Several

Ah, no. I was asking if you were enlightened (rather than just believing it) if immoral actions had any Karmic effect. Kamma seems to be a result of samsara, its aquiring it that causes rebirth.

I used to believe the same as you, that Kamma was a carrot/stick device to keep the unknowing masses in line, but there's much more to it than that.

I also used to waste energy always looking for what was wrong with things and underestimating the wisdom of the ancients, because I was angry at the world.

The precept says not killing, but does not define humans. You could even extend it to killing time.

So really I'm trying to clarify if it is the action or the intent which is the cause of suffering.

Theres a line in the Bagavad Gita which goes; "...he whose mind dwells beyond attachment, beyond ego, no thought shall bind him nor any act. And though I slay these thousands, I am no slayer..."

Krsna is advising Arjuna to go apparently against everything he has been taught and wage war even though many of the enemy are relatives and friends.

If an Arahant does not aquire good or bad Kamma because he is 'beyond ego' is the precept against killing only relevant to the unenlightened? And if so is it the act itself or the attachment to outcomes that creates Kamma?

Sadly, true. Realisation is the work of the one. Evolution is the work of the whole. Greed, ignorance and anger may well put an end to both.

Let's stick to the topic. Some people think of the arahant as the perfect human, perhaps the final stage in human evolution. But it's difficult to see how society as a whole could evolve into arahants. Arahants are essentially unproductive and dependent on others for their daily needs. The only scenario I can come up with is that if the time taken to reach arahantship could be reduced to say 5 or 10 years, society could be structured so that everyone would be allowed to concentrate solely on spiritual endeavours after a certain age, supported by younger, productive members of society.

Right. Arahants being the ideal, the pinnacle of our (or any) evolutionary state. Paradoxically they are unproductive, but also not producing good or bad kamma. Perhaps if there were enough of them they would have to agree to engage in worldly affairs. I mean to do or not would be the same to them. And a 5 to 10 year program would be ideal, but might need lifelong preparatory work starting at school. Carting off retirees to the Arahant training center might not go down well without some practical background. But Buddha did say the liberation of all sentient beings. Perhaps the Bodhisattva ideal would need to be accepted in Theraveda. Can you imagine the last two Bodhisattvas?; "after you old chap." "no no, you first my friend. I insist." "I said it first." "but I have more pansas..."

Consciousness is not perception. Senses and sense objects are seperate in Buddhist thinking. Rationalisations and emotions arising from perceptions are seperate again. The sense organs are the only link directly involved with evolution.

I don't think ego is consciousness but a side effect. Does a person in a coma have ego? Or a baby? Both seem to be responding to stimuli but not for ego driven reasons.

There certainly are immaterial things. Beauty is an example. How can you quantify the beauty of a poem? And yet there it is.

The web of indra is a holistic idea from Hinduism and much of what Buddh says has some basis in Hindu theology, even if it is to refute it. Did he ever say the universe wasn't holistic? Or that consciousness isn't universal. He does say all things that arise must eventually meet demise. So how did he think he could go beyond death with arisen awareness?

Discerning the difference between Nama and Rupa gives insight. Between immaterial and material.

Breakfast calls...

I believe Buddha said that to seek an answer to such a question will drive a person crazy, or something similar.

Aha! That explains it. (Good discussion though.)

o if there is an impersonal universal ocean of consciousness then evolution in humans is adapting to access more of it. I mean in evolutionary terms the tiger shark is a far more advanced being than a human. Seven senses, skin that increases its speed in water among other things. Physically comparing a tiger shark to a human is like comparing a ferrari to a morris minor. But the driver of each vehicle (read consciousness) is the opposite.

Also if the universe is holostic and each point contains every other point then indeed we need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass' for any answer or experience. And if consciousness is an aggregate, what does it aggregate from? Do we create it, or have we evolved to access more of it?

The trickiness of evolution is that you have a karmaless state, pre animal, and then you end up with beings burdened by karma.

This to me seems like a universal error, when there was already a perfect state previously.

"Long is the way, and hard, that from hell leads up to the light." Milton.

When the organic beings and the denizens of other Lokas, ghosts and demons, exhaust their Kamma they can be born into a state where a shot at Nibanna is possible. Did this human form always exist, or did it evolve to be the hairless monkey it is today. Thats my dilemma.

Or one of them. I know exactly what you mean Rockyy. I sometimes wonder if the armies of Mara at Buddhas Nibanna were like the memories and fantasies that assail the attention when the external stimuli have dried up. I treat them as unimportant, just Nama, as much as I can and try to avoid their progressing into emotion, desire, suffering, Kamma. The dependent origination. No matter what the drama between the ears, nothing is more important than letting it go. The arrows may turn to flowers, but are they not also unimportant?

You're right Huli. I just like to theorise wildly. I also like Star Wars. I've never heard of a Buddhist evolutionary theory, and have heard the same as another post here that some monks believe human and the universe have always been here. Always will be. I was also told that different animals are the result of different Kammas, too much thinking about sex, violence or greed will get you born as a beastie with corresponding attributes. I believe science is still discovering things about the process they term evolution, so the jury is still out.

Which, oddly enough, brings me to genetic manipulation. To cut straight past my usual prattle, I think it is wrong view, wrong thought and wrong action to be messing with the apparent evolutionary process unless you want to go and do it on the moon. Until you're sure of the consequences that is. Discuss.

But organic things are comprised of the exact same matter as the inorganic, so is consciousness itself a property of the individual or the universe at large? Is evolution evidence of the universe itself attempting to awaken?

It's a real stretch to imagine the cosmos as an intelligent entity or organism that is self-aware. While I can easily conceptualize every thing in the cosmos as being One, it's much harder to fit individual thought processes into that model. Are we to believe that the thought processes of every sentient being are part of a unified cosmic intelligence? In specific instances, such as scientists collaborating on a project, those intelligences do seem to function as a whole, but that isn't the general case.

But perhaps from the Buddhist perspective, non-duality embraces thoughts as well as things.

True. But I'm not speculating that all matter is aware, but that consciousness may be a property of the universe. Like electricity or matter. It is loss of ego and desire that mark the higher mind. Our senses perceive that we are at a certain location, but as Buddhists we are not to be attached to that either. What does become of a Buddha? Does he go somewhere, or does all going cease due to non locality. Does he retain a sense of individuality or totality? Sorry for going off track a little here, I do not think that consciousness itself can evolve any more than lines of magnetic force can. However the perceiving/thinking beings evolve increasingly complex means to process information cerebrally. Our ideas evolve, our experience of mindfulness can develop, but consciousness itself? Nah.

So what I'm proposing, just as an idea (just an idea science boys), is that the universe is also comprised of consciousness but that it is only aware in organic beings (leaving Devas and the like to one side for the moment).

I like the Teilhard theory posted by Xangsamhua. At base is all matter seperate? I think we trip ourselves up by getting too involved with creating different sciences and philosophies of this, that and the other. We kid ourselves into thinking we understand something simply because we have a satisfactory description. So evolution falls into the biology category because we can see organic things changing over time. But organic things are comprised of the exact same matter as the inorganic, so is consciousness itself a property of the individual or the universe at large? Is evolution evidence of the universe itself attempting to awaken?

So where do Gods and Devas fit into this? Seemingly not of organic nature do they evolve in another way? Dependent on lower organic evolution or independent? They are supposedly incapable of attaining enlightenment unless reborn in the human realm suggesting Nibbana itself is dependent on evolution.

There seems to be more here about creation

Most of what has been discussed is cosmology and physics (space, time). Evolution pertains only to biological change.

Exactly. Its a Buddhist forum about evolution. The biblical story about creation is taken directly from the Sumerian and Chaldean by the way. Their versions are longer and more detailed. The god Enki and his wife Ninhursag create the Adama at a place called E-Din which is described like a lab more than Kew Gardens by manipulating the indigenous "shaggy men" with the gods own "blood". Genesis also states Eve was created from Adams rib. Sounds alot like genetic manipulation. X-files would love it.

But does flesh matter to Buddhism? We are concerned with evolution of mind. Buddha says only humans have a shot at Nibbana so evolution really only matters to us as far as the development of an upright thinking being. And while it is true that enlightenment seems to be a process of unbinding or returning the mind to a natural state, we are not born enlightened but burdened with the debt of past Kamma. Not innocent. The role that enviroment plays in evolution is vital. Beings not exposed to external stimulus will not evolve because flesh is lazy and only responds to what it needs to. Duress is good creating fitter and stronger. Therefore a long enough history of realised minds would evolve a more realised human. A Buddha? Jesus called himself the alpha and omega (though there is no other mention of him speaking Greek), the Jain Tirthankaras (enlightened ones) all came from a single family. I'm sure there are many examples of realised beings throughout history who are as much a result of genetics as of discipline. Nature, nurture and Kamma. I am not saying it is impossible to attain realisation for the rest of us, but that those who showed us how might have also been a part of human evolution.

There seems to be more here about creation rather than Leolibbys original statement about evolution. As I said, was only asking about seeming strange dichotomy between what I discovered in different places. I have not the knowledge others possess. I can see what mr. Real Deal is getting at saying other planets may be inhospitable to our level of evolution. But all of them? Doubtful with something like ten to the power of twenty odd suns in this galaxy. Even 0.01% of that number (if correct) is a massive amount.

So what does evolution struggle towards? Humans are poorly designed (especially the knees) for anything other than carting around a large brain (regardless of how it is employed. When I said sentient I meant with self reflexive awareness. It does not belittle other life or make our own grander seeing as we mostly employ our brains towards war, sex and money.) so what niche is humanity evolving to fill?

Personally I'd like to think its along the lines of Camerata's post, but including all glaxays, all life, all matter, everywhere, forever.

I wonder if "The mind that searches for contact with the Milky Way is the very mind of the Milky Way galaxy in search of its inner depths." is a Buddhist idea or a Hindu idea?

Love it. We are part of everything and therefore everything examining itself. Like part of the universe waking up. Though I have no idea who's idea it is, it is beautiful.

Been wanting a few answers to this one too. All life on Earth is genetically simmilar. There is very little difference between a human and a frog too. Just a tiny percentge of the total genetic structure we all carry is actually in use to make us. Also chimpanzees have a different number of chromasomes so cannot be related to humans.

Now, I read somewhere that the homo sapien sapien genetic code is only two hundred thousand odd years old (Human Genome Project I think) which puts a fly in a few ointments. Thats far too short a time for Darwinian theory to account for our evolution which requires two to three million years. And I have heard some monks say that humans and the universe have always existed and always will. I'd like to argue, but not without clearer understanding.

So I'm in a bit of a quandry. My teachers position is in opposition to the scientific one which is mostly supported by evidence, other than the age of the gene. It goes on. He says that Earth is the only world where sentient life has evolved, but the earliest known organisms here already have an equally complex genetic structure meaning that the genetic code cannot have evolved on earth. Microbial life being 'seeded' here by comets seems the most likely explaination, but that indicates extra terrestrial origin of our genes. So why would the same genes only evolve sentience on this particular planet?

As usual, I reserve the right to be wrong. Any ideas?

I always had an interest in Buddhism, Taoism, spirituality and the like. Came to Thailand to meet a friend. Wound up teaching English for a year. Saw many monks and Wats in various travels and was fascinated. Then another farang told me over a beer it was fairly easy yo become a monk here. I thought about it for six months until i realised that I'd been making the same mistakes in samsara over and over again, and that Buddha was absolutely right about the Four Noble Truths. So it was an opportunity to break the cycle and seek an end to the suffering of my own making.

Perhaps there is a slim connection. Some major news channels fill in time by reporting on 'unorthodox' occurences in Buddhism. I remember seeing a particular journalist interview a monk who wound up on utube kicking things. The media rarely go into positive messages of any kind. When farangs arrive in Thailand they often see whats 'bad' about Buddhism, a view supported by media. This attitude can carry over to the imagery. As I said, slim.

Another one I saw was a teacher I worked with just prior to my ordination had two prominent Buddhist tattoos. I later heard that when this man met another young man who was considering ordaining he advised the youth to forget it, better to get drunk and chase girls. Surely there are enough guys doing this already as it is an industry, but it struck me as hypocritical and downright rude. Why parade around with images of Buddha on your skin giving ill considered advice in direct opposition to Dhamma? Luckily the young fella ignored him. But I personally found it disrespectful and I expect at least some Thais would too.

Zen stories are great! Some of my favorite Buddhist literature is Zen. Can be a bit confusing or misleading. Ikkyu wrote some pretty saucy poetry, but he was an enlightened master and could leave the 'girls by the puddle'. Trouble is some unenlightened monks cite him as an excuse to get married. Not the same thing. And I think you'll find that Zen in Japan is highly formalised nowadays. Visit the master for a chat. He dispenses advice anx gives you a symbolic blow with the shippei. Now when an enlightened master hits you it is because he percieves it is exactly the right thing to do at that moment to push you over the edge into realisation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is every religion has those who follow form and those who seek truth. But good on ya for trying. All the best Imafarang.

I see many young fellas here with these tattoos and the main claim is that they become bullet and knife proof. I've offered to test it but nobody has accepted yet.

Some of them are very beautiful. I wish I knew more but only out of curiosity. I've seen other monks 'draw' symbols on the top of peoples heads as a kind of temporary tattoo, but one of them admitted he didn't really believe it had any power. Right action will serve you better than magic.

I've got issues with monks who smoke and own guns, too. But that's just me.

Lets hope the guns aren't smoking.

Jesus actually was pretty much a Buddhist in his actions.

You are probably aware of the idea that Jesus based his teachings on Buddhism? There are those who claim that Jesus was practicing Buddhism but decided to start his own business...

Those who claim that the above is plausible usually point to the fact that not much is known about Jesus's life between something like 15-30 years of age. Some say he went to India.

Dan Brown would make a best seller out of this one.

Jesus is pretty much what you want to make of him. The gospel writers had no qualms about making him in their own image and attributing to him the things they wanted to say themselves. There's a fair case now that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels either never existed as an historical figure or, if he did, that we know almost nothing reliable about him.

Also JC never to my knowledge taught meditation. All his teachings were Sila. Plus a fair amount of talk about his 'fathers kingdom' which is not like Buddha at all. Some of his disciples were armed and he consumed intoxicants and there was a last supper, so he ate after midday. If he was a Buddhist he was a bloody awful one.

Just a theory but more likely he spent his missing years in Egypt. Much closer and his family fled there once before so he may have had contacts or family thereabouts. But thats just speculation.

Same same. But not in Thailand for as long. Found Buddhist literature about 20 years ago.

It does sound bad, but you can' t convict without evidence. Was it supposed to be monks who administered the beating? I read many things like this in forums and news where accusations are made but there are few supporting facts. I have also heard of some bizarre things happening in Temples but these things, even if proven to be true, are not the norm.

Is it possible nobody saw anything because the victims did this to each other playing games and are trying to pass the blame? Is there footage of them actually in the cage/s or just the cages themselves? You can't say for sure without more proof.

One thing you can say is that you can't see bruises on monkeys.

its a pity they dont practice what they preach,after seeing the film on the news of young monks being beaten black and blue then locked up in a cage like a wild animal they dont get my respect.

Did they say where this happened? Or give much background? Sounds bad, but you can't trust news services to provide 100% truth. Its usually their opinion on part of what may have happened. Allegedly.

Thanks Khaowong. It seems this is an issue we'd need Buddha himself to decide for us.

Also agree with Bosse. The level of adornment extra to what each religion preaches at core is growing. If it attracts people closer to finding truth or solace then ok. But if it becomes a circus then thats very bad indeed. There seems to be a lot of criticism levelled at Thai Buddhism from farangs but it is based on the image portrayed. We then defend by highlighting the not-so-obvious good that goes on behind the facade. Maybe it shows some farangs have higher hopes for what Buddhism can achieve. As stated in an earlier post, and from personal experience many westerners have some interest in Buddhism. But supporting knowledge lacks.

Perhaps Rockyy is right. Ban the smoking and money making activities and 'prune the bush' to let the flowers bloom.

I thought we didn't do marriages anyway, more births means more suffering? I could be mistaken.