A Buddhist Philosophy Of Evolution

[Several]

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...

[leolibby]

I said sensation, not perception. Dizzyness is a sensation in the brain that does not have a cooresponding sence,, so is drunkeness and the sensation any drug will give you.

I'm gonna say something unpopular here and claim Karma, rebirth, etc. don't exist. no one would have followed buddhism if it didn't have some way of explaining things like every other religion

Edited July 25, 2012 by leolibby

[canuckamuck]

You don't know one way or the other.

[IMA_FARANG]

The Buddha was saying that to define yourself (who/what am I?) is to limit yourself, so the question was best ignored.

Or, perhaps, that such a question is intrinsically deep and complex and therefore must be considered very very carefully....and by only those who have achieved a certain level of understanding required to consider such questions?

Rather like a brain surgeon, who must operate on a cancer in a living brain....but what is the cancer brain cells, and what is the healthy living brain?

"Clarity of vision" is required in both cases, isn't it?

[leolibby]

You don't know one way or the other.

exactly. I'm not following an established path.

[leolibby]

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

That's a better example than what I said. Well you can't quantify it... my evolutionary definition of beauty is anything that ensures or is indicative of sexual/ reproductive success or failure... like a beautiful woman...which trails make her beautiful? youth? good genes? a wide pelvis that can emit lots of babies? or can old be a kind of poetic beauty? It seems the ability to evoke complex emotion and trigger memory is tied to beauty.. i think most things that are beautiful, remind of youthful states when we were children or of our own children.

[camerata]

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.

[dutchguest]

Everything being material does not mean it does not have certain properties, qualities, being hard or soft or beautifull. For me this has nothing to with immateriality. May be beauty is not so much an objective property of something, but has also to do with the esthetic sense man has develloped during evolution. Still I don see any reason to suppose immateriality anywhere.

I see awareness as a kind of projectionscreen on which a certain content, materially may be consisting of neuronal brainactivity, can be projected. About the same as the funtioning of the eye. May be the senses and the brain work together in the case of consciousness, as opposed to rationalising which can be a brainactivity pur sang without contact with the outerworld. But I am not a scientist so I 'm just speculating.

I.m.o. the ego is a social creation, a fiction in a way, that can be undone by deconditioning. For me it is only a unnatural, destructive function, that goes against the evolutionary interests of humanity. So I don't see it as an evolutionary devellopment for the preservation of the individual or the species, on the contrary.

Buddhism being a scientific religion that can be tested does not mean tested objectively in a laboratory. It is dealing with subjective experiences that in the case of karma, nirvana, rebirth, can be potentially experienced by everybody. But as long as you don't have the experience it necessarely remains a belief.

[rockyysdt]

I'm gonna say something unpopular here and claim Karma, rebirth, etc. don't exist. no one would have followed buddhism if it didn't have some way of explaining things like every other religion

It depends on your interpretation of what Karma, rebirth are!

For example, what we perceive as consciousness has been modelled as a series of moments (sensory stimulation, contact, perception).

Each moment gives way to the next (re birth) at a very fast speed giving the impression of "me', "ego", "l".

Perhaps you're suggesting re birth into a future life doesn't exist?

Also karma is a misused word.

Karma is not our fate, but simply means action.

It is a doing word.

Vipaka is the fruit of Karma.

When you do something you will (either immediately or at a later time) reap the fruits of Karma.

Edited July 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[leolibby]

Yeah, I meant reincarnation into another life... stuff like "if you sleep too much, youll reincarnate as a tree." Statements like that are meant to scare kids into behaving well.

well, the kind of karma I know is that every attachment is karma. karma's like super poligrip denture adhesive cream keeping you in the cycle or rebirth... and the goal is to get rid of all karma. what you said. i dont believe in the good vs bad karma.... it is just a way of explaining misfortune "you were born poor because of mistakes you made in your last life."

So if there is no soul, is it the karma itself that reincarnates?

Edited July 25, 2012 by leolibby

[rockyysdt]

So if there is no soul, is it the karma itself that reincarnates?

The Buddhist community is divided on this point.

Some adhere to re birth into countless lives until one is awakened, whilst others see it as a moment to moment event giving an illusion of consciousness.

Creatures of the physical (us) can never answer your question as it lies in the metaphysical.

We can all speculate on metaphysical matters, but the Buddha taught that we should to stick to matters which lie within our "fathom long carcass" (mind and body).

Attachment to belief is the biggest single cause of suffering on our planet.

Edited July 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[leolibby]

Attachment to belief is the biggest single cause of suffering on our planet.

I agree. I used to believe in God and the afterlife and ghosts and even elves.. I wasn't religious, i just believed in God "because." (any God). It took a few years, and I wasn't trying, but i Gave it all up. It was hard to accept the idea that after death, there might be nothing.. that's not my belief, I've just reached a point where i'm comfortable not knowing. i've never even speculated on that... not recently..

Edited July 25, 2012 by leolibby

[rockyysdt]

I agree. I used to believe in God and the afterlife and ghosts and even elves.. I wasn't religious, i just believed in God "because." (any God). It took a few years, and I wasn't trying, but i Gave it all up. It was hard to accept the idea that after death, there might be nothing.. that's not my belief, I've just reached a point where i'm comfortable not knowing. i've never even speculated on that... not recently..

If you've believed in God for a long time it can be difficult not being influenced by that belief.

Discussing about what might be (metaphysical) can be fun, but ultimately can consume ones focus, time, and energy.

Going further, depending on the type and level of our conditioning, the attempts of most of us to genuinely practice the eightfold path will be foiled.

For most of us, our practice is a fabrication assembled to feed our individual egos.

Our ego gains mileage at being identified as a Buddhist or at being associated with the things Buddhism promises (varies depending on translation).

The trick is to go along with the fabrication until such time as personal experience reveals what the Buddha was teaching.

The trouble is, for the majority, our conditioning ensures our ego remains in control.

Edited July 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

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..."

[huli]

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..."

The idea that Bohdhisattvas are important is so much Mahayana heresy, IMO. Buddha's teaching was for personal awakening and that's all, nothing about stopping short, and all of that.

IMHO, how we can get everyone together to save the world, or how society can be organized for utopia, are two questions that may be fun to ponder, but miss the point. Namely, if one follows the Buddhist Path, one is doing all one can do, and society will be affected for the better by that effort. Such a person will demonstrate compassion and generosity naturally, and voila, the world is changed.

[Several]

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.