Human Nature – Good and Evil

People are complex.  No action can be understood independently of the web of motivations behind it and the experiences that make up the person that takes it; however, I still find it interesting to explore the concept of a human nature.

We like to speak of “humane” or “inhumane” acts and exhort each other to “have a heart”.  Clearly, there is a cultural concept of the moral nature of humanity.  Religion, of course, has a lot to say about this.  Original sin has many interpretations, but generally seems to argue that we are flawed by nature.

To me the idea that we are fundamentally compassionate and altruistic is spiritually appealing.  It can also be argued from a neurological perspective.  There is extensive research into “mirror neurons” which can be seen as a basis for compassion.  Simply put, mirror neurons allow one to feel pain when witnessing another in pain or feel joy when seeing that someone else is happy.  Compassion.  And, further, since another’s pain or joy becomes one’s own experience, we see a sort of altruism emerge.

Of course, clearly, people are capable of evil.  Our faculties for compassion can, like any other neurological process, be inhibited or damaged.

And maybe our ability to be compassionate must be practiced and exercised to develop completely.  This fits nicely with my previous article about Spiritual Education.  Here’s what the Dalai Lama has to say:

Although I personally believe that our human nature is fundamentally gentle and compassionate, I feel it is not enough that this is our underlying nature; we must also develop an appreciation and awareness of that fact. And changing how we perceive ourselves, through learning and understanding, can have a very real impact on how we interact with others and how we conduct our daily lives.

- Posted to the facebook account His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama on December 6^th of 2010

It is my firm conviction that human nature is essentially compassionate and gentle. That is the predominant feature of human nature. Anger, violence, and aggression may arise, but on a secondary or more superficial level; in a sense, they arise when we are frustrated in our efforts to achieve love and affection. They are not part of our most basic, underlying nature.

- Posted to the facebook account His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama on December 27^th of 2010

From this perspective one could say that our nature is good, but that this nature still needs to be cultivated and certainly can also be denied.  Practice compassion.

Language, culture, and love

I’ve long thought that the English language was lacking in its ability to describe love.  As a teacher of yoga and meditation, I sometimes teach on “metta” which is usually translated as “loving kindness”.  The only problem is that, generally, the word “love” in English is inseparable from concepts of romance and sexuality; metta has nothing to do with this.

Briefly, metta is an acknowledgement of interconnectedness.  If I feel metta for you, then I am happy when you are happy, feel sad when you are sad, and as a consequence wish the same for you as I would for myself.  Is there a simple way to express this in English?  Especially towards a single individual?

In some places, with some people, I can tell a friend or family member that I love them and it’s understood this way.  But in many other cases, if I use the word love, it’s understood to be romantic/sexual.  I think that, as a culture, we have trouble distinguishing the concept of love-in-and-of-itself.

Over dinner, I was talking about this with a Turkish friend.  In Turkish, they have one word for, as she described it, “passionate” love and another word that can be used with friends and family in general.  So they have it figured out I guess.

I often idealize how the Argentine Tango can (sometimes) isolate love and intimacy from sex and romance, but it seems that the Spanish language doesn’t do a very good job.  I’m still a student of the language, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems “amar” (to love), querer (to want), and gustar (to like or be pleased by) all have sexual connotations when used on a person.  The only way I know of to express that you like a person outside of this is “caer bien con” (to get along with).

On the other hand “un beso” (a kiss) or “un abrazo” (a hug) are common ways to sign off an e-mail, so physical demonstrations of non-sexual affection are easy to express.

So to what extent is a culture’s perspective on love and connectedness coloured by language?  I wouldn’t say that I know enough to make any conclusions here.  I’d love to hear your ideas.

And I have nothing against sex and romance.  I just want to be able to express love independently of them.