Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What are Buddhist views on human evolution?
pegembara
Veteran
Picked this up on the web. Any thoughts?
The Path to ... Evolution.
It is difficult to begin a discussion, when (1) ideas aren't evidently contradictory, (2) ideas aren't similar enough for direct comparison. I say this because though evolution has direct contradictions with creationism, it does not with Buddhism. Also the ideas in Buddhism aren't conceptually similar to evolution, so though it is possible to integrate evolution into Buddhism, it doesn't mean it is easy.
So the question is, "Why does it matter?". I cannot say for certain that it does. But curiosity sure seems to think it does.
There is a lingering thought in my mind, "What does evolution have to do with Buddhism, if anything at all?. What does suffering have to do with it? What about enlightenment? Desires?" These thoughts have lingered for quite a long time, and have reached the core of my being because of a simple reason. The reason is, "If evolution exists, and enlightenment exists, then evolution must have provided the pathways for enlightenment and suffering."
This seems to me that evolution would help provide a missing piece in understanding the nature of practice, enlightenment, and suffering. I have ponder long and hard, and my thoughts on the matter are incomplete but they are as followed.
Desire, and suffering are fundamental mechanisms that helped ensure the survival of the species. It isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon. The reason for this is because those who had strong desires were more likely to act to attain them, and so appeal to others around them, hence greater propagation. This would pass on strong desires (assuming there are genetic factors that promote strong desires) to others, and so the pattern continues.
Suffering and the cycle of satisfaction is crucial to the survival of the species. It allows for the rapid adaption to environmental changes, e.g "The weather is cold, so I will make a fire." And this cycle continues regardless because those that follow it are more likely to survive. And so it is passed on to the next generation.
If the above are correct, it is the success of reproduction due to the cycle of suffering, satisfaction, and desire that allows it to continue. This raises a concern, "Is then enlightenment impossible?" Perhaps. But that is because I am not enlightened and I do not know. Actually, enlightenment doesn't seem to have any benefit to species propagation. (However, it can be argued that certain values in Buddhism promote cooperative play and thereby enhance the survival rate of the species, but this applies to most religions.) So, why would it exist?
Perhaps, some think, "Well some people who had the inherent genetic qualities to become enlightened passed the genes on before they became enlightened. Similar to certain genetic diseases that are crippling but are passed on due to the age of onset." Perhaps, but this doesn't explain why enlightenment would exist.
This is not to say I do not believe in enlightenment. It just means that I cannot perceive any reason for it to exist. I do, however, at the moment have a hypothesis on the origin of certain religious experiences that coincide with evolution, but I will save that for another day.
So I leave you wondering, that is if you decided to read this entire article. Perhaps you will be the one to figure it out. At the very least, doubt.
The Path to ... Evolution.
It is difficult to begin a discussion, when (1) ideas aren't evidently contradictory, (2) ideas aren't similar enough for direct comparison. I say this because though evolution has direct contradictions with creationism, it does not with Buddhism. Also the ideas in Buddhism aren't conceptually similar to evolution, so though it is possible to integrate evolution into Buddhism, it doesn't mean it is easy.
So the question is, "Why does it matter?". I cannot say for certain that it does. But curiosity sure seems to think it does.
There is a lingering thought in my mind, "What does evolution have to do with Buddhism, if anything at all?. What does suffering have to do with it? What about enlightenment? Desires?" These thoughts have lingered for quite a long time, and have reached the core of my being because of a simple reason. The reason is, "If evolution exists, and enlightenment exists, then evolution must have provided the pathways for enlightenment and suffering."
This seems to me that evolution would help provide a missing piece in understanding the nature of practice, enlightenment, and suffering. I have ponder long and hard, and my thoughts on the matter are incomplete but they are as followed.
Desire, and suffering are fundamental mechanisms that helped ensure the survival of the species. It isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon. The reason for this is because those who had strong desires were more likely to act to attain them, and so appeal to others around them, hence greater propagation. This would pass on strong desires (assuming there are genetic factors that promote strong desires) to others, and so the pattern continues.
Suffering and the cycle of satisfaction is crucial to the survival of the species. It allows for the rapid adaption to environmental changes, e.g "The weather is cold, so I will make a fire." And this cycle continues regardless because those that follow it are more likely to survive. And so it is passed on to the next generation.
If the above are correct, it is the success of reproduction due to the cycle of suffering, satisfaction, and desire that allows it to continue. This raises a concern, "Is then enlightenment impossible?" Perhaps. But that is because I am not enlightened and I do not know. Actually, enlightenment doesn't seem to have any benefit to species propagation. (However, it can be argued that certain values in Buddhism promote cooperative play and thereby enhance the survival rate of the species, but this applies to most religions.) So, why would it exist?
Perhaps, some think, "Well some people who had the inherent genetic qualities to become enlightened passed the genes on before they became enlightened. Similar to certain genetic diseases that are crippling but are passed on due to the age of onset." Perhaps, but this doesn't explain why enlightenment would exist.
This is not to say I do not believe in enlightenment. It just means that I cannot perceive any reason for it to exist. I do, however, at the moment have a hypothesis on the origin of certain religious experiences that coincide with evolution, but I will save that for another day.
So I leave you wondering, that is if you decided to read this entire article. Perhaps you will be the one to figure it out. At the very least, doubt.
0
Comments
Desire isn't the problem, though.
i think enlightenment is the same thing as evolution. when the earth had only one-celled organisms it was in the deepest darkest cracks of ignorance, though still enlightened (buddha seed). then as it gathered momentum into two celled, and three celled, and nine hundred billion celled organisms, this was the earth doing and practicing zazen five hundred times a day, and finally getting much more progress in her practice, until, finally, we had the first buddha taṇhaṅkara. unfortunately buddhism as an izm didnt coalesce until sid stopped by and now the earth is getting really horny.
:crazy:
Evolution is impermanence by another name.
Richard Dawkin's starts his TV show "The genius of Charles Darwin" with an opening quote about suffering that could have been said by a monk.
I personally don't see any problem with evolution and Buddhism. Though I think it doesn't feature so prominantly because,as buddhists, we are taught to focus on the here and now, not on the past or the future.
Nios.
For survival we need to think of the future, present and past or else we keep making the same mistakes and not learn.
Planning for the future is what makes humans unique and so successful.
But this survival/selfish instinct does seem to contradict Buddha's teaching doesn't it.
As buddhists we are taught not to live, worry, stress over the future or past. We are, of course quite free to plan, think, remember and learn from the past and future.
Hope that makes better sense.
Nios.
You are very right, I think.
I agree with Buddhists who say "Buddhism is just about the end to suffering" but i feel they may often let such a bold statement occlude the fact that dharma is a path.
There is much to Dharma that isn't about suffering.
Perhaps an analogous example is the case of getting to the moon. For a while, the space race was all about getting to the moon yet much was passed before that could be possible that had nothing to do with being on the moon.
Dharma is so much much bigger than mere human suffering and inevitable natural selections:)
Salome,
mat
Yes, our "animalistic" nature, and that of "dawinian" evolution is in direct contrast to Buddhas teaching. I wouldn't say that it contradicts anything because buddha did not teach any kind of evolution. Buddhism is a path, a teaching of how to live a better life for the sake of others (and yourself). Even Richard Dawkins says that a society based on Dawinian ethics would be terrible. Evolution, however, is a fact and an explanation of where we've come from. It is not a moral framework, which is what a part of Buddhism is.
Nios.
If one accepts the literal interpretation of rebirth and the statement by the Buddha of beings wandering in samsara from time immemorial ?evolving in tears and blood. Implicit in the statement is the constant struggle for survival and the escape from this struggle.
In the Buddha's time the sangha was entirely dependent on the lay supporters to survive as they cannot handle money or hunt for food.
Without the desire for sex the human race would go extinct.
I'm confused
I dont think so.... Don't forget we are post biological selection now, we have cultures and morals and these vast belief systems that make us more evolved than the beasts.
The eightfold path is for humans not monkeys:)
some people are very convinced morals have evolutionary roots:)
Sorry, my mistake.
Most of us live in the conventional world. We have names, jobs, responsiblities, money etc. We have houses, nations, cars, planes, religions etc. These are human constructs that does not naturally exist but are considered "essential". Yet these same constructs lead to strife and conflicts in the attempts to protect them.
Our evolved mind enables us to be the supreme species and at the same time extracts a toll. We believe these constructs to be real and existent.
We are perfectly capable of weaving stories and concepts and totally believe in them. How else can one explain the popularity of such films as Avatar?
Errr. CIA Mind Control hidden in the 3D System, obviously. (Technology pinoered in Jaws 3D, raaaaar)
Err, they had entertainment in Buddha's time.
Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor
Most of those things are necessary in today's world, and they are real and existent. They are anatta and anicca, and only an issue when clung to as otherwise.
See, when we try to live outside the conventional world, humour and ;)s fly right over our heads.
Not that could induce split brain polarity using differential optical stimulus whilst feeding you popcorn:P
By "animalistic" nature I mean ethology and it's comparisons to human behaviour and phsycology. And by "Dawinian" evolution I'm talking about "survival of the fittest", which we now know is only one small tiny part of the equation of evolution, but for some reason, is the one people stick to most when describing evolution.
I'm not saying that this IS what our society is, I'm saying that it is these two small parts that are in contrast, but for some reason it is these two small parts that people focus on when making debates with regard evolution and religion. If you read carefully, you and I are not in disagreement... this time
Of course
I was refering to the ol' debate about "survival of the fittest", which is dubbed "darwinian evolution" having no moral framework. I am in no doubts that our morals have evolved and were in direct result of our evolution as a species
Nios.
Andrew Cohen
Would you consider an enlightened being the most "evolved"?
No, you are right!:)
I agree 100% in regards to natural alturism, but I think this is where Dharma comes in. In that some moral truths arise from the foundational Dharmic truths without any connection to evolution. EG Compassion is good primarily for Dharmic, rather than evolutionary reasons?
What do you reckon?
Mat
Humourless Zen Master
So the Allied forces should not have gone to war with the Germans had they not clung to their ideals and gave up their blood and tears to defend these ideals.
The Holocaust victims went meekly to their deaths.
The Burmese monks should not have protested against the military government and not clung to conventions.
The Dalai Lama should give up Tibet as it seems quite hopeless to regain independence.
Not clinging in these cases would have led to "annihilation" in conventional terms.
Don't forget the Amerindians did not have concepts of property ownership and literally gave Manhattan island away.
Well, as I understand it, psychologists, ethologists and historians believe our morals and ethical framework were created and evolved due to our new founded "societies" learning to co-exist. It was a "need" if you will for our very survival as a species. Whether they came about due to a persons or many peoples "realizations" of dharma we can never say for sure. It's possible.
On a side note;
There have been some many fascinating studies of animals showing similar social framework as humans. I remember seeing one documentery about how horses have a social hierarchy which included the "leader" of the pack "punishing" subordinate horses by making them stand in isolation from the pack. This isolation would mean the horse was vulnarable to preditors. Only once the leader was saticfied, was the subordinate aloud back into the protection of the pack. These proffesionals believe that our early ancestors would have had a similar hierachy and this was how "rules" and "laws" evolved.
Nios.
Herbert Spencer is actually the one who coined the term "survival of the fittest," not Darwin. While Darwin did find the term accurate and convenient when talking about natural selection — the principle "by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved" — Darwin himself talked about the "struggle for existence," which he stressed was used in a broad and metaphorical sense (emphasis mine):
In terms of evolution, people seem to focus on "survival of the fittest," (i.e., natural selection) simply because that's how traits are passed on and variations able to evolve over time. Darwin, on the other hand, certainly had a more holistic view of evolution than that.
Actually, I think you're conflating suffering with pain. Yes, painful feelings are a warning mechanism for the body, which puts attention on something that's potentially harming the body, and we instinctively do whatever we can to eliminate those feelings. Buddhism, on the other hand, deals exclusively with [mental] suffering and its cessation, not biology, or physics, etc.
While the Buddha did include both mental and physical pain in his description of dukkha, sickness and physical pain are not necessarily experienced as dukkha, especially by an arahant, i.e., a person whose mind is free of defilement.
According to the Buddha, with the presence of clinging in regard to the five aggregates, bodily phenomena such as sickness and physical pain are experienced as suffering; however, without the presence of clinging, the experience of bodily phenomena such as sickness and physical pain are not. In other words, although nibbana — the summum bonum of Buddhism — is said to be the cessation of suffering, that doesn't mean that a person will not feel physical pain or discomfort, but it does mean that such feelings will no longer cause mental suffering, emotional distress, etc. I think this is made clear in the simile of the dart found in SN 36.6.
Buddhism is basically an advanced form of psychology whereby certain views and practices can lead to a profound psychological event in the mind, an event which radically changes the way the mind relates to painful feelings. So even though one may still feel hunger, and knows that the body requires sustenance, the hunger doesn't lead to "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair."
Nios
One way of looking at it is: There is no reason for the awakening to exist, just as there is no reason for species to evolve; it's simply the result of natural processes, i.e., the mind has evolved to a point where it has the potential to transcend the stress and suffering caused by the biological mechanisms involved with pain without compromising survival.
I actually remember reading something about this. Yet for some reason it's Darwin that we all remember. I used the term "Darwinian evolution" because that is how it is used and explained else where and how I understand it. But thanks for the correction
Nios.
Thanks, Nios.
It's not a correction as much as a clarification. I just like to be pedantic.
P.S. Here's the passage where Darwin makes reference to "survival of the fittest" in On the Origin of Species.
Wasn't this only added in later additions ?
Yes, it was added in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species.
There is no logic in the above however the sentiment is OK. Indeed, enlightenment is the height of evolution required highly evolved consciousness. But enlightenment is also the end of evolution becauses what drives evolution are the natural winds & fires that mentally manifest as craving.
This is the opposite to enlightenment.
Not really. The species that survives does not necessarily have strong desires because strong desires can be destructive. The species with strong desires that destroys its environment destroys itself. Evolution occurs due to adaptation rather than strong desires.
Indeed.
Enlightenment is against the stream of samsaric evolution. It is spiritual evolution rather than physical.
Evolution is dukkha. Nibbana is the end of evolution.
Another worldling clinging to the world like a child clinging to its mother.
I agree with you.
Survival implies a self. Awakening does not improve ones chances.
No, it implies the act of living. Also, I never said that awakening improves one's chances of survival, I said that it doesn't compromise survival. Awakening results in the freedom from stress and suffering, not the inability to function as a living organism. The Buddha himself never denied individuality (MN 22), nor did he imply that the conventional person doesn't exist (SN 22.22).
I am not refering to anything as original nature.
But to me, the universe is manifest due to two natures, namely, samsara & nibbana.
Samsara is the spinning, like the spinning of the planets, and nibbana is the stillness & balance.
Take the seasons for example. The seasons fluctuate within balance.
By evolution as dukkha, I am implying a lack of stillness and contentment, still searching, growing & developing until final peace is found.
So in evolution, I sense there remains dukkha.
Kind regards
I like your spin and still analogy, not sure I understand it fully.
Do you not think that Dukka is before evolution? To me it seems this is essential for Dharma.
Do you gree that all systems are subject to Dukka, not just sentient systems?
Mat
Yes indeed. Everything is subject to change from the smallest particles to the universes. There is no constant at any moment.
“Only after we had absorbed Darwin and recalculated the age
of the Universe, after the vision of static forms of life had been
replaced by a vision of fluid processes flexing across vast tracts
of time, only then could we dare to guess the immensity of the
symphony we are part of.” — CHRISTOPHER BACHE
“Life spirals laboriously upward to higher and even higher
levels, paying for every step. Death was the price of the multicellular
condition; pain the price of nervous integration; anxiety
the price of consciousness.” — LUDWIG VON BERTALANFFY
Without the death of creatures, there would be no evolution.
Without the death of elders, there would be no room for children.
Without the death of fetal cells, we would all be spheres.
Without the death of neurons, wisdom and creativity would not
blossom.
Without the death of cells in woody plants, there would be no trees.
Without the death of forests by Ice Age advance, there would be no
northern lakes.
Without the death of mountains, there would be no sand or soil.
Without the death of plants and animals, there would be no food.
Without the death of old ways of thinking, there would be no room for
the new.
Without death, there would be no ancestors.
Without death, time would not be precious.
Do you equate dukkha with change? I thought dukkha was our experience of a situation??
Nios.
The 3 marks of existence anicca/impermanence, dukkha/unsatisfactoriness and anatta/nonself point to the same truth. For me anicca is the easiest to see but others may differ.
Impermanence or Change (Viparinama-dukkha). Anything that is not permanent, that is subject to change, is dukkha. Thus, happiness is dukkha, because it is not permanent. Great success, which fades with the passing of time, is dukkha. Even the purest state of bliss experienced in spiritual practice is dukkha.
So a happy ever after story in fairytales is just that.
I agree with that, no probs. What I mean was, Mat seems to be suggesting that dukkha is present without someone to experience it. You also seem to agree, would that be correct?
My understanding of dukkha is that it is our experience of phenomena, be it change, emotions, pain and so on and so on. As I understand it, enlightenment means that these things still happen, like change and pain etc, but we no longer experience dukkha. Therefore, to me, without an experiencer, there is no dukkha, because dukkha arises because of our ignorance of that phenomena.
Hope that makes sense.
Nios.
How can there be dukkha without an experiencer?
But all experiences are potentially dukkha if they are clung to immaterial whether they are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.
I see Dukka as a composite property of all finite systems, loosely it is the inevitable negative entailed by annica and anataman in. The experience of Dukka by sentient systems is the suffering, strain, diminishing returns etc that we commonly experience.
Don't forget the three marks are said to be true of all contingent systems, so that necessarily means ones that don't experience as well as those that do.