If the Buddha had taught evolution I would botherAemilius wrote: How does the sexual non-activity prescribed by buddhism affect human evolution ?
Kind regards
If the Buddha had taught evolution I would botherAemilius wrote: How does the sexual non-activity prescribed by buddhism affect human evolution ?
TMingyur wrote:If the Buddha had taught evolution I would botherAemilius wrote: How does the sexual non-activity prescribed by buddhism affect human evolution ?
Kind regards
What do you mean by "sentient"? Some humans might say that animals aren't really sentient in the way humans are. And some gods might say humans aren't sentient in the way gods are.Astus wrote:Aemilius,
In Buddhist cosmology at the beginning of an aeon it is not from cells to humans and definitely not from insentient to sentient but from gods to hell beings and only from sentient to sentient. Beings are born, live and die because of karma and not natural selection. So it is quite opposite to the scientific evolution.
If you want to discuss this further I recommend to open a thread for it.
That's why I said in some sense there is the idea of evolution. There is the idea of something (new) becoming from causes and conditions,... don't you think this is true ? In the Wheel of Life there is the idea of coming down the scale as well as going up in the scale of existence, I think this should be very clear for everyone? The idea of selflessness implies that you are not forever human, you will change and become something else, either you up or you go down in the scale of existence in the six worlds. This process is normally very slow and it takes hundreds and thousands of lifetimes. You must not forget that there is an upward going process too.Astus wrote:Aemilius,
In Buddhist cosmology at the beginning of an aeon it is not from cells to humans and definitely not from insentient to sentient but from gods to hell beings and only from sentient to sentient. Beings are born, live and die because of karma and not natural selection. So it is quite opposite to the scientific evolution.
If you want to discuss this further I recommend to open a thread for it.
I feel that one might argue that Buddha taught the evolution of consciousness and that biological procreation is beside the point (obviously both are necessary or we wouldn't have this precious opportunity).TMingyur wrote:If the Buddha had taught evolution I would botherAemilius wrote: How does the sexual non-activity prescribed by buddhism affect human evolution ?
Kind regards
I agree, but there is a distinction I might make. But first, let's clarify that you acknowledge two expressions of dependent origination:Astus wrote:Dependent origination is on one hand a principle, on the other a description of psycho-physical processes, while Buddhist cosmology applies dependent origination on a macrocosmic level. Evolution is a scientific concept based on different principles and established on different methods. Putting them into a single system is minimum unscientific and irrelevant to Buddhism. Just as there is no need to synthetise Buddhism and Hegelianism, so it's meaningless to bring together evolution and Buddhist cosmology.
What I said was that dependent origination is:Individual wrote:1) As psycho-physical processes; the subjective, phenomenological world.
2) Buddhist cosmology; the "macrocosmic level".
I'd relate the above to this sutta.
For now, my question is: Why is the second doctrine put forth when understanding the first doctrine is sufficient to attain liberation?
OK, so then: Why is that extension of dependent origination necessary? On the same basis that it was established, would it not make sense to include evolution in some way?Astus wrote: The cosmological part is an extension of the teaching of dependent origination where other teachings are also involved, especially karma, rebirth and the different realms.
Not necessarily re-writing or re-organization, just different ways of thinking. Mahayanists did not have to re-write the Nikayas, but merely interpreted them in different ways. Throughout the entire evolution of the Mahayana Buddhist schools, each school developed new ideas and teachings through new interpretations, without having to necessarily create new texts or forsake the old ones.Astus wrote: If evolution was used in Buddhism one would have to explain its relation to karma, to the realms and how one can attain liberation in that system. That is, it'd involve a major reorganisation and rewriting of Buddhism, simply because the teachings a co-dependent on each other. There are, of course, parts of cosmology that can be changed without messing up the whole system - here I mean basically how the world is described with its four continents and Meru in the middle. But even that can be left as it is. I say that because the Buddhist cosmology is a religious one, something spiritual, from a different perspective than science uses.
I wouldn't bother!Astus wrote:Well, if you can come up with a consistent application of evolution without contradicting the Buddha's words I might reconsider my views about this subject. But you should note that Mahayana is not based on implementing other philosophies into Buddhism.
On the whole, I'd agree with you, Astus. Still, there are some points of overlap, and that's where the questions may arise. Some passages in the scriptures (the Agganna Sutta, for instance) clearly seem to be discussing phenomena at a conventional level -- i.e. explaining how life on earth originated, how society developed, and so on. This brings the dharma into the arena studied by the various sciences.Astus wrote:Dependent origination is on one hand a principle, on the other a description of psycho-physical processes, while Buddhist cosmology applies dependent origination on a macrocosmic level. Evolution is a scientific concept based on different principles and established on different methods. Putting them into a single system is minimum unscientific and irrelevant to Buddhism. Just as there is no need to synthetise Buddhism and Hegelianism, so it's meaningless to bring together evolution and Buddhist cosmology.
Why is dependent origination presented as cosmology when presenting it as merely psycho-physical processes is already enough?Astus wrote:Buddhism's goal is to liberate beings from suffering. Science's goal is to understand natural phenomena in a systematic way. This difference in attitude separates them and gives distinct meanings to these creations of the mind. Consequently Buddhist cosmology is not the same as scientific cosmology, and there are many other cosmologies. Then if we want to evaluate these cosmologies there's a need for a measurement. From a Buddhist point of view scientific cosmology doesn't help liberating beings, therefore it has little or no value. From a scientific perspective the Buddhist cosmology is a religious fiction and can be used only within certain social sciences but tells little about our physical environment. But suppose we view them from a Christian or a Neoplatonic system they're both incorrect. However, if we're looking for The Real Cosmology, well, I call that naivety.
After Darwin it has gradually become a concern in civilization about our 'future evolution'.How does the sexual non-activity prescribed by buddhism affect human evolution ?
This is an instance of applying a buddhist term ("dependent origination") out of its original context in a non-buddhist context.Ogyen wrote:dependent origination IS evolution.
There are several things I had in mind when saying that. Firstly, acquired propensities are not hereditary. This is to say that if the father or mother has attained or has not attained dhyana/samadhi has no effect on the chromosomes their children will inherit. I take Aryans, or the Overmen (of Nietsche), to mean persons who have attained concrete levels of the mundane or supramundane path. These attainments have no effect on their chromosomes, nor are these attainments caused by their chromosomes. Do you agree?Huseng wrote:After Darwin it has gradually become a concern in civilization about our 'future evolution'.How does the sexual non-activity prescribed by buddhism affect human evolution ?
I think it prompted the ideas about race theory (the superior and inferior races) and racial purity (the perceived need to preserve the strength and qualities of a 'race' lest positive evolution be lost with intermingling with 'other races').
Can you really plan the evolutionary course of a species? Some people think so.
One should keep in mind when Buddha advocated celibacy he was speaking to renunciates. Most humans have no interest in celibacy. I don't think the idea is that the whole species will suddenly adopt celibacy and humanity will die out within a century. That's taking the teaching to an unrealistic extreme.