He is not stating desire and craving as a mechanism through which evolution happens. He is saying that desire is the driving force.
Why is there a cup of tea on my table? If you're talking about the process through which it was made, it's because hot water was boiled, put in a cup with a teabag, and the cup then placed on the table. If you're talking about drive, it's because I desired a cup of tea.
Why does evolution happen? The process is through natural selection. The drive is through desire.
True, craving and desire by itself does not create more chance of passing on genes. However, if you compare two organisms whose evolutionary competitiveness is equal in all respects, who will leave more offspring? The one with more desire to eat, reproduce, protect progeny, protect territory. Of course in real life no individuals are equal in all respects, so desire becomes one of many factors that promote competitiveness.
Anyway let's look at the other point of view and assume that he's made a horrible unforgivable mistake. OP says that she's lost a lot of respect for him. That implies that there was a lot of respect for him in the first place, you can't lose what you don't have. Why did you respect him in the first place? You probably have some good reasons. So you're going to throw that away because of one mistake? Who loses in the end?
A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
In my opinion, this...
It's what I was going to say - that natural selection is the mechanism by which organisms evolve, but that the driving force is craving for becoming, attachment to form and sensuality, etc.
If it were not for craving for becoming, sentient beings would not take form at all. And because we are constantly in a state of craving until that fetter is set down, we are constantly taking form. Furthermore, the majority of members of a species crave survival - that is why we eat, sleep, have sex and protect land. It is why so many of us are adamant about having children. This is also reflected in the collective behavior of nations, religions, organizations, families, etc - we recruit members, we raise money, and we plan for the future, all because we want to survive as a group. We will do whatever it takes to survive.
If beings were to stop craving further becoming, thus ceasing activities that ensure survival, evolution would stop.
I may be wrong here but it's what I'm thinking at the moment.
Dhammakid
...is anameless wrote:He is not stating desire and craving as a mechanism through which evolution happens. He is saying that desire is the driving force.
Why is there a cup of tea on my table? If you're talking about the process through which it was made, it's because hot water was boiled, put in a cup with a teabag, and the cup then placed on the table. If you're talking about drive, it's because I desired a cup of tea.
Why does evolution happen? The process is through natural selection. The drive is through desire.
True, craving and desire by itself does not create more chance of passing on genes. However, if you compare two organisms whose evolutionary competitiveness is equal in all respects, who will leave more offspring? The one with more desire to eat, reproduce, protect progeny, protect territory. Of course in real life no individuals are equal in all respects, so desire becomes one of many factors that promote competitiveness.
Anyway let's look at the other point of view and assume that he's made a horrible unforgivable mistake. OP says that she's lost a lot of respect for him. That implies that there was a lot of respect for him in the first place, you can't lose what you don't have. Why did you respect him in the first place? You probably have some good reasons. So you're going to throw that away because of one mistake? Who loses in the end?
It's what I was going to say - that natural selection is the mechanism by which organisms evolve, but that the driving force is craving for becoming, attachment to form and sensuality, etc.
If it were not for craving for becoming, sentient beings would not take form at all. And because we are constantly in a state of craving until that fetter is set down, we are constantly taking form. Furthermore, the majority of members of a species crave survival - that is why we eat, sleep, have sex and protect land. It is why so many of us are adamant about having children. This is also reflected in the collective behavior of nations, religions, organizations, families, etc - we recruit members, we raise money, and we plan for the future, all because we want to survive as a group. We will do whatever it takes to survive.
If beings were to stop craving further becoming, thus ceasing activities that ensure survival, evolution would stop.
I may be wrong here but it's what I'm thinking at the moment.
Dhammakid
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
indeed.appicchato wrote:To me evolution covers all of life here on Earth...with the exception of humans ( and not too long ago them as well) who, or what, was/is craving to evolve?...humans are, in many ways, basically the most screwed up life form there is...
The emergence of intelligence, I am convinced, tends to unbalance the ecology. In other words, intelligence is the great polluter. It is not until a creature begins to manage its environment that nature is thrown into disorder. Until that occurs, there is a system of checks and balances operating in a logical and understandable manner. Intelligence destroys and modifies the checks and balances even as it tries very diligently to leave them as they were. There is no such thing as an intelligence living harmony with the biosphere. It may think and boast it is doing so, but its mentality gives it an advantage and the compulsion is always there to employ this advantage to its selfish benefit. Thus, while intelligence may be an outstanding survival factor, the factor is short-term, and intelligence turns out to be the great destroyer. -- written by a crazy character in SHAKESPEARE'S PLANET, a sci-fi novel by Clifford Simak, 1976.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- Monkey Mind
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:56 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
I think folks here are way too literal sometimes. Ajahn Brahm was not teaching a biology class, he was offering a Dhamma talk. He also tells ghost stories. When he shares ghost stories, he is not claiming to be a parapsychologist. He is sharing an inspirational story. One can be absolute in their belief that ghosts don't really exist, and still find inspiration in the ghost story.
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sutta Nipāta 3.710
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sutta Nipāta 3.710
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Unfortunatily how can we apply desire to artificial fecundation? Plants? Early organic molecules?nameless wrote:He is not stating desire and craving as a mechanism through which evolution happens. He is saying that desire is the driving force.
Why is there a cup of tea on my table? If you're talking about the process through which it was made, it's because hot water was boiled, put in a cup with a teabag, and the cup then placed on the table. If you're talking about drive, it's because I desired a cup of tea.
Why does evolution happen? The process is through natural selection. The drive is through desire.
True, craving and desire by itself does not create more chance of passing on genes. However, if you compare two organisms whose evolutionary competitiveness is equal in all respects, who will leave more offspring? The one with more desire to eat, reproduce, protect progeny, protect territory. Of course in real life no individuals are equal in all respects, so desire becomes one of many factors that promote competitiveness.
Anyway let's look at the other point of view and assume that he's made a horrible unforgivable mistake. OP says that she's lost a lot of respect for him. That implies that there was a lot of respect for him in the first place, you can't lose what you don't have. Why did you respect him in the first place? You probably have some good reasons. So you're going to throw that away because of one mistake? Who loses in the end?
Try to see or research on Miller expiriment.
I can't see fire, water, air or earth having craving to evolution.
If you guys are saying this. I ask this questio:
If a being is genarated from a precedent one, How the FIRST being arose?
Suggest read Oparin Theory.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Greetings,
Metta,
Retro.
Well maybe then he should stick to the Dhamma, rather than speculative views and conceptual proliferation that is unconnected to the Dhamma... lest he muddy the waters between the two.Monkey Mind wrote:Ajahn Brahm was not teaching a biology class, he was offering a Dhamma talk.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Alright, so people who are probably more knowledgeable about evolution have proved that Ajahn Brahm is wrong, and those who are backing him are wrong. So what do we do now?
Spend lots of time criticizing him for the mistake? It wasn't even the main topic of the talk. He even specified that "this is an aside". Took maybe 5 minutes of a one hour talk. We've spent time listening to wrong information, wasted 5 minutes. We spend time arguing about it, well that's more than 5 minutes of my life I won't be getting back.
And what are the consequences of the mistake? If you're worried that people are using erroneous knowledge of evolution for evil, he's the least of your problems.
Or should we just be kind, forgive him his mistake, take whatever is good from the talk, and move on?
At the end of the day we can't control what other people say. What can we do? Lobby for a law so that only people with appropriate qualifications can talk about anything outside their field? It is up to the listener to use the information in a fruitful way.
Spend lots of time criticizing him for the mistake? It wasn't even the main topic of the talk. He even specified that "this is an aside". Took maybe 5 minutes of a one hour talk. We've spent time listening to wrong information, wasted 5 minutes. We spend time arguing about it, well that's more than 5 minutes of my life I won't be getting back.
And what are the consequences of the mistake? If you're worried that people are using erroneous knowledge of evolution for evil, he's the least of your problems.
Or should we just be kind, forgive him his mistake, take whatever is good from the talk, and move on?
At the end of the day we can't control what other people say. What can we do? Lobby for a law so that only people with appropriate qualifications can talk about anything outside their field? It is up to the listener to use the information in a fruitful way.
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Well said nameless. It seems to me that there are a couple of main routes that bring modern western educated people into contact with Buddhadhamma. The first is via what could be called mysticism " . The second is via science.
Those that arrive via mysticism are frequently surprised to find that Buddhadharma in its Theravada form is vigorously non mystical. It deals with the here and now by promoting a keen and thorough view of what is.
Those who arrive via science are sometimes taken aback to find that although Buddhadhamma does not promote views in the main opposed to the scientific view neither does not place science on the pedestal next to the Buddha or declare the existence of a fourth Jewel.
Several times in the last few weeks there have been attempts to make science a sacred cow and to chastise those who use science as a metaphor.
The fact is the Buddhadhamma has to be understood on its own terms not seen through the lens of either mysticism or science, even though it is not anti science.
Those that arrive via mysticism are frequently surprised to find that Buddhadharma in its Theravada form is vigorously non mystical. It deals with the here and now by promoting a keen and thorough view of what is.
Those who arrive via science are sometimes taken aback to find that although Buddhadhamma does not promote views in the main opposed to the scientific view neither does not place science on the pedestal next to the Buddha or declare the existence of a fourth Jewel.
Several times in the last few weeks there have been attempts to make science a sacred cow and to chastise those who use science as a metaphor.
The fact is the Buddhadhamma has to be understood on its own terms not seen through the lens of either mysticism or science, even though it is not anti science.
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Hello PeterB,
Personally I believe that a good main approach of Buddhism is as a psychological teaching. A psychological training to become happy and peaceful inside no matter the external circumstances that are out-of control. An awakened person does not experience unpleasant emotions unlike an ordinary person. IMHO this is an excellent approach. Buddhism as any tradition or religion cannot compete with materialistic science, neither does the "super experiences" (they can easily be gained through illegal drugs). But learning to be happy, peaceful and liberated inside no matter what - that is uniquely Buddhist.
IMHO.
Can you please explain what you mean by mysticism?PeterB wrote:Well said nameless. It seems to me that there are a couple of main routes that bring modern western educated people into contact with Buddhadhamma. The first is via what could be called mysticism " . The second is via science.
.
Personally I believe that a good main approach of Buddhism is as a psychological teaching. A psychological training to become happy and peaceful inside no matter the external circumstances that are out-of control. An awakened person does not experience unpleasant emotions unlike an ordinary person. IMHO this is an excellent approach. Buddhism as any tradition or religion cannot compete with materialistic science, neither does the "super experiences" (they can easily be gained through illegal drugs). But learning to be happy, peaceful and liberated inside no matter what - that is uniquely Buddhist.
IMHO.
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
In case I did not make myself clear Alex123 I was saying that Buddhadhamma was very different in aims and goals to mysticism. But mysticism provided the means for some to approach Buddhadhamma, whereby they drop their pursuit of the mystical. In the same way some who are turning away from certain irrational belief systems and taking Refuge in science come to Buddhadhamma thinking that it will meet their needs for a compromise with science. They may find that they have to rethink that at some point.
However I have to say that I think that Buddhadhamma only incidentally finds common ground in certain areas with psychology. I think that the aims and means of psychology and Buddhadhamma are completely different.
However I have to say that I think that Buddhadhamma only incidentally finds common ground in certain areas with psychology. I think that the aims and means of psychology and Buddhadhamma are completely different.
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
PeterB wrote:In case I did not make myself clear Alex123 I was saying that Buddhadhamma was very different in aims and goals to mysticism. But mysticism provided the means for some to approach Buddhadhamma, whereby they drop their pursuit of the mystical. In the same way some who are turning away from certain irrational belief systems and taking Refuge in science come to Buddhadhamma thinking that it will meet their needs for a compromise with science. They may find that they have to rethink that at some point.
However I have to say that I think that Buddhadhamma only incidentally finds common ground in certain areas with psychology. I think that the aims and means of psychology and Buddhadhamma are completely different.
Well, yes Dhamma has many things different from worldly psychology, it is simply better. But in a sense it is similar to psychology due to both being concerned working at the mind. IMHO this is what good about Dhamma and should be emphasized. Science can compete on physical level, but nothing can compete on inner, emotional level. IMHO people would understand Buddhism better if they approached it from psychological or CBT angle.
IMHO.
With metta,
Alex
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Would it surprise you to know Alex that many, probably most, psychologists do not recognise the existence of the mind ?
I know that you are using the term in a more general way, and certainly CBT has much in common with Buddhadhamma..
I know that you are using the term in a more general way, and certainly CBT has much in common with Buddhadhamma..
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
Dhamma-vicaya is a principle similar to both.
Just as in science Buddhism does not require its followers to have dogmatic belief in anything that the Buddha taught. The Buddha advised people not to blindly accept what he taught, but research on them for themselves before accepting.
Science, in 20th century showed us that such concepts as impermanence, rebirth, telepathy and selflessness taught by the Buddha 2.600 years ago, are true phenomena of nature which are beyond three spatial dimentions and therefore beyond classical science.
Derek Parfit a probaly the most important philospher of today alive have a quote on Buddism:
This bundle of elements is void of Self. In it there is no sentient being. Just as a set of wooden parts receives the name of carriage, so do we give to elements the name of fancied being.
Buddha has spoken thus:..."There is no Individual. it is only a name given to a set of elements."
So we can see that a being is like an animated matter. How can this matter evolve? We are talking about matter not about conciouness or the mind it self. How the plants envolved? Plants are not consciouness.
"There comes a time, Vasettha, when, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world died. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn into the Realm of Abbhasara; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vasettha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Abbhasara usually come to life as humans... now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savours was spread out in the waters, even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear." - Aggañña Sutta
The most suitable explanation is the law of nature, or been specific natural selection of the most resistent for living in certain conditions, wich is passed trough genes, and this genes trough DNA, and this DNA from RNA, and this RNA from organic molecules of aminoacids, and this organic molecules from unanimated matter. It doesn't evolve from desire, how can we say that an hermafrodit being reproduce itself because of desire? Or plants produces seeds because of desire? What we can say is that sentient being exist because of desire, when Abbhasara beings start consuming the organic matter so the sentience life began on earth.
No one can afirm that evolution occurs in the way Ajahn Brahm stated, because science has evidence of how the life began. I think Ajahm Brahm should stick with advices and talks restrictly to the dhamma. Or he could make some studies before give a talk to don't conduct people to wrong understanding of the law of nature. Specific given talks about how to to adjust and cope with events of our daily life focusing on the path.
It happen that someone put his video talk on youtube and modern people give a try to buddhism watching it. If this person has an emphyrical experience about some aspects, like scientific emphyrical experiments, this person possible create aversion to buddhism or put it in hall of useless relegion that use emotion to reach their goals, having a wrong view about buddhist practioners. Emotion causes belief and obedience to the techings, Buddhism stress wisdom. The video was put in youtube for the public, remember it.
"O Bikkhus, as gold is tested by rubbing, cutting and melting - accept my word only on analysis and not simply out of respect". This includes the word of a Bikkhu.
Just as in science Buddhism does not require its followers to have dogmatic belief in anything that the Buddha taught. The Buddha advised people not to blindly accept what he taught, but research on them for themselves before accepting.
Science, in 20th century showed us that such concepts as impermanence, rebirth, telepathy and selflessness taught by the Buddha 2.600 years ago, are true phenomena of nature which are beyond three spatial dimentions and therefore beyond classical science.
Derek Parfit a probaly the most important philospher of today alive have a quote on Buddism:
This bundle of elements is void of Self. In it there is no sentient being. Just as a set of wooden parts receives the name of carriage, so do we give to elements the name of fancied being.
Buddha has spoken thus:..."There is no Individual. it is only a name given to a set of elements."
So we can see that a being is like an animated matter. How can this matter evolve? We are talking about matter not about conciouness or the mind it self. How the plants envolved? Plants are not consciouness.
"There comes a time, Vasettha, when, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world died. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn into the Realm of Abbhasara; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vasettha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Abbhasara usually come to life as humans... now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savours was spread out in the waters, even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear." - Aggañña Sutta
The most suitable explanation is the law of nature, or been specific natural selection of the most resistent for living in certain conditions, wich is passed trough genes, and this genes trough DNA, and this DNA from RNA, and this RNA from organic molecules of aminoacids, and this organic molecules from unanimated matter. It doesn't evolve from desire, how can we say that an hermafrodit being reproduce itself because of desire? Or plants produces seeds because of desire? What we can say is that sentient being exist because of desire, when Abbhasara beings start consuming the organic matter so the sentience life began on earth.
No one can afirm that evolution occurs in the way Ajahn Brahm stated, because science has evidence of how the life began. I think Ajahm Brahm should stick with advices and talks restrictly to the dhamma. Or he could make some studies before give a talk to don't conduct people to wrong understanding of the law of nature. Specific given talks about how to to adjust and cope with events of our daily life focusing on the path.
It happen that someone put his video talk on youtube and modern people give a try to buddhism watching it. If this person has an emphyrical experience about some aspects, like scientific emphyrical experiments, this person possible create aversion to buddhism or put it in hall of useless relegion that use emotion to reach their goals, having a wrong view about buddhist practioners. Emotion causes belief and obedience to the techings, Buddhism stress wisdom. The video was put in youtube for the public, remember it.
"O Bikkhus, as gold is tested by rubbing, cutting and melting - accept my word only on analysis and not simply out of respect". This includes the word of a Bikkhu.
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
You mean those who believe in "Eliminative materialism" ? Well, do they understand any word, can they read this or hear and understand what another person is saying? If understanding, thinking, knowing, cognizing, etc is a mental state... Then the idea of "there is no mind or mental states" is contradicted by an act of understanding at every instance of communication. If there is no communication (which requires mind to exist in the first place) then nobody could know what is written here, nobody could argue or accept these propositions written here.PeterB wrote:Would it surprise you to know Alex that many, probably most, psychologists do not recognise the existence of the mind ?
I know that you are using the term in a more general way, and certainly CBT has much in common with Buddhadhamma..
If I were to talk to Eliminative materialist, I could also swear at them and ask them if they are thinking angry thoughts and planning to hit me. Is anger a mental state? Is planning (lets say to hit me) a mental state? Of course.
Alex
Re: A quote from Ajahn Brahm
It remains a fact Alex that almost no Psychology faculty in Northern Europe or the USA holds the existence of "the mind " to be other than a convention...they see the affective ( feelings ) and cognitive faculties as arising simply as the outcome of electrochemical processes.
The point I am making is that there is only so far that Buddhism can go in forming a joint knowledge base with most of Psychology.
Academic psychology would not for the most part accept the theoretical basis of CBT, although many would accept its experiential usefulness. They would however explain its operation in other terms.
The point I am making is that there is only so far that Buddhism can go in forming a joint knowledge base with most of Psychology.
Academic psychology would not for the most part accept the theoretical basis of CBT, although many would accept its experiential usefulness. They would however explain its operation in other terms.