Several myths on our evil nature has been thought out by monks and nuns.  Not only Christian monks and nuns but also Buddhist ones.  In the case of both religions, it was largely monks which have come up with these ideas.  Few Christian nuns studied but many monks did.  Buddhist monks have higher social status than Buddhist nuns have.  So I think it was the monks which have had the most influence.  However, it could very well be imagined that nuns have come up with some ideas.  That depends on how misogynist they are.  Are they expressed as if women in general would deserve to be treated as crap I think the originator was a monk.

I have already explained how the lower classes had their social maturation discontinued as children.  Their understanding of other humans was at most at the level of a six-year-old.  More likely they were at the level of a four- or five-year-old.  Such people could join a monastic order as adult.  To join such an order were their only chance to learn to read and write.  They then did not only learn this.  At the same time they were thought myths originally formulated by individuals with absolute power.  Nothing else than such ideas were available to them.

Say such a person frustrated over the results of his or her own efforts.  Still, the person does not consider the possibility of his or her effort being misdirected.  Instead, the person takes it for granted his or her failure is the fault of others.  Such unreflective thinking leads to depicting others as evil.  Many ideas spread about the evilness of both humans and animals originated in this.

Oftentimes, monks and nuns saw no possibility of ever getting to have sex themselves.  At the same time, they knew sex was necessary for the continuous existence of humanity.  On the other hand, they had no idea of the limits of the humanly possible.  This combination led to the rise of what I call the anti-lust myth.  It says the enjoyment aspect of sex not only could but should be removed from the reproduction aspect of sex.  As if people could choose how they experience things.

This is just one example of setting impossible requirements.  Monks and nuns knew about some cases of people not meeting demands.  In contrast, they did not know that no-one did it at all.  Add frustration over own efforts and defiance in self-examination.  This combination led to the rise of the myth of universal evilness.  It says that humans naturally want to be evil.  One has to tell them they should be good, order or threaten them.  I find this a really badly thought-out view of human nature.  On one hand ill will fills no function for a cooperating species like humanity.  On the other hand, inborn characteristics can’t be removed through preacher, ordering or threats.  Instead, we have to ask ourselves if what is condemned really is evil.

Unfortunately, this myth seems to have developed into the myth of the contagious sin.  Being exposed to something “sinful” is supposed to motivate people to commit it themselves.  (I write “sin” and its derivations within quotation marks because they have been condemned by monks and nuns.)  In reality motivations vary between individuals.  Just because one is in the same situation one does not have to have the same motivation.  People don’t enjoy what they were forced to, just because it is “sinful”.  Neither does this create a desire to do the same with others.  People are not motivated to “sins” just because others said they committed them.  At worst the mere knowledge of something “sinful” is supposed to be enough to want it.  To everyone who believes this today I want to ask the following questions.  Which “sins” do you know about without having committed them yourself?  If you lack motivation why can everyone else be presupposed to have it?  I don’t think humans work like that.

My ideas on monks and nuns are mostly based on European Christian ones.  But I think much of it can be applied to Buddhist monks and nuns.  Acquiring peace of mind though meditation does not work for all humans.  There are also plenty of recorded cases of Buddhist monks using loopholes in their rules for what they are allowed and not allowed to do.  They have then replaced a formally forbidden cruelty with an even worse cruelty.  I have hard to explain that without hatred.

Finally, there have to be a reason why the Hare Krishnas preach the anti-lust myth.  My best explanation is this idea comes from Buddhist monastic orders.  I know that Hare Krishnas are a cult which developed out of Hinduism.  However, there in fact was a time before Hindus despised Buddhists.  Before this there was some influence from Buddhism to Hinduism.  There are definitely features of Hinduism which first developed in Buddhism.

Uploaded on the 14th of June 2023.