Our true nature

[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]

Originally Posted by Quahom

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]

Originally Posted by jiii

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]

Originally Posted by Paladin

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]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

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