Is 'evolution' still acceptable?

I think the general principle of conditionality in the suttas could be applied to the theory of evolution.
“When this is, that is…With the arising of this, that arises.”

2 Likes

:rofl:


Evolution certainly makes more sense than the Agganna Sutta

3 Likes

There are some people who still think that, the values ​​of ‘truth’ written in texts that are considered sacred, have a higher value and defeat the values ​​of scientific discovery, so when there is a conflict between the statements written in the texts with discoveries in the scientific field, people will ignore scientific discoveries, I disagree with them. There is always the possibility, even it is very large, that scientific theories supported by discoveries in the field, have higher truth values ​​than religious dogmas that are not tested…

These are all just views and opinions. No truth, nothing permanent… We all have them :slight_smile: But this forum isn’t the place to get into relative merits of opinions.

Metta

:anjal::dharmawheel:

3 Likes

Forgive me but, as far as I learn about Buddhism, the Buddha once said that there are two kinds of truth, one is a conventional truth, it’s called by the term 'Sammuti Sacca, and the other one is an ultimate truth, it’s called by the term Paramattha Sacca. To some extent we can assume that the scientific theory is a conventional truth. :slightly_smiling_face:

In which sutta(s)?

To some extent we can assume that the scientific theory is a conventional truth.

Was there specific reference to science as being “conventional truth”?

Why can we Make this assumption?

Science is not static; is (conventional) truth therefore as changeable and changing? Does specialist consensus define Truth?

Perhaps we wander far from the OP. Mods, happy to delete this comment if not appropiate.

2 Likes

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sammuti-sacca#buddhism

You say that, here I quote :

‘Science is not static; is ( conventional ) truth therefore as changeable and changing ?. Does the consensus specialist define Truth ?’

It is not a matter that conventional truth are the truth that are constantly changing, but the matter here is how the way to look at facts.

For example, if to be said that, there are two kinds of truth, one is conventional truth, like our concept of ‘Water’, ( sammuti sacca ), and there is ultimate truth, like the atomic particles ( paramattha sacca ), so as conventional truth we will say it as ‘Water’, but as an ultimate truth will say it as an atomic particles, H 2 O ( because water is actually a compound of the atomic particles of 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen atoms )…

These are two different perspectives on the same fact, the absolute reality will remain the same, even though our perspective on it continues to change, and it is true, the scientific theories will continue to change because new facts are discovered or the new understanding are discovered, but the absolute reality outside those concepts, outside those constantly changing perpective never changes.

Thank You…:slightly_smiling_face:

i respectfully opt out of this “we”; this is not something i can rightfully say.

Thank you for answering one of the questions. It’s ok to skip the rest imo.

1 Like

I doubt even absolute truth is considered ‘absolute’ according to the Dhamma. For it to be absolute, conventional truth would have to be lie, ontological reality would have to be outright rejected. Buddhism is not a search for that kind of ‘Truth’ but a search for what is knowable. The end result of that search is letting go, at the deepest levels -that the purpose of searching for Truth and not an accurate description of everything that exists.

4 Likes

Forgive me sir, when we use such expressions as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘person’, ‘individual’, we are speaking about things which do not exist in reality. By using such expressions about things which exist only in designation, we are not telling a lie; we are merely speaking an apparent truth, making use of conventional language, without which no communication will be possible.

But the Ultimate Truth is that there is no ‘person’, ‘individual’ or ‘I’ in reality. There exist only khandhas made up of corporeality, mind ( consciousness ) and mental concomitants. These are real, the same as I meant before, like ‘Water’ and ‘Compounds of 1 atom of Hydrogen and 2 atoms of Oxygen’.

Thank you.

I don’t know what “absolute reality” means. Even trying to define “reality” is a can of worms!

In any case we only experience a fraction of what is potentially “out there”, due to the limitations of our physical senses and intellect. And a space alien’s “reality” might be quite different to ours.

Indeed. Apples and oranges. Actually I think there are some similarities between Buddhist insight practice and the scientific method, but the context and scope are very different.

Questions like this used to drive me mad. Then I slowly started to understand that (for me) knowing enough, is good enough.

4 Likes

What is the absolute reality ?, I think it’s the ‘true reality which does exists beyond what we think about it’, if Einstein said it that ‘Reality is merely an illusion’, then the illusion itself is the absolute reality…:slightly_smiling_face: