human nature - inherently good or evil?

[Lunitik]

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.

This is just it, they don't exist at all.

What are those remembrances? They are single thoughts, it is like a school of fish, its just a large group of individual fish acting together but it looks like the school is something organic - it is nothing but a crowd of individuals.

This is the same with mind: it doesn't exist, it is just the name for the collective of thoughts that float through our conscious. Ego is the result of identification with those thoughts, simply watch them and see that they are not being caused by you. They are as clouds in the sky, they come and go and do not affect the sky at all - when it is passed the sky is just the same as before.

You are perfectly right in your conclusion, can you inquire into what is watching these happenings though?

 

[radarmark]

Lunitik, nothing at all (or that which has gone beyond?). I dunno. If I concentrate on "watching" as you put it there is a lack thereof. If I get "into the Silence" or "into the Light" then I have very strange non-verbal and non-conceptual experiences.

 

[Lunitik]

Lunitik, nothing at all (or that which has gone beyond?). I dunno. If I concentrate on "watching" as you put it there is a lack thereof. If I get "into the Silence" or "into the Light" then I have very strange non-verbal and non-conceptual experiences.

This seems like you are entering into the space Buddha has called emptiness and Hindu's call the void, but I am not so sure because you seem to be skipping a stage, it seems more like a lack of focus because you don't seem to describe the middle step...

What you are saying doesn't seem as though awareness is becoming aware of itself, yet you describe a light and a silence. This seems to be a kensho, but much is missing - perhaps you are simply not trying to put that into words?

 

[Lunitik]

You are correct though, it is not a thing at all...

Can you enter this space with eyes open? Do you see a transparent wall about a foot in front of you? Can you remove this wall?

When entering the space of kensho/satori there is a sublime ecstasy - a type of reward much like in sex when you are finished. Your physical form will feel like it has exploded and then you are not at all and other is not at all - all that remains is an isness, a witnessing. It doesn't seem you have entered this space by your description.

 

[radarmark]

I do not understand what you are saying, while I have practiced Buddhist meditation it is not what I do as a Quaker. If I keep my eyes open I see what is at the end of the room (or end of what I can see if outside) and I watch bright greens and blues dissolve the "scene", which goes white. Per neuroscience this is the progression is one "overexposes" the retina. I am always refreshed and active afterwards... and always wish it had not stopped... but then I must interact with the rest of my Meeting or others.

 

[IowaGuy]

I'm assuming then you were raised in a post-Reformation tradition?

The original Catholic/Orthodox line is quite different — human nature is inherently good, but brought low by pride and envy.

I was raised Southern Baptist. We studied the same bible that I believe Catholics teach from (minus the apocrypha and catechisms). I am by no means an expert on apologetics, but here is some key scripture supporting (IMHO) evil human nature:

Genesis 6:5 - "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

IG's comment: this scripture describes the situation before God flooded the earth to kill every single human on the earth (except Noah's family), sure sounds like evil human nature to me.

Romans 3:9-17 - "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known"

Mark 7:20-23 - "And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

IG's comment: sure sounds like evil human nature to me.

What scripture do you reference as support for your idea that "human nature is inherently good"; that humans can be "good" without knowing God/Jesus? I agree that pride & envy are bad and bring us low. But where in the bible does it say than humans are inherently good? Everything I read says humans are "evil, sinners, etc" (substitute your favorite negative word) without knowing God/Jesus. If all humans are inherently sinners, aren't therefore all humans inherently evil? Why do humans have to be "saved" in order to be good?

I too, like you and HHDL, believe people are good by nature. But this isn't what the bible teaches; the bible (as I read it) teaches people are evil by nature and we need "God/Jesus" to "save" us. It's not warm & fuzzy so possibly not a standard teaching in many churches...

Hence my earlier comment, that much of Christianity (based on biblical scripture) teaches that man is inherently evil without God, and needs God/Jesus to "save" him. A very different world view than HHDL (Buddhist) who sees all humans as inherently good; and that in order to be good we don't need divine intervention.

If the original Catholic line is that humans are inherently good, then why all the fuss about infant baptisms? Surely these babies, some just a few days old, have not yet been brought low by "pride and envy"?

 

[Lunitik]

I do not understand what you are saying, while I have practiced Buddhist meditation it is not what I do as a Quaker. If I keep my eyes open I see what is at the end of the room (or end of what I can see if outside) and I watch bright greens and blues dissolve the "scene", which goes white. Per neuroscience this is the progression is one "overexposes" the retina. I am always refreshed and active afterwards... and always wish it had not stopped... but then I must interact with the rest of my Meeting or others.

Next time, contemplate on the following, and then do not allow mind to decipher anything around you - simply look but do not look at:

Imagine a zipper, on one side love and on the other hate, one side birth and the other death, all of the opposites on each side until lastly there is subject and object. Now, begin closing the zipper, feel yourself getting deeper into that space as you go... lastly close object and subject and try to see what is left.

My first satori happened because of 1 John 4:8 after reading a verse of Buddha essentially saying opposites are not real, you must merge them and find what remains, the result - object had been reduced to all being God, but there was still subject. This verse says God is love, there is love within me, can I become love as well? It happened when I realized consciously that all is love but the above device is necessary to create the context and the space for this happening. Right now, "me" and "God" are only concepts, projections of mind based on learning and enforcement from outside. This is the most important idea I have come across in all the scriptures I have read.

This is why the Buddhist goes on inquiring, what is this and where is it originating from? It will result in creating the same space eventually but it is a much more gradual process - many Buddhist monks go on contemplating on this for 40+ years without ever arriving.

Arriving is not a right word, you have gone no where, but language isn't sufficient to describe such things... apologies.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lunitik —

We have a fundamental disagreement here: your statement is that duality is valid.

It seems to me your premise is based on:
1 accepting duality
2 overcoming duality
3 refusing to accept duality.

One overcomes duality, as perceived, to experience 'oneness' or 'unity'. But unity does not negate or nullify the world as such ... it's merely seeing things from a different viewpoint.

My position is not dualist, it's not worldly, it is trinitarian. It recognises the inherent and necessary duality of contingent being — without it there would be no being, no movement, no activity (indeed, no bliss!) — and seeks, and speaks of, that which transcends it: It's origin and its end.

We will not agree on this subject although your overall statement is true.

If the overall statement is true, it is because the higher determines the lower. We will not agree, because you are arguing from a different location.

When functioning solely of mind, without any capacity for something higher it will simply appear nonsensical.

Is that how you function? It's not how the rest of the world works.

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.

In antiquity, the heart signifies the whole person. A change of heart (metanoia) is a necessity, but can only be brought about by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, enabling one to 'put on the mind of Christ' (cf 1 Corinthians 2:13-16). He who sees with the eye of Christ sees the all, from within, as it were, or from above ...

Again we will not agree because your understanding is fundamentally dualistic.

Not it's not, a point you keep missing. You seek the unity of the manifested. I seek the unity that transcends all phenomena.

You are fundamentally self-oriented, you become your own benchmark of truth as you see it, which we have already agreed, is a projection.

There is no created, there is only creativity...

This statement indicates a focus entirely upon the manifest world. I am asking you to focus on that which transcends the manifest.

... there is only constant change on this plane...

Quite right. That is a condition of this plane, I am talking about the absolute, not the contingent. A higher plane.

everything I say is based on the experience of that intimate unity.

I know ... but the point I am trying to draw you to is a non-experiential order of knowing and being, the 'all in all'.

It is utterly impossible, subjectivity is always projected onto the object, you see what you want to see.

As long as you see from within yourself, as long as you see with your mind's eye.

The priority of the objective over the subjective was established within the phenomenal world. When one transcends the world, there it changes, there is no 'object', there is only subject — God says "I am" and this is the statement of the Absolute, and only the Absolute can say "I am" ... all other being is conditional and sustained.

It is axiomatic of modernity that 'objectivity' is the grail, that 'subjectivity' is a falsehood, an illusion, and fallible ... precisely because it is fixed in a dualist outlook.

Christianity speaks of the Absolute in which there is no subject/object differentiation ... there is no I/Thou ... this is the very Mystery of the Trinity, Three Persons, One God.

Can the "I" die before the physical body?

Yes.

A question: How do you know that your experience is not an illusion? Your own projection?

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

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.

I know. The idea of killing the ego is an over-simplification, and somewhat delusory. Hence the need for a guru.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It seems to me your premise is based on:
1 accepting duality
2 overcoming duality
3 refusing to accept duality.

One overcomes duality, as perceived, to experience 'oneness' or 'unity'. But unity does not negate or nullify the world as such

Yes Yes yes!

Well put ol'man!

You have encapsulated the paradox of "advaita"-logic.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

And now for something completely different:

Imagine a zipper, . . . until lastly there is subject and object.
Now, begin closing the zipper . . .and try to see what is left.

Ah So Deska! So Mr Bond, we meet again.

 

[Lunitik]

It seems to me your premise is based on:
1 accepting duality
2 overcoming duality
3 refusing to accept duality.

You must live in the world of duality, but you must realize there is a deep oneness to it. You words are flawed because each is a doing and the whole point is to remove the doer from the equation - to simply accept the flow of the stream.

One overcomes duality, as perceived, to experience 'oneness' or 'unity'. But unity does not negate or nullify the world as such ... it's merely seeing things from a different viewpoint.

My position is not dualist, it's not worldly, it is trinitarian. It recognises the inherent and necessary duality of contingent being — without it there would be no being, no movement, no activity (indeed, no bliss!) — and seeks, and speaks of, that which transcends it: It's origin and its end.

You have not understood yourself here, for you to have a position at all you are subtly accepting duality - you are claiming and identifying with a conclusion. It is not a viewpoint at all, it is a direct experience.

Is that how you function? It's not how the rest of the world works.

This is the problem - that most bring mind too much into things.

All faiths bring about certain devices to transcend mind, to cease projecting, but always we try to understand through mind instead of utilizing this device. The trinity itself is such a device, it describes the object/subject and the transcendence. The father is the beloved, son is the lover and holy spirit is love. God is the result of the trinity, and the bible says God is love - with the caveat that it is not targeted at the object.

I am sure you will disagree here, for this is the nature of your dual understanding. In the transcendence of subject/object, there can be no targeting because there is no distinction. This is where I differ from Christianity, I am not of any traditional faith because I see they all point to the same thing and yet have attempted to teach it from a place of ignorance. This is the same for all faiths, when the master/lord is gone the people try to comprehend from mind and fail miserably. They say the master is not human because there is such difference between the master and them - instead of striving for the station of the master they worship and emulate instead, then all kinds of stupidity develops. The master is no longer there though, so he cannot correct the stupidity of what his statements have been morphed into.

I love Christ, I love Buddha, I love Krishna, I love Muhammad... their resulting traditions are disgusting though.

In antiquity, the heart signifies the whole person. A change of heart (metanoia) is a necessity, but can only be brought about by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, enabling one to 'put on the mind of Christ' (cf 1 Corinthians 2:13-16). He who sees with the eye of Christ sees the all, from within, as it were, or from above ...

Yes, this describes what I am discussing fairly accurately although I wish more Christians put more weight into these statements. 1 Corinthians seems like a very valuable letter although I have not read it all the way through, I often point at 12:12-27 as well. I have a Bible so I should probably read it further.

Not it's not, a point you keep missing. You seek the unity of the manifested. I seek the unity that transcends all phenomena.

You are fundamentally self-oriented, you become your own benchmark of truth as you see it, which we have already agreed, is a projection.

How can you experience unity based on division?

All is one, only mind needs to be transcended, but you seem to be attempting to find this unity through mind. I have experienced that unity, so I can say you are going about it wrong based on this statement.

This statement indicates a focus entirely upon the manifest world. I am asking you to focus on that which transcends the manifest.

It is simply not a rejection of the manifest, it is a non-choosing because choice is of the mind. The Manifest world is as God's gross body, while heaven is as his subtle body. We are created in the image of God, so we too have a gross body and a subtle body - called in your scriptures soul.

Quite right. That is a condition of this plane, I am talking about the absolute, not the contingent. A higher plane.

You keep separating and then talking about unity, it is quite strange. You are creating a civil war within yourself, you are accepting the minds sorting and focusing on the part you believe is most important. Subtle and phenomenal is not separable at all, you do yourself an injustice trying to put them into a competition.

I know ... but the point I am trying to draw you to is a non-experiential order of knowing and being, the 'all in all'.

Why are you under the impression this all-in-all cannot be experienced? It is exactly this experience which Buddhists call a kensho or satori.

As long as you see from within yourself, as long as you see with your mind's eye.

... nothing can be experienced at all of the real.

The priority of the objective over the subjective was established within the phenomenal world. When one transcends the world, there it changes, there is no 'object', there is only subject — God says "I am" and this is the statement of the Absolute, and only the Absolute can say "I am" ... all other being is conditional and sustained.

I am not prioritizing either, I am saying subject and object are utterly invalid - they are perceptions only. Transcendence is exactly this merging of the two, the realization that both are invalid - certainly to function you must experience relative to your position in existence, but you experience the whole in relation, you are no longer limited to the bubble of individuality.

You are the absolute, you are all that is, but you are as a bubble right now and you have convinced yourself you are the air trapped in that bubble rather than popping the bubble and being the whole.

Christianity speaks of the Absolute in which there is no subject/object differentiation ... there is no I/Thou ... this is the very Mystery of the Trinity, Three Persons, One God.

All religions speak of the fallacy of object/subject, this is exactly what I am trying to convey and yet you have felt the need to point it out like you are introducing something to me.

Clearly we are getting our wires crossed if you have not understood this is exactly what I am talking about.

A question: How do you know that your experience is not an illusion? Your own projection?

Because I was not there to project anything.

 

[Lunitik]

Ah So Deska! So Mr Bond, we meet again.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey here, but it is just the first device that came to mind... there has to be structure in the device, there has to be a space created for the happening. Essentially, the device combines the manifest plurality and asks: what is it?

Mind knows it is God, Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, and yet mind insists it is separate - you are directly confronted with the nature of the ego: the development of subjectivity, and its perception of objects.

How to overcome? Mind cannot, nothing mind rationalizes here is correct. Eventually, mind will know it cannot say anything and will stop trying, then something happens...

 

[Lunitik]

I know. The idea of killing the ego is an over-simplification, and somewhat delusory. Hence the need for a guru.

You are correct, saying the ego must die is itself a device: confronted with this, you are forced to accept your own fear of death.

Ego is why death is scary, it doesn't want to cease being, and yet it is not in the first place. If you can confront and overcome this fear, there will no longer be such an intense desire to protect the self. All fear is based on the instinct of self-preservation, but the whole basis for religion is that there is nothing to preserve - religion means re-bind, you are to cease separation and notions of distinction.

At the same time, it literally feels like death, I still have not overcome this basic fear hence I continue to return to duality. I go into it, then fear scrambles to pull me back out. Satori's are sublime, but samadhi certainly doesn't seem like it will be enjoyable - yet this is mind, the differentiator.

The guru can only point this out, can only be an assurance that you are safe, he has gone through and come out the other side. A guru is not necessary, it is only an assistance. Existence - God - is the ultimate guru, my problem is that I am not total in trust yet. The guru can take you to the edge and tell you the landing will not kill you, but it is still you that must jump. If they push it will not help, ego will remain through resentment.

The only thing to do is keep approaching until there is no longer fear, then you can go into the jump completely - this is exactly my current situation. If I come across a guru, I will certainly accept the assistance, but I know my hangup already so they would only provide proof it is ok. They may speed up the process, but I know what must be done.

 

[fadded blue jeans]

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

The Dalai Lama's writtings are human writtings ..

Christians believe holy scriptures are what God has to say to us..
and the bible definetly does say we do not measure up to Gods perfect standard .I think it would not be that hard to measure up to the imperfect standards of a dalai Lama .. But Gods perfect standards is another matter indeed..

go to chrisdriesbach.com and click on and listen to the song

"what were you thinking"

its at the very bottom of the page enjoy the other songs.. also

 

[radarmark]

Some Christians believe that. Many believing Christians (and a majority of those who have been Christians longer than there have been Protestants) believe in Divine inspiration, not Divine Word.

See, I find it hard to believe that G!d made mistakes like having the sun stop or Pi equalling 3 or killing a fig tree out of prtty jelousy.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia, radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

The Dalai Lama's writtings are human writtings ..

Christians believe holy scriptures are what God has to say to us..
and the bible definetly does say we do not measure up to Gods perfect standard .I think it would not be that hard to measure up to the imperfect standards of a dalai Lama .. But Gods perfect standards is another matter indeed..

go to chrisdriesbach.com and click on and listen to the song

"what were you thinking"

its at the very bottom of the page enjoy the other songs.. also

Thing is, can you prove that Jesus is the son of God? Can you prove the Bible contains what God has to say to humans? You cannot even prove it is saying what Jesus has told during his life - certainly it is not written by Jesus. Dalai Lama has stated exactly why this is his belief: It enables him to identify better with these things - if you convince yourself you are compassionate, you will be more compassionate because you want to confirm your belief. It is certainly an egoistic motivation...

The nature of humans is utterly a clean slate at birth, we are the most defenseless being on this planet when we are born. What happens, however, is that as we grow we go on accumulating certain behaviors and identifying with this or that. Mind begins to choose this is better than that, and so ego forms. Sin comes from a root meaning self, this is ego. When we are born, we will cry when we are hungry, when anything is not pleasing to us, so in this way the Bible is perfectly correct: we are inherently sinful - we are utterly focused on self. This does not mean we are inherently good or bad though, it only means we wish to preserve our selves. When we encounter something higher, when we know we are not this limited being that will die, then we drop sin - we drop the ego, the self. This is religion, faith: the art of dropping the limited perceptions and finding truth.

I guess I am essentially pointing out how your decision one way or the other is flawed, and accepting what a book says on the subject is not going to help: the situation is not so clear. This is an interfaith site, so it is not useful to commit so much to a particular tradition because those who aren't Christian will be offended - they are choosing against Christianity by choosing another faith. For me, all choosing is a sin, you will try to understand the insights of Christ through mind, and you will attempt to emulate his conclusions but you will never grow spiritually, you will just declare yourself to be more saintly than anyone else - this is egoistic, sin itself. Christ is one of the best teachers man has known, but by memorizing his words you will not be an authentic Christ, and the Bible calls you to be that, it says once you realize you are part of the whole, NOW you are part of the body of Christ* - no action is going to help, it must be a direct encounter, a baptism by fire.

It is strange to me that Christians go on baptizing in the way of John, Jesus was baptized by him out of respect but he says he baptizes by fire not water. Going through the motions of John is easier though, there is no effort involved. It is going to be more helpful on an interfaith site to discuss the ramifications and methods towards the baptism of fire though since all faiths share this - although it is always named differently, words are human invention, it is not surprising that each group has invented a different word for the same happening.

(* - 1 Corinthians 12:12-27)

 

[Lunitik]

Comment on that verse:

If Christ is God - which Christians believe he is, the incarnation thereof - then can his eyes not be God? Can his leg not be God? The whole of Christ is God but Christians deny this, they say humans cannot transcend their limited states and ascend to the station of Christ. Of course it is partly correct, it calls you to drop the ego entirely, the ego wants to be God itself but this is not possible. Instead, you must give your self - your ego - up entirely, devote yourself to the will of God - allow existence to guide you with complete trust. Then we can provide the function we were born to fulfill, and every destiny is just as important as the next - in fact these verses say it is the seemingly useless that are most valuable.

You are not Christ, you are not God, because there is no longer a you. Ego is gone - the I, the me - and the Holy Spirit has occupied its space. The ego is like a blockade: it won't allow God in; it wants to protect itself, it wants to remain distinct, it knows it cannot if God is allowed in. The nature of free will is exactly the ability to choose when the blockade is taken down - God will not force it.

All faiths speak of the process of dropping that blockade in their own ways.

 

[fadded blue jeans]

Some Christians believe that. Many believing Christians (and a majority of those who have been Christians longer than there have been Protestants) believe in Divine inspiration, not Divine Word.

See, I find it hard to believe that G!d made mistakes like having the sun stop or Pi equalling 3 or killing a fig tree out of prtty jelousy.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia, radarmark

perhaps you wouldnt find it so hard to believe if ithe bible teachings were taught correctly .

killing a fig tree out of prtty jealousy or the other statment ..
no where in the bible does it say such things .. you really should go to a different faith group if this is what they told you the bible says..

 

[Lunitik]

The purpose of scripture is to tell you about the blockade, to allow you to realize it is there at all - otherwise you will go on ignoring it, it is transparent so it is easy to miss. Once you have been informed, it then presents some devices to take the blockade down but you must engage in those devices totally. You cannot simply learn the ramifications on your egoistic life and pretend you are saintly now, ego will take pride in being a saint but you are no less sinful - you just repress it more than most.

I like the metaphor of the map: scripture is a piece of paper in your pocket that can guide you to the destination, but do not believe that you have been simply because you found it on the map - the paper cannot convey the experience of being there, you must go and see for yourself.