Buddhism and Evolution

[Aemilius]

That's a pity, I'll try to find someone else who is still active in this field,

[Aemilius]

Here is an enormous amount of information of the occult, forbidden, and "normal"... archeology http://ramtops.co.uk/index.html
Doug's Archeology Site: Skeptical views of the fringe arc...

[Aemilius]

[quote="Luke"]
When it comes to genetics, I think that useful mutations can be thought of as the result of good karma and that harmful mutations can be thought of as the result of bad karma.


I think this view is rejected by Bhagavan Shakyamuni when he declares that everything is not caused by karma, with the example that one's sickness or fever can be caused by normal "catching cold" reasons, and thus one's fever is not necessarily a result of "one's evil deed in a previous life". (This problem is discussed in Pali Scriptures, can't remember the exact place).
It has also been explained that there are other forms of causality than the moral causality, and these work independently, you have to get used to it. It is a complex issue because people have become used to thinking about karma in definite ways, it is therefore like a habit.
It is like your car, your moral or immoral actions are not responsble for its rusting. It rusts because of the presence of moisture.
Same with regard to mutations. They happen because of various chemical and physical causes. Independently of your moral or immoral actions.

[Aemilius]

"I don't think Buddhism has any problem with humans evolving from apes, but it does seem to me that Buddhism does require the Six Realms of Existence to have distinct boundaries (i.e. a being can only be in one realm at a time). Although humans evolved gradually from apes, I think there needs to be a definite point at which these beings could be labeled as human (a "sort-of human" being would still have to be considered a member of the animal realm). "

The boundaries are no so distinct in buddhism, sometimes they are classified as 5 realms ( gods and asuras are in the same realm). In the Shurangama sutra we have 7 realms (it was necessary to add one more realm for special kind of humans that are called Rishis(!)). And again in chinese tradition we have 10 realms and so on ... up to 20 realms.
A more simple scheme has only 3 realms, then humans and animals inhabit the same realm, the realm of sense experience (kamadhatu).

[Aemilius]

"My other thought is that evolution doesn't have to support amorality in the way that Christians fear it will. In western cultures in which animals were simply thought of as being resources to be exploited, the proposition that humans were more closely related to animals was horrifying because this seemed to imply that humans were then also simply resources to be exploited. In other cultures in which animals were seen as conscious beings with intrinsic value (such as in Hindu and Buddhist cultures), I think that this proposition was much less shocking, because there was already a belief in the interconnection of all forms of life.

Like many other things, I think the ethical value of the theory of evolution depends on how it's used. But I do think that evolution, when viewed from certain perspectives, can promote morality.
"

There is one issue that isn't directly addressed here, but it is closely related with it, that is: Biologists say that population is the smallest unit that has to be considered, so there is no individual at all in evolution. This also brings up the question of Sangha, is there ever a sangha that is somehow free and independent of the smallest unit of population ? Population unit is hereditary like nationality, clan, family etc... it competes with sangha and very often takes its place, and after a while there isn't any dharma left at all, but the population unit refuses to believe this, it says that it (ie population; family, nationalty etc..) is the dharma, and so on...