HOW JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SECTS TOGETHER WITH DARWINISM ASPHYXIATED THE GLOBAL CIVILISATION (Part II of II)
Posted on January 5th, 2015
Mahinda Weerasinghe The Author of ‘The Origin of Species According To the Buddha’
Part II Buddhist “Sensory Becoming” principle contra Darwin’s “Natural Selection”
Extraordinarily enough, it is taken for granted that, it is through Darwin’s famous work ‘The Origin of Species’ that the world first stumbled upon the evolutionary process of species and its shadowy workings. Indeed now these Darwinians were promoting that we swap these fatalistic ‘magical’ creeds of the Judeo-Christian verity with this newly revealed ‘Scientific’ mechanistic one, of theirs.
Darwinists are absolutely convinced that ‘natural selection’ is a ‘scientific theory’, just as the true believers are of the opinion that their ‘Good Lord’ has created all creatures in their present form once and for all.
If they are so convinced that the Darwinian Theory is a ‘scientific fact’, then, they should lobby to get it accepted as a universal principle that covers the affairs of men and nations. In other words, they should insist that UN should stop interfering in the tribal wars of annihilation and genocide. Surely the ‘fittest’ after such elimination processes will produce the victors who should go on to procreate and send their types further in time and space. In fact such ‘genocidal massacres of extermination’, should not be interfered with, by the well established and well remunerated peace industry of the UN.
Surely Darwinists are not nursing a ridiculous notion that the human species is a ‘special creation’ by some sadistic ‘God’ and should be made the exception to that ‘tooth and claw’ rule of the ‘survival of the fittest’.
In fact Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, present honest opinion, when, basing himself on the (Darwinian dictates) claims that, “more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless”. Darwinism teaches “that our lives are brief and inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of things” and that life has no ultimate purpose because there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and “nothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial spirits, or a special creation of species”. Raymo, Chet. 1998. Skeptics and True Believers. New York, NY: Walker (Page 110)
That eminent evolutionary, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, is in total agreement with this opinion, for it seems that, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. Indeed, since Darwinism has demolished the belief that the universe and human beings have an ultimate purpose, our educational system must inculcate young people in “cold and clammy truths like descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestors”. Simpson, George Gaylord. 1970. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Page 345)
Dawkins the ‘bull dog’ of Darwinism insist that evolution “has shown higher purpose to be an illusion” and that the Universe consists of “selfish genes;” consequently, “some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason for it”. “A Scientist’s Case Against God,”
In fact when they invoke such hyperbole they have lost sight of the broader picture. As they have hitched their wagon to the Darwinian ‘natural selection’ only to arrive at this ‘rational analysis of aimlessness and meaninglessness’ of existence. If I were to own such an outlook of life i.e., being aimless, hopeless, purposeless, and not worth to keep breathing on, I would forthwith terminate my existence, as it is not worth the struggle! But these pundits who are offering such nihilistic claims have not given up on life themselves. On the contrary, they are enjoying life and clinging to their dear life at all cost. Under the circumstance promotion of emptiness is bizarre to say the least.
In fact the intelligent world today accepts that, there is no hell or heaven in some unknown coordinates in space because those conditions are found here on earth. They acknowledge there are no soul, no creator, and no heaven. In fact they have to accept the fact that all compounds are unstable and are in a state of flux. But Darwinian view is hard for such people sallow due to its very mechanistic nature not forgetting all of those unanswered questions.
Indeed in the Part I, I have pointed out that Darwinian version of evolution could not offer ‘a universal definition of a species’ couldn’t specify how ‘speciation is triggered’ of a higher taxa. In fact they were unable to offer a viable explanation to a simple question such as ‘why did primitive man dropped his bodily hair when he stood up’? So how in the world can they claim to be scientific before answering such basic and fundamental issues?
Why, indeed did human animal develop such a perfect body-mind mechanism, and exposed themselves to a multitude of hazards which in time would threatens their very survival especially when they were able to procreate ‘to their hearts content’ and find no threat from any external agency? Only threat we find is threat of ‘implosion’ due to over population, and this from within and not without. As examples, I can point to the Muslim states such as Pakistan, Bangladesh indeed Egypt. In the good old days they killed all Buddhists and took over the countries and started reproducing, today UN is blocking such ‘genocidal wars of extermination’ for such exterminators will be exterminated in turn if they cross the borders ‘on holy wars’ in the name of Allah. Soon in such Muslim states, it will be ‘survival of the fittest’ all right, but within the given, enclosed and contained borders. This is happening as we speak and will increase dramatically as their numbers grow.
Scientist find that language learning is what separates humans from other species. Human infant, it seems is a language soaking machine. Paradoxically, many animals have a rich conceptual systems and ways of visualizing the world, with rich and complex social relationships. Yet they lack a system through which they can express and convey their inner most feelings, sentiments and thoughts.
Human hearing differs dramatically from all other apes. The relevant acoustic nuances in a spoken language are so subtle, that these are impossible for them to perceive, distinguish and register. Perhaps this handicap may help explain chimp’s relative insensitiveness vis-à-vis verbal intercourse.
Even human eye has been designed expeditiously for the purpose of visual communication. The widely exposed white sclera (white of the eye) surrounding the darker iris makes it easy for onlookers to discern the direction of gaze, a characteristically human trait, which other primates have found unnecessary to develop. Such findings indicate: (1) the exposed white sclera is void of pigmentation; (2) humans possess the largest ratio of exposed sclera in the eye-outline; (3) the eye out-outline is extraordinarily elongated in the horizontal direction.
Comparison of eye coloration and facial coloration around the eye suggest that, the dark coloration of exposed sclera of non-human primates is an adaptation to conceal the direction of gaze from targeted individuals and/or predators, and that the white sclera enhances the gaze signal. The uniqueness of human eye morphology among primates illustrates the unbridgeable gap that exists between humans and other primates.
Brain size is another obvious dissimilarity the scientists have now stumbled upon. Instrumented with it, we govern the involuntary and voluntary functions, the sensory perceptions, memory, emotions, consciousness, and intelligence. Darwinists are still to clarify the purpose of this unusually large human brain and how it facilitates “natural selection”.
A recent study exposes the difficulties evolutionary biologists are faced with, when they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by natural processes. They studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and established, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities. In the words of one investigator: ” To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits. This type of rapid and extensive genetic turn over makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this type of rapid evolution should be catastrophic”.
Walker and Shipman inform that out of all mammals save one, the human brain grows rapidly during gestation, but then grows less rapidly after birth. What humans have accomplished by this is, the stratagem of keeping the brain growing at the embryonic rate for an added year subsequent to birth. As a result, its independence is sacrificed while exposing the infant to all sorts of hazards. No wonder we find human infant has to be nursed, pampered and protected for a minimum of two years post birth, an interval so extraordinarily stretched in survival terms that, if other primates were to imitate, they would simply be committing evolutionary hari-kari.
Researchers are now of the opinion that infants are simply born too early in their development. The ‘premature birth’ aids the offspring to glide through their mothers’ birth canals effortlessly. If contrary, be the case, human procreation then will dry up fast. Every other primate doubles their brain weight from birth to adulthood. But due to the early birth, humans triple their brain’s growth rate. In fact, this adds 12 months of “foetal” growth outside the womb, a period filled with pitfalls and perils. Such a prolonged childhood, burdens the parents with the added task of monitoring, feeding and rendering the infant the much-needed security, though it also establishes a close physical and emotional relationship with its parents.
Such findings do not help adherents of the Darwinian version of evolution. Their protagonists challenge and ask why should natural selection produce such impractical relatively hairless, white skinned Caucasian race of humans with an in-built inability to fend for itself?
Internet is proliferating with all sorts of novel findings, anomalies and peculiarities that fly in the face of Darwinian version of evolution. I will touch a few of these obvious ones with a minimum of elaboration. Those who are keen for more information can access these on the net.
Creationists enumerate, a few obvious “advantages” that humans have over the lower primates: larger brain size, speech/language, communicative eyes, and bipedal locomotion. Based on this they ask (And go on to challenge): how does each of these influence “an individual’s reproductive success”, especially if we are talking about many “micro mutations” over a prolonged interval? Indeed what great benefits/advantages are there in a 0.01% larger, brain size, 0.01% greater speech ability, 0.01% more communicative eyes and 0.01% more bipedal locomotion, for the individual in the “survival of the fittest” scheme of things? Silence by these evolutionary luminaries is simply deafening!
No wonder proponents of “magical creation” categorize these features simply as “fortuitous mutations ” or “macro mutations”! There are many other puzzles Darwinists side step, such as how and why did man loose his body hair. An explanation compatible with “natural selection” is yet to be put forward.
Indirectly though, some investigators are converging on a logical explanation, though still without grasping its implications. They are now beginning to conclude that sexuality may be a reason. In fact, the subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris, who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay, extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that the human female is always ‘in heat’, though she can conceive only during a few days each month. All these observable facts are absolutely incompatible with the Darwinian version of producing its proto-types, so that the copies can be sent out in time and space, for what earthly reason that “their duplicates” be scattered in time and space, is also quite hazy.
Now investigators are homing in on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any living primate. The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery which is ‘unanswered by science’, a point which is echoed by Jared Diamond: “… we descend to a glaring failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate Theory of Penis Length… astonishing as it seems, important functions of the human penis remain obscure.” (Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality by Diamond, Jared).
No wonder, four out of ten Americans find it hard to believe that they are related to the apes. Thanks to the half-baked Darwinian version of evolution, we find creationist going round the country propagating that the good Lord has created, man as man, and pig as pig.
Yet eventually Darwinists will need to confront a still more vital question. Why did the chimp execute such a profound genetic restructuring and emerged as a human? Was it purely through a haphazard accidental process? Though at this point of history it looks to me as if ‘this fittest’ primate will succumb within the next half a millennium to a lower form of existence, but the chimp probably may limp on further.
Any accounting evolutionists’ offers should obviously be compatible with their ‘gradualness of evolution’ hypothesis. We are inundated with literature, clarifying theoretically how mutation and speciation occur, utilizing abstract words and phrases, specially coined for the purpose. Nevertheless, we remain unenlightened. Earlier evolutionists were of the opinion that mutation would automatically produce new species. That idea has been conveniently dropped now. They claim now “speciation” to mean ‘the acquisition of effective isolating mechanisms’. This was neither here nor there, vague, hollow and slippery as declaring that a square is circular.
So should we assume that, some historical chimp, at some point in time, has accidentally metamorphosed into human by mutating and modifying his genetic machinery? If so, precisely what mechanism transubstantiated the chimp’s genetic code that he acquired the one now we call human? Obviously, one is either equipped with a genome of a chimp or one that is of a man! In other words, one is either, a chimp or is human. When considering this question we also have to keep in mind, the most vital factor: though mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution, a copying error in the cell usually ends in terminal cancer in higher taxa.
With “sensory becoming principle” we don’t end in such bottlenecks. Indeed if we use ‘sensory becoming principle’ as an instrument we pass through effortlessly with flying colors.
However before confronting such issues (questions), I need to reiterate some vital ingredients to the “theory of becoming” basing them on the ‘The Law of Impermanence’, and presented here as the basic firing ingredient initiating the whole process in order to lay a foundation. These will help one to grasp the deeper dictates which under pinned the whole process. Basically being:
- Actions are incited through sensory expediency.
- Sensory extension is as a result of ‘stress and strain’ of the genetic machinery, these triggered through a sensory gratification process.
- Desire and self-centeredness is a core irrepressible egoistical force which is the life force and called by the Buddha craving potential (desire)
- Pleasure and pain principle is the central stimulating force.
When we compound these elements, we clearly are able to identify how the sensory lust subjugated the conditioned body-mind of species and charted the direction of the becoming.
Indeed before I continue I will introduce some core Buddhist concepts dealing with the mechanisms of becoming (evolution).
- Survival we find is only a preamble to what lies beyond it. Indeed the urge for survival is fired by ‘sensory greed’ and the indulgence in these needs is what makes an individual tick.
- Hence an individual’s ‘struggle for survival’ is directly triggered by sensory lust.
- Individuals and groups (species) are in conflict as an outcome of this egoistic, self-centered sensory lust of the individuals in the pack.
- Sensory greed needs satiation which offers gratification and pleasure.
- In order to bring about satisfaction, beings need to commit actions (positive or negative according to necessity and circumstances).
But gratification and pleasure again depends squarely on:
- The conditioned state of mind and body (Conditioning is purely a Buddhist notion in this context.)
- Actions which are controlled, constrained and proportionate to evolutionary status (of species) of the conditioned mind-body mechanism
- Ecological circumstances (resources) current.
- Through efforts of the mind-body mechanism, striving to cater to such sensory needs (actions), Individual’s sensory apparatus is strained, stretched and tested.
- As a consequence of such repetitive stress and strain activity, these will eventually lead to sensory extension (change, reform or becoming) of individuals, and in turn, species itself will be reformed (renewed). In other words a reformed species is bound to emerge. The resultant body and mind may be positive for the future survival of the associated species or terminate in its extinction! (Here lies the vital deference between evolution and becoming, for the first is ‘lucks by chance outcome’ event, and other is a ‘targeted’ outcome.)
The resulting process was named evolution by Darwin and as sensory becoming by the Buddha, a decisive difference in terminology. Note also that sensory greed is not directed towards some sort of an un-targeted progress but fired by immediate self-centered sensory gratification. If now we evaluate the two types of arguments i.e. Natural selection’ contra ‘sensory becoming’ and match them comparatively, we are in for a major shock.
All of the components of Darwin’s theory as outlined earlier in part I, are compatible and can be replaced by those of the sensory becoming theory and it will fit in like a glove.
- The non-constancy of species (Logical according to the law of impermanence)
- The descent of all organisms from a common ancestor. Though there is no direct scriptural statement, this is implicitly expressed in the Aggañña Suttanta (See Chapter II Origin of Species According to the Buddha) and falls under the law of impermanence.
- The gradualness of evolution or even punctuated equilibria (Again not only logical but should occur according to the law of impermanence and change.) Note: Different circumstances will trigger different “becoming” responses.
- The multiplication of species (The sensory greed and its extension and also by geographical isolation of populations should naturally result in the multiplication of species.)
- Natural selection (By itself this is an obscure statement and without meaning even in Darwinian sense.)
Natural selection (By itself this is an obscure statement and without meaning even in Darwinian sense.)
We would breakdown 5 as below: ‑
- A population would increase exponentially if not constrained. (Self centered sensory individuals would reproduce unhindered and egoistically if not contained by natural and ecological causes or due to causes and effects)
- The size of populations remains stable over time. (Depends on the time, the specific location, and self interest of the species.)
- Resources available to every species are limited. (A natural situation and we do not need Darwinians to explain this to us.
- No two individuals are similar. (Absolutely core Buddhist concept; indeed not only two individuals are not identical but indeed an individual himself is also in a dynamic process of transforming according to the Buddha.)
- As a rule the differences are heritable. (Sensory theory concurs.)
As seen, every dictate of the Darwinian concepts can be replaced by the ‘sensory becoming’ and it becomes compatible and naturally explainable, and more comprehensive too, But the reverse is not true. It shows how general the Darwinian statements are.
But unlike “the sensory becoming principle”, Darwin’s theory has major fissures and in order to seal them, they reach back and attach ‘chance’ as a part of the equation. On the other hand sensory becoming goes further and deals with the real world ‘creature qualities’.
In order to make the explanation still plainer, I will now place three quotes from the scriptures, which I have already made use of in my work. Only here I will place them in a logical sequence, that jointly connected it projects a formulation that has never been deciphered or perceived before. Amalgamated in concert these spells out how a new species makes its debut in the world.
First quote answers the core question, what is it that’s born?
“But master Gotama, at the time when a being lays aside this body and rises up again in another body, -what does master Gotama declare to be the fuel for that?”
“At the time, Vaccha, when a being lays aside this body and rises up again in another body, for that I declare Tanha (craving) to be the grasping force (Upā-dana). Indeed, Vaccha, on that occasion Tanha (craving) becomes the grasping force (Upā-dana)”.
(Saṃyutta Nikāya, The Saḷayātana book, iv, 398), translated as The Book of the Kindred Sayings IV by F.L. Woodward).
The second speaks of the actors involved in the creative process, and under what circumstances (field).We hear Buddha explain concisely in, Majjhima Nikāya, Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhayasutta, (I. 265); translated as The Middle Length Sayings 1 by I. B. Horner.
Monks, it is on the conjunction of three things that there is conception. If there is here coitus of the parents, but it is not the mother’s season and the gandhabba is not present for so long there is no conception. If there is here coitus of the parents and it is the mother’s season, but the gandhabba is not present—for so long there is not conception. But if monks, there is here coitus of the parents and it is the mother’s season and the gandhabba is present, it is on the conjunction of these three things that there is conception. Then, monks, the mother for nine or ten months carries the foetus in her womb with great anxiety for her heavy burden. Then, monks, at the end of nine or ten months the mother gives birth with great anxiety for her heavy burden. When it is born, she feeds it with her own life-blood.
Finally the third answers; under what conditions the mind and body is sustained or reformed and extended: – From (Samyutta Nikāya, Cow dung, page 122 translated as The Book of the Kindred Sayings III by F. L. Woodward).
“By attachment to body, brethren, consciousness, if it gets a standing, may persist. With body for its object, with body for its platform, seeking means of enjoyment, it may come by growth, increase, abundance. With the activities for its object, with the activities for its platform, seeking a means of enjoyment, it may come by growth, increase, abundance.”
We are more than ‘enlightened’ we are stunned by this unique piece of information found veiled in the Buddhist (Pali) scriptures. Not through an intervention by some fictive God, devoid of a soul, not by pure chance, nor by accident that a new species manifest itself. It is geared and fired by a powerful force called ‘craving’ or ‘desire’.
Simply said you are here not due some creation by a ‘God’ or due to some chance genetic lotto, but ‘being’ is a product of sum total of sensory lusts found in at a given moment. To coin an appropriate phase;
Life is nothing but a sensory journey.
And at any given moment the sum total sensory potential (craving) is the ‘being’ at that instant!
Refreshingly, the Buddha did not stoop to utilize fancy expressions to expound these subtle mechanisms of speciation. It simply staggers our imagination that he offered this groundbreaking (and more than modern) concept, well over 2550 years ago.
Then individual’s life is nothing but ‘a reflection of the sensory status’ at the given moment. Therein actions are fired by the very ‘sensory greed’.
So let us get a closer look at the nuts and bolts of this incredible explanation offered 2550 years ago and try to explain the ‘un-explainable’ in Darwin’s one.
Can one hit upon a definition for a species using the ‘sensory becoming principle’? Indeed we can. Obviously the Buddha was not specifically lecturing or offering definitions, but was only answering to an immediate query raised by an inquirer. Hence I could not find a definition in the Buddhist scripture for a species per se. Hence I have attempted to formulate a definition based on his uttering on the sensory becoming.
I would not attempt to define ‘Sensory Mechanism’ as it would be a specialized subject in itself. But simply use for the propose of this study the following; The sense organs — eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose — which would help experience the environment and react to it in order to cater to its gratificational needs while balancing for survival.
Accordingly, the following definition is proposed.
“A species can be defined by the uniqueness of its sensory makeup.”
Indeed, it is the sensory makeup that differentiates one species from another. This definition is tenable and universal. Today with our advanced technology we can make this definition stick. For we find all species are specialized, and recognize these needs by their body mind mechanism acting in order to gratify such needs. How, by using their sensory mechanism, which would be the mind-body reacting to the environment.
Equipped with this astonishing explanation we can readily confront that thorny question as to how speciation was brought about in higher taxa. (Taxon – a specific category or unit used in the biological system of animal and plant classification that groups organisms by factors common to each).
We now can unequivocally declare that, a newly formed Y species is initially shaped in the womb of an individual mother of an existing X species. In other words, “a chimp’s mother at some point in the history of evolution has given birth to a human with a specific human genome. Thus, logically, establishing that there was a process of a ‘human becoming’ within the womb of the chimp.”
No wonder the Buddha used the word ‘becoming’ instead of ‘evolution’ to explain this convoluted process. It is at the point of “becoming” that “evolution” suspends it long process and transforms instantly into the new state of being.
(Speciation According to the Buddha has been formulated by me and presented by 24-06-2005)
Now we realize why scientist can never answer the question of speciation satisfactorily, and I bet they never will, because the answer can only be fathomed through the mind’s eye. It can never be discovered through an experimental process in a lab.
Then logically, if going by the non-technical doctrine of the Buddha, the extension of the genetic code is nothing but an extension of sensory desire. In other words, the force of bonding at conception is equivalent to the craving force of the phenotype (individual) transforming into a foetus. This bonding force will induce the genome to restructure the genetic code that it be compatible and in par with its sensory standing reached by the newly born being.
My research indicates that a whole bunch of vital ingredients are missing from the Darwinian model of ‘evolution’. To name a few obvious ones:
- It lacks an action theory. (Totally ignored by Darwin)
- An ethical theory is totally left out. (Being purely mechanistic theory of life, so it does not give any deliberation to ethics as having relevance to the “struggle for survival”.)
- It does not include a conditioning process or conditional genesis of creatures; hence a gaping hole is created in the theory. (A core Buddhist concept and having momentous significance when understanding the sensory becoming process. This element is totally unknown among the Darwinians)
- Pleasure and pain principle, which is the core-stimulating factor for directional change of speciation according to the Buddha, is not incorporated in the Darwinian evolution model, though crucial to the sensory becoming process.
- The phenomenon of ‘Cause and effect’ is of profound and paramount significance when considering the mechanisms of evolution according to sensory becoming. (This is purely a Buddhist metaphysical notion, and an indispensable parameter when analyzing the sensory becoming process. To Darwinians it is merely tantamount to superstition and hence an irrational notion at that).
In other words ‘Darwinian evolution’ is determined by chance events, whereas sensory becoming is targeted by craving for self indulgence. Indeed first is totally controlled by chance events, and the second by measured actions of individuals, in order to make matter obey its mandate.
The denial of a purpose is Darwin’s distinctive contention. By an automatic or a switch called ‘natural selection’, variations favoring survival would be preserved. Thus sum total of the accidents of life acting upon the sum total of the accidents of variation, provided completely mechanical and material systems by which the changes of living forms are accounted for.
But according to the Buddha, all compounds abide by the Law of Impermanence. “Causes and effects” govern the dynamics of such change.
Then, survival we find is not an objective in-itself. Rather, what lies beyond! Existence becomes merely a preamble to a more vital goal. Biological evolution is subservient to a pleasure principle. The net result is creatures with progressively developed sensory potential. Evolution we notice heightens the sensory experience, including the pleasures of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. A closer investigation yields the validation of this extraordinary principle. Sensory additions to the original single celled amoeba, did not necessarily contribute its ability to survive, but it certainly enhanced its propensity for sensory gratification! (In fact sensory addition to the original single celled amoeba may or may not have contributed its ability to survive, but more significantly it enhanced it potential of sensory fulfillment through sensory extension.)
Equipped with this unique theory, if we were to scrutinize the broad evolutionary ladder, we are in for a rude shock: species with ascending orders of sensory complexity of body and mind have really been extending their capabilities of sensory potential and scope, thereby waxing their gratification prospects!
Indeed through that process of a sensory strivings, species furthermore fine tuned THEIR SENSORY CAPABILITIES, thus also outfitting themselves with an elevated STATE OF CONSCSIOUSNESS. And behold; we find at human species, they would with their mind-body mechanism surmount those SENSORY LIMITATIONS.)
Humankind, the most advanced product of these sensory endeavors, bears ample proof of this extraordinary principle. If we were to compare him with the lower orders of species, it is not hard to spot his ultra sophisticated and balanced sensory paraphernalia, which would have aided him, in reaping untold myriads of sensory stimuli. Eliminate such sensory possibilities and life becomes meaningless and existence ‘an aimless mechanical struggle’, as these evolutionary pundits has discovered.
In fact, equipped with the Buddha’s sensory becoming theory, we can effortlessly explain what Darwin termed “evolution.” But then, the ‘none status quo’ situation of all compounds (including species) is the rudimentary section of his teaching.
If a creature is to achieve the ability of experiencing sensory stimuli, and bring home the necessities of life, he must perform actions. Hence “an action” theory is affiliated to sensory becoming. Actions are conditioned by one’s sensory status and socio-economic and geophysical conditions (resources). All of this becomes comprehensible when woven together using the Buddha’s basic law, known as ‘conditional genesis or as the scriptures popularly termed “The Cycle of Birth, Death and Birth”, but I would simply call it ‘a cycle of becoming’.
On the other hand if creatures are to survive develop and progress they needed an ethical outlook; hence the Buddha attached an ethical corollary to his basic sensory becoming principal.
To assert that an individual lacks self-determination and is fatalistically or mechanistically bound is to mock his needs, desires ambitions, and aspirations. Without self-determination, life becomes meaningless and a mechanical struggle, and an inanity, as the mechanistic ‘natural selection’ informs us.
Humankind is not on this planet for the “greater glory” of some non-existing ‘God’. Nor does the noble species exist to produce more of its type and simply send them on further, in time and space. Rather, individuals exist to experience pleasure and pain here, and now.
As Darwinism was deficient of an ethical principle, to embrace its version of determinism, is to kneel down and await the outcome of unfolding of blind impersonal material forces. Individuals under those circumstances are compelled to bow down to a philosophy, which notifies “now you are here, now you are not”. While Darwinians advocate “survival of the fittest” what we notice about those who are surviving are the “luckiest”.
Currently, a certain Judeo-Christian sect is bent on conquering the world through procreation and terror. For this, they naturally have been following the good old Darwinian dictates. The lunatic fringe of this creed is using militancy in order to fulfill “their” God’s will. While the opponents of these fanatics, have stamped them “terrorist”, and are hunting them down, with extreme prejudice.
In reality, this unique Judeo-Christian sect is doing nothing extraordinarily un-Darwinist. As a human sub-species they are multiplying their prototype so that their kindred with their “locked-in, intolerant beliefs” can go on further in time and space, and take control of the human progeny. Indeed if by chance they survive such un-ethical methods, and be successful in their objectives, then they will certainly end up as truly the “fittest”? If we go along with such “hair brained” Darwinist logic, then we would naturally end up in blind alleys of extinction.
Yet no one is sitting by, and waiting for the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” to bump them off. They have got choices and, defending ourselves is one of them.
If go by the two deterministic versions we have to assume that we are like machines, pre-programmed, encoded, preordained and fated by external forces? In other words; we are like pieces of corks bobbing along a swiftly flowing river, and at the mercy of chance and current tides, which are nudging us towards an ignorable exit? That’s what these two schools of thought ask us to put our faith in.
The future looks bleak. Thanks to such illogical, intolerant and locked in, dogmas.
There is only one way to avoid an implosion of the global society and that is the only way as the Chinese realized.
Implement ‘A one child to a family’ policy. And they will find Judeo-Christen sects would fight it tooth and nail due to the inbuilt egoism of such self centered creeds.
Sad to say at this point of history the religious fanatics are looking as if they are the fittest!
In fact human species are at crossroads of self destruction if such Judeo Christian sects are not tamed. The growing crisis in the Middle East is as a result of such blatant egoism. All factors point to a world ‘civilization’ gone haywire!
Question is would it last another century?
The Author of ‘The Origin of Species According To the Buddha’