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.
Does Buddhism deny evolution like Christianity?
DhammaDhatu
Veteran
Dear forum
I read this thread on another forum and I thought it would make interesting discussion:
DD
I read this thread on another forum and I thought it would make interesting discussion:
I was watching & listening to a You Tube about Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and reading the Christian disagreements.Regards
I learned evolution happens because of natural selection. Nature selects species and genes that adapt best to the environment. Richard Dawkins, who was very a articulate gentleman, said any impression of "intelligent design" occurs because of natural selection, which I thought made alot of sense. I learned it is not behaviour that modifies genes in evolution but, instead, there is a gene pool and the most fit genes adapt, survive and are passed on.
For the purpose of discussion, my questions are:
(1) do Buddhists and does Buddhism deny evolution?
(2) does the Buddhist principle of reincarnation deny evolution when it says evolution or life-cycles follow karma rather than genes?
(3) does Buddhism deny there are mental dispositions in genes?
(4) i once heard Buddhists believe characteristics like beauty, intelligence, health & longevity come from past life karma and not from genes. if i am wrong here, then how does Buddhism reconcile or describe any relationship between past life karma and genetics?
DD
0
Comments
The Beginning of Life on EarthIn the second part of the Sutta, Buddha tells the story of how the human beings came to dwell on Earth.
The Buddha told that sooner or later, after a very long time, there would be a time when the world shrinks. As the universe shrinks, many of its inhabitants would die. Of these deceased creatures, some were born again (due to good karma) in the Heavenly realm of Abbhasara (Lucid Light). There, they floated for a very - very long time, as a bodiless, radiating extreme light. They don't eat or drink, as they nourish themselves from pure spiritual joy.
Then, after some very long time, when the World began to expand again, many of these Abbhasara creatures were born to the newly formed Earth. They floated above and around the Earth. At this time, there were not yet seen the Moon and the Sun, there were not yet Night and Day, there were not yet names and identity or female or male. The creatures were only known for creatures.
At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness.... And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or heated butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey (1)
Some of the creatures of light (the Abbhasaras) who had curiosity and a greedy nature began to dive and taste the savory Earth's substance. At that moment, the creature found out that it tasted so delicious. Thus, greed started to seep in and it ate the substance voraciously, greedily, thus calling also its comrades (who were flying above and on earth) to join in the feast. Not long afterwards, the creatures began to eat so greedily and due to the huge amount of the mud substance, they could feed on it for a very long time.
As they ate and ate, their luminous body began to be coated by the mud substance, formed a coarser body, then suddenly, the sun and moon were seen, so were the stars, and also Night and Day began on Earth. The logical explanation of this was that the creatures were the self-luminating, so blinding and luminating that they didn't notice the Sun. The Earth was covered in their light. So, when the materialization took place, the light faded inside their newly conceived 'body' of mud and thus the night and day became apparent to them. Then, as the night and day became apparent, season and years also appeared.
Their body was still coarse and roughly shaped. Thus, after a very long time, the mud-like substance began to exhaust. Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that it replaced the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and they found it also so delicious as sweet honey and milk. Their body hardened more and details began to turn finer.
After another very long time, the mushrooms also began to exhaust, replaced by cassava or turnip-class plants. They also began to devour it night and day, and thus they began to notice differences amongst them. As the changes of their bodies varied with one another, the concept of difference arose. The beautiful and the ugly concept was born. The beautiful scorns the ugly and they became arrogant of their appearance.
Then, after the turnips, the earth was grown with rice plants. The first rice plants were without husk and kernels. The sweet and honey-like rice flourished seeds abundantly. The people consumed them for a very long time. But there are people who became greedy and lazy. They took more rice than they needed for one day's meals. They began to take two, four, eight, and sixteen days' of rice reserves as they were too lazy to take rice everyday. Owing to this, many other creatures began to store and hoard the rice. The generation time for rice plants became slower and slower. Usually, it took only one night for the plant to grow and be ready to be consumed, but by the karmic power, the plant began to grow slower and slower. Also the rice grew in kernel and husks, scattered, of which the creatures must work, nurse, maintain, harvest, and cook them to obtain the white rice.
By this time, the body of the creatures had been finely evolved. There was already the distinction between male and female. The man became preoccupied with women and vice versa. Then, as they were deeply attracted to one another, passion and desire aroused, and they engaged in sexual relationships. The people who saw a couple engaged in sexual activity scolded them, and usually the couple were forbidden from entering the village for a certain period of time. Owing to this, the indulgent couples built closed dwellings where they indulged in sexual activity.
skipping 2 and 3
4) Karma influencing such qualities could just mean that one is born into a body with those type of genes.
Summary: Are Buddhists creationists or evolutionists?
A student asks:
I have an odd question which was raised by a friend, who was asking me questions about Buddhism. They wanted to know how Buddhism deals with the concept of evolution? Are Buddhists creationists? Our teachings don't seem to deal with such matters and I was rather at a loss as to how to answer them.
Lama Shenpen:
I suppose one would have to say Buddhists are evolutionists in the sense that they do not think God created everything in seven days.
The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusion-like, never really coming into existence but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time.
Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse - so it’s all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow - but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth - it leaves quite basic questions left unanswered.
In a way one might want to argue Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness - the awareness of the beings that inhabit it - evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds.
Also, for the sake of fairness, it should be noted that Christianity as a whole doesn't necessarily deny evolution, either. The Catholic Church, for example, has taken the position that, for the most part, the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity.
Here is some data on America religious views on supporting evolution: Guess which groups supports Evolution the highest:
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Jewish 77%
Unaffiliated 72%
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline Protestant 51%
Muslim 45%
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witnesses 8%
Total U.S. population percentage:48%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
"The four guardian angels came and lifted her up, together with her couch, and took her away to the Himalaya Mountains. There, in the Manosil table-land, which is sixty leagues in extent, they laid her under a prodigious sal-tree, seven leagues in height, and took up their positions respectfully at one side. Then came the wives of these guardian angels, and conducted her to Anotatta Lake, and bathed her, to remove every human stain. And after clothing her with divine garments, they anointed her with perfumes and decked her with divine flowers. Not far off was Silver Hill, and in it a golden mansion. There they spread a divine couch with its head towards the east, and laid her down upon it. Now the Future Buddha had become a superb white elephant, and was wandering about at no great distance, on Gold Hill. Descending thence, he ascended Silver Hill, and approaching from the north, he plucked a white lotus with his silvery trunk, and trumpeting loudly, went into the golden mansion. And three times he walked round his mother’s couch, with his right side towards it, and striking her on her right side, he seemed to enter her womb. Thus the conception took place in the Midsummer Festival."
You are saying some teachings of the Buddha are a metaphor and parody? That makes sense and so do the examples you mentioned. The caste system is not a nice social system.
But you said psychology is not related to genetics. I am not sure about that. I would think intelligence and penetrative abilities would be related to genetics. That some scientists, such as Charles Darwin, had the ability to see insightfully into nature, must be genetic. I learned yesterday Charles trained to be a priest but the clergy guided him towards science due to his natural abilities and dispositions. Surely these psychological attributes must be genetic.
Of course our genetics will influence our psychology to a certain extent; but that doesn't mean our psychology will influence the changes in inherited traits of species over time, and I don't believe that kamma is presented as some sort of evolutionary mechanism (although some may see it that way). Additionally, genetics isn't the only factor that influences our psychology, e.g., things like environment and upbringing, and possibly even kamma.
I found a link to the actual Sutta:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf
I haven't read in detail, but a few things struck me.
1. "At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma
world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving
through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. "
As a Pure Land Buddhist, I have to say this sounds a whole lot like Amida's Sukhavati. Interesting to see in a Pali Sutta!
2. The whole idea of a contraction and expansion of the universe is of course an idea very much considered possible today.
3. This Luminous world existing at the cusps of the contraction/expansion. Could be a metaphor for the big bang, or the point of concentrated matter and light theorize to....go bang!
4. "‘Then some being of a greedy nature said: "I say, what can this be?" and tasted the
savory earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavor, and craving
arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with
their fingers. They too were taken with the flavor, and craving arose in them. So they set
to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And the result was
that their self luminance disappeared."
Does this strike anyone else as being similar to the idea of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and afterwards being cast out of the pure paradise of Eden?
I have often thought the Adam and Eve story has a nice Buddhistic message in it, in this sense of they start discriminating in their thoughts, and out of Eden they go.
Anyway, personally I have never seen a conflict between Buddhism and evolution, and I believe both are absolutely true.
The ideas of natural selection (that duplication + variation + selection = design) and the role of DNA in the process are new ideas.
Religious thought can resist developments in our understanding of the world. That will mean it has changed, because originally their tradition did no such thing; it didn’t need to.
Or religious thought can accept and integrate our new understanding of the world. That will mean it also has changed, because it integrates completely new notions with very old ones.
We can not avoid being people of the twenty-first century. Both rejecting and accepting Darwinism make us modern people.
Now to your questions.
1. I choose to accept the very strong theory of Darwinist evolution and the role of DNA in passing genetic information. But then I’m never sure if I’m a “Buddhist”
2. No. Technically one can hold the idea that karma determines the way things are going and that evolution just follows the currents. One would have to explain how that works though, but I think it has always been problematic to explain how karma and rebirth actually are supposed to work.
3. I’m not sure. I don’t think there’s a Pali word for “genes”. Whatever is in the genes; one can make the assumption that karma put it in there. But how?
4. I have never seen a good explanation of how karma is supposed tot work and how exactly (and what exactly) is passed on to another living being or gene.
2-4. i think can be answered simply. karma follows genetics, in that your very subtle self is reborn in a body with genetics, dispositions etc. relative to what your past actions where. the two are not in contention at all in my opinion. i think karma and rebirth operate on a level we can not measure. at leats not yet...
With regard to time, there's: kamma ripening during the present (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma), kamma ripening in the future (upapajja-vedaniya-kamma) and kamma ripening later than that (aparapariya-vedaniya-kamma).
With regard to function, there's: productive kamma (janaka-kamma), supportive kamma (upatthambhaka-kamma), suppressive kamma (upapilaka-kamma) and destructive kamma (upaghataka- or upacchedaka-kamma).
With regard to priority, there's: weighty kamma (garuka-kamma), habitual karma (acinnaka- or bahula-kamma), death-proximate karma (maranasanna-kamma) and stored kamma (katatta-kamma).
Thanks. I know there was one translated as genetic karma. Maybe just as genetic. There were four types and karma was one of the four.
The Dalai Lama Urges Ethics Be A Guide In
The Application Of New Scientific Knowledge
Soceity for Neuroscience | News Releases
http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSFN1/NewsReleases/pr_111205.html
Washington, DC, Nov. 12—The Dalai Lama of Tibet today called for scientists to be guided by ethical principles in the use of new knowledge.
“We must find a way of bringing fundamental humanitarian and ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences,†the Dalai Lama told the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) meeting here. “I am speaking of . . . the key ethical principles, such as compassion, tolerance, a sense of caring, consideration of others, and the responsible use of knowledge and power—principles that transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers, and followers of this religion or that religion.â€
“I personally like to imagine all human activities, including science, as individual fingers of a palm. So long as each of these fingers is connected with the palm of basic human empathy and altruism, they will continue to serve the well-being of humanity.â€
“Today, I believe that humanity is at a critical crossroad,†the Dalai Lama said. “The radical advances that took place in neuroscience and particularly in genetics towards the end of the twentieth century have led to a new era in human history. Our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level, with the consequent technological possibilities offered for genetic manipulation, has reached such a stage that the ethical challenges of these scientific advances are enormous.â€
“ . . With the advent of the new genetics, neuroscience’s knowledge of the workings of biological organisms is now brought to the subtlest level of individual genes. This has resulted in unforeseen technological possibilities of even manipulating the very codes of life, thereby giving rise to the likelihood of creating entirely new realities for humanity as a whole.â€
The Dalai Lama spoke on the “Neuroscience of Meditation†in the first of a new SfN lecture series titled “Dialogues between Neuroscience and Society†featuring leaders from fields outside of neuroscience whose work relates to subjects of interest to neuroscientists. The Dalai Lama has maintained a dialogue with leading neuroscientists for more than 15 years. He was invited by SfN President Carol Barnes of the University of Arizona. The architect Frank Gehry will be the 2006 “Dialogues†lecturer.
SfN is an organization of more than 37,000 basic scientists and clinicians who study the brain and nervous system. Its annual meeting, which expects more than 31,000 attendees, runs from November 12 to 16 at the Washington Convention Center.
In his lecture, the Dalai Lama spoke about the commonalities between eastern contemplative practices and contemporary science in terms of outlook and methodology; about areas of fruitful engagement between the two disciplines; and the importance of recognizing the interface between ethics and science.
The Dalai Lama has participated in many conferences on science and spirituality. With Adam Engle, he is a co-founder of the Mind and Life Institute (www.mindandlife.org), of which he is honorary chairman. The thirteenth Mind and Life dialogue on “Science and Clinical Applications of Meditation†took place in Washington just prior to the SfN meeting.
Buddhism and Contemporary Science
“So what is a Buddhist monk doing taking such a deep interest in science?†he asked. The Dalai Lama noted that while the eastern contemplative tradition and modern science have evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, they share significant commonalities, especially in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology.
“On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect,†he said.
“From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge—experience, reason and testimony—it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference, its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of experience.â€
Because of this, he said that the empirically verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts.
Need for Fruitful Engagement
The Dalai Lama recounted how much he has learned from engaging in conversations with neuroscientists and psychologists on such questions as the nature and role of positive and negative emotions, attention, imagery, and brain plasticity. “The compelling evidence from neuroscience and medical science of the crucial role of simple physical touch for even the physical enlargement of an infant’s brain during the first few weeks powerfully brings home the intimate connection between compassion and human happiness,†he said.
“. . . By gaining deeper insight into the human psyche, we might find ways of transforming our thoughts, emotions and their underlying propensities so that a more wholesome and fulfilling way of being can be found. It is in this context that the Buddhist tradition has devised a rich classification of mental states, as well as contemplative techniques for refining specific mental qualities.â€
At the heart of eastern contemplative practices lie two key techniques, the refinement of attention and its sustained application on the one hand, and the regulation and transformation of emotions on the other. “In both of these cases, I feel, there might be great potential for collaborative research . . .,†the Dalai Lama said.
Modern neuroscience has developed a rich understanding of the brain mechanisms that are associated with both attention and emotion, he said. The eastern contemplative tradition, given its long history of interest in the practice of mental training, “offers on the other hand practical techniques for refining attention and regulating and transforming emotion. The meeting of modern neuroscience and Buddhist contemplative discipline, therefore, could lead to the possibility of studying the impact of intentional mental activity on the brain circuits that have been identified as critical for specific mental processes.â€
“In the least, such an interdisciplinary encounter could help raise critical questions in many key areas. For example, do individuals have a fixed capacity to regulate their emotions and attention or, as Buddhist tradition argues, their capacity for regulating these processes are greatly amenable to change suggesting similar degree of amenability of the behavioral and brain systems associated with these functions?â€
“One area where Buddhist contemplative tradition may have important contribution to make is the practical techniques it has developed for training in compassion. With regard to mental training both in attention and emotional regulation, it also becomes crucial to raise the question of whether any specific techniques have time-sensitivity in terms of their effectiveness, so that new methods can be tailored to suit the needs of age, health, and other variable factors.†He further noted the importance of being sensitive to the definitions of terms, and what can be empirically studied when the traditions of eastern contemplative tradition and neuroscience are brought together.
“With these precautionary considerations, I believe, a close cooperation between these two investigative traditions can truly contribute toward expanding the human understanding of the complex world of inner subjective experience that we call the mind. Already the benefits of such collaborations are beginning to be demonstrated,†the Dalai Lama said.
“The Buddhist contemplative tradition may help to expand this field of scientific inquiry by proposing types of mental training that may also pertain to neuroplasticity. If it turns out, as the Buddhist tradition implies, that mental practice can effect observable synaptic and neural changes in the brain, this could have far-reaching implications.†For example, they could have great significance for our understanding of education and mental health. “Similarly, if, as the Buddhist tradition claims, the deliberate cultivation of compassion can lead to a radical shift in the individual’s outlook, leading to greater empathy toward others, this could have far-reaching implications for society at large.â€
Ethics in Science
The Dalai Lama closed his remarks with a discussion of ethics. “ . . . I believe that the collaboration between neuroscience and the Buddhist contemplative tradition may shed fresh light on the vitally important question of the interface of ethics and neuroscience,†he said. “Regardless of whatever conception one might have of the relationship between ethics and science, in actual practice, science has evolved primarily as an empirical discipline with a morally neutral, value-free stance. It has come to be perceived essentially as a mode of inquiry that gives detailed knowledge of the empirical world and the underlying laws of nature.â€
Scientific communities such as neuroscience play a vitally important role in this interconnected world, he said. “For whatever historical reasons, today you the scientists enjoy great respect and trust within society, much more so than my own discipline of philosophy and religion. Your knowledge is admired; your contributions towards the betterment of humanity as a whole are appreciated; and the intellectual integrity of your relentless search for truth is respected. So let me take this opportunity to appeal to you now to take the further step of bringing into your own professional work the dictates of the fundamental ethical principles we all share as human beings.â€
:scratch:
Same for genetics, are the inherited genes are partially determined by karma?
So yes, I have no answer in relation to non-sentient beings in this respect. So if I were to be consistent and, in this case, disregard pre-sentient karma, then karma would only be a driving force for evolution after sentience was achieved. Do not ask me when sentience was achieved!!!!
Along those lines, your provisional as well, not really true but useful
Me too, but I'm not very useful.
There's fun as well, I hope so. Take care and look after yourself.
But if there is a concept that would make me walk straight away from Buddhism and never look back, it would be any real belief of Buddhism that a being can be affected by their future karma. I hope that's not what you're really saying.
your very questions are the very reasons I started the thread
the series of lectures on evolution said karma does not alter genes
the example given was if a human being strengthens their physical body via exercise, this will not alter the genes they pass on
In the examples I gave above, the former are examples of things dealing with processes or becoming, while the latter are things dealing with unchanging being or essence. For example, Heraclitus, if we believe Plato, is famous for his idea that "everything flows," whereas Plato is famous for his idea of eternal forms. In the second example, the Buddha taught that what we mistakenly cling to as 'self' is really only impermanent phenomena subject to arising, changing and passing away, whereas the Vedas and Upanishads taught that our self is something real and eternal, something that is.
Strict ontology deals more with what is (i.e., being or essence), whereas the basic idea behind process philosophy is that what 'exists' is best understood in terms of processes rather than things or substances, and that change — whether physical, organic or psychological — "is the pervasive and predominant feature of the real." As such, it's sometimes called 'ontology of becoming.'
Of course, in Buddhism, becoming (bhava) refers more to the sense of identity that arises when there's clinging to one or more of the aggregates, but the basic idea is that our sense of self is a process of 'I-making and my-making,' which I think can be classified as a type of process philosophy. And the reason I mentioned it is because I think that the niyamas are simply an extension of this idea, only applied by later commentators to external phenomena like the growth cycle of of plants, weather, etc. in an effort to stress that not everything we experience in life is caused by kamma.
And I think all of this is worth pointing out in order to illustrate that the theory of evolution is entirely compatible with Buddhism—that Buddhism acknowledges change, and doesn't hold the belief (as some mistakenly assume) that everything, including the changes in inherited traits of populations of organisms through successive generations, is caused by kamma.