Gautama Dhamma

Introduction

The transition from “man” to “human” in language and legal constructs reflects a deeper secularization of society, transforming our understanding of self-identity, legal personhood, and spiritual essence. The evolution of these terms has reshaped societal structures, philosophical outlooks, and the fundamental relationship between individuals and governance.

Etymological Foundations

Man and Manussa: The Noble and Rational Being

The term man is rooted in ancient Indo-European languages, with its origins tracing back to Sanskrit manushya, which derives from manu, meaning “to think” or “to understand.” The word implies a being with intellect, rationality, and spiritual potential. Similarly, in Pali, manussa refers to a human being but is often associated with mental faculties (manassa ussannatāya manussā—one with an elevated mind). The Buddhist perspective on manussa extends beyond mere biological existence, emphasizing its capacity for enlightenment and transcendence.

In contrast, the term ariya, found in Pali and Sanskrit, denotes nobility—not just in birth but in ethical and moral conduct. The concept of an Ariya is tied to the Eightfold Path, representing an enlightened individual who transcends worldly limitations. This noble understanding of man contrasts with the modern, legally framed notion of “human,” which emerged during the rise of centralized governance and secular legal systems.

Human: The Legal Fiction and Secular Construct

The term human is derived from the Latin humanus, which, in historical legal contexts, carried connotations of inferiority. In pre-Vatican Roman law, homo referred to “man,” whereas humanus was applied to legally inferior beings, including slaves and unbaptized indigenous peoples. This distinction became particularly relevant during the colonial era, where “human” was used to define those outside the juridical protection afforded to homo (free men under law).

Legal dictionaries, such as Ballentine’s and Black’s Law Dictionary, reinforce this disparity by associating “human” with “monsters” or lower beings. This classification facilitated systems of control, taxation, and governance, reducing individuals to mere legal entities subject to state control rather than autonomous spiritual beings.

Secularization Through Legal Personhood

The shift from man to human mirrors a broader transformation in society—one where spiritual and philosophical definitions of existence are replaced by legal and governmental classifications. The legal definition of a “person” has evolved to include corporate entities, states, and non-living institutions, diluting the fundamental distinction between a thinking, moral agent and a legally recognized entity.

Artificial Persons and the Governance of Beings

The legal system recognizes different categories of personhood:

• Natural Person: A biological human with legal rights.
• Artificial Person: A state-recognized entity such as corporations, governments, and institutions.

Governments, being artificial persons, interact primarily with other artificial persons, creating a framework in which individuals are perceived more as “citizens” (legal subjects) than autonomous beings. This transition facilitates governance through taxation, regulation, and control, limiting the spiritual and existential autonomy that characterized earlier societies.

Religious and Legal Criticism of “Human Being”

Recent discussions, including works such as Randy Lee’s To Be or Not To Be a Human Being?, highlight the legal manipulation and secularization of the term “human being.”

1. Legal Definition as a “Monster”
   • Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1948) defines “human being” as: “See MONSTER.”
   • A “monster” is legally defined as: “A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood and cannot be heir to any land.”
2. US Legal Code Definition
   • The US Code defines “human being” as an infant member of the species Homo sapiens, which contrasts with the broader, historical meanings of man or homo.
3. Religious and Secular Distinctions
   • The Oxford New English Dictionary (1901) defines “human” as: “Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)”
   • Randy Lee argues that secular humanism is a deliberate legal and philosophical construct designed to detach individuals from divine law and place them under state control.
4. Capitalization and Legal Status
   • Legal documents capitalize names (e.g., JOHN DOE instead of John Doe) to signify the status of an individual as property rather than a free man.
5. Religious Interpretation
   • The article references 1 Corinthians 3:14 to argue that: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
   • This suggests that calling oneself a “human being” implies:
     • Being an animal
     • Being secular and non-religious
     • Being subject to human law rather than divine law

The Impact of Secularization

The institutionalization of “human” as a secular, legally bound entity has several implications:

1. Detachment from Spiritual Identity: The shift from man (manushya) to “human” diminishes the philosophical and spiritual significance of human existence. Where man was once associated with intellect and moral purpose, “human” becomes a classification under secular law.
2. State Authority Over Individual Autonomy: Governments, as artificial persons, claim authority over humans as property, evident in practices like capitalizing names in legal documents to denote legal fiction rather than natural existence.
3. Moral Relativism and Institutional Control: With the secularization of identity, morality becomes institutionally defined rather than individually realized. The state dictates ethical standards, replacing the intrinsic moral compass found in religious or philosophical traditions.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Meaning of Man

Understanding the etymological, legal, and religious evolution from man to human unveils a broader societal transformation—one where secular institutions redefine existence in legal terms rather than spiritual ones. By recognizing this shift, individuals can reclaim their identity beyond legal definitions, embracing the deeper philosophical and ethical dimensions of what it means to be man (manussa, manushya). In doing so, society may restore balance between governance and personal autonomy, reviving the nobility and spiritual potential inherent in true human nature.