What is life made of? Who fashioned man as he is? Are you the product of genetics, or of your upbringing? A divine likeness, or the offspring of some hideous chemical laboratory?
Who fashioned the form of man? Who his gross part and his name? Who his movement, and who his intelligence, and his many kinds of conduct? Who, then, instilled sacrifice in man? From whom is his truth, and from whom his falsehood? Whence his death, and whence his immortality? (Atharva Veda X, hymn II)
Take a large measure of life force, and let the species prevail on this planet. Survival skills, resilience, adaptability and intellect – all of these are needed. A pinch of greed, some egoism for survival, a readiness to stir up trouble, to make the overall effect more exciting. A good deal of volatile emotion, mixed with a little artistic sense and some beauty. Let none of them be overpowering! A bold measure of illusion, a little dullness, some goodness. And passion, in abundance! That is what gives it its spice! Distinctive bitter traits, two tablespoons of self-forgetfulness, a sense of responsibility – this is a curious, exotic spice, not fatal if left out, and it may be substituted with hypocrisy. Laziness, too, is a fine spice, anger-paprika, bitter salt and wormwood, but a drop of honey as well. It brings out the flavours better. A few petals of edible flowers too, olive skin and a black beard as a garnish, and for others fair hair and blue eyes. Guile, duplicity and violence, a pinch of gentleness, humility and composure, and so, out of opposites, the full composition comes together…
If only life and the make-up of man were no more than this! Each is an immensely complex blend, kneaded together out of good and bad. Man, too, is half animal, for he is rooted in natural existence, and half angel, for he comes from heaven. A little devil, because there is ill will in him, and an innocent creature, because there is goodwill in him as well. Man cannot be seen as made of opposites alone. For millennia the philosophers have argued: is man good, or is he bad?
Aristotle considers him potentially good, and for Mencius (373–289 BC) he is good by nature, whereas Xunzi (305–235 BC) maintains that man is by nature dissolute and corrupt, and that his goodness can only be the result of upbringing. Seneca bitterly declares that social institutions are the result of sin and of the corruption of human nature. According to the Bible, man is a being burdened with original sin, while Manu, the ancient Indian lawgiver, says that rare is the man who is pure and sinless by nature. Goethe says outright that conscience is the virtue of those who contemplate, not of those who act.
Four fundamental shortcomings burden man's earthly existence. He lives in illusion – but then the whole world is a mirage. His senses are imperfect, and so man is often deceived and makes mistakes. These three traits are all but inescapable frailties, and like it or not, everyone is exposed to them. The fourth shortcoming, however, is a moral question: man is prone to deceit. For this he is also responsible, even if in his other weaknesses he is merely a passive participant.
By nature man strives to defeat his rivals, he recognises only the right of the stronger, and his motives are: the desire to acquire, the desire to possess, the desire for happiness. Whoever is in a lower position longs to rise higher, and is prone to flout the rights of others, moral norms and customs. If man were left to himself, the world could easily become a chaotic devil's workshop. And yet he is by origin an eternal spiritual being, conscious and joyful in essence.
The sage, however, unites his mind and his heart. The sage's skull is a well-guarded vessel of the heavenly ones, protected on every side by life force, nourishment and noble thoughts. God rules his creatures through grace, and through this grace the sage is able to rule the forces of nature. Without God's favour he is powerless, and possessing it, he is strong and intelligent.