A Buddhist Philosophy Of Evolution

[camerata]

But organic things are comprised of the exact same matter as the inorganic, so is consciousness itself a property of the individual or the universe at large? Is evolution evidence of the universe itself attempting to awaken?

It's a real stretch to imagine the cosmos as an intelligent entity or organism that is self-aware. While I can easily conceptualize every thing in the cosmos as being One, it's much harder to fit individual thought processes into that model. Are we to believe that the thought processes of every sentient being are part of a unified cosmic intelligence? In specific instances, such as scientists collaborating on a project, those intelligences do seem to function as a whole, but that isn't the general case.

But perhaps from the Buddhist perspective, non-duality embraces thoughts as well as things.

[Screws]

to which the Buddha is often recorded as replying 'This question tends not to edification.'

I'll drink to that.

[leolibby]

It's a real stretch to imagine the cosmos as an intelligent entity or organism that is self-aware.

But in Buddhism, isn't something an impersonal order or intelligence? isn't it dharma?

[camerata]

I'm not sure what you mean. In Mahayana Buddhism there is an idea that all things are "mind-made," but I don't think that applies to Theravada. Basically, all phenomena have the quality of sunyata (emptiness), but not intelligence, AFAIK.

[leolibby]

I mean the brahman effulgence

[Several]

But organic things are comprised of the exact same matter as the inorganic, so is consciousness itself a property of the individual or the universe at large? Is evolution evidence of the universe itself attempting to awaken?

It's a real stretch to imagine the cosmos as an intelligent entity or organism that is self-aware. While I can easily conceptualize every thing in the cosmos as being One, it's much harder to fit individual thought processes into that model. Are we to believe that the thought processes of every sentient being are part of a unified cosmic intelligence? In specific instances, such as scientists collaborating on a project, those intelligences do seem to function as a whole, but that isn't the general case.

But perhaps from the Buddhist perspective, non-duality embraces thoughts as well as things.

True. But I'm not speculating that all matter is aware, but that consciousness may be a property of the universe. Like electricity or matter. It is loss of ego and desire that mark the higher mind. Our senses perceive that we are at a certain location, but as Buddhists we are not to be attached to that either. What does become of a Buddha? Does he go somewhere, or does all going cease due to non locality. Does he retain a sense of individuality or totality? Sorry for going off track a little here, I do not think that consciousness itself can evolve any more than lines of magnetic force can. However the perceiving/thinking beings evolve increasingly complex means to process information cerebrally. Our ideas evolve, our experience of mindfulness can develop, but consciousness itself? Nah.

So what I'm proposing, just as an idea (just an idea science boys), is that the universe is also comprised of consciousness but that it is only aware in organic beings (leaving Devas and the like to one side for the moment).

[huli]

I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.

As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.

[rockyysdt]

I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.

As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.

Correct.

One can't have mind without body and a body can't function without mind.

Mind and body are inseparable.

As the Buddha said:

For each of us:

I declare that it is in this fathom—

long carcass, with its perceptions

and thoughts, that there is the world, the

origin of the world, the cessation of the

world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world.

(Anguttara Nikaya 4:45)

Whilst we dwell in the physical, we can never know the metaphysical.

Much better to concentrate on the practice (Wisdom, Ethical Conduct, & Concentration), and in time one may achieve personal experience (Awakening).

Who knows.

This may involve the metaphysical, or may simply be a physical state free from aversion, greed and delusion.

The religiously enclined grasp for Nibanna (Buddhist heaven), whilst others see it as the perfect mortal state one can develop.

There has been some level of disagreement in past posts, but Nibanna the verb suggests we do.

Rather than go to Nibanna the place, are are Nibanna ing suggesting a practice, rather than something one arrives at.

There is only one way to find out.

Edited July 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

You're right Huli. I just like to theorise wildly. I also like Star Wars. I've never heard of a Buddhist evolutionary theory, and have heard the same as another post here that some monks believe human and the universe have always been here. Always will be. I was also told that different animals are the result of different Kammas, too much thinking about sex, violence or greed will get you born as a beastie with corresponding attributes. I believe science is still discovering things about the process they term evolution, so the jury is still out.

Which, oddly enough, brings me to genetic manipulation. To cut straight past my usual prattle, I think it is wrong view, wrong thought and wrong action to be messing with the apparent evolutionary process unless you want to go and do it on the moon. Until you're sure of the consequences that is. Discuss.

[canuckamuck]

The trickiness of evolution is that you have a karmaless state, pre animal, and then you end up with beings burdened by karma.

This to me seems like a universal error, when there was already a perfect state previously.

[rockyysdt]

You're right Huli. I just like to theorise wildly. I also like Star Wars. I've never heard of a Buddhist evolutionary theory, and have heard the same as another post here that some monks believe human and the universe have always been here. Always will be. I was also told that different animals are the result of different Kammas, too much thinking about sex, violence or greed will get you born as a beastie with corresponding attributes. I believe science is still discovering things about the process they term evolution, so the jury is still out.

Which, oddly enough, brings me to genetic manipulation. To cut straight past my usual prattle, I think it is wrong view, wrong thought and wrong action to be messing with the apparent evolutionary process unless you want to go and do it on the moon. Until you're sure of the consequences that is. Discuss.

My limited experience, whilst on retreat was that, when we are deprived of sensory stimulation (PC's, phones, radio, tv, interaction with others, money, camera, responsibilities, hobbies, travel, restaurants, sex, singing), the mind (ego) just doesn't want to let go.

I found my mind, deprived of the normal ego supporting experiences, ran riot in my mind.

This included rifling through my memory as well as contemplating the future.

My mind, refusing to give an inch, would constantly override concentration of the breathe so powerfully that it became a real challange even to focus on three breathes.

This went for days and nearly broke me.

In the end, I gave up on practice and focused on getting the conditions right.

Not trying to meditate, but by attending to the conditions (posture, mindset, & breathe - anapanasiti) soon brought results.

Edited July 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

The trickiness of evolution is that you have a karmaless state, pre animal, and then you end up with beings burdened by karma.

This to me seems like a universal error, when there was already a perfect state previously.

"Long is the way, and hard, that from hell leads up to the light." Milton.

When the organic beings and the denizens of other Lokas, ghosts and demons, exhaust their Kamma they can be born into a state where a shot at Nibanna is possible. Did this human form always exist, or did it evolve to be the hairless monkey it is today. Thats my dilemma.

Or one of them. I know exactly what you mean Rockyy. I sometimes wonder if the armies of Mara at Buddhas Nibanna were like the memories and fantasies that assail the attention when the external stimuli have dried up. I treat them as unimportant, just Nama, as much as I can and try to avoid their progressing into emotion, desire, suffering, Kamma. The dependent origination. No matter what the drama between the ears, nothing is more important than letting it go. The arrows may turn to flowers, but are they not also unimportant?

[Xangsamhua]

I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.

As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.

In Theravada, consciousness is equated to cognizance, an activity of the mind. In Mahayana, at least in some schools, consciousness underpins mental activity. It may be manifested or unmanifested as phenomena. It may be regarded as the primordial nature of being or as fundamental and total awareness - the "reality body of the Buddha", Dharmakaya (if I understand it right). It seems remarkably close to Brahman.

[huli]

I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.

As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.

In Theravada, consciousness is equated to cognizance, an activity of the mind. In Mahayana, at least in some schools, consciousness underpins mental activity. It may be manifested or unmanifested as phenomena. It may be regarded as the primordial nature of being or as fundamental and total awareness - the "reality body of the Buddha", Dharmakaya (if I understand it right). It seems remarkably close to Brahman.

If I am not mistaken, the Hindu belief is that there exists a universal consciousness, and we are each a part of this or, more correctly, are, as Atman is to Brahman. This is absolutely not a teaching of Buddha, to whom consciousness is only individual and fleeting. As you note, it seems the Mahayana have reverted back towards the Hindu as far as "consciousness" goes.

And Brahman seems remarkably close to God The Father, but Xangsamhua would know more about that.

The overall trend is for most religions to frame a human life in a big comprehensive picture of deities or consciousness, which is probably appealing because it strengthens the individual ego. In Buddhism as I understand it, the only issue is the individual human mind.

[leolibby]

If I am not mistaken, the Hindu belief is that there exists a universal consciousness, and we are each a part of this or, more correctly, are, as Atman is to Brahman. This is absolutely not a teaching of Buddha, to whom consciousness is only individual and fleeting. As you note, it seems the Mahayana have reverted back towards the Hindu as far as "consciousness" goes.

Correct. That universal consiousness is paramatma.... congruent to the Holy spirit in christianity (it seems). Paramatma is the intermediate between the impersonal brahman effluegence, and the personal form of God, Bhagavan -- Hindus believe one of these 3 are GOD (brahma, Vishnu, Shiva), and all the other dieties are merely aspects of one of those 3... Bhagavan would be congruent to Jesus. Krishna (bhagavan) is an avatar of Vishnu. Sound familiar? Hindu scholars also believe Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu.

When I was trained how to do transcendental meditation, I was told basically that the subconscience, or a non-thinking state, is paramatma.

Mostly, Hindus identify shiva as God because (he/she/it) brings change... I think kali is shhiva's wife (hence kali is an aspect of shiva)

Edited July 24, 2012 by leolibby

[Xangsamhua]

If I am not mistaken, the Hindu belief is that there exists a universal consciousness, and we are each a part of this or, more correctly, are, as Atman is to Brahman. This is absolutely not a teaching of Buddha, to whom consciousness is only individual and fleeting. As you note, it seems the Mahayana have reverted back towards the Hindu as far as "consciousness" goes.

At this stage in my understanding I'd say you're right, Huli, though there may be some difference between fundamental "being" (asti = esseity) and total, primordial awareness ("Buddha Mind"). Perhaps the latter is more procedural, proceeding from formlessness and not itself the fundamental essence from which all existence derives.

Brahman as the "ground of being" is not an unfamiliar concept in Christianity, and Vishnu as the "God beyond God" is a well-known Christian concept also, often associated with the theology of Paul Tillich, but in ancient times with that of the Gnostics. In Vaishnava theology, Vishnu is the ultimate being and Brahma the demi-god who creates the worlds. This is the Brahma who pops up in the Pali suttas from time to time.

I'm just learning about yogic Mahayana and Hinduism (esoteric and exoteric), so I may have it wrong. I'm working on it, but don't quote me.

[Several]

o if there is an impersonal universal ocean of consciousness then evolution in humans is adapting to access more of it. I mean in evolutionary terms the tiger shark is a far more advanced being than a human. Seven senses, skin that increases its speed in water among other things. Physically comparing a tiger shark to a human is like comparing a ferrari to a morris minor. But the driver of each vehicle (read consciousness) is the opposite.

Also if the universe is holostic and each point contains every other point then indeed we need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass' for any answer or experience. And if consciousness is an aggregate, what does it aggregate from? Do we create it, or have we evolved to access more of it?

[huli]

o if there is an impersonal universal ocean of consciousness then evolution in humans is adapting to access more of it. I mean in evolutionary terms the tiger shark is a far more advanced being than a human. Seven senses, skin that increases its speed in water among other things. Physically comparing a tiger shark to a human is like comparing a ferrari to a morris minor. But the driver of each vehicle (read consciousness) is the opposite.

Also if the universe is holostic and each point contains every other point then indeed we need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass' for any answer or experience. And if consciousness is an aggregate, what does it aggregate from? Do we create it, or have we evolved to access more of it?

Well, we certainly don't create consciousness. I think Buddha said it appears when conditions are right, when a functional body and mind exist.

Have we evolved to access more of it? Not according to Buddha, he said consciousness is one of the 5 aggregates, or parts, of a human being.

Where does consciousness aggregate from? Do you mean where does it come from? This is beyond the scope of Buddhist thought. I believe Buddha said that to seek an answer to such a question will drive a person crazy, or something similar.

Even the idea that the universe is holistic could hardly be considered Buddhist as Buddha was only interested in explaining personal issues, suffering etc.

thanks for the opportunity for dialogue, just my comments, for what they are worth

[rockyysdt]

o if there is an impersonal universal ocean of consciousness then evolution in humans is adapting to access more of it. I mean in evolutionary terms the tiger shark is a far more advanced being than a human. Seven senses, skin that increases its speed in water among other things. Physically comparing a tiger shark to a human is like comparing a ferrari to a morris minor. But the driver of each vehicle (read consciousness) is the opposite.

Also if the universe is holostic and each point contains every other point then indeed we need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass' for any answer or experience. And if consciousness is an aggregate, what does it aggregate from? Do we create it, or have we evolved to access more of it?

Judging by some of the Buddhas teaching, our consciousness appears to be illusory.

The Buddha said there is nothing solid or enduring inside such as spirit or soul.

We have sensory devices and the ability to experience through these, we have memory, and we have moment to moment events, like frames of a movie, each giving birth to the next.

Each frame arising and moving to the next, so quickly, that it gives the illusion of consciousness.

Perhaps a product of evolution, survival, coupled with memory we are left with the illusion of an entitiy (soul, spirit) within our bodies.

There is nothing solid or enduring within, as experience and memory changes with time.

We need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass', as sensory contact, memory and mind are no longer supported without body.

Taking literally what was written in a language no longer used is fraught with traps.

Lets imagine for example the Buddha spoke in English and over 2,500 years English became a dead language.

Then visualize a Dharmic translater taking literally, "he was pulling my leg" when determining a practice.

We sit still, mindfully observing the breathe, whilst someone pulls on our leg.

Was the Buddha always literal or did he take the mickey out of closed mindedness of the day.

Edited July 24, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

o if there is an impersonal universal ocean of consciousness then evolution in humans is adapting to access more of it. I mean in evolutionary terms the tiger shark is a far more advanced being than a human. Seven senses, skin that increases its speed in water among other things. Physically comparing a tiger shark to a human is like comparing a ferrari to a morris minor. But the driver of each vehicle (read consciousness) is the opposite.

Also if the universe is holostic and each point contains every other point then indeed we need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass' for any answer or experience. And if consciousness is an aggregate, what does it aggregate from? Do we create it, or have we evolved to access more of it?

Well, we certainly don't create consciousness. I think Buddha said it appears when conditions are right, when a functional body and mind exist.

Have we evolved to access more of it? Not according to Buddha, he said consciousness is one of the 5 aggregates, or parts, of a human being.

Where does consciousness aggregate from? Do you mean where does it come from? This is beyond the scope of Buddhist thought. I believe Buddha said that to seek an answer to such a question will drive a person crazy, or something similar.

Even the idea that the universe is holistic could hardly be considered Buddhist as Buddha was only interested in explaining personal issues, suffering etc.

thanks for the opportunity for dialogue, just my comments, for what they are worth

Huli: "I believe Buddha said that to seek an answer to such a question will drive a person crazy, or something similar."

Well, indeed, we might all go crazy if we keep this up. But to add a little to my previous post ... I came across this in The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde (Norbu and Clemente):

"What is clarity? If the essence is "emptiness" this does not mean that nothing exists. When we observe a thought and it disappears, immediately afterwards another thought arises, that might be: 'I am seeking the origin of thought and I find nothing!' This too is a thought, is it not? It is a thought that thinks about the origin of thought. In this way many thoughts can arise continuously. Even though we may be convinced that their essence is emptiness, nevertheless they manifest ceaselessly. "

So all phenomena, including mental phenomena, are aggregates. The question then is what are they aggregates of? Are they simply aggregates of aggregates obeying the laws of causation and dependent origination ad infinitum or is there an underpinning reality, be it divine conscious, Buddha-mind or whatever, that simply is, but lacks form (rupa) because any of the attributes used to describe its "form" are meaningless. Its only attributable state is "emptiness" (shunyata). As it's not nothing, however, ("nothingness" being impossible), and is able to manifest, it has "form" in the Platonic sense that it is has no "existence" that can be described or defined , but it gives rise to (manifests as) things that have existence and attributes. Hence the saying: "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness".

Clear as mud? No wonder the Buddha said "Don't go there!", but even the Buddha couldn't stop the restless urge of the human spirit to push the boundaries and go where angels (and devas and devis) fear to tread.

[rockyysdt]

So all phenomena, including mental phenomena, are aggregates. The question then is what are they aggregates of? Are they simply aggregates of aggregates obeying the laws of causation and dependent origination ad infinitum or is there an underpinning reality, be it divine conscious, Buddha-mind or whatever, that simply is, but lacks form (rupa) because any of the attributes used to describe its "form" are meaningless. Its only attributable state is "emptiness" (shunyata). As it's not nothing, however, ("nothingness" being impossible), and is able to manifest, it has "form" in the Platonic sense that it is has no "existence" that can be described or defined , but it gives rise to (manifests as) things that have existence and attributes. Hence the saying: "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness".

Clear as mud? No wonder the Buddha said "Don't go there!", but even the Buddha couldn't stop the restless urge of the human spirit to push the boundaries and go where angels (and devas and devis) fear to tread.

I was listening to a talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in which he indicated that the aggregates weren't things but activities.

Primarily of mind, they include form, feeling, perception, fabrication and consciousness.

The Buddha was saying that to define yourself (who/what am I?) is to limit yourself, so the question was best ignored.

[Several]

I believe Buddha said that to seek an answer to such a question will drive a person crazy, or something similar.

Aha! That explains it. (Good discussion though.)

[dutchguest]

I also believe consciousness is a human function and well a specific human achievement that separates us from (other) animals and that makes it possible for humans to become “enlightened” (or awakened if you like that term better). Animals don't have that possibility.

It is evident that in the end the function must consist of material that comes from “the universe”, but that does not mean the universe has a consciousness. This would be the same as saying the universe has eyes or legs because these consist also of material that comes from the universe. It is i.m.o. the highest function evolution has untill now brought.

The hypothesis that consciousness is immaterial would lead to a dualistic worldview, as in hindoism exists if I understand from the posts above. The problem with the believe in immaterial things (and other fictitious assumptions) is that they cannot be proven right or wrong, as they do not really exist. Buddhism does not deal with fictions but with reality, which can be tested and experienced.

[dutchguest]

To add and come back to the topic of a Buddhist theory of evolution: the function of the consciousness as evolution has brought it to humans may be a necessary one for the survival of the species. I think more and more enlightened persons are needed to save this world and the human species. As it goes now it seems humanity is running right to its doom.

[leolibby]

Scientifically, the neuronal activity in the barin does not explain consciousness. It might be an illusion -- theres a big article on it in wikipedia though. i don't understand how it could be material--it's not.. it's totally incorporeal and abstract, and it can't be proven. Humans have been on the brink of extincion before-- genetically all 8 billion of us come from a small pocket of Humans--about 600. Apparently, there was a huge drought in Africa that pushed humans to the coast, where they lived off shellfish for a long time... to do that, we had to figure out the tides... and the theory is that's how we got to be so intelligent-- the DHA in the shellfish probably helped too.

Edited July 24, 2012 by leolibby

[dutchguest]

Scientifically, the neuronal activity in the barin does not explain consciousness. It might be an illusion -- theres a big article on it in wikipedia though. i don't understand how it could be material--it's not.. it's totally incorporeal and abstract, and it can't be proven. Humans have been on the brink of extincion before-- genetically all 8 billion of us come from a small pocket of Humans--about 600. Apparently, there was a huge drought in Africa that pushed humans to the coast, where they lived off shellfish for a long time... to do that, we had to figure out the tides... and the theory is that's how we got to be so intelligent-- the DHA in the shellfish probably helped too.

Of course it is always possible that the human species disappears, through a meteorite, a nuclear war or other causes. Point is that the raising of the awareness and wisdom can prevent many disasters.

What has the neuronal funtioning of the eye to do with seeing a tree or anything. It is of a different order, idem dito i.m.o. the neuronal functioning of the brain and awareness, may be some kind of quantumleap between them. I do not believe in immaterial fenomena, but I cannot explain the material functioning of awareness, may be some form of energy, electricity, but immaterial things can not exist i.m.o.

[leolibby]

Maybe we have different definitions of material... to me, a thought is incorporeal/immaterial-- it has no physical substance or form. It has a bit of energy, but that energy is non physical and formless. Brain activity emits energy, but consciousnessness is a sensation generated by activity in those bio-chemical pathways... like a side-effect of thought. Consciousness is essentially ego. It is evolutionary. The ego is self-preservation. From what I understand of Buddhism, thoughts don't exist in a way, or they deceive.. causality is an illusion. But I'm an athiest-- so I guess I don't belong in this discussion.

Edited July 24, 2012 by leolibby

[Xangsamhua]

The problem with the believe in immaterial things (and other fictitious assumptions) is that they cannot be proven right or wrong, as they do not really exist. Buddhism does not deal with fictions but with reality, which can be tested and experienced.

Indeed. Buddhism is a rationalist philosophy - until we start talking about nirvana, karma and rebirth.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[huli]

Maybe we have different definitions of material... to me, a thought is incorporeal/immaterial-- it has no physical substance or form. It has a bit of energy, but that energy is non physical and formless. Brain activity emits energy, but consciousnessness is a sensation generated by activity in those bio-chemical pathways... like a side-effect of thought. Consciousness is essentially ego. It is evolutionary. The ego is self-preservation. From what I understand of Buddhism, thoughts don't exist in a way, or they deceive.. causality is an illusion. But I'm an athiest-- so I guess I don't belong in this discussion.

Leolibby

If you are pondering whether Buddhism teaches causality, you would be interested in the Law of Dependent Origination, a major Buddhist teaching.

I would also like to say that IMO athiests fit nicely in a Buddhist discussion, but theists not so much!

Keep it up...

Edited July 24, 2012 by huli

[leolibby]

yup, causality is an illusion.. I read that sometime in 2002. I studied Hinduism more than Buddhism though-- Hindus consider Buddhism to be athieistic.