What is a Man? Points to ponder...

[rainman]

I know this'll sound a little cuckoo... bare with me... I think animals are more human than humans...

So, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? That "mu" business was a cop-out...

[Edbear]

Nuclear weapons are cheating anyway. Its too easy to do too much damage and only serves its purpose as an act of terrorism.

And of course no-one would cheat at war or terrorism would they...?

[mashman]

If you think about it, no animal has the choice that Man has. Some have a limited ability to learn and alter their environment, but no-one can deny that Man dominates the planet, for better or for worse due solely to his brain. Without it, Man would not have survived 5min. Human beings are one of the weakest and most defenceless creatures on Earth if left to basics.

Not 5 mins huh... fortunately for "Man" the apes managed more than 5 minutes...

[mashman]

So, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? That "mu" business was a cop-out...

i'm guessing they do, they just can't hold the lotus without reverting to type, licking their bollocks and falling over... and as I don't speak dog I can't really ask... or at least when I ask, I don't understand their answer... pfff, we should be able to speak dog by now ... What "mu" business?

[rainman]

As I said, you can choose to be an animal, an animal cannot choose to be human or take over the planet. No animal could or would ever destroy itself or the planet, only Man has the capacity to so that.

That I am an animal is simply a matter of biological classification. I am a mammal. Your assertion that we can choose to be (just?) an animal is nonsense, and is based on your apparent assumption that humans are other than animals. Now of course, there is a pecking order, but that is heavily dependent on context. Pop you unarmed in the jungle, some critter will probably make you into lunch. But collectively, humans have the social capability to destroy the jungle and all the critters therein. Overall, we have shiny and destructive tech, and are eradicating the other animals at a rate.

I don't see man's ability to screw things up on a global scale as being evidence of superiority, though. Au contraire, we're a pest. If there were a god he/she/it would have to be pretty misguided to make humans in their current state. Particularly true of an omniscient deity - we are clearly keen to shit all over our own nest, and I'd think that would have been easily predicted without superpowers like omniscience. If it made sense to anthropomorphise evolution, one could productively see us as being a mistake.

My OP was intended to show the other side of Mankind, the potential and the innate desires in everyone. Everyone's secret dream is for that inherent power, that inherent love and that inherent ability to come to the fore.

I suspect I could support elements of your OP if it wasn't couched in the terms it is - humans do indeed have a capacity for "good". Enlightenment is essentially the process of coming to understand that you are not a rugged individual, but part of all life, and getting to view all life with what could be described as love. But power? No thanks, that's heading in the wrong direction.

A man has to become selfless

Yes (but perhaps not as you mean).

to deny his desires and to sacrifice his own interests, to truly become a man. His true role is to build others up, to provide for their needs, especially his own family.

No, not really.

What many men fail to understand is that by doing so they will receive a reward beyond measure

Yes.

as others turn to attending to their needs in appreciatiion and love.

Maybe. Actually make that a no.

Most seem to live int the here and now and cannot envisage a time 20 years into the future for themselves.

I blame diet, and advertising. Affects our discount rates and makes us only think about the short term. And get people to think 20 years into the future for others? Fuggedaboutit.

The trouble is people who are deluded enough to think whatever conclusion they come to is a cast in stone truth, And that those who don't agree its the truth are just unable to comprehend.

Too true. There's indeed a bit of that about the place...

That's your opinion, others have the opposite opinion. I let my wife have her own...

How magnanimous.

"My" partner (English has such poor semantics) has her own opinions whether or not I "let" her, and that is exactly how it should be. This I think is the crux of why I find your phrasing so difficult to accommodate; it sounds awfully like a (rather ugly) mindset I have seen many times - one where dominance and control play too much of a role. Everyone I've met who talks like that has been an arse. Often an unpleasant one, too.

I love my partner not because she will then love me back, or because she will "attend to my needs in appreciation and love". I just do. It's a choice I make. If she loves me back (as she does), great, if not, well, I'm not about to stop loving her, that's what unconditional means. I do not control her actions or opinions, and she does not control me - we both choose to do the "right" things for us. That's because although we still have defined individual identities, we also have a joint identity, and are one thing, to an extent. So it makes no sense for me to say I "let her" have her own opinions. She is she, I am me, we is we. I have no desire or need to be dominated or to dominate. That's a very unskillful mindset.

[rainman]

i'm guessing they do, they just can't hold the lotus without reverting to type, licking their bollocks and falling over... and as I don't speak dog I can't really ask... or at least when I ask, I don't understand their answer... pfff, we should be able to speak dog by now ... What "mu" business?

This one:

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Chao-chou said, "Mu"

I always understood thisto be Chau-chou/Joshu saying "not yes, not no, your question makes no sense" but in googling to find the exact koan came across a version that claims Wu (or Mu in Japanese, it's a Zen thing after all) means "without" - so, more "no" than "yes". But their interpretation goes on to non-existence of the dog, existence of the buddha-nature, and quite a bit on the existence or non-existence of existence itself, and Wikipedia says "Wu/Mu" does not mean no, as per the Three Pillars of Zen, but rather "not existing". So my poor unenlightened brain asploded.

/goes off to ponder the sound of one hand clapping.

[Swoop]

or read as "i was hopeless at sport when at school".

Having represented NZ in a World Championship competition, no.

Rugby still sucks.

[Edbear]

That I am an animal is simply a matter of biological classification. I am a mammal. Your assertion that we can choose to be (just?) an animal is nonsense, and is based on your apparent assumption that humans are other than animals. Now of course, there is a pecking order, but that is heavily dependent on context. Pop you unarmed in the jungle, some critter will probably make you into lunch. But collectively, humans have the social capability to destroy the jungle and all the critters therein. Overall, we have shiny and destructive tech, and are eradicating the other animals at a rate.

I don't see man's ability to screw things up on a global scale as being evidence of superiority, though. Au contraire, we're a pest. If there were a god he/she/it would have to be pretty misguided to make humans in their current state. Particularly true of an omniscient deity - we are clearly keen to shit all over our own nest, and I'd think that would have been easily predicted without superpowers like omniscience. If it made sense to anthropomorphise evolution, one could productively see us as being a mistake.



I suspect I could support elements of your OP if it wasn't couched in the terms it is - humans do indeed have a capacity for "good". Enlightenment is essentially the process of coming to understand that you are not a rugged individual, but part of all life, and getting to view all life with what could be described as love. But power? No thanks, that's heading in the wrong direction.



Yes (but perhaps not as you mean).



No, not really.



Yes.



Maybe. Actually make that a no.



I blame diet, and advertising. Affects our discount rates and makes us only think about the short term. And get people to think 20 years into the future for others? Fuggedaboutit.



Too true. There's indeed a bit of that about the place...



How magnanimous.

"My" partner (English has such poor semantics) has her own opinions whether or not I "let" her, and that is exactly how it should be. This I think is the crux of why I find your phrasing so difficult to accommodate; it sounds awfully like a (rather ugly) mindset I have seen many times - one where dominance and control play too much of a role. Everyone I've met who talks like that has been an arse. Often an unpleasant one, too.

I love my partner not because she will then love me back, or because she will "attend to my needs in appreciation and love". I just do. It's a choice I make. If she loves me back (as she does), great, if not, well, I'm not about to stop loving her, that's what unconditional means. I do not control her actions or opinions, and she does not control me - we both choose to do the "right" things for us. That's because although we still have defined individual identities, we also have a joint identity, and are one thing, to an extent. So it makes no sense for me to say I "let her" have her own opinions. She is she, I am me, we is we. I have no desire or need to be dominated or to dominate. That's a very unskillful mindset.

Some of what you say has merit and I agree with. Some of it has misunderstood my posts and some of it I disagree with...

[rainman]

Some of what you say has merit and I agree with. Some of it has misunderstood my posts and some of it I disagree with...

No shit!

That's amazing.

[Foxzee]

the apes managed more than 5 minutes...

Now how to get a man to last that long........

[mashman]

/goes off to ponder the sound of one hand clapping.

against what is what i'm wondering ... no doubt uttered after a short sharp inalation of breath whilst watching the stars crawl across the sky.. man. So pretty much, meh, wtf doesn't really matter anyway type thing... nothing new then... Confucious say "while chain swing, seat warm"

[mashman]

Now how to get a man to last that long........

just grow bigger tits

[Foxzee]

just grow bigger tits

Oh dear *shakes head*......and that will help how????

[mashman]

Oh dear *shakes head*......and that will help how????

lol, aye, starting to regret typing that one now (booze is bad m'kay)... lean forwards every 4 minutes 45 seconds and let the suffocation commence... should keep him otherwise occupied...

[Foxzee]

lol, aye, starting to regret typing that one now (booze is bad m'kay)... lean forwards every 4 minutes 45 seconds and let the suffocation commence... should keep him otherwise occupied...

Hahahaha...I don't needs big tits for that....my pillow works better...