Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Man's essential nature
Hello. This is my first post. I'm not a member of any religion as such, but I've read around the subjects.
The thing I wanted to ask people about is the debate about man's essential nature. As I understand it, Buddhism holds that man is born with a perfect nature, but it is obscured by ignorance and needs to be uncovered again (the metaphor I read is that the self is a gold nugget covered with dirt). Christianity, on the other hand, holds that man's nature is bad (the fall from grace) and he has to work to improve it by means of prayer, good deeds, etc.
My problem with both of these is that they both lead to a "so what?". Even if man is inherently perfect and has the buddha-nature, there are some people who repeatedly perform acts of such intense evil that it seems at best irrelevant and at worst glib to say that "hey, they're still perfect at the basic level". On top of this, it seems to be suggesting that - for example - Oskar Schindler and Torquemada had the same essential nature. Same goes for the Christian example; there are people who spend all their lives helping others with little to no thought of themselves, so it seems strange to say that these people are fundamentally sinners. And even if they are, "so what?" Their actions seem to fly in the face of such an assertion.
In other words, you can't generalise about the essential nature of man. Sure, it is nicer to imply that man is essentially good than to imply that he is essentially bad, but to me these are two sides of the same coin.
Would very much like to hear the thoughts of both Buddhists and those interested in Buddhism.
The thing I wanted to ask people about is the debate about man's essential nature. As I understand it, Buddhism holds that man is born with a perfect nature, but it is obscured by ignorance and needs to be uncovered again (the metaphor I read is that the self is a gold nugget covered with dirt). Christianity, on the other hand, holds that man's nature is bad (the fall from grace) and he has to work to improve it by means of prayer, good deeds, etc.
My problem with both of these is that they both lead to a "so what?". Even if man is inherently perfect and has the buddha-nature, there are some people who repeatedly perform acts of such intense evil that it seems at best irrelevant and at worst glib to say that "hey, they're still perfect at the basic level". On top of this, it seems to be suggesting that - for example - Oskar Schindler and Torquemada had the same essential nature. Same goes for the Christian example; there are people who spend all their lives helping others with little to no thought of themselves, so it seems strange to say that these people are fundamentally sinners. And even if they are, "so what?" Their actions seem to fly in the face of such an assertion.
In other words, you can't generalise about the essential nature of man. Sure, it is nicer to imply that man is essentially good than to imply that he is essentially bad, but to me these are two sides of the same coin.
Would very much like to hear the thoughts of both Buddhists and those interested in Buddhism.
0
Comments
So I think it's fair to say that Buddhists would prefer to live in a Gandhian world. It's about real happiness and real compassion for others. Very practical and pragmatic, with a pretty profound effect on personal happiness and the true happiness of others.
Yes, that all makes sense if you accept the notion that one's primordial nature is perfect. My point is that saying this about someone like Hitler is stretching the point. It may be theoretically true, but under any kind of cursory investigation it sounds, well, I'd use the word "naive", like seeing a kid who is a persistent bully and who regularly beats other children and saying "he's only doing it because he needs friendship, he just doesn't know a better way of doing it" (or, as you phrased it, a more skilful way). It's ascribing a noble purpose to a negative act.
Not appeasing evil is good; I wouldn't accuse Buddhism of ignoring the fact that people do bad things. It's just the idea that these people are all, without exception, blessed with this perfect nature that I find hard to swallow.
Would it not be more realistic to say that some people, be it through nature, nurture or both, have an excellent nature and some do not? Saying this does not mean that a person can't change for the better or for the worse, and it also avoids making generalisations which are very hard to apply to certain people.
In Buddhism, Karma is carried from your past lives to your current one. What you do in this life will affect what happens in your next life (or if you will even have one). Assuming you live a life like Hitler you will be punished accordingly as per the Cause and Effect" idea. At best, Hitler probably didn't come back as a person, and if he did, he was probably born into poverty and a very harsh environment (if you believe that kind of stuff anyways).
The great thing about Buddhism is it wants you to question it instead of blindly follow because other people tell you to. You don't have to have the same opinion as anyone else on the subject.
Or, I may be all wet. I'm not sure.
Mtns
Actually, this idea is predominate in Mahayana, but not Theravada (e.g., see Freedom From Buddha Nature).
Lots of kids who were bullies have gone on to become very good natured people. If they didn't have the buddha nature in them how would that be possible? People are not static entities, they are a process. If one regularly indulges unskillful thoughts, this will shape their beliefs. Their beliefs will shape their actions. Their actions will shape their character. The reverse is also true.
Then don't swallow it. It's not necessary to believe all beings are innately this way or that way. It is enough to believe that *you* have within you the potential to become the next Hitler if you are unmindful of the thoughts you indulge and *you* have within you the potential to be the next Buddha if you are mindful of the thoughts you indulge and choose them skillfully.
What is 'nature' in this context? And what is 'nurture'? We are all born the way we are at birth (nature) and we all have experiences that we adapt to (nurture). We each are in control of how we think, feel and act in response to what we experience.
I tend to think that people who act badly do so out of ignorance (not knowing how else to act) and not being mindful of their thoughts and feelings and how they can and will shape actions and character.
As one evidence of 'bad' people being bad out of ignorance consider the statistics on abuse. Children who grow up in homes where they experience or witness abuse are much more likely to grow up to be abusive in their relationships than kids not so exposed. The abused kids never say 'I can't wait to get married and have kids so I can abuse them'. If they did then this might point to an inherently evil nature. They usually vow to never be that way (suggesting a Buddha nature), but then they are confronted with challenges/stresses and don't know any other way to respond. Take that abusive person and teach them the needed skills and they tend to stop being abusive.
Technically, that is not exactly true since birth is a result of the presence of imperfections. Without imperfections, birth does not occur. Buddha-nature refers to the origin or source of man (The True self, the unborn thing) and not the mind, body and actions of individual men or living people. Taking the view that Hitler is not Hitler, allows one to see Buddha nature. It refers to the thing that Hitler was before he was born and what he will eventually and inevitability return to, not his body, mind or actions. If you only look at his body, mind and actions and nothing more, Buddha nature can not be found.