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.
DNA and Karma
zidangus
Veteran
If DNA is the blueprint of life, then is it fair to say that a sentient beings karma must also be a part of this blueprint ? I know DNA can mutate for example when DNA builds cancerous cells. So is this a beings Karma in action ? Is there anybody who would like to comment ?
Cheers
Metta to all
Cheers
Metta to all
0
Comments
ask, what trigger those blue print to be manifested ? it much depend on the condition are ripe , be it the enviroment factor or our consciousness factor
if one do no put much effort to one life, it probably only manifested by the default path
but if one put in effort to cultivate - hey the possibility to manifest our innate Buddha nature and attain Buddhahood is there in our human DNA too !
The Buddha taught mundane dhamma & supramundane dhamma.
The doctrine of karma is mundane where as the doctrine of elements (dhatu) is supramundane.
It follows DNA theory need not follow karmic theory.
The doctrine of karma sides with morality where as the doctrine of elements sides with liberation.
Kind regards
Yes.
Do not mix speculation and modern science with the Dhamma - there is nothing to be gained from it.
Certainly do not look to science in an attempt to objectively validate the Dhamma... approach the Dhamma on its own merits and test it for yourself.
Metta,
Retro.
The term "Dharma" literally means "natural law." Dharma is thus an exposition of the laws pertaining to our inner world, just as science deals with the laws pertaining to the outer world. The difference between science and Dharma is thus only a difference in the realm of enquiry-as there are differences between the various "departments" of science, such as physics, chemistry and botany. Yet there is a perception of irreconcilability between science and Dharma.
Many factors are responsible for this perception, the first and foremost being the erroneous understanding of both Dharma and science. Today, for most people, Dharma is synonymous with sectarian religions, with priest craft; they see it as a mumbo-jumbo of words and elaborate rites and rituals, which can become the cause of internecine conflicts between neighbors, even though they may have lived like brothers for generations. Above all, Dharma has become synonymous with a stubborn resistance to any logical scrutiny of religious beliefs. No wonder the youth of today do not want to touch it with a barge pole! A modern, rational person who is not willing to accept anything on authority-be it the authority of a religious teacher or a sacred book-is therefore tempted to reject it all often, even the eternal truths which are so badly needed to give direction to life will be rejected, thus throwing the baby out with the bath-water! This process is catalyzed by a scientific temperament, which is equated with crass materialism-for hasn't science got an explanation for every phenomenon on the basis of matter in motion under the influence of various forces? Therefore, anyone talking about the existence of reality beyond sensory perception is usually dubbed as unscientific-an ignorant fool living in a world of his own fancies. In such a scenario, the integration of science and Dharma is obviously impossible.
To change this situation there is clearly a need to present Dharma as a science, following a scientific method, shorn of all extraneous socio-political adjuncts and metaphysical speculations. The scientific attitude demands "induction from facts and not deduction from dogmas. We must face the facts and derive our conclusion from them and not start with the conclusion and then play with the facts." Secondly, we also need to understand whether materialism, a legacy of nineteenth-century science, is still endorsed by modern science. Fortunately, recent developments in science are questioning this traditional worldview, and thus a proper understanding of these developments can give a fillip to the process of integrating science and Dharma.
Dharma as an Applied Science
The essence of the scientific approach was characterized by Thomson: "The aim of science is to describe impersonal facts of experience in verifiable terms as exactly as possible, as simply as possible, and as completely as possible."
To become a rigorous science, Dharma must be presented as "the Law" which can be experienced by all, not merely a select few. The various propositions have to be presented as hypotheses to be accepted only on verification by experience, albeit personal and subjective, and not on authority. Also, such propositions should be rational and logical.
The teachings of the Buddha, one of the greatest spiritual scientists, meet these requirements. His constant refrain to his disciples could easily be the advice of a modern humane scientist to young students:
Believe nothing merely because you have been told it, or because it is tradition, or because you yourself have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for him. But whatever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings, believe and cling to that doctrine, and take it as your guide.
The essence of Dharma, as put crisply by all the Enlightened Ones is "the eschewing of all evil, the perfecting of good deeds, the purifying of one's mind."
The simplicity of this enunciation, devoid of any esoteric pronouncement, may sometimes conceal its profundity. However, its practical utility and universal applicability are quite obvious. Viewed in this light, purifying the mind of its baser instincts is the quintessence of Dharma, since this would quite naturally lead to performance of wholesome deeds. It also leads to the development of an insight into the basic characteristics of life. This process of purification is not a mystic knowledge beyond the ken of ordinary people. It is a strictly scientific technique open to anybody who is williScience and Materialism
It is historical fact that the rise of science in the post-Renaissance period was instrumental in spreading a general belief in materialism-a belief that matter is the sole reality. All the phenomena of nature, ranging from the motion of the planets to the tides in the seas, could now be explained rationally on the basis of well-understood laws of nature. There was no need whatsoever for invoking divine intervention. Even the origin of sentient beings could be "explained" on the basis of the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Some people tried to further extend this theory to show that the simplest form of living protoplasm could arise from non-living nitrogenous carbon compounds under suitable conditions-thus exploding the age-old argument for the existence of God. Attempts were even made to explain consciousness and thinking as arising from the functions of the ganglionic cells of the cortex of the brain. The scientists of the last century firmly held that it should be possible to explain the universe with a few score elements and half a dozen elementary forces. [7] No wonder, for most people today, the scientific approach is synonymous with a belief in materialism, a belief in the omnipotence of intellect, and any suggestion about "transcending the intellect" is seen as unscientific.
This picture has, however, undergone considerable change in the last few decades. New developments in science such as the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are bringing about a profound change in our common-sense view of nature. Many illuminating books have been written in the last two decades, which bring out the various facets of this emerging change. We shall mention here only a few of these points, which seem most pertinent for our discussion.
Fundamental Nature of Matter
The quest for the basic building blocks of matter led scientists to what are often called fundamental particles: electrons, protons, neutrons etc. The intuitive model of the atom which emerges from this research is similar to the planetary system-with a heavy nucleus (consisting of neutrons and protons) at the center of an immense void, and tiny electrons whirling round it at very high speeds. Naturally, at first these fundamental particles were thought to be something similar to the classical particles, albeit ultra-small-something like specks of dust often seen in the path of a ray of sunshine entering a room. Belief in this concept has, however, been badly shaken by many discoveries. Experimental studies showed that these particles they could be "created" out of energy and could "vanish" in energy as predicted by Einstein's theory of the inter-convertibility of matter and energy.
Now, since energy is a dynamic quantity associated with activity or with processes, the obvious implication is that "a particle has to be conceived as a dynamic pattern, a process involving the energy which manifests itself as the particle's mass". [8] This is a picture which is in great contrast to our common-sense notion of "mass" as belonging to an object, but in consonance with the insight of ancient masters: "No doer is there; naught save the deed is... The path exists, but not the traveler found on it". [9]
It will probably take even the scientific community many more years to fully come to terms with the philosophical implications of Einstein's theory of relativity. Even today the import of Minkowski's oft-quoted enunciation: "Space by itself and time by itself are mere shadows of a four-dimensional space-time continuum which is an independent reality". We do not understand because we have no direct sensory or even intuitive experience of this four-dimensional space-time continuum. Evidently our perception of the world based on the common-sense view of absolute space and time is in error. The situation is quite akin to the erroneous view of the prisoners of Plato's Republic, who never having seen anything other than the shadows on the walls of their underground cave mistook these for reality. [10]
An experience of this independent reality would clearly demand transcendence of the senses, coming out of the "prison house of sight". This is a term, which we find repeatedly in the ancient texts, but something which would have been anathema to the nineteenth-century scientist. As Fritjof Capra, quoting Swami Vivekananda, puts it, this space-time of relativistic physics is the Absolute of Eastern sages: "Time, space and causation are like the glass through which the absolute is seen. In the Absolute there is neither time, space nor causation."[11] This conception thus gives scientific authority (probably needed for the skeptics) to the vision of the ancient sages. Having experienced the transcendent reality directly, they declared: "There is, brethren, an unborn, a not-become, a not-made, not-compounded." [12]
Understanding "Reality"
Another mind-boggling characteristic of these fundamental particles, which has defied all conventional explanations, is their ability to exhibit both "wave" and "particle" behavior under certain experimental conditions.
The fundamental particles thus do not seem to possess any intrinsic nature waiting to be revealed to an inquisitive observer. As summed up by Capra:
My conscious decision about how to observe, say, an electron will determine the electron's properties to some extent. If I ask it a particle question, it will give me a particle answer. If I ask it a wave question, it will give me a wave answer. The electron does not have objective properties independent of my mind. [13]
We could thus say, with Sir James Jeans, that, in the light of this discovery,
The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an intruder into the realm of matter ... but ... as the creator and the governor of the realm of matter-not of course our individual mind, but the Mind in which the atoms, out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts. [14]
Any further understanding of the nature of ultimate reality clearly demands an investigation into the subtle mental plane-self-analysis rather than analysis of the world around, thus merging Science with Dharma.
It is also evident from the above description that an intuitive physical model of these fundamental particles is not possible since our senses can only detect either particle motion, characterized by a localization of the object moving in a definite trajectory in space, or a wave motion, characterized by a motion of the medium. This realization forms the basis of one of the very important principles of quantum mechanics: the Principle of Complementarity put forth by Niels Bohr. That is, in any experiment with micro-particles, the observer gets information not about the "properties of the particles themselves", but about the properties of the particles associated with some particular situation. This includes, among other things, the measuring instruments. The information obtained under some definite conditions should be considered as complementary to the information obtained under different experimental conditions. Evidence obtained under experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as various sides (complementing each other) of a single reality-to wit, the object under investigation. [15]
The social and philosophical implications of this principle are profound. It gives credence to the insight of ancient masters that our attempts at understanding "reality" through the study of matter with the senses are similar to the attempts of five blind men trying to comprehend an elephant by feeling it with their hands. The evidence thus obtained can never be synthesized into the true picture. Clearly, it follows that to comprehend the "reality" of matter, it is necessary to use some other mode of gathering knowledge-aparokŒanubhuti or direct experience, as our ancient sages put it.
At the social level, this complementary principle points out that apparently contradictory views may emerge from the same "reality". Wisdom lies in treating them as complementary; this is a message of harmony needed so much in modern times when "appearances" often lead to unending conflicts. In fact Bohr fervently hoped that the complementary principle would, in the near future, find a place in school education.
A New World View
There have been many developments in other sciences such as biology, psychology, chemistry, neurosciences, etc. All of these indicate the emergence of a new worldview, which repudiates materialism, but is in consonance with the vision of the Eastern sages of yore. In fact many of the insights of these sages remained unintelligible to the masses, based as they were on the transcendent experience; but today they can be better appreciated in the light of these scientific facts.
One such fundamental insight, which is extremely difficult to comprehend on the basis of our common-sense view of nature, is that of anattá-the fact of ego-less-ness. However, when modern science tells us that the basic building block of matter is not a "being" but a manifestation of energy, which is essentially a process of "becoming", this assertion seems to make sense. It is this seemingly solid physical body, "my body", which creates the stubborn illusion of individuality. Modern biologists point out that 98 per cent of the 1028 atoms of a typical human body are replaced annually from the atoms of the surroundings-the earth, the trees, the animals, in fact all living and non-living entities. It thus becomes evident that one cannot talk of individual entities localized in space and time; we are all partners in a bio-dance. [16] Walt Whitman's poetic insight- "Every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you" -is thus a scientific fact!
Molecular biology associates our individuality with the uniqueness of the genes. But here too it is the pattern of the genes, which remains the same, and not the stuff of the gene-the thousands of individual carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other atoms that comprise it, which are in constant exchange with the surroundings. [17] So, even in the view of hard-core molecular biology, our individuality is a non-material "entity", an abstract pattern of arrangement of various labile molecules. When we couple this understanding with the impossibility of "exactly" locating any fundamental particle, as revealed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and also with the fundamental interconnectedness at quantum level, one is forced to agree with Capra:
The quantum field is seen as the fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field; concentrations, which come and go, thereby losing their individual character and dissolving into the underlying field.
This quantum field is obviously an impersonal entity-the nearest symbol which one can possibly conceive of for the transcendent reality. As even a layman today would testify, a subset of this field-the electromagnetic field-does have the "power" to produce the splendid illusion of a "living being" in every home-on television! One can thus appreciate that the fundamental quantum field could be responsible for creating the illusion of the existence of the viewer of the television too. That this viewer is illusory is the insight of anattá!
Concluding Remarks
Both Dharma and Science enunciate the laws of nature; as applicable to the inner world of human beings and the external world. There can be no disharmony between them, for as Gary Zukav points out in his recent book,
The laws of Science are the reflection in physical reality-in the world of physical objects and phenomena-of a larger non-physical dynamic at work in non-physical domains. When Science and its discoveries are understood with the higher order of logic and understanding of the multi-sensory human, they reveal the same richness that Life itself displays everywhere and endlessly... the paradigms... of Science also reveal the way our species has seen itself in relation to the Universe: Newtonian physics reflects a species that is confident in its ability to grasp the dynamics of the physical world through the intellect; relativity reflects a species that understands the limiting relationship between the absolute and the personalized conception of it; and quantum physics reflects a species that is becoming aware of the relationship of its consciousness to the physical world.[18]
It would thus not be an exaggeration to say that for a deeper understanding of modern science, there is a need to develop certain intuitive insights. These can enable us to have experiences more rich than those possible with the basic five senses. Clearly, the process of evolution of such a multi-sensory personality can be hastened by living life in conformity with the Universal Laws, the Dharma-that is, by practicing Vipassana.
The complementarity of science and Dharma can be succinctly put by paraphrasing the beautiful epigram of Albert Einstein: Science without Dharma is blind and Dharma without Science is lame-for Dharma gives us the vision of what ought to be done, and Science gives us the power to do it [19]. The developments in science have unleashed enormous power-but power can do as much harm as good. Today, there is a crying need to channel this power to ensure the very survival of humanity, for otherwise Man will destroy himself by misusing the same power. What we must do is reorient our lives in the light of the quintessence of Dharma, by practicing morality (síla), taming the senses by the practice of concentration (samádhi) and progressively purifying the mind by the practice of Vipassana.ng to learn and verify it.
A good reference point for the explanation of karmic results in the Pali canon is the Cūlakammavibhanga Sutta. This sutta relates several types of actions to several types of karmic results. Among the positive results are beauty and health; among the negative results are ugliness, sickliness, and disease. We know that these traits can be determined genetically, so there would be a case for arguing that DNA is one type of karmic fruit. The case of beauty vs. ugliness is especially strong, because it depends on factors such as body type, morphological structure, skin colour, etc. all of which are strongly determined by genes.
When attempting to relate Buddhist teachings to modern science, it is important to remember that Buddhist scripture was phrased in the terms of a pre-scientific society. Therefore we cannot expect to extract precise answers from scripture. The two principle approaches are personal insight and reasoned interpretation of the dhamma. Both approaches are likely to generate a variety of opinions and considerable debate. I don't think this is something to be avoided, but it is a good idea to scrutinise speculative conclusions carefully.
Cheers, Thomas
Well, this idea turns out to be not only in discord with Buddhist philosophy, but also with present day science. According to the Buddhist understanding, we cannot change existing karma, but we can change the generation of new karma and we can influence the way in which existing karma comes to fruition. The research in epigenetics comes to a parallel conclusion: "In the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, genomic DNA is highly folded and compacted with histone and non-histone proteins into a dynamic polymer called chromatin. Gene expression, chromosome segregation, DNA replication, repair, and recombination all act, not on DNA alone, but on this chromatin template. The discovery that enzymes can (re)organise chromatin into accessible and inaccessible configurations revealed epigenetic mechanisms that considerably extend the information potential of the genetic code. Thus, one genome can generate many 'epigenomes', as the fertilised egg progresses through development and translates its information into a multitude of cell fates. [...] This suggests that "We are more than just the sum of our genes", and that biological complexity depends less on gene number, and more on how those genes are used (expressed), which is largely due to epigenetic mechanisms."
In simple terms: our fate is not (necessarily) encoded in our DNA.
There is a wonderful little documentary Nova Science Now that introduces epigentics in a very accessible way: <!-- m -->http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html
Cheers, Thomas
<!-- m -->
Buddhists don't ascribe to Fate, and whilst it may be possible to determine several genetic and physical factors, this does not pre-empt the fact that we still have a brain capable of making choices, and can choose from a variety of options. Simply because our genes can be programmed or re-defined, it doesn't mean decision-making will become a thing of the past.....
Care to explain that?
so how does that tie in with a correlation between your DNA and Karma.....?
Karma teaches that all thought, all action, has its conditions and its consequences. Because absorption of the Dharma can lead to a change in the karmic trends of one's mind, one can purify their thoughts and bring their mind into harmony with the true nature of all reality through personal effort and meditative insight. This is karma.....only you can change what you 'are' and give rise to future wholesome conditions that are not of 'you'.....that are selfless.
We shouldn't think of our karma as inherited, or something we are passing onto ourselves for future lives. It is what we are doing now, right now, to change a dysfunctional state of mind into a harmonious and peaceful one. When we look backward, or forward with our minds on our own perpetuated existence, we cater to the self-that-is-not.
My 'own' 'personal' two cents.
Namaste
Palzang
The right view that the Buddha describes as a middle way between the ideas of ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’ can be expressed by saying that our conditioned experience is best understood as entirely a process without fixed existence in it, a matter of becoming rather than being. Normally, however, we take sides in the way that we think about things. With our thoughts and words we superimpose the ideas of real existence and real non-existence on things in our experience, and this leads to wrong views and bad decisions. With the principle of conditionality in mind we can attend to our experience with an attitude of not siding with either extreme. We can notice how things such as 'self' are in fact dependent for their existence on other things, and that things will not disappear just because we don't want them to exist. Right view as a middle way transcends our usual tendency to pin things down in fixed ways and hence I think the question is a legitimate question.