Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions

[Lhug-Pa]

Nevertheless, to consider the possibility that the said hominid—that's apparently a cousin of both humans and apes—devolved from humans beings, at least allows us the possibilty of accepting the genetic findings of contemporary science (that is when they are actually accurate) while also accepting Buddhism's teaching that Human's are descendants of more Enlightened Beings.

[Lhug-Pa]

So I agree with Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche that the idea of humans "evolving from apes" is rather silly.

Where does he say this?

Not the recent Singapore webcast but the one before that (25 Spaces of Samantabhadra) where he taught about some of the history of Bön and the legitimacy of the Dzogchen of Yungdrung Bön.

I think it was actually the retreat before the 25 Spaces of Samantabhadra retreat.

[Adamantine]

Nevertheless, to consider the possibility that the said hominid—that's apparently a cousin of both humans and apes—devolved from humans beings, at least allows us the possibilty of accepting the genetic findings of contemporary science (that is when they are actually accurate) while also accepting Buddhism's teaching that Human's are descendants of more Enlightened Beings.

Well in Kalachakra prophecies of the future, -if I recall correctly (and please correct me if someone knows better) it is said that humans will indeed 'devolve' in a sort of way, to shorter, hairier, perhaps stupider and generally degenerate versions of what we are now. . . so it certainly could have happened before, hypothetically.

[Karma Dorje]

Well in Kalachakra prophecies of the future, -if I recall correctly (and please correct me if someone knows better) it is said that humans will indeed 'devolve' in a sort of way, to shorter, hairier, perhaps stupider and generally degenerate versions of what we are now. . . so it certainly could have happened before, hypothetically.

To think that all that time ago, they could foresee Jersey Shore!! E ma ho!

[Adamantine]

Well in Kalachakra prophecies of the future, -if I recall correctly (and please correct me if someone knows better) it is said that humans will indeed 'devolve' in a sort of way, to shorter, hairier, perhaps stupider and generally degenerate versions of what we are now. . . so it certainly could have happened before, hypothetically.

To think that all that time ago, they could foresee Jersey Shore!! E ma ho!

I believe they'll be a LOT hairier and shorter (maybe not stupider) than even those on Jersey Shore !

[Lhug-Pa]

Well in Kalachakra prophecies of the future, -if I recall correctly (and please correct me if someone knows better) it is said that humans will indeed 'devolve' in a sort of way, to shorter, hairier, perhaps stupider and generally degenerate versions of what we are now. . . so it certainly could have happened before, hypothetically.

Have only read a little on Kalachakra, but it doesn't surprise me at all that it says that.

I believe they'll be a LOT hairier and shorter (maybe not stupider) than even those on Jersey Shore !

Yeah Snooki might not be very bright (although maybe she is, I don't really know her), and she might be short; but she doesn't exactly look like a small hairy Neanderthal.

[Norwegian]

Homo neanderthalensis, by the way, have gotten a really bad reputation, which is quite unfair to them.

Popular culture have portrayed them in an incredibly inaccurate light, and they weren't simple and stupid brute cavemen that we know them as through TV etc.

The fact is that Homo neanderthalensis was an incredibly creative hominid. Their brains for example, were at birth same size of modern man, but by adulthood, it was larger.

And anatomically, they were not small/short which popular culture also portrays them as:

"Neanderthals were generally only 12–14 cm (5–6 in) shorter than 21st century humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Based on 45 long bones from (at most) 14 males and 7 females, Neanderthal males averaged 164–168 cm (65–66 in) and females 152–156 cm (60–61 in) tall."

They were omnivores, eating not just meat - but also cooked vegetables.

And guess what? Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis interbred: http://news.discovery.com/human/genetic ... 10718.html

"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings."

and

"The ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago. They evolved over the millennia mostly in what are now France, Spain, Germany and Russia. They went extinct, or were simply absorbed into the modern human population, about 30,000 years ago.

Neanderthals possessed the gene for language and had sophisticated music, art and tool craftsmanship skills, so they must have not been all that unattractive to modern humans at the time.

"In addition, because our methods were totally independent of Neanderthal material, we can also conclude that previous results were not influenced by contaminating artifacts," Labuda said.

This work goes back to nearly a decade ago, when Labuda and his colleagues identified a piece of DNA, called a haplotype, in the human X chromosome that seemed different. They questioned its origins.

Fast forward to 2010, when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced. The researchers could then compare the haplotype to the Neanderthal genome as well as to the DNA of existing humans. The scientists found that the sequence was present in people across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia."

Recent studies also shows that Homo sapiens interbred with the newly discovered hominid Homo denisova as well.

So adopting a line of thinking similar to Evangelical Christians with regards to evolution/history is really not that wise, as these things are mapped. Of course, there's some holes here and there, but new discoveries are made all the time so we can improve upon the map so to speak. Paleoanthropology and hominid/human migration is a very fascinating field of study (just look up Homo floresiensis for a very interesting topic).

There's a difference between religious myth and history for a reason.

PS: I'd easily prefer the company of Neanderthals to that of Snookie and the rest of Jersey Shore ...

[Lhug-Pa]

Yes I'm aware of much of that regarding Neanderthals, Norwegian. I just said that Snooki doesn't look like a short hairy Neanderthal. A short Neanderthal-like-in-appearance type of hominid is simply what came to mind when reading Adamantine's explanation of what the Kalachakra Tantra says. I wasn't saying that Neanderthals were short.

Some say that the Neanderthals were actually quite sly & devious, and that the Khazars or Ashkenazis were the outcome of the mentioned mixture between European Homo-Sapiens and Neanderthals, more-so than other Europeans anyway (if this is true, the Ashkenazis probably mixed with Arab Semites and/or Africans a little at some point, hence the famous kinky-hair 'Jew-'fro'). Not that I necessarily subscribe to this theory, however it's interesting and can be read about in the book called the Iceman Inheritance by Michael Bradley.

H.P. Blavatsky was we could say almost vehemently anti Evangelist-Christianism; and so also the Theosophical explanation of Anthropology is much more compatible with the Buddhist/Kalachakra explanation than it is with the materialistic-science AND the Evangelist-Christianist ones. Not to say that materialistic-science doesn't have something to offer, it's just that I wouldn't say that the Theosophical and/or the belief (whether literal or semi-literal) in Buddhist/Kalachakra teachings on Anthropology could be compared to Evangelist-Christianist ideas by a long shot.

[Lhug-Pa]

Homo floresiensis

Interesting. This planet has seen many types of different hominids (some 'evolutionary' and some 'devolutionary') I'm sure. And contemporary materialistic science keeps having to change their view on how long hominids and humans have been around for, whereas Occult Science has been asserting their/our hundreds of thousands of—even millions of—years' antiquity for a a while now (remember too, that 'time' is 'movement' (on a cosmic scale as well) and is relative; and no observation—scientific or otherwise—is ever separate from the observer, as it is said).

By the way, I'm not trying to sound smart here. Only more or less repeating things that others have said, for discussion's sake.

[Karma Dorje]

Outside of 80's music videos there is no such thing as "devolution" (Are we not men?). Evolution is always in the direction of successful adaptation to an environment. That is how evolution measures "progress". By definition, if a species "devolved" it would be less successfully adapted to its environment and would die out.

[Adamantine]

Outside of 80's music videos there is no such thing as "devolution" (Are we not men?). Evolution is always in the direction of successful adaptation to an environment. That is how evolution measures "progress". By definition, if a species "devolved" it would be less successfully adapted to its environment and would die out.

It was meant as a figure of speech smarty-pants

To be precise, sure you are right, --if our environment continues on it's degenerative path, humans will most likely degenerate to adapt to it.. thus, short, hairy, nasty little imps. Although I do prefer a more optimistic vision for spaceship Earth.

[practitioner]

Interesting how the discussion went from Kali vs. Vajrayogini to Snooki vs. Neanderthal....

[Lhug-Pa]

(Typed my following post before I saw that you also replied Adamantine)

Surely evolving beings don't constantly destroy one another with weapons of mass destruction, spray their food supply with synthetic-pesticides, more or less force synthetic-chemical pills on its populace, fill the air and water supply with mercury, carbon-monoxide and other toxins, build nuclear weapons, and horde as much money as possible while 100's of millions starve (and watch Jersey Shore while it all goes down).

Sharp intellect in itself does not constitute evolution (which I think you mentioned something earlier that would agree with this Karma Dorje). There might be primitive tribes who are both dumb and spiritually stagnant, but I'm sure that there are also primitive tribes who are much more spiritually advanced than the average atheist or church-going suit & tie wearing Joe, and are therefore more evolved (because the latter tribes are not destroying themselves and their surrounding environment, and they also have compassion, even IF they don't cultivate the precise Bodhisattva ideal equal to that of the Buddhist one).

It's quite clear that most humanoids on this planet are currently devolving.

[Lhug-Pa]

Interesting how the discussion went from Kali vs. Vajrayogini to Snooki vs. Neanderthal....

Lol I think it started to go off-track about right here.

Originally I intended to steer towards the origins of the said Deities in relation to the Dravidians (who were likely of the Black race) and the (possibly pre-Shakyamuni) Black Buddhas written about by Godfrey Higgins. Then ended up going into the theory of a possible Dravidian versus 'Aryan' Mahabharata, etc.

[Adamantine]

It's quite clear that most humanoids on this planet are currently devolving.

Well, yeah.. I haven't invested a great deal of time studying evolutionary theory but I imagine there are allowances for population explosions and bottlenecks of everything from virulant plants, insects, and rodents to humans.. any lifeforms that get way out of proportion and balance with the environment can end up altering it drastically, and eventually be the cause for their own demise potentially. I would just assume this must be an aspect of "evolutionary" theory, and if not than it is quite deficient.

On another note, Guru RInpoche's prophecies do seem to be right on target, and I don't think he was subjecting his forward gaze to evolutionary models..
There's theory, and then there's omniscience.. I am aiming for the latter.. for now though I may have to dabble in the former.. sigh

[Lhug-Pa]

On another note, Guru RInpoche's prophecies do seem to be right on target, and I don't think he was subjecting his forward gaze to evolutionary models..
There's theory, and then there's omniscience.. I am aiming for the latter.. for now though I may have to dabble in the former.. sigh

I'm with ya on that. And I'm sometimes distracted by theorizing too much, when I ought to be more focused in my studies (because theorizing—whether intellectually or "spiritually"—is generally within the realm of Avidya, right?)

"Those who are incapable of raising the fire of the spinal medulla through their sushumna channel will be cast down into a lateral kingdom similar to that of today’s apes."

What the above famous 20th-Century Alchemist seems to be implying, is that most of those who fail spiritually will not necessarily take rebirth in the hell and/or Preta Lokas right away, but will pay karma in such rebirths eventually, after first transmigrating gradually in a devolutionary fashion (of course many people are probably experiencing a Hell or Preta condition while physically embodied as Homo-Sapien humanoids in this very life).

[Malcolm]

It's quite clear that most humanoids on this planet are currently devolving.

Well, yeah.. I haven't invested a great deal of time studying evolutionary theory but I imagine there are allowances for population explosions and bottlenecks of everything from virulant plants, insects, and rodents to humans.. any lifeforms that get way out of proportion and balance with the environment can end up altering it drastically, and eventually be the cause for their own demise potentially. I would just assume this must be an aspect of "evolutionary" theory, and if not than it is quite deficient.

On another note, Guru RInpoche's prophecies do seem to be right on target, and I don't think he was subjecting his forward gaze to evolutionary models..
There's theory, and then there's omniscience.. I am aiming for the latter.. for now though I may have to dabble in the former.. sigh

"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

[Nighthawk]

I've always thought hindu gods were mythical creations of the hindu mind. Surprised a lot of Buddhists take them very seriously.

[mindyourmind]

I've always thought hindu gods were mythical creations of the hindu mind. Surprised a lot of Buddhists take them very seriously.

New to Buddhism then, are you?

[Nighthawk]

I've always thought hindu gods were mythical creations of the hindu mind. Surprised a lot of Buddhists take them very seriously.

New to Buddhism then, are you?

Not at all. I knew there was always a belief in gods but didn't get too deeply into it. I'm new to Vajrayana which seems to go into depth with these gods, particularly the hindu ones.