. Selfishness can be good if you use it to help others. I prefer to use the ego to make a positive contribution to the world.

You can overcome walls, you cannot overcome your own ego.

I agree. The ego is you and you cannot overcome yourself. You can pick your nose, but this is one of the instances where you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The movie Fight Club is not a true story. People may suffer from multiple personality disorder, but each personality is itself an ego. Brad Pitt is never seen punching himself in the movie.

Is that a weak attempt for the ego to reinforce itself?

People who try to fight the ego are only fighting themselves. Actually, that's impossible. If you try to fight the ego, that means that the ego is also fighting someone, because the ego does whatever you do. The ego cannot fight itself, so you can't defeat or resist the ego. Resistance is futile.

Can the "I" die before the physical body? I posit that this is the intent of Jesus saying some will see the Kingdom of God before they taste death. Entry into the Kingdom requires a type of death.

The ego exists as long as we are alive. Entering the kingdom of God and becoming "alive" again will simply resurrect the ego. The kingdom of God is not for those who have lost their ego, but those who have refined it.

 

[bananabrain]

some answers indicating the possibilities of human nature:

1. "my glass is half empty!"
2. "my glass is half full!"
3. "HEY!! this *isn't* my glass! *my* glass was FULL! AND it was a bigger glass!" (terry pratchett)
4. "HEY!! i ordered a CHEESEBURGER!!" (gary larsen)

b'shalom

bananabrain`

 

[Lunitik]

No ... it's just that no matter how clever we thing we are, the ego is as clever.

This is why the Eastern traditions speak much about a state of no-mind, you are perfectly right that you can't trick mind with mind, you must go beyond mind. We identify too much with mind though - this is exactly what ego is. Zen koans, all sorts of Sufi and Advaita devices, they all have the same goal: get beyond mind to see truth.

 

[Lunitik]

The ego cannot die unless you were to cease to be you because the ego is you. There is no point fighting the ego because the ego is your "self" and it is impossible for you to do anything without your "self." No thought can come to your mind without your "self."

This is incorrect, but this is exactly the problem: we believe thoroughly that this is fact. We are consciousness, an aspect of the ultimate consciousness, but we are too much asleep - unconscious - as a whole to remember.

This is the reason Buddhists teach you to watch thoughts without becoming identified though: eventually mind will stop when you stop feeding it with attention. Between the spaces of thought, this is where satori's happen.

The ego wills whatever you will. The ego says, thinks and does whatever you say, think and do.

Perfectly right, which is why I say I am not... now you are not functioning from your own motivation, you are going with existence wherever it may take you.

You cannot fight, kill, resist and become immune to the ego and therefore eliminate the ego because that means that the ego wills its own elimination. The ego cannot be eliminated without its own will. As soon as the ego disappears, you have to fight the battle all over again.

Again, correct, for if you fight it, the ego will identify with the fight... another trick of the mind to persist. If you cease to feed the ego, it will simply leave, it will die just as the physical self will die without physical food.

For the ego to die, you must die. Can you make the ego die without dying yourself? No, this is impossible.

Yes, I have said a type of death must happen. The self does die, but yet your body is still alive, your consciousness remains as a witness only.

There is no point fighting the ego. I do not see the ego as an enemy or corruption because the ego is me. "Ego" is another word for "self." I no longer fight my own ego. Selfishness isn't always bad. Selfishness can be good if you use it to help others. I prefer to use the ego to make a positive contribution to the world.

Perfectly right, nothing can be achieved through fighting your own self, it is just a violence - a civil war. This is why I am so against organized religion, they go on creating this situation of civil war within people: repress this, value that. It is not going to work because in the repression you move it deeper into your unconscious, and through focusing on the opposite you go on feeding it until it surfaces as an obsession.

Ego will leave of its own accord if you simply stop feeding it, but it is not something you do, because if you identify with the doing again you feed the ego.

The ego exists as long as we are alive. Entering the kingdom of God and becoming "alive" again will simply resurrect the ego. The kingdom of God is not for those who have lost their ego, but those who have refined it.

You are correct again, "we" is just a plural "I", the I must die. Kensho's and satori's only differ from enlightenment in one way: ego has been suppressed for a period, but it has not yet left so it will eventually resurface. Samadhi is the death of the ego finally, I have not experienced this but I can enter that space with no effort on my part.

I have come to the door of Samadhi, but there was a deep fear - it truly felt like going into death. This is perfectly good, mind is taking its last stand so I just approach and watch it struggle as a drowning person. Eventually it will become used to the space and not object any more, again fighting is not going to help though, it will simply become the fighter.

 

[radarmark]

A serious if seemingly flippant question. Where do I find one of the egos or selves? When I look inside I see a bundle of rememberances and no single thing I can call a self or ego. And if you mean the experience I am having right now that is somewhat different than the experience I had ten years ago. I believe this ego or self is a coinstruct, an abstraction we have mistaken for something actual just laying around out there somewhere.