I have wondered whether aspects of tanha are comparable to evolutionary instincts, like survival instinct. In that sense, you could look at Buddhist practice as a means of transcending instinctual behaviours.
For the record, @ekocare is not wrong in this summary above. The flaging is unjustified.
A bit of correction, Ape is more like cousin, not ancestors of humans. We got a common ancestors.
And it’s most likely deva, rather than Brahma.
So to make sense of Evolution and DN27, one needs to know the nature of deva in scientific terms. Read this for devas as biological aliens: Is Buddhism consistent with Science? - #8 by NgXinZhao
PS. I see that I read it too fast. Sorry. Flagging justified. Buddha and the theory of evolution - #12 by NgXinZhao
To expand on my post above, which I wrote in haste, it does seem as though that is precisely what SN 22.100 is describing. That action on account a mind long-defiled sets the groundwork for manifestation in the animal realm with a physical form most suitable for the proliferation developed previously.
1 Like
Suffering which arises due to our conscious mind, so to understand one, you must understand the other.
Who said it has a “special status”?
the flagging is perfectly justified, suggesting that only those people who believe in evolution are subject to it while people who believe in a piece of religious literature are subject to it is the absolute pinnacle of delusional foolishness, not to mention the height of irony in that claiming the inherent superiority of their own in-group is exactly what the sutta itself condemns:
Both these things occur like this, mixed up in these four castes—the dark and the bright, that which is praised and that which is criticized by sensible people. Yet of this the brahmins say: ‘Only brahmins are the first caste; other castes are inferior. Only brahmins are the light caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not others. Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’
Sensible people don’t acknowledge this. Why is that? Because any mendicant from these four castes who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—is said to be foremost by virtue of principle, not without principle. For principle, Vāseṭṭha, is the first thing for people in both this life and the next.
There are four options here; either evolution is true and Aggaññasutta is false, evolution is false and Aggaññasutta is true, evolution is false and Aggaññasutta is false or evolution is true and Aggaññasutta is true.
@ekocare assertion that the humans who believe in evolution are evolved from apes while the humans who believe in Aggaññasutta are descended from the gods is incoherent gibberish and has been rightly flagged. It is both offensive and foolish.
3 Likes
Oh, sorry. Thanks for clearing it up. I didn’t read properly.
I thought he said that evolution believes people came from apes, and DN27 believes people came from Brahma.
Is believed by… that’s a different meaning due to different grammar. Thanks for the clarification!
3 Likes
No worries! I am in something of a bad mood today, I should try to get less ruffled about these things 
I personally think that there is no incompatibility, and that evolution can account for how rupa develops into such things as vinnana can latch onto, so we can come both from atoms and from gods all at once.
2 Likes
To me Buddhist cosmology looks more “steady state” than “big bang”. It’s always been that way, according to Buddhism, and there is no discernible starting point, or an evolution from simple to complex.
Physics and Buddhism: The Beginning (with some updates to be friendly to all)
Steady state contradicts cosmos expands and contracts. And it’s old. There’s so many cyclic cosmology in Physics nowadays.
Yes, I’m familiar with cosmological theories. One of the first books I read was by Fred Hoyle, a champion of the steady state theory. And generally, I don’t think it’s advisable to compare religious beliefs with scientific theories, it’s trying to compare apples with oranges.
Anyway, what do you think of the observation I made, that Buddhist cosmology looks more steady state than big bang? Agree? Disagree?
Disagree of course, due to the existence of cyclic cosmology which fits into Buddhist cosmological requirements better. Do read the article of my blog. Detailed explanation there, as well as addressing how to compare physics with Buddhism.
I don’t think there is much empirical support for the cyclical model of cosmology, and it remains speculative.
Currently most observations support the “big bang” theory, which sounds more like the creation story in the Old Testament than anything in the Buddhist suttas.
But as I said, trying to validate religious beliefs with scientific theories seems like a pointless exercise.
1 Like
Perhaps I need to explain more.
The steady state model is refuted much worse then non-evidence for cyclic cosmology in favour of the universe being vastly different in characteristics (density, opaqueness, temperature etc) in the far past.
Big Bang theory is the first model on the scene, but it hits a problem at the singularity. The various cyclic cosmology would naturally be designed to fit in the existing cosmological data and avoid the problematic singularity where physical laws breaks down. The current observational data has as much support for Big bang as the various cyclic cosmology which is well modelled. The cyclic cosmology having advantage of not having theoretical difficulty of an initial singularity.
It’s not validating.
Buddhism is concerned a lot about liberation from samsara, mind, dependent origination, so Buddha wasn’t interested in Physics. However, he did from time to time, drop some hints related to the physical world and it would be interesting to see how well does current physics fit or contradicts with the few physics clues from the suttas.
For cosmology, unless samsara is limited to the formless realms for all previous time before this cycle of universe, there must be at least one physical universe before this cycle required by Buddhism. And thus, physics can say something about that. Matching the current best model which is compatible with Buddhist cosmological needs is just a natural comparison. Buddhism is by no means validated by that, as that doesn’t validate 4 Noble truths. We can just say that Buddhism doesn’t have to be inconsistent with current science. And that current science on this issue doesn’t invalidate Buddhist cosmology.
PS. Pointless exercise it is not. It’s especially useful and helpful to total beginners who see the disappointment of fundamental Christians openly being anti-science, that there’s some alternative religion which is not contradicting scientific findings.
And to dispel the common potential misunderstanding of: Buddhism requires no beginning, Physics has Big Bang theory, there’s beginning, therefore Buddhism is wrong. I show that physics doesn’t have Big Bang pinned down, there’s cyclic cosmology, thus one cannot use current Physics cosmology to say that Buddhism is wrong.
1 Like
I’d recommend you have at look at this article about the history of cosmological theories.
The Buddha’s contemporaries in iron-age India had their own ideas about cosmology, and these were closely tied to religious beliefs. But I don’t see the relevance of this stuff to modern Buddhist practice.
Yeah I don’t really like the Aganna Sutta.
The argument that he was telling the story in order to convince Brahmins using their own cosmology I also don’t buy because after all the Buddha is not supposed to lie/deceive and the creation myth he is expounding manages to be more ridiculous than the Abrahamic one.
1 Like
In my opinion, we need to see the Aggana Sutta in the overall spirit of the message, not the letter. In this way, both the Aggana Sutta and biological evolution are describing the same things:
Small unicellular life forms evolving into larger, more complex ones over vast amounts of time, continuing and replicating due to greed for food and pro-creation.
Also, the Buddhist cosmology of course includes the animals, with humans potentially being reborn as animals and vice versa. Evolution confirmed that we are animals too, the main difference just being the degree of intelligence. Biological evolution is completely compatible with Buddhism, in my opinion.
Yes, the Aganna Sutta reads like another far-fetched and convoluted creation myth.
But again, I fail to see how the creation myths of iron-age India are relevant to modern Buddhist practice.
I found this series useful in answering that question.
The Buddhist tradition has created and passed down the world’s oldest and largest body of mythological literature, yet its value is rarely appreciated. Mythologycreates meaning by situating a people in the story of the world. Buddhist mythology teaches us how Buddhist people over the years have struggled to reconcile the pure and exalted teachings of the Buddha with their messy and imperfect lives. These are the stories that don’t make it into the “proper” doctrines: stories of women, of loss, of the dispossessed, of redemption in the most unlikely places. This course draws on multiple modern interpretations of myth to illuminate Buddhist stories, arguing that mythology deserves a central place in our understanding of how we, as people inspired by the Buddha’s teachings, can learn from those who have come before. Bhante Sujato, the respected teacher and scholar of early Buddhism, will lead the course, which runs for four two-hour evening sessions over four weeks.
1 Like
For practitioners who already have faith, no issue.
For practitioners who are investigating Buddhism, to obtain faith, it’s kinda important that Buddhism makes logical sense, internally consistent, and if possible, consistent with the best model of cosmology available that fits observational data of the universe.
Rebirth being central to Buddhism either has a first life or not. If there’s a first life, we have contradiction with the dependent origination of emergence from nothing, the ignorance doesn’t have a previous life chain of ignorance. So rebirth is without discernable beginning. Unless at some point, we all were formless beings to infinite past, beginningless rebirth requires physical universe, ideally to beginningless cosmology too.
Thus the best fit model from physics indeed depends on the social/religious/political, etc forces which shapes the view. Today it’s objectivity, observational data, general relativity, science. And if we were talking about this a few decades ago for steady state vs Big bang theory, indeed, there can be embarrassment if Buddhists choose to favour steady state due to wanting no beginning. Turns out steady state is wrong.
So cyclic multiverse is still the best possible fit, and if physics cosmology should one day evolves to a form which is incompatible with Buddhism, maybe then we might want to reevaluate that there’s some data yet which would change their theories to be a better fit. Regardless, science although has models which keeps on changing, there’s still a notion that it gets closer and closer to the truth, and likely the changes would stop at some point. Eg. Earth is round (oval shaped) is basically not going to be undergoing any more changes, until earth melts in the Red Giant of the sun.
So you’re hoping that modern cosmology theory eventually resembles the creation myths of people in iron-age India?
IMO what is important for new Buddhist practitioners is that the practices they’re taught are effective in removing suffering. I think it’s about liberating insight, and not about adjusting one’s beliefs, or taking on a new set of views, or whatever.
As for “faith”, isn’t it more important to have confidence in our practice methods, rather than hoping that “science” might eventually validate some aspects of our belief system?
1 Like