Thoughts concerning the “True Nature of Man”

Thoughts concerning the “True Nature of Man”

There is much said in regards to our “True Nature”, for example that we are fallen angels, that we are quanta of pure consciousness, that we are divinity trapped in bodily form, that we are beings of pure light, that we are children of deities, and other such conclusions. I personally do not see how these conclusions are reached, as nothing shows them to be in any way the case, but nonetheless these assertions are somehow posited and proclaimed as our “True Nature”.

What is more true in regards to our nature? that we are genocidal maniacs, or that we are beings of light? Humans are the only species that commits genocide against their own kind. We’ve had genocide on all continents and through all periods of history. Yet I cannot see any beings of light when the room goes dark.

What is more true in regards to our nature? that we are rapists or that we are angels? Humans rape their peers and subjugate them to various forms of torture. I have yet to see a single man bear wings and fly to heaven.

What is more true in regards to our true nature? that we are murderous and thieving rogues, or divinity trapped in bodily form? Humans kill and steal from their peers. Nothing called divinity can be seen escaping from their corpses after they are dead.

However, not everyone is a murderer, a genocidal maniac or a thieving rogue—indeed, very few are—but there are more examples of these types then there are examples of our supposed supernatural origin and true nature.

Endowing supernatural traits to natural beings is instead a false nature, being that anything supernatural is, quite simply, not natural. No instance of nature can be seen in the supernatural, if instances of the supernatural could be seen at all.

The only true nature I can discern is that we are all present in bodily form, and that our bodies work in relatively the same manner as each other, insofar as they are able to function in a certain way, and act in accordance with natural laws. In this case, we are examples of nature herself—tangible, moving, and colliding instances of her. This is common among all examples of humans. I have yet to see a human without their tangible and natural presence.

But it would be beyond arrogant to say that one can understand a True Nature, as truth, nature, and ourselves have so far remained unintelligible. All we have are fleeting descriptions and vague axioms pulled from the oceans of our minds.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


In my opinion, there is no nailing down the true nature of man.

This is easy- the true nature of man.

We are animal killing machines who hunt in packs and need the pack to gain strength. We are no different to wolves. And our moral structure is to be part of the pack, we need other people and hence why it feels good to help other people.

Consider our morality code if we were cats, where helping others would be frowned upon. Where solitude woukd be given high esteem

NiNjABackflip

Thoughts concerning the “True Nature of Man”

Man is a concept.
What is the true nature of all things (concepts)?

NiNjABackflip

But it would be beyond arrogant to say that one can understand a True Nature, as truth, nature, and ourselves have so far remained unintelligible. All we have are fleeting descriptions and vague axioms pulled from the oceans of our minds.

Would it be arrogant if one knew ones own nature?
No word or idea can describe what it is and that is why the mind will never know it - it is prior to all concepts.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Man is a concept.
What is the true nature of all things (concepts)?

That is a fact. It is true that when we utter words, we are uttering concepts. However, I think that is a given and doesn't necessarily need pointing out. Language is conceptual.

Would it be arrogant if one knew ones own nature?
No word or idea can describe what it is and that is why the mind will never know it - it is prior to all concepts.

Once again, I think that is quite obvious. Words can describe what things are, because that's what words do—describe. I think that it is well known that any description isn't actually the thing it is describing. Even saying "it is prior to all concepts" is a concept. But we do talk, we do conceive, and one can utilize this ability, or not speak at all.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


What is the true nature of all things?
Is it arrogant to know what one truly is?

Words only describe as far as the listener can comprehend. That's why no amount of words can lead to someone understanding a true nature or even enlightenment, it has to be experienced first hand. You can describe the colors of the rainbow to a blind person all day long, unfortunately without actually seeing the colors for themselves the person will remain blind, no matter how many concepts you throw at them... words can only relate personal experience they can never give someone the same experience, the experience can only be related to or comprehended in relation to your own experience, and if you have no experience of what someone is relating, but find it interesting try to get some experience for yourself so you can relate to and understand that experience in your own way.

Yet, I can tell you how great my Greek steak is... even describe the flavors and tastes and provide you with the recipe, and even if I were to cook it for you, you will never taste what I taste, but we could agree on some parts of the flavor as a similar experience although not the same. When I say acidic you could agree, the acidic I mean may be from the lemon juice, the acidic you mean may be from the white wine vinegar or any variation of what went into it, or disagree that its not acidic enough or salty enough.

How we gain any understanding at all with each other through communication... is a pretty curious phenomena, it requires not only knowing all accepted meanings of every word, but how they relate to each other when put together to have proper comprehension, then on top of that there are feelings of positive, negative or neutral of speaker and or the words clouding comprehension even further, it gets even worse when someone follows the mind off somewhere, or something said raises a related thought... how often does it seem people make it through a whole post before forming a response? Digesting every single word comprehending it as it is written, knowing how it was intended and the actual message it was trying to convey? Then relating what was said based on experience, and formulating a response.

The odds that any actual communication is going on seem pretty slim, the more one looks into the quagmire of communication, right now someone has lost a lot of comprehension because of the family guy character name *giggidy* the more of these ques that lead the mind off the less we remember the previous content as well.

So to sum it all up since there was an intensional distraction; we may think we are conveying a lot of meaning, but how much of that is comprehended or even relatable is debatable, and no experience even if you were there is ever really shared, everyone in the theater sees a different movie, everyone in church hears a different sermon. Bringing the mind under control so ones experience is pure and moment to moment, is the only way a person can experience what is really there as true nature goes, what may have been before, or what may come after, has absolutely no contact with true nature that is right now now now in life as it unfolds, because the mind is allowed to constantly draw the blinds on reality.

We are animals. and as such, we are primarily concerned with our own survival, and with sex--at least as a start. If it were not so, we would not have survived as a species.

No other animal possesses speech, writing, or tool making ability. We do-- as a result of evolutionary processes--perhaps guided by God or other more advanced creatures.

Our current natures are undergoing strange transitions as a result of propaganda and mind molding due to modern TV shows, news media, internet.

Did we long ago reach a point where some incorporeal portion of ourselves became immortal after death?
Or are we simply a glorified naked Ape for whom the lights go out at death?

What is a human anyway? In fact we are more like walking, breathing microbiomes. We consist of 90% microorganisms like bacteria etc. to the number of a 100 trillion.

bigthink.com...

In my more paranoid moments I wonder how these bacteria influence us.. I mean we are hosts to them and live in an interdependent symbiotic relationship. But, it wouldn`t be far-fetched to think they could exert some subtlew influences on us, like what to eat, drink, think and so on :-I There are examples of bacteria radically altering their hosts behaviour. Anyways the concept of free will has to include the influence of our bodies and bodychemistry. In that respect we are animals, driven by natural inclinations like to feed and procreate.

The body-soul dualism, as described in Descartes philospophy is wrong IMO. The brain is an organ and we are advanced apes.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

There is much said in regards to our “True Nature”, for example that we are fallen angels, that we are quanta of pure consciousness, that we are divinity trapped in bodily form, that we are beings of pure light, that we are children of deities, and other such conclusions. I personally do not see how these conclusions are reached, as nothing shows them to be in any way the case, but nonetheless these assertions are somehow posited and proclaimed as our “True Nature”.

People have NDE's and preview the other side, people (like myself) remember pre-existing prior to being born a body, people spend decades going within and finding the source of Consciousness, people loosen consciousness and are able to travel out of the body, etc. There's just too many testimonies, maps, blueprints.

What is more true in regards to our nature? that we are genocidal maniacs, or that we are beings of light? Humans are the only species that commits genocide against their own kind. We’ve had genocide on all continents and through all periods of history. Yet I cannot see any beings of light when the room goes dark.

Few and far between. There were those like Christ, Buddha, and other beings of light who have had huge impacts on society. There are many more that you don't see who are mothers, janitors, book authors, hermits, train conductors, house painters, etc. They do their job on a smaller scale.

What is more true in regards to our nature? that we are rapists or that we are angels? Humans rape their peers and subjugate them to various forms of torture. I have yet to see a single man bear wings and fly to heaven.

Each child is born neutral, and carries just as much potential to be a killer as an angel.

By the way, many do spread wings and go to heaven, but not in a limited physical body.

What is more true in regards to our true nature? that we are murderous and thieving rogues, or divinity trapped in bodily form? Humans kill and steal from their peers. Nothing called divinity can be seen escaping from their corpses after they are dead.

Consciousness has no visible form to the limited physical human eye which are only able to see within a very tiny visual spectrum out of all there is.

However, not everyone is a murderer, a genocidal maniac or a thieving rogue—indeed, very few are—but there are more examples of these types then there are examples of our supposed supernatural origin and true nature.

Humans are a young, still evolving species. Evolution is saying these bodies are evolved from apes, so we have yet to throw off the apeness from our being. This is why majority acts no different than apes. The world programs the ego to see division, separation, selfishness, and so inherent intuition, heart, soul is completely covered up

Endowing supernatural traits to natural beings is instead a false nature, being that anything supernatural is, quite simply, not natural. No instance of nature can be seen in the supernatural, if instances of the supernatural could be seen at all.

Assumptions/projections. You have, as of yet, no possible way to prove this one way or another, so we'll leave this alone for now.

The only true nature I can discern is that we are all present in bodily form, and that our bodies work in relatively the same manner as each other, insofar as they are able to function in a certain way, and act in accordance with natural laws. In this case, we are examples of nature herself—tangible, moving, and colliding instances of her. This is common among all examples of humans. I have yet to see a human without their tangible and natural presence.

IF you dig down deep, you'll find that the body is producing a feeling, the mind interprets that feeling that it is the body, and so you are merely thinking that you are the body. You think that you see, hear, smell, taste, touch.

IS the thought of a rock the same as an actual rock?

Quantum physics shows us that reality behaves differently when we observe it, then it does prior to observation.

DO you observe that your eyes see? Ear here? Do you observe that the ego/mind is thinking? If so, who/what is this observer that is aware of the mind thinking and a body existing? Seems to be a subject/object situation at play. Which is which?

But it would be beyond arrogant to say that one can understand a True Nature, as truth, nature, and ourselves have so far remained unintelligible. All we have are fleeting descriptions and vague axioms pulled from the oceans of our minds.

There are elements of your existence that are prior to the mind. It is not arrogant to say one can Experience a True Nature

reply to post by Tusks

Did we long ago reach a point where some incorporeal portion of ourselves became immortal after death?
Or are we simply a glorified naked Ape for whom the lights go out at death?

We are neighter ape nor angel. If we were, we'd be apes or we'd be angels. But the words "ape" and "angels" are words describing other things. The word we commonly use for our type of being is human. So we are not glorified anything. We are simply human.

This is the only answer I could come up with. Although I realize the questions may have been rhetorical.

reply to post by dominicus

People have NDE's and preview the other side, people (like myself) remember pre-existing prior to being born a body, people spend decades going within and finding the source of Consciousness, people loosen consciousness and are able to travel out of the body, etc. There's just too many testimonies, maps, blueprints.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "other side". We know people go to sleep, they dream, and then they wake up. When people are in a coma, they are unable to go anywhere. They cannot see because their eyes are closed. Yet, they have gone somewhere and seen something? I don't see how that is possible.

Assumptions/projections. You have, as of yet, no possible way to prove this one way or another, so we'll leave this alone for now.

Supernatural isn't natural by definition. So it cannot be "true nature" as nature is not supernatural.

DO you observe that your eyes see? Ear here? Do you observe that the ego/mind is thinking? If so, who/what is this observer that is aware of the mind thinking and a body existing? Seems to be a subject/object situation at play. Which is which?

Myself. My entirety is the observer of its own qualities. What is your observer?

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "other side".

By "other side" I mean when the soul leaves the body and continues to live in a spiritual reality.

We know people go to sleep, they dream, and then they wake up. When people are in a coma, they are unable to go anywhere. They cannot see because their eyes are closed. Yet, they have gone somewhere and seen something? I don't see how that is possible.

Consciousness does not require a body to exist, is aware, perceives, yet itself does not have ear, eyes, voice, smell, touch. It is direct perception.

Supernatural isn't natural by definition. So it cannot be "true nature" as nature is not supernatural.

Definitions are relative. They are explanations of things. Who's to say that its not the other way around; Super Natural is the natural reality, and "true nature" is a tiny limited fraction of what Super natural is?

Definitions really don't matter at the end. If there is a God, Infinity, Afterlife, etc, then they will not depend on human definitions for their own existence.

Myself. My entirety is the observer of its own qualities. What is your observer?

IF I am observing(observer being subject) a tree (the tree being object), then logic and reason says that the subject and object are not the same.

If the subject observes 2 eyes seeing (the eyes are the object, and not the subject). Plus blind people exist, proving that we are not our eyes. Deaf people exist, proving we are not our hearing.

You can lose all four limbs and half of your skull, yet there would still be an Observer of all of this.

Observer is soul, consciousness, does not need a body to exist, has existed prior to being born in a body, is not the body, and will continue to exist well after the body dies.

IF this is unknown, unexamined, unexplored in you, then all you have left is to assume that existence and human nature is a certain way.

In my opinion people don't change.

Once something settles in to a person, whether that be at birth or during the childhood, people will not change.

Whether it's a soul or whether it's major freeways of neurons laid out for the first time shaped by early life experiences but way too heavily trafficked to restructure later on.
At some point, you can tell an individual whatever you want so that they may act differently and change others' perception of themselves, but depending on who/how they are, it will or won't stress them to maintain a broadly accepted shell of behavior to influence perception of themselves to others. What they do with this stress begins another topic on the measure of an individual's character.


Now on the nature of man, I have a strong belief that a grand majority people are not evil. The reasons they test others and test reality to the breaking point are to try to find the answers they don't have as to why certain events in their pasts have happened and to further understand themselves. And at this point, in this fluid universe, when they do these desperate grabs for information and reason some of them may often overstep their own selfish boundary and violate others to an extreme extent with no regard to others' personal aura.

Now other violations and tragedies are just due to the fluidity of our existence, our material world. Most people are intelligent and should understand this as quickly as they learn ride a bike. That things like hunger, poverty and the threat of joblessness can and do push people to do things they may really not want to do.

Actually, throughout life your neural networks reorganize and reinforce themselves in response to new stimuli and learning experiences. New patterns can be established and you can continually evolve sort of. Or devolve..

Anyways some people are just born a certain way. Some characteristics are probably set for life but the brain is a wonderful thing.

reply to post by dominicus

By "other side" I mean when the soul leaves the body and continues to live in a spiritual reality.

Aren't souls intangible, non-physical and therefor non-demonstrative? If the soul is unable to be observed, how is it known that they leave the body?

Consciousness does not require a body to exist, is aware, perceives, yet itself does not have ear, eyes, voice, smell, touch. It is direct perception.

If this was indeed the case, you might be able to find me a consciousness without a body.

However, one needs a body to perceive. Perception is the world of the senses. The senses are of the body.

Definitions are relative. They are explanations of things. Who's to say that its not the other way around; Super Natural is the natural reality, and "true nature" is a tiny limited fraction of what Super natural is?

Definitions really don't matter at the end. If there is a God, Infinity, Afterlife, etc, then they will not depend on human definitions for their own existence.

Then it would be your relative choice to call the supernatural world natural, and the natural world supernatural. Like you say, the way we define things doesn't change anything.

IF I am observing(observer being subject) a tree (the tree being object), then logic and reason says that the subject and object are not the same.

If the subject observes 2 eyes seeing (the eyes are the object, and not the subject). Plus blind people exist, proving that we are not our eyes. Deaf people exist, proving we are not our hearing.

You can lose all four limbs and half of your skull, yet there would still be an Observer of all of this.

Observer is soul, consciousness, does not need a body to exist, has existed prior to being born in a body, is not the body, and will continue to exist well after the body dies.

IF this is unknown, unexamined, unexplored in you, then all you have left is to assume that existence and human nature is a certain way.

But if I look at you, you are an object—the same object that says he is a subject. Without a body, no such object or subject exists.

Eyes are a part of the subject, ears are a part of the subject. Remove them, the subject cannot see or hear. The eyes, once removed, do not continue seeing. If a blind person wasn't his body, then he wouldn't need eyes to see. If a deaf person wasn't his body, then he wouldn't need ears to hear. Fact is, once the eyes are damaged, then he can no longer see, proving quite reasonably that the blind man is his body.

Remove his arms, he cannot grasp. Remove his skin, he cannot feel. Remove his ears, he cannot hear. Remove his lungs, he cannot breath. Remove his stomach, he cannot digest. Continue doing this until no body is there. What remains of your subject and observer?

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

Aren't souls intangible, non-physical and therefor non-demonstrative? If the soul is unable to be observed, how is it known that they leave the body?

NDE's, people have near death experiences and remember. People also remember pre-existing as pure units of consciousness. Then some people also master exiting the body at will. Its just a suit/vessel/vehicle for the physical realm.

Consciousness itself is intangible, non-physical, non-demonstrative, and yet there is a whole scientific field of study that's trying to figure it out.

If this was indeed the case, you might be able to find me a consciousness without a body.

That is the case for some, a very few number of folks. Some are born with this ability, others work hard to gain it, but the majority aren't able to do this. So the fact that are people claiming this, means it is a repeatable phenomenon.

However, one needs a body to perceive. Perception is the world of the senses. The senses are of the body.

There is something in you that perceives the senses, but is not itself a sense.

Then it would be your relative choice to call the supernatural world natural, and the natural world supernatural. Like you say, the way we define things doesn't change anything.

But there are stories of supernatural realities, supernatural strength, events, witnesses, etc. It cannot be completely discarded.

But if I look at you, you are an object—the same object that says he is a subject.

If you look at your body, what is it? Subject? Object?

Without a body, no such object or subject exists.

How do you know?

Eyes are a part of the subject, ears are a part of the subject. Remove them, the subject cannot see or hear. The eyes, once removed, do not continue seeing. If a blind person wasn't his body, then he wouldn't need eyes to see. If a deaf person wasn't his body, then he wouldn't need ears to hear. Fact is, once the eyes are damaged, then he can no longer see, proving quite reasonably that the blind man is his body.

You missed my point.

You don't need eyes to perceive.

IF you are observing your own eyes, then you cannot be both the observer/subject, and the object (eyes).

We are more than just this body, a weak, limited shell, which has a limited time on earth.

Remove his arms, he cannot grasp. Remove his skin, he cannot feel. Remove his ears, he cannot hear. Remove his lungs, he cannot breath. Remove his stomach, he cannot digest. Continue doing this until no body is there. What remains of your subject and observer?

My point is, to a certain degree, you can see that we are on not this body, or that we are not located in the eyes, limbs, ears, nose.

To what point can a man survive and still exist. Take away all 5 senses, all limbs, take the bottom torso and put him on a feeding tube, take away the lungs and put him on breath machine, take away kidneys and put him on dialysis machine, you will still have a man that exists, knows that he exists and is still alive, and is able to perceive thought, that he exists, is conscious.

So where in the body are you located, if you are not your limbs or 5 senses. Are you in your head? Neck? Heart?

This is the beginning of wisdom. Self exploration. Philosophy. Self Inquiry.