Our true nature

[flowperson]

Paladin:

No not a blank slate, but a slate full of the genetic predispositions that we inherit from our ancestors. We all differ in what potentialities that we are born with through that inheritance, but for them to become real, one way or the other, they must be evoked through our interactions with our environments.

flow....

 

[Paladin]

Someone once asked a Zen master that, "if there is no self, then what is it that reincarnates?" Without skipping a beat the master replied "Your neuroses"

Okay, so far then I understand that Wil takes a "we are a baseline average of the all the actions we perform" kind of approach, that our behavior defines us when looked at from the whole. But does this really reach our essence, are we a spark of the Divine so to speak or just a bunch of neural pathways with synapses firing away depending on what our genetic make up interacting with an outer environment?
I would like to explore further Flow, what is it that makes these choices in responding to the evironment? Or, is it purely mechanical?
I suppose we we would then venture into the nature of Mind itself, and argue that we are mind, never mind the dualism of good, bad, and not good and not bad. This is where things start getting Zen like
My original purpose was to show that our spiritual predisposition, what paths we are attracted to are largely based on what we believe we and the rest of humanity is in its essence.

For example if JBF believes that man is basically "Wicked in his heart" he might be attracted to a fundamental type of Christianity that believes that a literal interpretation of scripture and strict adherence to an outer moral code would bring about hapiness, peace, well being and a closer walk with God. (Just and example here please do not send cards and letters, the opinions of one nutcase are not the opinions of this station or its affiliates)

Now if say, Lunamoth (for example) believes that people are basically good,a nd created in the image of God, She might be attracted to a religion that supports inner growth, or a return to that essentially divine nature as means of enlightenment, again the Gold coin covered with mud analogy I used earlier.

However, we have uncovered some very interesting ideas here, that would be worth following up on! Thanks Wil, Flow and JBF!

 

[Quahom1]

Deceit, that is man's nature. We both smile and say it's alright, but it isn't. We act cordially to enemies we'd rather put down, but we maintain. We gossip about our neighbors and call it "chatting". We keep up with the Jone's until we are bankrupt, then blame them in our hearts. We go the otherway when we see someone in trouble on the street. We want nothing to do with our neighbors' woes if it will inconvenience us in any way. We distrust the lone walker on a highway, because he may bring us to harm. We keep going after passing an accident because it isn't our business and we aren't medical personnel, trained to handle trauma...all excuses for the fact that we are decieptfull and selfish, and selfcentered naturally.

But, if you've gone this far into my post...

WE FIGHT this nature of ours. We FORCE oursleves to get involved. WE deal with our enemies despite our misgivings. We choose to hold our tongue rather that add to a story. We DECIDE, we don't need what the Jone's got, we help those even though it might get us really involved. We take chances with the lone highway walker, we stop at accidents and give whatever we have that might help, all things that make no sense, and do not contribute to our personal survival, and for a moment...we don't care about ourselves.

Therein is our hope, for us. We are capable of the next step.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[Paladin]

Thanks for weighing in Q, I always enjoy your input.
So, if I have this straight then, we start out being pretty hedonistic, petty, negative and so on, but within us is the potential to rise above all this and move toward an altruistic intent. Okay as far as it goes but where does this inspiriation come from? I mean if one is a believer in God and that we were created basically bad but with a spark of potential for goodness?

 

[Quahom1]

Thanks for weighing in Q, I always enjoy your input.
So, if I have this straight then, we start out being pretty hedonistic, petty, negative and so on, but within us is the potential to rise above all this and move toward an altruistic intent. Okay as far as it goes but where does this inspiriation come from? I mean if one is a believer in God and that we were created basically bad but with a spark of potential for goodness?

Consider an infant child...then watch him grow and learn. With the learning comes values, that carry with us the rest of our lives. Even if the child had a pitiful upbringing, a human will seek out good in some form or fashion, whether it be a kindly old woman who puts hot food in a pot in a dark alley for a kid she spotted eating from a garbage can, or a baby kitten that a convict befriends, who in turn loves on and is faithful to him.

I submit the laws are written in man's heart, and all it takes is something as small as a smile to open those laws to a man, and cause him to change.

You know there is an awful lot written in scripture about the hardening of man's heart...ever wonder why?

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[Caimanson]

So, if I have this straight then, we start out being pretty hedonistic, petty, negative and so on, but within us is the potential to rise above all this and move toward an altruistic intent. Okay as far as it goes but where does this inspiriation come from? I mean if one is a believer in God and that we were created basically bad but with a spark of potential for goodness?

Regarding the negative aspects of human nature, the first thing that comes to mind is the existential dilemma: Life in my eyes becomes the rat race, the hamster on the spinning wheel, basically meaningless.
However, I think that fighting or taming our nature is futile, imo it is rather about getting in touch with the divine, or perhaps that inner spark you mention.

Alvaro

 

[earl]

What is our true nature? I seem to find more open-ended quasi-answers offered by prose and poetry writers, responses more verdant questions than true answers (Rilke did so famously encourage one to "love the questions" more than the answers), that are meant to open up awareness in a koan-like manner, speak to me. For instance, some responses from Aldous Huxley:

"If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am...What in fact I am...is the reconciliation of yes and no, lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of not-two.... Knowing who in fact we are results in Good Being, and Good Being results in the most appropriate kind of good doing."

The Greek term for sin was hamartia, translated as to "miss the mark," as an archer whose aim is off. That's all "sin" is-to miss the mark of the appropriate answer to Huxley's question. I do believe in "original sin-"that it is incumbent within the human condition to so easily miss that mark. Happy hunting, earl

 

[arthra]

Paladin wrote:

we (Buddhists) are the "Gold coin covered in mud"

We Baha'is have a similar saying...

The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287)

 

[arthra]

I'll do this again...Please ignore my previous post.

Paladin wrote:

The Buddhist idea is that we are the "Gold coin covered in mud" and that by dropping the layers of negativity we can recover our true Buddha nature.

And I wanted to share a somewhat similar saying from the Baha'i Writings:

The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287)

 

[David_IV]

Paladin: It seems that within most religious models there are basically two ways of seeing into the nature of human beings. One is that humans are basically evil (or amoral at best) and need something outside themselves to offer discipline and structure lest they fall back into their base nature, the path to their own demise.

David: The word evil comes from the ancient Hebrew ra which means, in a basic sense, justice through calamitous events. Being grounded by your parents, for example, would be evil.

Amoral? Please. That is what we strive for, is it not? Without a moral guideline?

You are trying to come to some understanding through what? Nothing.
Paladin: The other is that people are still as they were created, ( or came to be) pure, innocent but covered over with layers of wrong thinking, false beliefs, and therefore crude, irreverent, even evil behaviors at times. It is to this belief that people can become self correcting if lead by proper teachings and sound practice until the discipline comes from within and looking outside the self becomes an incorrect practice.
David: Excrement. If man invented his own demise then he is only satisfying his own desires. If he is following the design of a grand creator he is only falling short of that itself. Either way you missed the point, though you seemed at first to be clever in doing so, you are not.
Paladin: What do you think, is it one or the other or is there a third (or beyond) possibility?
David: If you want to see "the nature" of humanity why don't you open your eyes and stop trying to see things in some politically correct way which tries in some way to appease the intellect or the emotion of the hand that feeds you?
Look at what the Bible says of sin. Don't be afraid, it isn't much more daunting than natural selection it only requires a little more thought and a great deal less verbatim.

 

[Quahom1]

Welcome David IV to CR.

Before you continue, please read the CR Code of Conduct found HERE. We do not attack persons, we express our own thoughts and instigate dialogue with our peers and collegues.

Please consider.

v/r

Quahom
moderator

 

[taijasi]

Re: Our truest nature - is GOOD!

I submit the laws are written in man's heart, and all it takes is something as small as a smile to open those laws to a man, and cause him to change.

Here is a seed thought, a gem of Truth if ever there was one! Thank you, Q.

Thanks, too, for other wise words, and reminders ...

as of -> The Law, , written in your heart, and in mine.


The Law that is written in the heart

I would like to join every Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Pagan in an affirmation that this Law is Love. Agape, Dharma, Ananda, and so forth ... there may be more than Love, but we do know that the Law is Love, and no one needs to tell us this. We are born knowing, understanding, feeling, and also yearning both to love and to be loved.

Do we think that our deepest, innermost nature - could somehow be less than this dearest, Greatest, most sublime and Supreme Law - Love? If Love iteslf, much as we like to approach it as a verb rather than a noun, if Love itself is identifiable with God, and if we all emerge from the very Heart of God - the Source of Love ... then should we really be so surprised to learn that in Truth, our truest, highest Nature is also loving, like God's?

This Spark of God dwells within us, for certain, but is the cleft really unbridgeable?

St. Paul spoke of "Christ in you, the Hope of GLORY." (Colossians I:26-7). Imagine this aspect of our being forever abiding within the Heart of Father-Mother God ... yet also as located about 12 feet above our head. It is the high point of our contact with the Divine.

Having a Judeo-Christian background, I am comfortable with the Vav, the Hebrew letter - or glyph, at the top of this post, as a symbol. It represents the Presence within us of God, the `Father,' from Christianity.

I also visualize Deity as the Eternally burning Flame, Who appreared in precisely this way to Moses. Within this Eternal Flame, we are Divine Sparks, winking in & out of being - yet always, at this level, in God's Presence.

And here we find ourselves, living, walking and breathing on planet Earth. Upon this planet, there is a manifestation of God that can be symbolized by an equal-armed Cross, encircled - or bounded - by a ring, the Globe itself. This boundary shows that Christ is not yet transcendent, or fully triumphed - having not been "Raised up" within the hearts of the majority ... we still have some growth to do.

Our Hope lies in the fact that we are One Family, and the bonds that Unite us are far stronger than those that divide. That's my summary response to this entire thread, in briefest form.

The Earth, our Mother, is the womb of Creation, and here is the Aspect of Deity which nurtures the Christ. It has been beautifully symbolized thousands of years before Jesus was born, and certainly in the Gospel narrative as well. This is the recognition of the Pantheist, of God within Nature, to be viewed alongside the Deist's acknowledgement of the Godhead above.

Thse are like two poles of One spirituality, whose proper focus is St. Paul's "Christ in you" ...

The world's great Mystery Traditions have universally acknowledged, affirmed, honored, sought and taught the presence of the Christ within. Appearances and presentations vary, but not the Essence, the Truth.

If we acknowledge one Humanity, despite differences of gender, skin color, facial appereance, or even personality characteristics (such as musical aptitude, scientific genius, or leadership strengths) ... then we do a disservice to God by forcing our personal religious or spiritual template upon any other living human being.

To be true to self and true to God, we must Honor God in our own hearts and acknowledge the Highest Good within all people ...

Joseph Campbell's Hero of a Thousand Faces reminds us that there is a Heroic Archetype living within us all. The Hero within is able to draw from a fount of Pure Goodness, of Divine Strength, and of Infinite, Boundless Wisdom ... so long as the motivation is pure and focused on the rendering of some Service to the Greater Whole.

God's Plan of Divine evolution for Humanity leads us from Original Good, through increasing Good, into the Greatest Good imaginable. "Bad" can be an unproductive afternoon, an angry word spoken rashly, glass broken unnecessarily, or an airline accident whose survivors are burned beyond recognition. We can find "bad" if we look, but each of these scenarios is also Good. They become opportunities for learning and growth ... or "oflags," as I've heard it said. Some are larger than others.

Instead of saying, "oh, s**t," we need to learn to say, "Oh, neat!" (maybe not after a major disaster, but how about when someone rear-ends you on the way to the grocery store?) It's amazing how the worst of circumstances can develop into truly Golden opportunities. I could not lift the book containing a record of my "missed opportunities" from last week alone. I hope this coming week's is at least a hundred pounds lighter. But that's up to me.

For the exceedingly stubborn, I remind folks that Christ cast demons out of people, not vice versa. What do you suppose it was He hoped to replace the demons with? And if you say, "Him," then be a little more specific. Skip the metaphysics, tell me something a chld of four can understand. If you can do that, we're on the same page.

Our genetic code is perhaps a bit over-burdened at this point with some material challenges which the Spirit must untangle. It will take a true, team effort, yet I think the vehicle (body of Humanity, civlization itself) can probably be salvaged if we are extra careful. The loss of a limb is acceptable survival. An offending eye can be cast out. But thanatos must turn loose his butterfly.

Ah, so much for the 4-year old ... lol

I dunno, maybe he's just a bit like Lenny ...

Love and Light,

taijasi (andrew)

 

[jiii]

I am compelled to offer this koan, though I know it isn't exactly a rational argument :

A Zen student came to Bankei and complained: "I have an ungovernable temper. How can I cure it?"

"You have something very strange," replied the Master. "Let me see what you have."

"Just now I cannot show you," replied the other.

"When can you show me?" asked Bankei.

"It arises unexpectedly," replied the student.

"Then," concluded Bankei," it must not be your own true nature. If it were, you could show it to me at any time. When you were born you did not have it, and your parents did not give it to you. Think that over."

I suppose that this koan could spark a few different rational deductions and questions. Before I even begin, I will mention that, in the words of DT Suzuki, "Strictly speaking, Zen has no philosophy of its own." The koan is not the same kind of rational argument as we are making on this board, as many of you already know. Thus, whatever I deduce from here on should not be interpreted as my philosphical ideas as inspired by this piece, not my trying to pin down what Bankei is saying, which would prove futile.

Bankei seems to be pointing to true nature as something that is unconditionally available. Now, I think this can be likened to the Taoist sentiment that "The Tao is that from which nothing can depart".

The idea, here, being that our "true nature" is that which we can never lose and never gain...whatever that may be. For whatever it's worth, this seems like at least an interesting point to work from in some further discussion.

Just one more quick note. What about the fact that the term "true nature" in juxtaposition to plain "nature", seems to me to be a little confusing. I am left to wonder whether or not the very idea of "true nature" is somewhat of an assumption in the first place...suggesting we, as humans, have a nature that is somehow more natural than nature. Are humans supernatural creatures? It leads me to wonder:

"Does nature have a true nature?"

LOL maybe I'm just playing word games now. But, maybe "true nature" is something people will always try to search for so long as they don't feel themselves to be "nature"...so long as they have the sensation within that they aren't natural, and that there must be another nature...a better nature...or, at least, a "truer" nature.

-jiii

 

[Paladin]

I am compelled to offer this koan, though I know it isn't exactly a rational argument :



I suppose that this koan could spark a few different rational deductions and questions. Before I even begin, I will mention that, in the words of DT Suzuki, "Strictly speaking, Zen has no philosophy of its own." The koan is not the same kind of rational argument as we are making on this board, as many of you already know. Thus, whatever I deduce from here on should not be interpreted as my philosphical ideas as inspired by this piece, not my trying to pin down what Bankei is saying, which would prove futile.

Bankei seems to be pointing to true nature as something that is unconditionally available. Now, I think this can be likened to the Taoist sentiment that "The Tao is that from which nothing can depart".

The idea, here, being that our "true nature" is that which we can never lose and never gain...whatever that may be. For whatever it's worth, this seems like at least an interesting point to work from in some further discussion.

Just one more quick note. What about the fact that the term "true nature" in juxtaposition to plain "nature", seems to me to be a little confusing. I am left to wonder whether or not the very idea of "true nature" is somewhat of an assumption in the first place...suggesting we, as humans, have a nature that is somehow more natural than nature. Are humans supernatural creatures? It leads me to wonder:

"Does nature have a true nature?"

LOL maybe I'm just playing word games now. But, maybe "true nature" is something people will always try to search for so long as they don't feel themselves to be "nature"...so long as they have the sensation within that they aren't natural, and that there must be another nature...a better nature...or, at least, a "truer" nature.

-jiii

I was surprised and delighted by all the insightful responses this thread has invoked. However, I am not easily impressed. I must say I am impressed by this response Jiii. Not because it expresses exactly what I had hoped to elicit in such a succinct way, but the genuineness of the use of the story. Nothing in your post was intended to impress and yet it is impressive.
Thank you Jii.

As to the "true nature" idea, yes you are quite correct I think, as redundant as saying "hot water heater" You see, it was phrased that way to differentiate the conventional from the absolute, from form to emptiness as it were. I am sure you understand.

I have learned a great deal from all of the responses on this thread and am most grateful to have such wonderful teachers. This is so much more than just a pretty thought, it is reality for me, thank you all. Especially for David IV 's post because it gives me pause to consider not only the plight of someone else, but how their pain and evokes certain emotions within myself as well.

Oh, and Jiii? I'm sure you already know this, but to make my own position clear, while I have the highest regard for logic and well reasoned argument I do understand that they are tools. Sometimes you just can't use a screwdriver for a hammer, and when it comes to trancendant reality there is, I believe, a more subtle tool to use.

Peace

Mark

 

[RubySera_Martin]

For example if JBF believes that man is basically "Wicked in his heart" he might be attracted to a fundamental type of Christianity that believes that a literal interpretation of scripture and strict adherence to an outer moral code would bring about hapiness, peace, well being and a closer walk with God. (Just and example here please do not send cards and letters, the opinions of one nutcase are not the opinions of this station or its affiliates)

Now if say, Lunamoth (for example) believes that people are basically good,a nd created in the image of God, She might be attracted to a religion that supports inner growth, or a return to that essentially divine nature as means of enlightenment, again the Gold coin covered with mud analogy I used earlier.

Paladin:

Two problems here:

1. How do you propose that the genetic code is projected onto and reflected by the environment? You say we inherit our religion in genetic code. And suddenly we respond to violent behaviour or smiling faces as though genetics and outer behaviour were one and the same thing. Genetic code is invisible to the naked eye yet you describe highly visible behaviour.
2. How do you explain me? I was born into a church that is as fundamentalist and literalist and legalistic as it gets and that definitely believes in "spare the rod and spoil the child" because humans are inherently wicked. I was definitely raised in a "violent" environment in more ways than one. For four and a half decades I was not exposed to any other form of Christian thought. Yet I am convinced, based on personal observation of life, that humans are inherently good and I am about as liberal as it gets re the Christian religion.

You'd have to go back further in my ancestory than I have records (more than 5-6 generations) to find a drop of liberal blood.

How do you explain this? As I said to someone else tonight, I am not challenging your statement per se; I just don't understand and I would like to learn. The latter has really puzzled me for many years because I have never fitted into my own family. There just are no psyche texts (that I have seen) that explain me.

Later addition: What about adopted children? Their genetic code would hardly be anywhere near like that of their adoptive parents, esp. if a white American couple adopts a baby girl from East Asia. The adoptive environment would be one thing; the genetic coding would be totally different.

 

[Paladin]

Paladin:

Two problems here:

1. How do you propose that the genetic code is projected onto and reflected by the environment? You say we inherit our religion in genetic code. And suddenly we respond to violent behaviour or smiling faces as though genetics and outer behaviour were one and the same thing. Genetic code is invisible to the naked eye yet you describe highly visible behaviour.
2. How do you explain me? I was born into a church that is as fundamentalist and literalist and legalistic as it gets and that definitely believes in "spare the rod and spoil the child" because humans are inherently wicked. I was definitely raised in a "violent" environment in more ways than one. For four and a half decades I was not exposed to any other form of Christian thought. Yet I am convinced, based on personal observation of life, that humans are inherently good and I am about as liberal as it gets re the Christian religion.

You'd have to go back further in my ancestory than I have records (more than 5-6 generations) to find a drop of liberal blood.

How do you explain this? As I said to someone else tonight, I am not challenging your statement per se; I just don't understand and I would like to learn. The latter has really puzzled me for many years because I have never fitted into my own family. There just are no psyche texts (that I have seen) that explain me.

Later addition: What about adopted children? Their genetic code would hardly be anywhere near like that of their adoptive parents, esp. if a white American couple adopts a baby girl from East Asia. The adoptive environment would be one thing; the genetic coding would be totally different.

Ruby,

Nowhere in any of my posts do I mention a "genetic code" I do however in the post you quoted mention an "outer moral code" The Ten Comandments would qualify as such. Any book of law would qualify as such. I use the term "Outer moral code" to differentiate from that which is inherent in a person who is inwardly directed and self motivated for ethical behavior. This of course would indicate a higher level of moral development as well as perhaps a higher level of consciousness. I think you were attracted to a more liberal understanding of life because in your heart of hearts you knew that Man's basic nature, underneath all the things you experienced was good. This is why I belive you to be so emotionally healthy and strong, because no one could take away the inward direction you recieved from the Absolute reality, that you might refer to as GOD.

BTW good critical thinking skills and well put together argument. Well done!

Peace

Mark