Did Buddha? Or do most Buddhists believe in Evolution?

BeachHouseGuy

?

federica

Yes.

BeachHouseGuy

which one?

taiyaki

as a buddhist i think evolution is the most probable theory proposed by science.

mugzy

I don't know if evolution was a theory in Buddha's day, so I don't know if he believed in it or not. I don't know if it's such a big issue amongst Buddhists; it certainly doesn't come up here as often as some other hot-button topics do.

person

Check out the Aggañña Sutta, in it the Buddha describes how life begins on this planet. It sounds something like the evolutionary process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggañña_Sutta

SherabDorje

Evolution was apparently not known about at the time of the Buddha. The Buddha, being human, would not have known about it.

But I believe that most modern Buddhists who know about evolution would naturally believe in it. There is no creator-god in Buddhism, so creationism is not an option in Buddhism.

Why would Buddhists who know about evolution not believe in it? What else could they believe?

vinlyn

Check out the Aggañña Sutta, in it the Buddha describes how life begins on this planet. It sounds something like the evolutionary process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggañña_Sutta

It doesn't sound anything like science's theory of evolution. You are merely seeing what you want to see.

Yishai

I can see very scant things about the Sutta that works with evolution. If anything, the Sutta parallels the creationist account more than evolution.

Anyway, I digress. I believe evolution to be fact. There is no way that fossils, geologic evidence, astronomic evidence, scientific dating, etc. can all be false. I'm quite comfortable with the cyclic universe.

person

Most of the sutta doesn't line up with the scientific explanation of evolution but it does describe creatures changing from simple to more complex forms over time. That sounds like the definition of evolution to me even if the exact mechanisms it describes are different.

vinlyn

I can see very scant things about the Sutta that works with evolution. If anything, the Sutta parallels the creationist account more than evolution.

Anyway, I digress. I believe evolution to be fact. There is no way that fossils, geologic evidence, astronomic evidence, scientific dating, etc. can all be false. I'm quite comfortable with the cyclic universe.

Yes, my background is in the geosciences, with a slight evidence on paleontology. To me there is no question about the basic concept of evolution, although it is true that there are the so-called "missing links". Over time, those gaps are being filled in as new discoveries are made. And, some of the machinations of the processes involved are still murky. For example, as a species involves, in the vast majority of cases the species gets larger, until becoming extinct. Now it's been a while since I updated my reading on that aspect, but it's one of those little curiosities about evolution.

Vincenzi

isn't a Buddha basically the "last" stage in a human's individual evolution?

Jason

?

I don't think the Buddha knew anything about evolution as we understand it today, so the short answer is no; but that doesn't mean the theory of evolution is somehow incompatible with Buddhism, and most Buddhists I know accept it as the best explanation of how the diversification of species came about. (If you're interested, you can find more of my thoughts about Buddhism and evolution here.)

vinlyn

isn't a Buddha basically the "last" stage in a human's individual evolution?

No. You're confusing spiritual evolution with what is commonly referred to as evoltuion.

Jeffrey

evidence is a fact. interpretation of evidence is a theory.

Mountains

Ponder this:

1. When the Buddha was alive, the concept of evolution as we know it didn't exist, so how could he possibly have believed or disbelieved it?

2. Regardless of the above, he lived 2600 years ago, and we know virtually nothing that is patently factual about the man (assuming he actually existed anyway), so how could we possibly know what he did or didn't believe, think, or say?

3. Does it matter?

Cinorjer

At about the time Buddha lived, his culture believed the universe was in an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. They believed in a literal reincarnation up and down the animal kingdom of what we would call souls. They believed in heavenly realms, hellish realms, and in gods and demons. But, they had no microscopes, no idea all life was composed of cells, did not know why or how babies came to be other than the man somehow put it in the woman. There is no evidence they would have even suspected that two wildly different animals like a lizard and rat, or even a cow and horse, could have evolved from some common ancestor.

Instead of genetics, the early sutras tried to use past life karma to answer why babies look the way they do, or why some are born with defects. I'm sure they would have known basic animal husbandry, how breeding for certain traits work, but evolution seems counter intuitive. You can't breed cows and horses together. Sure, they both have common hoofs and some features. But even today, supposedly educated modern people will refuse to believe in evolution because there is no way such huge changes could have gradually evolved naturally.

But there is nothing I can think of to stop early Buddhist from accepting evolution, if it was explained to them. If the entire universe and the world can evolve, why not the animals on the world? They did believe we were intimately connected on a soul or atman level with the rest of nature, after all.

Vincenzi

isn't a Buddha basically the "last" stage in a human's individual evolution?

No. You're confusing spiritual evolution with what is commonly referred to as evoltuion.

spiritual evolution can be a form of adaptation so we don't making one mass extinction event any worst

Jeffrey

good point vincenzi. i think empathy is an evolutionary developement in man that has evolved due to empathetic groups more succesful. Consider the tribe who asks their medicine man if they should go to war with their neighbors....

The medicine man wisely says "no".

DhammaDhatu

Most Buddhists do not believe in evolution because they believe in reincarnation.

Evolution holds life continues due to biological genes being passed on.

Where as most Buddhists believe life continues due reincarnation. Life will continue even if one does not engage in physical reproduction.

Most Buddhists believe if this earth ends, human minds will reincarnate in other worlds.

:wow:

GuyC

Hi DD,

I believe that both evolution and rebirth are compatible. In my opinion, evolution can explain the biological mechanisms of life whereas rebirth can explain the spiritual mechanisms of life.

In my opinion, it is kind of like saying "if quantum physics is true, then chemistry is false"...no...they just describe different layers of the same reality.

Metta,

Guy

Jeffrey

"Where as most Buddhists believe life continues due reincarnation. Life will continue even if one does not engage in physical reproduction."

In buddhism life is not defined as an organism responding to its environment. Life refers to our experience of mind.

DhammaDhatu

Some Buddhist views can be found here. Now, the Buddha did not really say what his monk is asserting. (The word 'gandha' means 'scent' and refers to smelly reproductive substances, such as seeds, flowers, sperm, etc). But his monk cannot help himself.



http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahm_When_Does_Human_Life_Begin.pdf

When Does Human Life Begin in This Body? By Ajahn Brahm

1. What Did the Buddha Say?

1a. “(Human life begins) when in the mother’s womb, the first citta
(‘mind’ or ‘thought’) arises, when the first consciousness
manifests”.

1b. “Bhikkhus, the descent of the gabbha (misleadingly translated
as embryo by Bhikkhu Bodhi) takes place through the union of
3 things – the union of mother and father, the mother is in
season, and the gandhabba (stream of consciousness) is
present.”

1c. “If viññāṇa (consciousness) were not to descend into the
mother’s womb, would nāma-rūpa take shape in the womb?
Certainly not, Venerable Sir.”

:wtf:

GuyC

Hi All,

Just thought I'd mention...

According to Wikipedia, of all religions, Buddhism has the highest percentage of people (81%) who "agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on Earth".

Metta,

Guy

Mountains

I don't see how biological evolution and rebirth (not reincarnation, which is wholly a different matter) are even related. One has nothing whatever to do with the other that I can see. If there have been countless universes before this one, and countless rebirths within those countless universes, how can our *extremely* limited understanding of biological evolution within the blink of a cosmic eye (the age of the earth as we know it) in just one of those countless universes have any bearing whatsoever on the continuousness of life?

DhammaDhatu

I believe that both evolution and rebirth are compatible.

I already made my opinion clear. Please do not exhort your posts towards me.

Thanks :eek2:

DhammaDhatu

Just thought I'd mention...

It just shows how confused most Buddhists are. It as though you are asserting 81% of Buddhists are enlightened.

Evolution does not teach continuation via mind. Only via genes. Evolution & Buddhism are incompatible because Buddhism believes in reincarnation.

:buck:

Vincenzi

karma can affect what genes one eventually gets...

DhammaDhatu

More anti-evolutionary views from Ajahn Sugato:

The Pali canon contains several passages :rolleyes: dealing with the process of conception in the womb and the advent of consciousness. The Maha Taṇhāsankhaya Sutta states that conception is dependent on the coming together of three things: the mother and father come together; the mother is fertile; and the being to be reborn is ready. The term ‘coming together’ means ‘same place, same time’. Thus this passage implies that consciousness appears at the time of conception. The Maha Nidāna Sutta is even clearer. It states that if consciousness does not enter the mother’s womb, mentality & physical form cannot ‘coagulate’ :rolleyes: inside the womb.

http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/when-life-begins/

:facepalm:

DhammaDhatu

karma can affect what genes one eventually gets...

Irrelevent...evolution hold ordinary karma cannot effect genes...

Vincenzi

karma can affect what genes one eventually gets...

Irrelevent...

why?

GuyC

Hi DD,

I believe that both evolution and rebirth are compatible.

I already made my opinion clear. Please do not exhort your posts towards me.

Thanks :eek2:

The reason why I directed my post towards you was because I believe that this is inaccurate:

Most Buddhists do not believe in evolution because they believe in reincarnation.

It as though you are asserting 81% of Buddhists are enlightened.

I just thought that since (part of) the OP was "do most Buddhists believe in evolution?" I would share what the statistics suggest. I never asserted anything, I just shared information.

Evolution does not teach continuation via mind. Only via genes. Evolution & Buddhism are incompatible because Buddhism believes in reincarnation.

Just because some of the leading proponents of the theory of Evolution do not teach rebirth does not mean that the two views are incompatible.

Metta,

Guy

vinlyn

isn't a Buddha basically the "last" stage in a human's individual evolution?

No. You're confusing spiritual evolution with what is commonly referred to as evoltuion.

spiritual evolution can be a form of adaptation so we don't making one mass extinction event any worst

If you can show me some evidence that a person evolving spiritually modifies general human evolution fine. But you can't.

Mountains

I'm sorry folks, I just don't see how one is relevant to the other. Somebody's going to need to explain this to me much more clearly. We're talking about apples and door knobs. Karma has nothing to do with biological evolution, and biological evolution has nothing to do with rebirth, karma, or the price of tea in China.

DhammaDhatu

They are incompatible. Buddhism is the same as Christianity, caught up in the Dark Ages. :mullet:

vinlyn

karma can affect what genes one eventually gets...

You clearly don't understand the concept of evolution.

DhammaDhatu

I watched five videos recently on You Tube on evolution. It was made clear that ordinary behaviour, such as building the body muscles via weight lifting, cannot modify genes.

Possibly nuclear radiation could alter genes but this is not ordinary karma.

Vincenzi

isn't a Buddha basically the "last" stage in a human's individual evolution?

No. You're confusing spiritual evolution with what is commonly referred to as evoltuion.

spiritual evolution can be a form of adaptation so we don't making one mass extinction event any worst

If you can show me some evidence that a person evolving spiritually modifies general human evolution fine. But you can't.

I was thinking of a theoretical, but very probable extinction of humanity and most species if there's no spiritual evolution in this decade.

person

@DhammaDhatu I realize that you don't believe in literal rebirth. But if one accepts rebirth then its easy for karma and evolution to be compatible. Evolution explains the physical process of change and the passing on of genes. If rebirth happens then karma can just impact what kind of body with what genes rebirth happens in. I don't think anyones arguing that karma changes genetic outcomes, or maybe they are, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that view.

@Vinlyn I don't know if spirituality directly effects evolution. But theres a fair amount of new research and thought into how harmonious group behavior would be selected by ensuring the survival of the group. Here's just one of many articles:

http://www.physorg.com/news186416144.html

DhammaDhatu

@DhammaDhatu I realize that you don't believe in literal rebirth.

Irrelevent

If rebirth happens then karma can just impact what kind of body with what genes rebirth happens in.

Non sequitur. Evolutionary theory does not assert this. Just because you modify evolutionary theory to conform to your personal Buddhist beliefs, this does not demonstrate one actually believes in the theory of evolution. One is simply idiosyncratically changing the theory of evolution to be other than it actually is.

vinlyn

@DhammaDhatu I realize that you don't believe in literal rebirth.

Irrelevent

If rebirth happens then karma can just impact what kind of body with what genes rebirth happens in.

Non sequitur. Evolutionary theory does not assert this. Just because you modify evolutionary theory to conform to your personal Buddhist beliefs, this does not demonstrate one actually believes in the theory of evolution. One is simply idiosyncratically changing the theory of evolution to be other than it actually is.

You're quite right, DD. You know, in the past few days I've come more and more to the conclusion that there are people on this forum who want to try to relate everything in their life to Buddhism. They watch a movie and they try to make it a Buddhist movie. They try to project that Buddha discovered the Big Bang Theory and atoms. They think about evolution and try to make it a Buddhist concept.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but if part of Buddhism is seeing things as they are, I'm afraid a lot of folks here are seeing things through their own tint of rose colored glasses (and I probably do, too, on occasion).

GuyC

But if one accepts rebirth then its easy for karma and evolution to be compatible. Evolution explains the physical process of change and the passing on of genes. If rebirth happens then karma can just impact what kind of body with what genes rebirth happens in.

Well said.

Jeffrey

karma is apparent truth rather than objective. Such as 'the sun rises in the east'

Karma is used to liberate beings from samsara. Even though there are no beings, lifespans, birth, or death.

Vincenzi

my concepts of rebirth + evolution aren't necessarily buddhist.

I think that karma makes rebirth possible, but it happens only when there's a possible "recipient"... that recipient and what's left of mind has to be compatible and "deserve each other".

Jeffrey

evolutionary theory does not include buddhism. but buddhism may include evolutionary theory.

Jeffrey

evolution is a theory. observations are observations.

vinlyn

Systematic observations may lead to a theory, and a theory is something far better established than an idea or a guess.

Jeffrey

systematic observations are systematic observations
theory is theory
theory based on systematic observations is """"
idea is idea
guess is guess

a caterpillar leads to a butterfly
but a butterfly is observed
thinking of a butterfly
I look up and the wind blows

If you think thats foolish how do you know its not wise?
If I think it is wise how do I know it is not foolish?

Vincenzi

scientific theories are based on a tunnel vision...

DhammaDhatu

Kevin explains the matter clearly here, at 4:35 to 5:55

santhisouk

I just said that its in the Suttas. I'm not claiming that it was a discovery. Although maybe I did, but anyhow I meant that its in the suttas.