Yet these static theories of things
have been eroding for some time even before Darwin’s contribution. Copernicus
set the solid, immovable earth of theirs in motion. The primitive
notion of absolute rest was replaced by an idea of constant velocity
by Newton. The stars, which were supposed to be embedded in some
sort of substantial sphere, were cut loose from all their moorings
and made part of an ever - expanding universe. The “eternal
hills” were shown to be, anything but eternal. Then, with
the Darwin’s contention, that we have descended from Apes,
all hell broke lose.
The ages old, holy truths, that all creatures were immutable and
created as they were in their present form now suddenly became a
burning issue. Though strangely enough if individuals were
created with their imperfections, faults and limitations, why in
the world, should they be answerable for their actions, had never
troubled the true believers. For actions depended on their body-mind
mechanism, which in turn they have inherited from their loving creator. Translated
all this into real terms, it would mean that, whether to be born
an imbecile or a Einstein, black or a white, man or a donkey, depended
on the throw of the divine dice at the hour of creation. So
should not his urges, desires and perversions also be a part of
this mysterious divine scheme.
Strange as it may seem, with Darwin, these static theories of fatalistic
determinism were replaced by ones of mechanistic determinism. As
for the individual, he was still devoid of any steering of his destiny. For
if earlier it was Almighty’s will, or Adam and Eve’s
blunder, for the individual’s psycho-physical station in life
and suffering, now it was attributed to a whole series of lucky
chances. Indeed now to be born a Galileo or a listless idiot,
a Mongoloid or a Darwin, black or white, not to say, a man or a
dog, was purely a mechanical outcome of some genetical lottery. The
individual according to this new religion was a complete slave to
his genetic inheritance, hence helpless. Which obviously follow
is that, a sex pervert or a Hitler should not be blamed for their
actions as these were the direct out-come of theirs mechanistically
inherited urges of mind-body mechanism.
Yet contrary to popular belief, Darwin’s distinctive contribution
is not a theory of evolution as a WHOLE, but a theory, which explained
evolution by natural selection from accidental variations. For
the denial of a purpose in the universe is carried out in the second
half of the formula, accidental variations. The sum total of
the accidents of life acting upon the sum total of the accidents
of variations thus provided a completely mechanical and a material
system by which to account for the changes in living forms. In
this way the notion of a God or providence, or a life force having
a tendency of its own, or of a single individual having a purpose
of his own, was ruled out. Exaggerated for the sake of brevity
one could interpret Darwinism as meaning that the whole of the animal
evolution had taken place among absolute robots, which produced
their kind with slight accidental variations of form.
Due to this addiction to one or the other variety of determinism
the intellectual world was blinded by recognising the ages old,
third theory of Buddha.
Indeed the original theory of evolution is over 2550 years old. Creatures
according to which, is in a “state of flux” and were
said be changing “momentarily”. For change
is inherent in all “compounded things”. All these
obey “The law of impermanence” according to Buddha. The
dynamics of such change, call it evolution if you will, is governed
by “causes and its effects”, which is too deep to elaborate
here.
Then Survival, according to this, is not an objective in itself,
but to experience that what lies beyond. Indeed survival becomes
but a first necessity for a more important goal. Biological
evolution it seems is subservient to a pleasure principle. Its
net results; creatures with progressively developed sensory potential. This
in its turn would heighten their sensory experience, i.e. pleasures
of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. Upon
closer investigation we recognise the truth of this extraordinary
principle.
Such additions to the original form, of the single cell amoeba,
did not in any way Contribute to his ability to survive, though
these definitely did contribute to his ability ENJOY! And if we
were to carefully scrutinise the evolutionary ladder comparatively,
fortified with this knowledge, we are in for a shock. Species
with ascending orders of sensory complexity (of body and mind) were
in fact really extending their possibilities of sensory stimulation
and thereby gratification. Man, the ultimate result of this
sensory struggle should be proof enough. And if we were to
compare him with the lower orders of species, we are able to recognise
his ultra sophisticated and balanced sensory mechanism, and understand
what life is all about.
Whole of our modern industry, directly or indirectly is geared
and steered, in order to bring every imaginable stimuli for man’s
enjoyment and gratification.
Music from the melancholy to the jarring, to excite our eardrums. Perfumes
most subtle and alluring to stimulate our sense of smell. Colourful
and exotic products of all shape and sizes to dazzle our eyes. Food
types of extreme subtlety and specialisation to tempt our palate. Eroticism
of diverse subtlety to animate our sex urge and sensuality. Volumes
can be written about the world of taste, smell, sound, sight and
sensuality without once exhausting its source. Each of us knows
how special our own taste and needs are, that it should be self-explanatory.
Armed with Buddha’s Sensory evolution theory we can clearly
recognise the obvious flaw of Darwin’s main contention. If
continuation of the species was the ultimate goal, there was no
necessity for the amoeba to evolve and extend his sensory mechanism
at all as he is still surviving without any threat of extinction,
whereas some of the more advanced creatures of both mind and body
have simply vanished from the face of the earth.
In fact with his theory we can explain the physical part of evolution
effortlessly. But this in fact is the elementary part of his
teachings. For if a creature is to experience and gain the
sensory stimuli, he must act. Hence an “action theory”
is conditional to this sensory evolution. Again such actions
are conditioned by his sensory status and his socio-economic situation. All
these are woven together by his main law called the “conditional
genesis”, which is popularly named by Buddhist as the “circle
of birth and death”. Concerned to direct beings on the
proper path of evolution, Buddha incorporated an ethical theory,
which is a corollary to his basic sensory evolutionary theory.
To say that the individual is without self-determination, hence
fatalistically or mechanistically bound, is to make a mockery of
his needs, greed’s, ambitions, and aspirations; hence life
becomes a meaningless mechanical struggle, an inanity. He is
not living for the greater glory of some unknown God, nor just to
produce his types and send them further for some strange reason,
but to live and experience pleasure and pain here and now.
Time is ripe to investigate Buddha’s rational theory diligently. It
may help avoid the ultimate ecological catastrophe, which these
other two deterministic theories bequeathed to us.
Indeed it may even assist the global society to curtail their greed
and ambitions and retard the impending destruction of the globe.
By- Mahinda Weerasinghe
(FIRST APPEARED IN THE ASIA TRIBUNE
)
ARE YOU LACKING IN POWER TO DIRECT
YOUR OWN DESTINY?
Indeed should you be called upon to account for your actions, you
don’t have to if you are an adherent of either the creationist
or Darwinist school ofthought.
In fact though human species has somehow blundered into the 21st
century and made giant technological strides to explore the outer
reaches of the cosmos,he is still aimlessly fumbling with the most
vital question:Are our fate and destiny fatalistically or mechanistically
determined by external forces? In other words, is it an entity called
God who has created
all things or does “natural selection” explain the reason
for the existenceof diversity of species.
Indeed the recriminations and innuendo of the two groups of determinists
(i.e. the creationist and the evolutionist) has reached a boiling
point onthe internet.Though the public at large is unconcerned with
such thoughts a battle is
looming on the horizon between the evolutionist and creationist.
Indeed the concept of DETERMINISM deals with the core issues of
human nature, namely, whether the behaviour, thinking, actions and
feelings of any being, is driven by something called “Free
Will”.Disagreement exists about the proper formulation of
determinism, as the idea is abstract, intangible, elusive and hard
to pin down. Yet it goes to the heart of all religions, philosophies,
values and definitely the Darwinist notion of evolution itself.
The question is whether are we machines, pre-programmed, encoded
and preordained by an external force, and hence without power to
charter our own destiny?
According to the loose idea, Determinism is the theory that all
the human actions are based on and caused entirely by preceding
events, and not by the exercise of Free Will.
In fact creationist in order to slip over the theological dilemma
points to the “original sin” committed by our mythical
ancestors “Adam and Eve”. And for that single sin (blunder,
action, crime) all humanity has been put under interdict by God.
Evidently if we accept this as “gospel truth” then
no single individual has a choice in the matter, as he is compelled
to pay for a crime committed by his fairy-tale ancestors. A most
unethical situation.
In fact both Creationists and Darwinians try to explain Determinism
after the birth event has taken effect, hence allude to non-determinism.
That is they imply, once we are born we have choices. If we grant
conditionally that confinement as being the starting coordinates
of an individual, still this can’t square the circle.
Simply said, at inception and on arriving at the birth scene, the
individual has already inherited the following preconditions:
a.) A body and mind (Psychophysical situation)
b.) A socio-economic situation (ecological)
How, indeed, we simply did not create ourselves?
Not eschewing the fact that an actor has to act within the constraints
of his body and mind, which have been either awarded (by a God -
creationist view) at creation, or emerged through a series of accidental
chances (Darwinian notion) at the inception, still his choices are
greatly constrained.
In other words if he is born a lunatic, a mad man or a mongoloid,
he is compelled to think and perform like a lunatic, a mad man or
a mongoloid appropriately, as his actions are propelled by the instrumentality
of his body-mind mechanism inherited and pre-programmed at conception
or creation in the first instant.
Indeed how we can then be answerable for our actions is an abiding
wonder! Belief about the roles of free will and determinism of human
nature is critical to a society’s organization of relationships
and the well being of its members. But then going by the above mentioned
logic, we are all hooked to a deterministic perspective of human
nature, and under the circumstances all creatures would be totally
innocent and should not be called to account for their actions,
in the sense that, they did not create or fashion themselves and
had no control over their mind and body when they were first
conceived. So while we insist that the actor should be responsible
and accountable for his actions, yet responsibility and personal
accountability cannot be placed at the door step of the actor, as
his urges and thinking are controlled by his inherited mind-body
mechanism in the first instance.
Currently we recognise impact of such “half baked”
ideas on the global society. A larger Judeo-Christian confrontation
is looming and the global society is facing upheaval.
Judeo-Christian creeds insist that out of millions of species,
God has singled out this naked ape - Homo sapience sapiens, as his
beloved. They offer no clarification for this odd behaviour of “their”
God. Indeed we are informed that he has fashioned this creature
in his own image, infused a ”soul” in him, and promised
everlasting life to this “soul” in some heaven
or a hell depending on his whims.
Followers are called upon to pray to the saviour, if they desire
to receive the rewards of his bountiful love. The purpose of this
excise simply eludes me. Does the creator need some praying to get
his ego boosted? Is he so juvenile that he needs assurance again
and again from his specially created children that he is their God?
In that case being an almighty, why didn’t he program some
robots, which would do him obeisance round the clock? Indeed does
this God take pleasure in famine, war, catastrophes, slaughter of
children, AIDS cancer etc., etc., and does he feel ecstatic when
species and tribes are at each other’s throat?
Believers of the alternative mechanistic view of life (Darwinist),
nurses an opinion that their account is totally rational. But in
fact what they possess is a slanted view of life. While they notify
that other species abide by a natural dictate termed, “survival
of the fittest” the humans are expressly discouraged to follow
this principle. While Darwinians are asking
us to accept the fact that the weak will be eliminated, the United
Nations was promoting protection of the individual and defending
his “human rights”. Darwinian “tooth and claw”
life style was good enough for other species, but somehow not worthy
for the human species to emulate.
As Darwinism was deficient of an ethical principle; to embrace
its version of determinism, is to hang around and try to survive
and await helplessly the outcome of the unfolding of blind impersonal
material forces. Indeed under those circumstances we are compelled
to bow down to a philosophy, that ”fittest will be naturally
selected”. But in real human society we find it is not the
“fittest” who survive, but the luckiest.
Currently, a single Judeo-Christian sect is bent on conquering
the world through terror. For this, they naturally have been following
the good old Darwinian dictates. They justify their militancy by
contending that it is the way of fulfilling “their”
God’s will. And the opponents of these fanatics, have stamped
them as “terrorists”, and are hunting them down, with
extreme prejudice.
But in reality, these fanatics are doing nothing extraordinarily
un-Darwinistic. 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 succeed in their
murderous intents, and be successful in
their objectives, then they will certainly end up as being the “fittest”?
If we tag along with such “hair brained” Darwinistic
logic, then we would naturally end up in blind alleys of confusion.
But now we find these two “locked-in” theories of life
are converging in a most ominous fashion. So how can we blame such
murderous groups such as Al Quida as they have been brain washed
by such deterministic theories with which have been fed with their
mother’s milk?
If terror galvanized a favourable outcome, and transformed the
global society’s multicultural lifestyle, and brought it round
to a particular Taliban Afghanistani model of behaviour, then they
have fulfilled their God’ s decrees while also following the
good old Darwinian “survival of the fittest” dictates.
For we have to concede, if these fanatics are successful
in their machinations, then indisputably they are the fittest. That
is how God and Darwin have merged to undermine the freedom of man.
No wonder the intelligent people are desperately seeking a non-deterministic
version of life. And I find the only rational, logical,and
realistic one around, and indeed the only non-deterministic one
in existence is Buddha’s “Sensory Becoming” theory
of life. If the world is to back off from a global Judeo-Christian
confrontation then they must study this extremely subtle non-deterministic
explanation of life, wiz, Sensory Becoming, or pay the ultimate
price.
Mahinda Weerasinghe - 6th August 2004
(FIRST APPEARED IN THE ASIA TRIBUNE
on 17-10-2004 )
CAMOUFLAGED DOCTRINE OF THE BUDDHA
An absurd principle is nursed by the modern scientists that Darwin’s
theory provides the instrument that helps dissect, how evolution
of species takes place, notwithstanding the fact that ‘Natural
selection’ is lacking the most rudimentary mechanisms involved
with an individual creature’s battle for survival. Indeed
this hypothesis disregards;
1. An action theory. (Creatures have to act in order to acquire
their needs)
2. An ethical theory. (‘survival of the fittest’
eliminates the ethical principle, yet if creatures were lacking
in ethics then they were similar to Al Quida members who follow
a philosophy of ‘kill anyone who owns a mind-set different
from ours’.)
3. Conditioning process or conditional genesis of creatures.
(A core Buddhist concept that has momentous effects on understanding
the sensory becoming process. This aspect is totally disregarded
by the Darwinians). (Conditioning is the reason why creatures strive
to hold on to a status quo.)
4. Pleasure and pain principle, which is the core-stimulating
factor for directional change, not dealt with in the Darwinian evolutionary
theory though crucial to the real sensory world of creatures.
5. The phenomenon of ‘Cause and effect’ is of
a profound impact on survival. (This is a Buddhist metaphysical
tenet, and an indispensable parameter in the analysis of the sensory
becoming of individuals. For Darwinians it is merely tantamount
to superstition and hence irrational.) (But careful observation
will confirm that actions have their repercussions on the actors.)
By the beginning of the 18th century the western Scientists in
general and the evolutionists in particular, came finally to the
conclusion that, everything on this planet is in an incessant flux.
Thereby they displayed their total ignorance of the fact of it having
been discovered by the Buddha; and this indeed was the cardinal
discovery of The Buddha.
Indeed he declared ca. 530 BC that change is inherent in all compounds
and that mind and matter were in a state of dynamic flux. This fundamental
Buddhist doctrine is laid down in Buddhist metaphysics as the law
of impermanence. In this context, do the scientists truly believe
that the Law of impermanence applied to all compounds except the
species, and that the species have been holding on to a status quo?
The choice of the word “evolution” we notice has been
the stumbling block for Darwinians, since the theory was first put
forward. For indeed according them ‘evolution’ is non-directional.
So in the world of animate machines, the fittest would survive and
the unfit would perish. Then what results is an “evolution”
without evolution, through a blunderous and aimless copying error
of the cell duplication. The result of the process presents a new
charter to a species, which it mechanistically should adhere to.
The Buddha used the term bhava (becoming) to describe this dynamic
flow of life, not because it had an abstract ‘grand design’
principle inherent. Indeed the directional change was conditional
to satiating the immediate sensory needs of a species within a given
set of ecological constraints.
In fact in order to get a clearer picture let us disregard the
other species and home in on the human variety. We observe that
people are struggling and striving to survive because they have
sensory greed and egoistic lust. These compel individuals to act.
I will attempt to make obvious the power of sensory urges by the
following simple example: that men have a penis is a biological
fact, how they consider it and what triggers its erection is a complete
enigma. “The Demon’s rod” or “The Devils
penis” of the Catholic Church was an item every inquisitor
was obsessed with. In fact it is supposed to have a mind of its
own. One does not have to fondle it, or even remember that it’s
in its place, but a sensory switch will suddenly trigger its erection.
The reason for this sex lust can be due to a multitude of reasons.
The way a women swings her hips, the way she smiles, the complexion
of her skin, her attractive breasts, the form of her mouth or lips,
her body smell, her manner of speech and expressions, could singly
or in combination spur the sensory stimulii, and thereby fire its
erection.
In spite of Darwinian hypothesis, we do not exist in a vacuum.
If we were devoid of desires, self interest, egoistic needs, pleasure
and pain, greed and jealousy, love and hate, then we are not living,
but merely vegetating. On the other hand having faith in the Darwinian
dogma means to accept that we are like pieces of drift wood, haphazardly
bobbing along in a swiftly flowing river, called existence, and
that each of us is lacking in power to navigate our own destiny.
The truth is we have our own agendas, and each one of us is targeted
to fulfil them.
Switch on the TV and we are practically inundated with every product
and service, aimed at tickling and catering to our sensory tackle.
Lipsticks, mascaras powders, shampoos, body lotions, hair removers,
perfumes etc. All these to mollycoddle and pamper our body hygiene
and makes us feel blissful and enticing. Various musical compositions,
all varieties of tablets, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc., mouth watering
food products and the methods of their preparation, even erotic
images and products of every commercial venture are targeted at
firing our sensory lust.
Though all creatures are fired by their own conditioned sensory
desires, Darwin’s theory totally ignores the sensory needs
as a motivating factor for causing change and therefore the creation
of species.
They offer ‘Natural selection’ instead, which operates
mechanistically in a vacuum, being the ‘explain all’
which would mean that you and I achieved our human status through
a series of lucky accidents, like a genetical lotto i.e. quite fortuitously
or inadvertently?
Molecular biologists inform us that the chimpanzee is our closest
cousin, and that both evolved from a common ancestor around four
and a half million years ago. The earliest known hominid is around
3.5 million years old, and this creature may have been only a step
away from a small ape like creature Pan Paniscus (a chimp-like first
hominid). Life has been on earth for three and a half thousand million
years, but human species, as a distinct line, has arisen around
just five million years ago. Only for one seven hundredth of
our history have people separated and ambled alone. According to
molecular clock investigations, human, chimpanzee and gorilla DNA
are as much as 98 per cent identical. The unique features of Homo
sapiens are stamped in less than 2 per cent of our DNA. That such
tiny changes in the DNA can account for such a sea of diversity
is astounding.
But consider a strange fact: our close cousins the chimps are still
subsisting without any sort of progress in their affairs after 4
odd million years. While we in comparison have made such revolutionary
strides in every sphere of our affairs that the non-progress of
the chimps is simply astonishing. Indeed we dropped our hair, we
stood up erect, we built houses to live in, we adapted other creatures
to do our chores and exploit them for our security, etc, etc. Yet
Darwinists have not been even trying to explain this gaping mismatch
to their theory by the stunted evolutionary standing of the chimps.
Why are the chimps holding on to their status quo? They have still
not dropped their hair though they are living in the tropics. They
are unable to run like man, dance like him, swim like him or even
comb his hair. Indeed they are not able to enjoy prolonged coitus
which would help them reap much more sensual pleasures nor have
they extended or enlarged their adolescent penises thus extending
their sensory gratifications, especially the visual gratification
(the larger the organ the more will it stimulate the partner’s
lust).
In fact they have not learned to copy, imitate, or ape their human
cousins after 3.5 million odd years of association. What is more?
Why these chimps, the progenitors of man, never died out or got
eliminated by the now egoistic hominids colony as they were competing
for the same resources, is a mystery.
Armed with Buddha’s Sensory becoming theory in the camouflaged
form, we can clearly recognise the obvious flaw in Darwin’s
main contention. If continuation of the species was the ultimate
goal, there was no necessity for the amoeba to evolve at all since
it is still surviving without any threat of extinction, whereas
some of the more advanced creatures with both mind and body have
completely vanished from the face of the earth.
In fact instrumented by the sensory becoming theory we can comprehend
the discernible physical section of evolution effortlessly. But
this in fact is the elementary part of Buddha’s teachings.
For if a creature is to experience and gain the sensory pleasures,
he must act. Hence an “action theory” is conditional
to this sensory becoming. Again such actions are conditioned
by the sensory status of his mind-body mechanism and his socio-economic
situation. All these are woven together by his main law called
the “conditional genesis”, which is popularly named
by Buddhist as the “cycle of birth and death”. But in
order to survive and function as a group in harmony, individuals
needed ethics, hence Buddha incorporated an ethical theory, which
is a corollary to his basic sensory becoming theory.
To say that individuals are without self-determination, and hence
fatalistically or mechanistically bound, is to make a mockery of
their needs, greed, ambitions, and aspirations. This would mean
that life is a meaningless mechanical struggle - an inanity.
We are not living for the greater glory of some unknown God, nor
just to produce our types and send them further in time and space
for some strange abstract reason, but to live and experience pleasure
and pain here and now.
Strangely, it seems that, this subtle veiled doctrine has not been
much comprehended. Yet it can be discerned by simply putting together
the basic tenets of Buddha’s doctrine; the Law of impermanence,
self-centred desire (sensory greed), conditional genesis (Patisampatha),
causes and effects, pleasure and pain.
The growing confrontation between the Judeo-Christian sects is
now real, and the global society is on interdict now. It has come
to this as a result of the self-centred club mentality of the Judeo-Christian
sects historically, which preach ‘God loves me and I love
God’ thus boosting the ego of man. And in time Darwinian mechanistic
notions undermined the ethical nature of man because, it is “survival
of the fittest”, though strangely UN has an agenda to defend
the individual human rights.Time is ripe to investigate Buddha’s
rational doctrine diligently. Such an investigation may help
avoid the ultimate catastrophe, which will befall us if we continue
blindly. Indeed it may even assist man to resist his greed and ambitions
and thus eschew his own extinction.
By -Mahinda Weerasinghe
Here I am including a poem which I received
from an enthusiastic reader of the " SENSORY BECOMING THEORY”.
Noteworthy not for its praise, but the subtle story it relates.
Through realms of knowledge did I wander with a probing mind
In quest of how beings countless and changing, came to being.
Blind to the Truth, I stumbled on clues of many a kind
But none could lead or throw light on what I was bent on seeing.
But behold a spark twinkles two and a half millennia behind
And I shall trudge the rugged way through ups and downs without
fleeing
Keeping my mind fixed thereon, and the path I shall bind
Though distraction should strive to make me detour on routes pleasing.
Such a tempting dev'l was Darwin's " chance " in angel's
mien kinder
And it's by a different chance, I met a man called Mahinda.
Walter |
