World View - What is basic Human Nature?

[thelerner]

Adept wrote this: "I think Xunzi, the Confucian master, is correct when he posits that we (humans) are inherently evil, and need proper education and upbringing to behave properly."

 

I..I don't know. I clearly agree with the second part, but think the first part is too harsh. We're not inherently evil. In every culture, family helps family, neighbor helps neighbor. Its just as we move away from a social circle we tend to grow increasingly callous and uncaring.

 

Human nature, person to person seems to work out pretty well. But as numbers get bigger we create labels, divisions and fight for resources and over ridiculous ideas.

[skydog]

Yeh I think that is just a belief, concept like saying everyone is selfish, yeh it probably has some truth to it, but people do lots of unselfish things and even the selfish things are to help others deep down, I dont even think people have that much conscious control of what their doing, their higher self is doing and their higher self is responding to the needs of the universe like when you do spontaneous movements you heal

[Marblehead]

I am of your understanding. When we are born we are inherently (in the most part) neutral. Yes, we are selfish because all we care about are our basic needs, mostly provided by the mother. From that point all else is learned. True, there are variations between individuals where their learning capacities may be defective or enhanced in some manner. At a certain age the learning continues but choices are made.

 

It is true though, in my understanding, that the Confucians believed as pointed out above.

 

Yeah, human nature has allowed for 7 billion of us to be on this planet. That's a pretty good productive rate.

[de_paradise]

Both (good/evil) are true, it comes down to what you are emphasizing in your mind when you think about the problem--our samsaric (mundane, worldy, animal) human selves, or our enlightened higher selves. We have the capability to run selfish (evil) until extinction, or run selfless cooperative (good) to reach an equalibrium where everyone is better off. I'd argue the good is the stronger nature since we are given towards spiritual evolution, but perhaps in Confucius' age it was obscured too much. Our age is running more and more evil, insituted selfishness, but has acheived a false sense of security.

[adept]

Maybe 'evil' is the wrong word. I think Xunzi uses 'flawed' in some commentaries on his work.

Yes, there is a lot of good in the world, but there are some seriously sick, twisted individuals, and groups/nations.

This is why the Buddhist path doesn't work for me, however hard I have tried to understand and practice it.

I just cannot have compassion and forgiveness for every sentient being. Some deserve punishment for heinous crimes.

[MERCELESS ONE]

we humans are concerned with survival! plain and simple! the way in which a culture "survive" may be looked at by another as wrong, rite, evil, good! dosent matter, people will do whatever it takes to survive. just as the animals do. the difference is as the second line says we do need proper education to survive properly. i guess in a way thats benificial to all. i my self dont believe in good and evil because theyre based on opinion, culture, religion, ect.. so i observe life and culture from a diffent point of view. in truth its whatever works to ensure survival!

[deci belle]

Human nature is awake. If it's not awake, it's learned.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

The invention of evil... The invention of evil; thought and little more is the idea of evil, an invention conceived of to convince the prefrontal cortex... or is it the cerebral? the brain with it's bloated egoic center cannot handle the joke, the invention of the idea of evil, a tool used to coerce the direction of thought... and action. Especially action...

[Aaron]

"When all the world recognises beauty as beauty,

this in itself is ugliness.

When all the world recognises good as good,

this in itself is evil."

 

Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu)

 

It seems to me that human nature cannot be quantified by cannon or ideology, and though it can be examined by philosophy, it always comes up a bit short. Lao Tzu was an advocate of neither good nor evil, because he understood that neither really exists except within the hearts of men. Lao Tzu never said, "do good, but not evil", rather he urged people to be compassionate, to not compete with others, and to be happy with having what they need.

 

No one is born good or evil. No one is born in sin either, but it is detrimental to any religion to plant this seed in order to ensure people feel something is wrong with them that they need fix. It is also detrimental if you are going to ensure your followers are going to raise their children according to religious doctrine. After all a parent is going to be much more likely to raise their child how you wish them to if you tell them that their child is sinful or evil.

 

Many of you may have failed to realize this or may deny this, simply because you believe wholeheartedly that we must raise our children in a specific sort of way to ensure that they do not become criminals, vagrants, rapists, or mass murderers, but keep in mind that more than a few criminals were raised in religious families. Teaching a child what is good and evil doesn't necessarily ensure that they will become good, rather we should teach our children by example, because after all what sticks with them is what they see us do, not what we tell them. My mother told me never to steal, but I watched my father steal all the time. She told me not to lie, but my father was a compulsive liar. In the end I did not become a thief or liar, but not because I thought it was wrong, per se, but because I saw what it made my father and I didn't want to be like him. With that said, my father was a decent man. He never hurt people (at least not those he thought were innocent), he only had a skewed view of the world, and of course I probably have a skewed view as well, and for that I thank him.

 

You see I don't believe human nature is inherently evil or good, but rather we are born with an empathic connection to others and an understanding of what our basic needs are, This empathic connection instills within us a predisposition for compassion (look at any child who sees an animal or person hurt if you have trouble believing this). The ability to recognize needs can be seen in any healthy baby or toddler, after all they are very happy eating til they are not hungry anymore and then doing what they feel needs to be done, playing (which in fact does need to be done for their healthy development).

 

Somewhere along the line we screw this up and Lao Tzu points out that this is caused by our deviation from Te, specifically our reliance on social conventions and ceremony. In short, we are not born good or evil, we are molded that way by the very society that reviles it, in many cases the more we try to make someone good, the more evil they become. It's not just coincidence, but rather it's our natural response to an unnatural conditioning. We rebel against what we know to be wrong, even if we've been told it is right.

 

My recommendation for anyone interested in raising healthy children, or in returning to their original nature, keenly review what you've been taught and put it the test, does this action harm you or someone else? If not, then why is it wrong or right, good or evil? I think you'll be surprised if you examine enough of your preconceived beliefs just how many don't pass the test.

 

"How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?

What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?

Must I fear what others fear?

What abysmal nonsense this is!"

 

Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu)

 

 

Aaron

Edited November 26, 2012 by Aaron

[johndoe2012]

.

Edited August 18, 2013 by chris d

[konchog uma]

@ adept : the buddha never advocated forgiveness without punishment of all beings just because they are sentient.

 

@ deci belle : yes human nature is awake. wakefulness is beyond concepts of good and evil, it is just awake! it can be awake and good, or awake and evil! or obscured by some kind of torpor but it is still there, awake...

 

like de_paradise pointed out, humans are inherently good and inherently evil. But the ground of being, the nature of our basic wholeness as human beings is beyond moral distinction. It is like saying 'is a fox good or evil?" they eat chickens so if you like chickens they are evil, and if you dont like chickens they are good. So much conversation about inherent human nature comes down to this.

Edited November 26, 2012 by anamatva

[deci belle]

anamatva said:

@ deci belle : yes human nature is awake. wakefulness is beyond concepts of good and evil, it is just awake! it can be awake and good, or awake and evil! or obscured by some kind of torpor but it is still there, awake...

 

Yet being awake oneself is not it~ just this.

 

This is not beyond concepts because one's dharma eye sees Suchness as is, dealing with delusion on its own terms without regard to conventions of good or bad.

 

It is not up to anyone but yourself— inherent human nature must be penetrated and activated in the world. It is not that people are born with human nature; entitled to it. People's inherent human nature is unborn and this must be realized oneself.

[Clarity]

I would suggest we leave 'basic' and 'nature out' of the equation because the three words (basic, human, nature) really don't fit together very strongly anyway.

 

What's left is our humanity, which is waiting to be used.

[konchog uma]

are you saying that humans do not have a basic nature?

 

or that our nature is not basic?

 

or something else?

 

how do you distinguish between what i am calling basic human nature and what you are calling humanity?

 

it seems merely semantic to me, thanks for clarifying

Edited November 27, 2012 by anamatva

[Aaron]

are you saying that humans do not have a basic nature?

 

or that our nature is not basic?

 

how do you distinguish between what i am calling basic human nature and what you are calling humanity?

 

it seems merely semantic to me, thanks for clarifying

 

I'm not one to answer a question for another person, but I think I understand what Clarity is alluding to which follows the principles of what Lao Tzu said,

 

 

"How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?

What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?

Must I fear what others fear?

What abysmal nonsense this is!"

 

(tr. John C. H. Wu)

 

Essentially, as I mentioned and people seemed to ignore, the quantification of human nature can't be achieved by religions or philosophy, rather it is an individual experience, unique to each of us. What you say is basic, may not be basic for someone else. What you call nature (or natural) may not be so for someone else, even what you define as human may not be recognized as such. For instance the Spartans would've looked at the Buddhist definition with a bit of disdain, if not outright contempt. With that in mind, perhaps you would rather have Clarity accept that the Buddhist definition is infallible, but before you do so, perhaps you can explain why it is so. If it is not infallible, then why pursue the discussion?

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

there are lots of reasons to discuss things beyond the reason that one believes ones point of view to be infallible.

 

which of course no point of view is. but thats a different discussion.

 

thank you for your contribution to the thread, but i will wait for clarity to answer my questions

[Clarity]

are you saying that humans do not have a basic nature?

 

or that our nature is not basic?

 

or something else?

 

how do you distinguish between what i am calling basic human nature and what you are calling humanity?

 

it seems merely semantic to me, thanks for clarifying

 

I am saying it's not about concepts, morality or definitions; it's the experience of connecting to our humanity or essence. Yes, I suppose you could say it's mostly a question of semantics in regard to your post. However, once we begin to have a discussion about the experience, we are already several levels removed.

 

As a species, we are what we are without the need for any definition. I mean a cat or dog is what it is, they don't need a discussion or a philosophy to define their existence.

 

So, yes, I suppose I am saying that there is no such thing as 'basic human nature' in the abstract, that can be defined by words and philosophy. For the purposes of discussion, I prefer 'humanity' or 'essence' because it is simpler and less confusing. When I made my statement about the three words, I mean it based on the energy behind the words (not really going together strongly).

 

I do not agree that humanity is good or evil, flawed or perfect, because these are limited judgements we make about ourselves as a species. We judge ourselves and other people's actions all the time with little insight or understanding into the deeper level of cause and effect.

 

Eh, I hope that clarified my original statement.

[johndoe2012]

.

Edited August 18, 2013 by chris d

[konchog uma]

yeah thanks clarity. Any issue is deeper than you can ever get by talking about it, which is just a verbal construct representing what you're talking about, not the thing itself.

 

But that fact doesn't negate the benefit that can come out of the use of ideas. Talking about human nature is as far removed from human nature as talking about anything else is from that thing, but that doesn't mean that no good can come of talking about things.

 

In the end, i agree with you, but i also talk about things. I am not caught up in an extreme need for purity of conversation because there is no such thing. Conversation by its nature is just inherently removed from what it represents. So taking that into account, i still talk about things.

 

I think we are talking about the same thing though, humanity and basic nature. Perhaps using phraseology that arises in buddhist thought turns some people off lol but thats their problem not mine.

 

Thanks for expanding on your point

[zerostao]

i must be waaaaaayyy basic then, coz i always felt, and still feel that human basic nature is a desire for happiness and to share that happiness.

[Aaron]

I think it's much easier to try to place the notion of humanity in a box, because then you have a clear cut answer to what the problem is, no searching, no real work, you just accept what you're told and go from there. I just feel sorry for all the people that waste their time on other people's answers regarding these things, when it's all inside of them.

 

I like Lao Tzu, but I heed his warnings and don't accept everything he teaches without questioning those teachings. I don't laud him as a prophet or messiah, just a man who understood some things. I think the most fatal mistake any of us can make regarding spirituality is when we stop questioning the answers we're given and just accept them without fault. I see the vast majority of the people I talk to lately doing that and it scares me. It should scare them too.

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

the placing of concepts into a box only happens when one fails to realize the reality beyond concepts. If one thinks that the concept is the reality, they are in a box. If one realizes that the concept is only representational of an indescribable reality, they are out of the box, even if they have opinions.

 

Some people choose not to talk and that is fine, i feel that they are strong in their practice and have good ideals. And some people (like us lol) choose to talk. That is also fine.

 

Taking the stance that "oh well you used words to describe that so you are therefore wrong" LOL has the potential to be the ultimate daoist cop-out. Believe me, some people actually do a lot of work and searching within the context of language!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

its not a box, its a think tank...