Evolution Re Karma

[saeb]

I've just finished a discussion with the lovely Tiki about evolution and how does that contradict or is applicable to Buddist belief in the concept of reincarnation.

To be honest, it is a conversation that I have had with a number of Thais over the years, some of whom are well travelled and understanding of other cultures, but all of whom have had the benefit of a decent education and are in my opinion, intelligent people.

The root point always comes down to if we are part of an evolutionary train starting from say, single cell amoeba, how does that interact with a belief that we are of a higher plane than animals or insects.

And as such if a single cell organism or maybe a fish has no sense of right or wrong how then could we have evolved into our present state with a sense of reincarnation?.

Was then the concept only introduced as a result of our ability to develop imagination?.

If so, what came before?.

Or is it a selective process only applicable to humans?.

Any ideas?.

[cobra]

Interesting points, unfortunately it's too early to think,

But it's obvious, (mathematically), biology and reincarnation have never dovetailed, the whole soul, host body ratio thing,

[Chaiisoot]

If you think that's going to be a tough one, try explaining Intelligent Design....

[suegha]

Far easier to believe in a creator who created everything!

[Sir Burr]

Far easier to believe in evolution and no life after death.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[suegha]

Far easier to believe in evolution and no life after death.

Really???

[tc101]

This is a very deep question which I can not answer, but here is my take on it.

Life is a mystery. We will never understand most of it. Some things the human mind is incapable of grasping. A cat laying in the sun can never understand the nuclear fusion that makes the sun burn, but that cat can still be heated by the suns warmth.

We create mental models to help us understand some things. Our brightest biologists have been able to create the mental model of evolution to help us understand something about how life evolved. I am not sure where the idea of reincarnation came from. It may be a mental model created by great mystics, or it may be just a myth. Let us supose it is actually true. Perhaps the relationship between reincarnation and evolution is just as hard for us to understand as nuclear fusion in the heart of the sun is for the cat to understand.

In any event, I don't understand it, but if anyone here can explain it, I will enjoy reading the answer.

The most important thing to remember is that you will never understand most things. In spite of that, if you can just relax and let go into the big mystery you can be happy. If you grasp too hard for explainations you will be unhappy.

Edited April 23, 2006 by tc101

[Sir Burr]

Far easier to believe in evolution and no life after death.

Really???

Yup. Unless you have hard evidence to prove otherwise?

[Pink Mist]

my only problem with re-incarnation is (and I would love it to be true) the sheer number of souls required for todays population.

[verzenden]

my only problem with re-incarnation is (and I would love it to be true) the sheer number of souls required for todays population.

Here you have a point i thought about before. The increase in human population seems to question the re-incarnation due to lack of souls. But but but. How about other species, could a decline in other species make up for the rise in human population? We should count all species and we would be sure right? Who wants to do the counting?

[Pink Mist]

my only problem with re-incarnation is (and I would love it to be true) the sheer number of souls required for todays population.

Here you have a point i thought about before. The increase in human population seems to question the re-incarnation due to lack of souls. But but but. How about other species, could a decline in other species make up for the rise in human population? We should count all species and we would be sure right? Who wants to do the counting?

I thought about that also, extinct versus humans and it all became too hard.

[saeb]

If you think that's going to be a tough one, try explaining Intelligent Design....

Gave up on that years ago!!

Logic is a case in point : A while back my (ex) missus said she wanted one of these things that you stand on when you get out of the shower. Don't know what you call it - wooden slats raised off the floor.

She wanted to go and buy one ; Now we had lots of old shelving and stuff lying around so, I grabbed a saw, a drill and a bunch of screws.

One hour (and three glasses of wine) later eureka!. A thingy to stand on after a shower.

It took a little time to explain that in Oxford on a Sunday morning to drive to B&Q, park the car, go round the store, queue for checkout, get out of the car park and drive home would have taken at least 2 hours plus the cost of the thing + petrol.

She seemed amazed at the concept, but maybe that's Ayhuttahya folks for you.........

To refine my original post : As I read it, only creatures with souls can be reincarnated under Bhuddist belief. Does a fish or a dog or an elephant or a wasp have a soul?.

To kill living things is a sin therefore these things must have souls. Right?.

Or am I missing something here?. (apart from anything else better to do!).

[Donz]

who the hel_l knows.

[camerata]

To refine my original post : As I read it, only creatures with souls can be reincarnated under Bhuddist belief. Does a fish or a dog or an elephant or a wasp have a soul?.

To kill living things is a sin therefore these things must have souls. Right?.

Or am I missing something here?. (apart from anything else better to do!).

The essence of Buddhism is that there is no soul or self. So what passes from existence to existence is hard to define. One description is 'karmic accumulations.' Killing living things is unwholesome in that it takes you further from enlightenment. 'Sin' is just a convenient term meaning that it is bad. It's not sin in the Christian sense.

[greenwanderer108]

...

To refine my original post : As I read it, only creatures with souls can be reincarnated under Bhuddist belief. Does a fish or a dog or an elephant or a wasp have a soul?.

To kill living things is a sin therefore these things must have souls. Right?.

Or am I missing something here?. (apart from anything else better to do!).

There was one story in the Darma, which I believe I read on Thaivisa , that talks about some dog sitter and another sheep herder or something along those lines who went to seek advice from the enlightened one about the prospects of their next lives.

It was something along the lines of it coming down to Sidartha telling them, 'if you eat, think, and act like a dog, then next life you will become a dog' and same for the other guy...sorry, can't remember the names of the characters and the section/storey it was referenced from but surely other enlightened members can help out in that area...

So in other words, the darma teaches nothing about only humans reincarnating to humans, in fact entertains the idea of moving up/down the circle/ladder of life...

So to address your question and thread topic, I think evolution and reincarnation are in perfect harmony with eachother, and frankly the same exact thing...

What was the factor that made a fish evolve (or reincarnate) to an amphibian? Darwinists might call it natural selection while Buddhists would call it Karma, what have you...really, it's not much of a different concept...

One branch of the fish naturally/gradually selected to adapt to land life...to adapt to land life, one must think more like a land animal and less like a water animal...or in another perspective, neglect the system of its water life (i.e. karma) in order to make way for land...and so on and so on...

Cheers

Edited April 23, 2006 by greenwanderer108

[jamman]

.

The essence of Buddhism is that there is no soul or self. So what passes from existence to existence is hard to define. One description is 'karmic accumulations.' Killing living things is unwholesome in that it takes you further from enlightenment. 'Sin' is just a convenient term meaning that it is bad. It's not sin in the Christian sense.

Which points out that to conceptualize what is meant by being re-born, in Buddhist terms, is not so simple, and takes quite a bit of looking into, which points out that, like all good truly spiritual ideas, there is an inner esoteric compenent, and an outer exoteric way to understand it. Most only ever see or think about the outer, and talk about being reborn as a cat if they eat fried rats as karmic cause and effect. There are much more subtle ways of viewing karma that are mostly about our day to day experience, and being "re-born" moment to moment. Being generous tends to open our hearts and make us more feel happier and more awake which tends to make us friendlier and available to new and better life opportunities. That kind of thing. A lot of people believe that type of practical cause and effect in this life spills over somehow into some future life, but I have not come across much to support that anyone really knows one way or the other about that. And does it really matter one way or the other? I have enough motivation to improve this current life, that fears of hel_l or future bliss in some other life aren't much carrot or stick. There are esoteric versions of Enlightenment that are not about an eternety of a Soul in bliss, but are about a timeless now that transcends past present and future, in this moment. But that kind of thing is not a philisophical idea - not something you can learn about from a book or explain with words - it is highly esoteric and usually takes hard won personal deep changes to begin to glimpse.

So Karma and evolution can go perfectly well hand in hand, in the same way that God and science can go perfectly well hand in hand - IF you take the esoteric side of spirituality it will mix fine with any exoteric science. Karma is the laws of subjective experiences leading one from the other with general patterns, and that growth in love and awareness is fostered by certain actions and hindered by others.

[tc101]

If you asked Buddha about this, I think he would say "That is not a question that leads to the end of suffering".

If you are really interested in the Buddhist path, stick with the four noble truths. Suffering and the end of suffering is what really matters.

Sometimes we ask questions like this out of the fun of curiousity, but more often there is an attempt to find some solid philosophical framework to hold on to. This is just one more form of clinging or attachment. It leads to suffering. Let go and be free.

Life is a mystery. You will never understand most of it. The way to be happy is to let go and relax into the mystery.

At least that is my current understanding, but I'm not all that smart.

Edited April 24, 2006 by tc101

[Sir Burr]

Suffering and the end of suffering is what really matters.

Death (non-existence) solves that. So, I guess we are all on the right path, whether we want to be, or, not.

[tc101]

Suffering and the end of suffering is what really matters.

Death (non-existence) solves that. So, I guess we are all on the right path, whether we want to be, or, not.

Maybe so, but the more life I can experience without suffering the better.