A Buddhist Philosophy Of Evolution

[sabaijai]

A Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution

"The eye that searches the Milky Way galaxy is itself an eye shaped by the Milky Way. The mind that searches for contact with the Milky Way is the very mind of the Milky Way galaxy in search of its own depths." --Thomas Berry & Brian Swimme

"I came to realize clearly that mind is no other than mountains and rivers and the great wide Earth, the sun and the moon and the stars." --Dogen

Most religions are uncomfortable with evolution, because it seems incompatible with their own creation stories, especially when those stories are understood literally. But if religions are to remain relevant today, they need to stop denying evolution and instead refocus their message on its meaning. According to Brian Swimme, the greatest scientific discovery of all time is that if you leave hydrogen gas alone (for 14 billion years, plus or minus a few hundred million years) "it turns into rosebushes, giraffes, and humans." Might this also be the most important spiritual discovery of all time?

Biological evolution is one of three progressive processes. First was the fusion of Big Bang particles into heavier elements in the cores of stars, which then exploded and scattered them to coalesce into new solar systems. In the second stage, elements such as carbon, oxygen, and sodium provided the physical basis for the eventual appearance of self-replicating species about 4 billion years ago, including the development of the modern human species about 200,000 years ago. Last but not least were the cultural developments necessary to produce highly-evolved human beings such as Śākyamuni Buddha and Einstein.

How shall we understand these three "nested" processes? Many religious people see a God outside these processes who is directing them. In contrast, many scientists have understood the evolution of life simply as a process of random DNA mutations and natural selection. Is there a third alternative?

According to the evolutionary biologist

Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolution is neither random nor determined but creative. A tendency toward increasing complexity is hard to overlook, as is its association with greater awareness. From a Buddhist perspective, this opens up interesting possibilities. Can we understand this groping self-organization as the universe itself becoming more self-aware?

In "The Universe Story," Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry offer this view: "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." According to one Buddhist tradition, when the Buddha woke up, the whole universe woke up. That might be one answer to the old question, "If there is no self, who becomes enlightened?"

Viewed less dualistically, our desire to awaken (Buddha means "awakened one") can be understood as the urge of the cosmos to become aware of itself. And "waking up" is realizing that "I" am not inside my body, looking out at a world that is separate from me. Rather, Buddhist emphasis on interdependence -- the fact that everything is dependent upon everything else for its being -- means that "I" am what the whole universe is doing right here and now, one of the countless ways that the totality of its causes and conditions comes together.

But there are complications.

Every species is an experiment of the biosphere, and according to biologists less than one percent of all species that have ever appeared on Earth still survive today. Our super-sized cortex enables us to be co-creators, and with us new types of "species" have become possible: knives and cities, poetry and world wars, cathedrals and concentration camps, symphonies and nuclear bombs. As these examples suggest, our unique creative powers have their problematical side. Nietzsche's Zarathustra says that "man is a rope across an abyss." The metaphor is suggestive: Are we a transitional species? Must we evolve further in order to survive at all?

In his book "

Thank God for Evolution," Michael Dowd describes our collective problem as "systemic sin": "The fundamental immaturity of the human species at this time in history is that our systems of governance and economics not only permit but actually encourage subsets of the whole (individuals and corporations) to benefit at the expense of the whole." It looks as if we can no longer afford the delusion of separate selves that can pursue their own benefit at the cost of the whole.

According to the Vietnamese teacher

Thich Nhat Hanh, "the Buddha attained individual awakening. Now we need a collective enlightenment to stop the course of destruction." Are figures like the Buddha and Gandhi examples of the direction in which our species needs to develop today? The "growing tip" of cultural evolution today involves spiritual practices that challenge the fiction of a separate self whose own well-being is distinguishable from the well-being of "others." Perhaps our basic problem is a profound misunderstanding of what one's self really is.

As far as we know, we are the only species that can dis-identify with every particular thing (which happens during meditation, when one "lets go" of any mental event that occurs) and thereby come to realize that the whole universe is our body. The other side of that realization is assuming responsibility for the well-being of the whole. In Buddhism, wisdom and compassion work together.

Without the compassion that arises when we realize our non-duality -- empathy not only with other humans but with the whole biosphere -- it is becoming likely that civilization as we know it may not survive even this century. Nor would it deserve to. It remains to be seen whether theHomo sapiens experiment will be a successful vehicle for the cosmic evolutionary process.

This gives us another perspective on our collective relationship with the biosphere. Isn't the global ecological crisis a spiritual challenge, which calls upon us to wake up and realize our non-duality with the Earth?

David Loy and John Stanley are part of the Ecobuddhism project

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-loy/buddhist-philosophy-of-evolution_b_1633359.html

[leolibby]

I also wonder if the genetic mutations are really random. Evolution does not occour at a fixed rate -- it sometimetimes comes in bursts, followed by stagnation. for example, the ancestors of whales was a 4 legged land animal. I imagine it must have evolved pretty quickly when it took to the water.

Edited July 19, 2012 by leolibby

[fabianfred]

Western thinking got the big-bang right, but they start off wrong by assuming it came from nothing. The truth is that is came from the enery and matter from the previous big-crunch cycle. Buddhism sees the past and future as infinite so in the past there have been infinite big-bangs.

The time from one to the next is what is referred to as an aeon or MahaKappa by the scriptures.

[leolibby]

Western thinking got the big-bang right, but they start off wrong by assuming it came from nothing. The truth is that is came from the enery and matter from the previous big-crunch cycle. Buddhism sees the past and future as infinite so in the past there have been infinite big-bangs.

The time from one to the next is what is referred to as an aeon or MahaKappa by the scriptures.

Yeah, scientifically it is impossible to know what was before. My theory (the one I had a few years ago) is that our universe is just the other side of what we see happen in our own universe: black holes. Essentially, we are on the inside of something like a singularity in another universe. it doesn't make total sence, but you get the idea. This idea is in Hindu theology as wel, and Hopi.. although it's not scientific because it can't be validated through an expiriment.... although it has been proposed that out universe will collapse in on itself.. creating a new big bang.. but at present they think it's just going to keep expanding until everything is lifeless and absolute 0. By the way, did you know that genetically, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas?

[Several]

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?

[leolibby]

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.

maybe I misunderstand... other apes (we are apes) have 24 chromosomes, we have 23 ... it is because two chromosomes fused. This is actually concrete evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor . We are not single, individual organisms... we are many bilions of life forms... all the friendly flora in your gut.. every mitochondria is each cell (mitochondria were origionally a separate life-form... that's why they have their own DNA) We would die pretty soon without mitochondria ... they developed a simbiotic relationship with us. chloroplasts in plants are the same... a seperate, non plant, organism. So we are probably related to plants. Humans and the universe have not always existed.. and we wont exist forever either. How is it that a monk said that? Impermanence is a key part of buddhism.. everything is temporary.

The meaning of "the human genetic code is 200,000 years old" means that 200,000 years ago we became homo sapiens... there has been little change since. so a human 200,000 years ago, theoretically, would be roughly identical to us now. It has taken maybe half a bilion years to get where we are.

Sentience is an arrogant, subjective human conecpt... are we sentient compared to a buddah? our egotistical intellect is nothing compared to the intelliegence of.. well, creation. It seems to me that most life has a degree of "sentience"The origin of life is unknown.. but it has been around for half a billion years.. at least life forms that leave fossils. I researched the origin of life a lot.. life developing spontaneously is pretty much impossible probability-wise... so either there was an intelligent deasign force at work, or Earth was seeded.

Hindu theology recognizes sentient life throughout the universe.. including the gods. Buddha believed in the Hindu Gods... so why wouldn't he believe in life existing elsewhere?

Edited July 20, 2012 by leolibby

[dutchguest]

Generally speaking in the east there is a circular idea of evolution (and of life and death) and in the west a linear. In the west with death life is definitively finished, in the east death is the beginning of a new life. Both can untill now not be proven scientifically. It also means that in the east existence, the universe, time and space are eternal and infinite, while in the west there is a beginning and there will be an end and it is not infinite.

For me the eastern view makes more sense, for when there is a beginning the question of why and how easily leads to the assumption of a supernatural God. You can say that the west sees only a small part of the circle, which looks like a line if the circle is very big or infinite big.It is also an indication that the west has not gone beyond the mind, with its dualistic ideas of existence and limited ideas of time and space. Rationalisation and science can bring a lot of insights and progress in the material world, but it has its limitations, it can not go beyond the mind as this is the function with which it is working. Meditation can bring you beyond the mind and can be a way to experience other dimensions of existence, it can give a deeper and wider insight in existence although it can not or only to a certain extend be shared with others via words and language which are tools of the conditioned mind.

[leolibby]

Generally speaking in the east there is a circular idea of evolution (and of life and death) and in the west a linear. In the west with death life is definitively finished, in the east death is the beginning of a new life. Both can untill now not be proven scientifically. It also means that in the east existence, the universe, time and space are eternal and infinite, while in the west there is a beginning and there will be an end and it is not infinite.

For me the eastern view makes more sense, for when there is a beginning the question of why and how easily leads to the assumption of a supernatural God. You can say that the west sees only a small part of the circle, which looks like a line if the circle is very big or infinite big.It is also an indication that the west has not gone beyond the mind, with its dualistic ideas of existence and limited ideas of time and space. Rationalisation and science can bring a lot of insights and progress in the material world, but it has its limitations, it can not go beyond the mind as this is the function with which it is working. Meditation can bring you beyond the mind and can be a way to experience other dimensions of existence, it can give a deeper and wider insight in existence although it can not or only to a certain extend be shared with others via words and language which are tools of the conditioned mind.

Innteresting. I have to forget I'm an athiest for a second: Okay... well I think time is created by our minds. don't ask me to explain, because I can't. Did you notice time means "duraton" a start and end. If you had always existed, and always will, you wil not percievea time (proof:) you know how as you get older, time goes faster? well if you are infinitely old, time will go infinitlely fast... it will cease to exist. I believe humans can reach a state where they don'tg percieve time... i used to do it.

[MrRealDeal]

Western thinking got the big-bang right, but they start off wrong by assuming it came from nothing. The truth is that is came from the enery and matter from the previous big-crunch cycle. Buddhism sees the past and future as infinite so in the past there have been infinite big-bangs.

The time from one to the next is what is referred to as an aeon or MahaKappa by the scriptures.

The theory does NOT say that it came from nothing , I don't know how you got that part so clearly wrong but you did. It says knowing where it came from or how it came into existance can not be proven after the singularity of the "bang" the big crunch theory is obviously part of the theory but it can't be proven as the singularity wiped out any proof.

It's a law of science that you can't get someting from nothing , so the "assumption: is that matter has always existed not that it came from nothing.

Since thier is no evedence saying their have been infinite big bangs it is an unprovable assumption not the "truth" in fact what determines that is called the Omega ratio and while it's about impossible to determine advances in meashuring dark matter are leading people to believe that the universe may expand forever rather than contract or stop.

Several life could certianly be evolving some other place from the same seed from a comet , but since it's the same in your theory , the planet would have to have similar traits, like heat and water ect. Or likely it would die from to much heat or not enough water ect.

Just because older things are more complex than we thought doesn't mean they could not have come from earth , thats a mistake on your teachers part and a grand assumption , more properly stated one should say we don't know how or where not that since we don't know it couldnt not have been from here ...... if we don't know, we can't pick and chose where and how what we don't know came from. It's a plausable theory but saying it could not have come from here is an assumption with only support from lack of facts not proof from a lot of facts. It's the old......... since I can't figure it out ...... here is the explanation ..... most often god is used sometimes aliens ect.

As far a budda goes , philosophy is often correct and overlaps science , the difference is science has to prove it and philosophers just need to think it.

Edited July 20, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[MrRealDeal]

Generally speaking in the east there is a circular idea of evolution (and of life and death) and in the west a linear. In the west with death life is definitively finished, in the east death is the beginning of a new life. Both can untill now not be proven scientifically. It also means that in the east existence, the universe, time and space are eternal and infinite, while in the west there is a beginning and there will be an end and it is not infinite.

For me the eastern view makes more sense, for when there is a beginning the question of why and how easily leads to the assumption of a supernatural God. You can say that the west sees only a small part of the circle, which looks like a line if the circle is very big or infinite big.It is also an indication that the west has not gone beyond the mind, with its dualistic ideas of existence and limited ideas of time and space. Rationalisation and science can bring a lot of insights and progress in the material world, but it has its limitations, it can not go beyond the mind as this is the function with which it is working. Meditation can bring you beyond the mind and can be a way to experience other dimensions of existence, it can give a deeper and wider insight in existence although it can not or only to a certain extend be shared with others via words and language which are tools of the conditioned mind.

I am not sure how you arrived at that ? In the West Religon talks of infinite life just like the East albiet in differing forms. The West is also dominated by Science and within that you have Matter for example not being destroyed or created just changing form ...... I really don't understand how either western religion or Science can be seen as linear at all. Western christians think they will get everlasting life and Science says Matter is never Destroyed , how can you intrepret that as a beginning and an end ?

There is no Western Theory that says the Universe will "end" what it says is that it will either expand forever , collapse and expand again , or the most unlikely it will stop expanding and not collapse ...... it does NOT say it will "end" in fact the end of the universe would go against so many well established laws of Science it would be perposterous for a Scientist to even suggest it and be taken seriously.

[rockyysdt]

There is no Western Theory that says the Universe will "end" what it says is that it will either expand forever , collapse and expand again , or the most unlikely it will stop expanding and not collapse ...... it does NOT say it will "end" in fact the end of the universe would go against so many well established laws of Science it would be perposterous for a Scientist to even suggest it and be taken seriously.

If you choose the "expanding forever" theory, then it had to begin somewhere (Big Bang).

In an infinite universe a beginning doesn't make sense.

More likely expand, then collapse, expand, then collapse.

A cyclic universe of expansion, then collapse fits into the infinite as there is no beginning and no end.

Of course this poses another problem.

If the universe is infinite, as it expands, if there are no boundaries, what will cause it to collapse?

Many universes all expanding until they collide with neighboring expanding universes.

These collisions causing the universes to collapse back to a singularity.

But then, all this may be irrelevant to humans, on a time scale.

When challenged the Buddha said he was not omnipotent.

Better to focus on the real.

Edited July 20, 2012 by rockyysdt

[dutchguest]

Generally speaking in the east there is a circular idea of evolution (and of life and death) and in the west a linear. In the west with death life is definitively finished, in the east death is the beginning of a new life. Both can untill now not be proven scientifically. It also means that in the east existence, the universe, time and space are eternal and infinite, while in the west there is a beginning and there will be an end and it is not infinite.

For me the eastern view makes more sense, for when there is a beginning the question of why and how easily leads to the assumption of a supernatural God. You can say that the west sees only a small part of the circle, which looks like a line if the circle is very big or infinite big.It is also an indication that the west has not gone beyond the mind, with its dualistic ideas of existence and limited ideas of time and space. Rationalisation and science can bring a lot of insights and progress in the material world, but it has its limitations, it can not go beyond the mind as this is the function with which it is working. Meditation can bring you beyond the mind and can be a way to experience other dimensions of existence, it can give a deeper and wider insight in existence although it can not or only to a certain extend be shared with others via words and language which are tools of the conditioned mind.

Innteresting. I have to forget I'm an athiest for a second: Okay... well I think time is created by our minds. don't ask me to explain, because I can't. Did you notice time means "duraton" a start and end. If you had always existed, and always will, you wil not percievea time (proof:) you know how as you get older, time goes faster? well if you are infinitely old, time will go infinitlely fast... it will cease to exist. I believe humans can reach a state where they don'tg percieve time... i used to do it.

Yes, if time and space are eternal and unlimited you might as well say they don't really exist and are inventions of our mind. May be in deep meditation your sense of time and space disappear as they connect you with the conditioned outer world.

The conceptions of eternity and infinity can i.m.o. only be grasped by the mind on a theoretical, conceptual level, but can only be experienced at a more existential level if you go beyond the mind in meditation, in a state of no-mind. This might be where Einstein and Buddhism, west and east, science and religion, meet. The relativity theory of Einstein is also very hard to understand for the dualistic functioning mind (on a conceptual level it can be understood).

All this does not mean that the mind does not have a very usefull function in daily life as it is now, point is to use it as an instrument and not to be a captured by it, not to identify yourself with it (as it has not so much to do with truth or reality, which are the concerns of Buddhism).

Edited July 20, 2012 by dutchguest

[dutchguest]

I am not sure how you arrived at that ? In the West Religon talks of infinite life just like the East albiet in differing forms. The West is also dominated by Science and within that you have Matter for example not being destroyed or created just changing form ...... I really don't understand how either western religion or Science can be seen as linear at all. Western christians think they will get everlasting life and Science says Matter is never Destroyed , how can you intrepret that as a beginning and an end ?

There is no Western Theory that says the Universe will "end" what it says is that it will either expand forever , collapse and expand again , or the most unlikely it will stop expanding and not collapse ...... it does NOT say it will "end" in fact the end of the universe would go against so many well established laws of Science it would be perposterous for a Scientist to even suggest it and be taken seriously.

Well, as a child I have been told that God created the world in 7 days and if you read the bible I think it says the same. So there is a beginning. Also western religions don't have the concept of rebirth, which also points at a circular idea of reality.

Western science is more or less, often unconscious, building on and emancipating from these religious ideas and prejudices, but they sit very deep and many western scientists have a religious background. But I would not be surprised if western science comes in the end to the same conclusions as Buddhism has found on a more intuitive way.

[BuddhistVirus]

Interesting read.

[camerata]

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?

[MrRealDeal]

There is no Western Theory that says the Universe will "end" what it says is that it will either expand forever , collapse and expand again , or the most unlikely it will stop expanding and not collapse ...... it does NOT say it will "end" in fact the end of the universe would go against so many well established laws of Science it would be perposterous for a Scientist to even suggest it and be taken seriously.

If you choose the "expanding forever" theory, then it had to begin somewhere (Big Bang).

In an infinite universe a beginning doesn't make sense.

More likely expand, then collapse, expand, then collapse.

A cyclic universe of expansion, then collapse fits into the infinite as there is no beginning and no end.

Of course this poses another problem.

If the universe is infinite, as it expands, if there are no boundaries, what will cause it to collapse?

Many universes all expanding until they collide with neighboring expanding universes.

These collisions causing the universes to collapse back to a singularity.

But then, all this may be irrelevant to humans, on a time scale.

When challenged the Buddha said he was not omnipotent.

Better to focus on the real.

What would cause it to collapse is the same as what causes a ball to come back to earth and a spaceship to break the gravaty ..... it's called the Omaga ratio and is the same concept as escape velocity ...... if the mass of the bang was smaller than the bang it would expand, if like a ball the mass was smaller than the gravatational pull it would collapse.

A pretty crude explanation of course but wiki it and you can learn about it.

You are confusing the beginning of the big bang with it being the beginning of everything ..... As I tried to explain it's not considered the beginning by any Scientist it's only as far back as we could hope to analize because before that all information is gone. But once again the beginning of the big bang is not considered by any Scientist to be the Start of Matter or considered to be the beginning of everything , only the beginning of what we can observe ..... Everyone would agree there was a time prior to the big bang it's just we can't see it or analize it.

Edited July 20, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[MrRealDeal]

I am not sure how you arrived at that ? In the West Religon talks of infinite life just like the East albiet in differing forms. The West is also dominated by Science and within that you have Matter for example not being destroyed or created just changing form ...... I really don't understand how either western religion or Science can be seen as linear at all. Western christians think they will get everlasting life and Science says Matter is never Destroyed , how can you intrepret that as a beginning and an end ?

There is no Western Theory that says the Universe will "end" what it says is that it will either expand forever , collapse and expand again , or the most unlikely it will stop expanding and not collapse ...... it does NOT say it will "end" in fact the end of the universe would go against so many well established laws of Science it would be perposterous for a Scientist to even suggest it and be taken seriously.

Well, as a child I have been told that God created the world in 7 days and if you read the bible I think it says the same. So there is a beginning. Also western religions don't have the concept of rebirth, which also points at a circular idea of reality.

Western science is more or less, often unconscious, building on and emancipating from these religious ideas and prejudices, but they sit very deep and many western scientists have a religious background. But I would not be surprised if western science comes in the end to the same conclusions as Buddhism has found on a more intuitive way.

A beginning to the universe I suppose but the same bible also says that God has always been and has no beginning .... So for me you are supporting your argument by leaving out the part of the story that says the western God had no beginning and has always been and will always be.

No need for a long discussion but you are simply incorrect in thinking that western religion or Science thinks their was a beginning or will be an end to either God or the Universe. Religion says God has always been and always will be, and people who believe in his as well, and Science says Matter has always been and is neither created or destroyed and will always be just takes on different forms.

I would say that all of this is already in agreement with eastern thinking not something that will come around later in time , agreement with some differences is all.

Saying that because it might expand forever that it assumes a beginning and their was nothing prior is incorrect , just because it expands forever doesn't mean their was nothing prior to this expanding time period , and it doesn't mean that it could not have collapsed prior to now either.

Universise colliding would not make require them to collapse it would still depend on the Omega ratio however it would slow the expansion obviously and one might be so much stronger that while it might seem to make it collapse it would actually be forced to expand along with the other colliding universe reversing direction but not actually collapsing on itself.

Edited July 20, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Several]

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.

[Xangsamhua]

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?

I'd say it's the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin. Both authors are followers of Teilhard. There's a point at which Buddhist (perhaps especially Mahayana), Hindu and Christian thought and mysticism start to overlap. It could be that the philosophy of de Chardin is Christian, Buddhist and Hindu in some respects.

De Chardin was badly treated by Church authorities of his time, but both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken well of him, especially the latter.

[Several]

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.

[leolibby]

Western science is more or less, often unconscious, building on and emancipating from these religious ideas and prejudices, but they sit very deep and many western scientists have a religious background. But I would not be surprised if western science comes in the end to the same conclusions as Buddhism has found on a more intuitive way.

I don't think that's true. The scientific method entails proving or disproving a hypothesis through empirical, measurable observation... and that observation must be repeatable. For example, if you want to proove the Earth is round.. you can't just make a theory saying it must we round because that's what makes sence. You have to go to the sea and you can observe the curvature of the earth: if a ship is far enough away, only the sails will be visible. Lets say ourtheory is that the universe is eternal... it gets created and destroyed and created and destroyed again eternally... that can't be scientifically proven... what would you measure to proove it?

On another note, the "heat-death"of the universe, I think means that everything will reach maximum entropy. movement itself won't be possible. life wont be possible

Edited July 20, 2012 by leolibby

[dutchguest]

Western science is more or less, often unconscious, building on and emancipating from these religious ideas and prejudices, but they sit very deep and many western scientists have a religious background. But I would not be surprised if western science comes in the end to the same conclusions as Buddhism has found on a more intuitive way.

I don't think that's true. The scientific method entails proving or disproving a hypothesis through empirical, measurable observation... and that observation must be repeatable. For example, if you want to proove the Earth is round.. you can't just make a theory saying it must we round because that's what makes sence. You have to go to the sea and you can observe the curvature of the earth: if a ship is far enough away, only the sails will be visible. Lets say ourtheory is that the universe is eternal... it gets created and destroyed and created and destroyed again eternally... that can't be scientifically proven... what would you measure to proove it?

On another note, the "heat-death"of the universe, I think means that everything will reach maximum entropy. movement itself won't be possible. life wont be possible

What I wanted to say is that originally the religious truth was the only known and accepted truth.

When science found out the earth is not flat, and that the sun does not rotate around the earth but vece versa, is was risky to say so openly, you could be condemned to the stake for it.

Also Darwin, the founder of the evolution theory, was a religious man. The scientific facts he found were against the religious idea that God created all the different species ready-made. Especially the fact that man descended from the apes was controversial in his time.

[Several]

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.

[Xangsamhua]

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.

Not wanting to muddy the waters - and I'm a bit out of my depth in these conversations, but keeping the original articles in mind, Teilhard de Chardin did not separate cosmology from biological evolution. Indeed his philosophy on these things is known as Cosmogenesis.

As I don't have the brains to summarize, please allow me to quote:

The main thrust of Teilhard's gnosis was a foundational understanding of the Universe, which was expressed in his theory of Cosmogenesis. According to Teilhard, the universe is no longer to be considered a static order, but rather a universe in process. And it is a continuing, upslope trajectory of evolution that Teilhard declares a cosmogenesis. The process of Teilhard's holistic cosmos is broken into the following categories: the Without and Within of things; the evolution of matter, life, consciousness; and the Omega Point.

The world without consists of inorganic and organic matter. Looking at elemental matter, Teilhard notes that the characteristic of minerals have "chosen a road which closed them prematurely in upon themselves." He calls this condensed matter. Eventually, in order to develop, molecules of an innate structure have in some way to get out of themselves.

They do. Teilhard observes that atoms aggregate, in geometrical patterns, into simple groups, then into complex groupings. This is crystallization. During this crystallizing state of elemental matter, Teilhard observes that energy was constantly being released. The earth's energy became capable of building up "carbonates, hydrates, and nitrates." This led to polymerization, in which molecular particles "group themselves and exchange position," thus developing into "larger and more complex" organic compounds.

Teilhard considers the earth's early inorganic and organic developments to be "two inseparable facets of one and the same telluric operation." Teilhard's refrain to this is boggling: "In the world, nothing could ever burst forth as final across the different thresholds successively traversed by evolution which has not already existed in an obscure and primordial way." Teilhard believes that there is a Within in the heart of things!

Teilhard specifically stresses that the Within is used to "denote the psychic fact of that portion of the stuff of the cosmos enclosed from the beginning of time within the narrow scope of the early earth." The exterior world is lined with an interior one! He links this Within with enfoldment. He notes that the very individualization of the earth suggests that a "certain mass of elementary consciousness was originally imprisoned in the matter of the earth." Teilhard is alluding to a kind of embedded cosmic intelligence or encoded information.

http://www.bizcharts...m/plenum_2.html

With reference to Camerata's earlier question, then, is "the Within" the same as Brahman, or perhaps Dharmakaya, (the unmanifested aspect of a Buddha, out of which Buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution’)?

[camerata]

A whole slew of posts not relating to Buddhism has been deleted. Please keep your posts on topic.

Thanks.

[Several]

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.

[khaowong1]

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.

Good questions Several... let's hope we get some good answers back.. thanks.

[leolibby]

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?

Yes these are intellectual excersizes that at best are harmless, and at worst they are just something else the ego attaches to in self-preservation. however, the best definition of life i've come across was by william sidis-- he noticed that its a reversal of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. life does and can reverse entropy. your last sentence is what i think the article says. I think evolution is just physical. Mental evolution (figurative), in this instance is seeing entopy and negative entropy as the same.

[Screws]

"And I have heard some monks say that humans and the universe have always existed and always will"

How can knowledge come from a vacuum? These guys don't know which end of a microscope to look into. They just know that if they say something controversial it will pass for wisdom.

Mostly.

[sabaijai]

These questions, and similar ones, are asked in the suttas, to which the Buddha is often recorded as replying 'This question tends not to edification.'

More specifically the process of creating such questions is addressed in the Honeyball Sutta, which talks about papañca or mental proliferation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html