# How life began and evolutionary theory **URL:** \ **Category:** Interesting Threads\ **Created:** [February 24, 2025, 5:54am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702 "2025-02-24T05:54:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2025, 1:55pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/103 "2025-05-12T13:55:37Z")
> [@RobertK](#): > > **11.**"At that period, Vāseṭṭha, the world was covered by a single mass of water, shrouded in blinding darkness. There was no moon or sun, no constellations or stars, no distinction of night and day, no months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no male or female—beings were simply called ‘beings.’ > > "Sooner or later, after a very long period, a savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms on hot milk as it cools. It had color, smell, and taste—resembling fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. A problem with this is that the sutta doesn’t just contradict evolution via natural selection, but here it contradicts the whole of modern cosmology and physics too. There wasn’t a great mass of water from which the Earth arose, before there were stars, moons and planets. Rather the Big Bang occurred which, eventually, created gases and then stars. After a long time then planets and moons formed, and on some planets water formed. The Buddha warned that sometimes texts and traditions can turn out to be wrong. This sutta is one of those occasions. If we reject it, we still have the 4NT intact and the rest of the core teachings. If we just push on and accept it, and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, then we are just being dogmatic. As I said before, we would be no better than Evangelical Creationists. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2025, 2:08pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/104 "2025-05-12T14:08:22Z")
> [@Trobinson465](#): > > No it doesn’t. It’s logical to think that. But that doesn’t mean that is the case. The pyramids of Egypt are 80% similar to the the incan pyramids. That doesn’t mean one influenced the other. Also. All life has DNA and the only life we know of is on earth. If aliens came to earth and mostly looked like us, they’re DNA would be closer to us than chimpanzees. That doesn’t mean we came from aliens or they came from us. Even ppl who have doppelgangers usually have DNA pretty close to each other since their traits are similar. Even if they are not related. > > It’s the same argument as dark matter. The stars don’t move in accordance with gravity. So ppl assume that must mean there is dark matter with gravity to explain that. But that isn’t necessarily the case. In history different cultures sometimes reproduce similar things. Pyramids are one example. Polytheistic beliefs another, and so on. In evolution we also see things being repeated. For example eyes have evolved multiple times, and are quite similar between certain species. Others are different, but the basic pattern is the same. This is called convergent evolution. If then aliens arrived and looked like us, it wouldn’t be a surprise. They wouldn’t be genetically related to us however - they are from another planet for one - despite looking similar. Their DNA could be a triple helix instead of a double helix, would be one possible difference. Even if they did have a double helix other differences would remain. For example approximately 8% of our DNA is actually viral. It comes from ancient viruses that have successfully integrated themselves into our genome, in order to ensure their replication and survival. An alien would have completely different ancient viral DNA (if at all) and in differing percentages. There would be other differences too regarding its coding, SNP and so on that would show we aren’t related. When we compare these things though to Chimpanzees or Daffodils, we get a family tree. We are closely related to Chimpanzees, and both us and them are very distantly related to Daffodils and other plant life. This genetic data then, in turn, is supported by the fossil record, by radio and carbon dating and by physics & cosmology. What we have then is a huge amount of overwhelmingly compelling evidence for our lowly origins. Evolution via natural selection is a fact. We have to accept that, if we are to be rational. Based on that we then have to incorporate it into our understanding of the Dhamma. For me personally I see no contradiction between Evolution and the Dhamma, including rebirth & kamma. It just gives us a better picture of the conditions needed for beings to be reborn here. I do see a contradiction between it and the Aggañña Sutta, but since I don’t need said sutta to practice Buddhadhamma that isn’t an issue for me. ---
**Author:** ![Namyal](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/namyal/32/1060_2.png) [@Namyal](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Namyal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 12:46am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/105 "2025-05-13T00:46:41Z")
> [@Ceisiwr](#): > > Evolution via natural selection is a fact. We have to accept that, if we are to be rational. Based on that we then have to incorporate it into our understanding of the Dhamma. For me personally I see no contradiction between Evolution and the Dhamma, including rebirth & kamma. It just gives us a better picture of the conditions needed for beings to be reborn here. I do see a contradiction between it and the Aggañña Sutta, but since I don’t need said sutta to practice Buddhadhamma that isn’t an issue for me. _admin note: sentence removed._ Why don’t you put both Aggañña sutta and whatever theory aside. And apply yourself to learning more about khandha, ayatana, dhatu, paticcasamuppada, catusacca etc. At least a deeper theoretical understanding will help understand how unnecessary any scientific theory or any sort of modern education, is for awakening. It’s not like you have any sort of paccakkha ñāṇa regarding what you are talking about. Stop parroting and protect truth from your own side. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 6:32am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/106 "2025-05-13T06:32:14Z")
> [@Namyal](#): > > Why don’t you put both Aggañña sutta and whatever theory aside. And apply yourself to learning more about khandha, ayatana, dhatu, paticcasamuppada, catusacca etc. At least a deeper theoretical understanding will help understand how unnecessary any scientific theory or any sort of modern education, is for awakening. I have put it aside. I don’t accept it. Regarding studying the Dhamma, I’ve been doing that for nearly 20 years. > It’s not like you have any sort of paccakkha ñāṇa regarding what you are talking about. Stop parroting and protect truth from your own side. You don’t need paccakkha ñāṇa to know said sutta is wrong, anymore than I need paccakkha ñāṇa to know the world isn’t flat with a big mountain in the middle. As the Buddha said sometimes texts and traditions will get things wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Namyal](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/namyal/32/1060_2.png) [@Namyal](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Namyal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 7:24am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/107 "2025-05-13T07:24:38Z")
> [@Ceisiwr](#): > > to know This what you should investigate bit more deeply. I think it’s no secret that scientist doesn’t get enough training on history and philosophy(or lack thereof) of science. As far as I am concerned, what is called science nowadays is a glorified sippāyatana. With both benefits and drawbacks to society. But certainly any sippāyatana kusala can play a small part in fulfillment of paññāpāramī. This is much as, I am willing to, waste time on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 9:21am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/108 "2025-05-13T09:21:14Z")
> [@Namyal](#): > > This what you should investigate bit more deeply. I think it’s no secret that scientist doesn’t get enough training on history and philosophy(or lack thereof) of science. No, but myself personally am not ignorant of such things. > As far as I am concerned, what is called science nowadays is a glorified sippāyatana. With both benefits and drawbacks to society. But certainly any sippāyatana kusala can play a small part in fulfillment of paññāpāramī. > > This is much as, I am willing to, waste time on this matter. One that allows you to type those words, or cure people of disease, or venture into space. ---
**Author:** ![Brunobm](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/brunobm/32/1288_2.png) [@Brunobm](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Brunobm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 10:43am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/109 "2025-05-13T10:43:05Z")
Although I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Agganñña Sutta, I find the description of Brahmas populating the material universe, feeding on rapture and bliss and falling from their natural state due to the consumption of food very insightful. I think that this sutta may be using metaphorical language to refer to other phenomena. One possible interpretation is that it symbolizes the gradual populating of the sensual realm during de development of the Universe— starting from the higher heavens (where beings feed on sweet nectar, like honey) down to the point where beings consume rice, representing the organic food eaten by humans and animals. This would apply to beings not destined for rebirth in the lower realms as the universe unfolds. It’s also possible to draw an analogy with embryonic development: the sweet nectar that appears on the earth could represent intrauterine fluids, the fungus the yolk sac, and the creeper the umbilical cord. And the rice for beings already born. All this is to say that perhaps the Buddha was indeed referring to a reality that is useful for understanding the Dhamma, but in a symbolic rather than literal way. ---
**Author:** ![Baloo](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/baloo/32/1615_2.png) [@Baloo](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Baloo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 1:42pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/110 "2025-05-13T13:42:09Z")
I would say that equating material science with the transcendental nature of certain aspects of religion is a foolish endeavor—one that gives rise to scientific zealots who exhibit hostility toward dissenters. One must always draw a clear boundary between conviction and reason in the mind, for science, governed by its own method, has limits. Final judgments ought to be suspended in such domains of knowledge, which are by nature ever-changing and self-correcting over time. This becomes especially evident in the case of evolution; despite being regarded in our time as the most widely accepted explanation, it still remains an incomplete and imperfect model (as it still remains under review). To treat various aspects of science with unyielding acceptance [which is something that doesn’t exist within the scientific method] is the mark of the poorly informed—those ignorant even of their own ignorance—not the stance taken by true experts in biology and other fields of science. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 2:05pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/111 "2025-05-13T14:05:30Z")
> [@Baloo](#): > > I would say that equating material science with the transcendental nature of certain aspects of religion is a foolish endeavor—one that gives rise to scientific zealots who exhibit hostility toward dissenters. One must always draw a clear boundary between conviction and reason in the mind, for science, governed by its own method, has limits. Final judgments ought to be suspended in such domains of knowledge, which are by nature ever-changing and self-correcting over time. This becomes especially evident in the case of evolution; despite being regarded in our time as the most widely accepted explanation, it still remains an incomplete and imperfect model (as it still remains under review). There are things in science that just aren’t going to change. The Earth isn’t flat, for example. Evolution is one of those facts. > To treat various aspects of science with unyielding acceptance [which is something that doesn’t exist within the scientific method] is the mark of the poorly informed—those ignorant even of their own ignorance—not the stance taken by true experts in biology and other fields of science. I am a scientist. Whilst we should be open to updating theories, as I say some things just won’t change short of the fundamental laws of nature changing. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 2:15pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/112 "2025-05-13T14:15:07Z")
> [@Baloo](#): > > I would say that equating material science with the transcendental nature of certain aspects of religion is a foolish endeavor The commentaries and Theravadins traditionally didn’t take it to be transcendental but rather literal. ---
**Author:** ![renaldo](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/renaldo/32/2033_2.png) [@renaldo](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/renaldo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 2:53pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/113 "2025-05-13T14:53:45Z")
This has been a very informative thread. Some of the comments here are very valuable. I especially like some of the recent ones refuting evolution and the need to believe in it. At this point, however, I fail to see the utility of the thread going forward. Renaldo ---
**Author:** ![RobertK](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/robertk/32/1498_2.png) [@RobertK](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/RobertK)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 3:41pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/114 "2025-05-13T15:41:22Z")
to follow up on Renaldo’s post please carefully read the guidelines to this forum > [@FAQ/Guidelines public](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/faq-guidelines-public/973): > > FAQ/Guidelines > **What if I’m not a pure orthodox Theravādan?** > Some who want to learn CT but not convert are welcome, but “learning” must be the intent rather than “sharing”. It is a one-way experience if you wish to join. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 4:07pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/115 "2025-05-13T16:07:30Z")
Perhaps closing the thread would be best then? ---
**Author:** ![Baloo](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/baloo/32/1615_2.png) [@Baloo](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Baloo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 6:50pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/116 "2025-05-13T18:50:46Z")
> [@Ceisiwr](#): > > There are things in science that just aren’t going to change. The Earth isn’t flat, for example. Evolution is one of those facts. It seems that you do not understand my words, or that you are merely being stubborn without comprehension. Within the scientific community, there are two aspects: accepting the occurrence of evolution, and proposing a theoretical explanation for its mechanism—the former is agreed upon by most biologists, while the latter is not. These two aspects are often conflated. biologists continue to debate over specific interpretations or mechanisms that operate in particular cases of evolution. Thus, any error that may be uncovered over time could well tip the balance. > “It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative impor-tance of different mechanisms of evolution.” > > ( **Evolution versus Creationism** , p. 31) We have naught to do with this in any wise, for we are not of the creationist sort. With a red line under that ‘we’. ‎ > [@Ceisiwr](#): > > The commentaries and Theravadins traditionally didn’t take it to be transcendental but rather literal. What I mentioned was in general terms, not specifics. I referred to aspects of religion in general—additionally, I deem it prudent to suspend the issuance of definitive pronouncements, for this is not a matter upon which certainty may presently be claimed, owing to the insufficiency of knowledge and the fact that all we possess are translations that oft distort the canon. Moreover, there is a marked gap in the translations of Commentarial materials. You previously referred to the notion of a flat earth; however, I have not come across anything that suggests this to be a traditional conception—quite the contrary, in fact. What piqued my interest is what the Visuddhimagga (Ch. VII) sets forth, which contains a detailed description of how the Earth’s terrain is conceived. And within this, there is nothing to suggest that the Earth is being portrayed as flat. a noteworthy excerpt: > _And as the world of beings so also the world of location. For accordingly this [world measures as follows]:_ > > _One world-sphere is twelve hundred thousand leagues and thirty-four hundred and fifty leagues (1,203,450) in breadth and width. In circumference, however:_ > > _[The measure of it] all around_ > _Is six and thirty hundred thousand_ > _And then ten thousand in addition,_ > _Four hundred too less half a hundred (3,610,350)._ I personally contemplate whether the cosmological description of the Earth (including the more expansive Mahāyānist paradigm as well) alludes to some form of cartographic projection; for maps, by nature, are invariably flat, serving as representations of a spherical form projected onto a plane. ---
**Author:** ![Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/ceisiwr/32/1260_2.png) [@Ceisiwr](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Ceisiwr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 7:22pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/117 "2025-05-13T19:22:40Z")
> [@Baloo](#): > > It seems that you do not understand my words, or that you are merely being stubborn without comprehension. Within the scientific community, there are two aspects: accepting the occurrence of evolution, and proposing a theoretical explanation for its mechanism—the former is agreed upon by most biologists, while the latter is not. These two aspects are often conflated. biologists continue to debate over specific interpretations or mechanisms that operate in particular cases of evolution. Thus, any error that may be uncovered over time could well tip the balance. We know its mechanism since its synthesis with Mendelian genetics. Of course we have learnt even more since then, and there will be more to learn. That’s true of all scientific theories. The germ theory of disease is another. Evolution itself however isn’t going away. If I’ve misunderstood your posts it’s because of how you write, which is rather verbose. > You previously referred to the notion of a flat earth; however, I have not come across anything that suggests this to be a traditional conception—quite the contrary, in fact. What piqued my interest is what the Visuddhimagga (Ch. VII) sets forth, which contains a detailed description of how the Earth’s terrain is conceived. And within this, there is nothing to suggest that the Earth is being portrayed as flat. a noteworthy excerpt: The commentaries have the following view of the world. This is taken from a Mahāyāna website, but the general picture is the same for Theravāda ![IMG_1259](https://classicaltheravada.org/uploads/default/original/2X/8/816149cdff14e4a5536593325e9140a2a520046a.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![Baloo](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/baloo/32/1615_2.png) [@Baloo](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/Baloo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 8:47pm UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/118 "2025-05-13T20:47:28Z")
> [@Ceisiwr](#): > > We know its mechanism since its synthesis with Mendelian genetics. Of course we have learnt even more since then, and there will be more to learn. That’s true of all scientific theories. The germ theory of disease is another. Evolution itself however isn’t going away. If I’ve misunderstood your posts it’s because of how you write, which is rather verbose. Who knows—one cannot presume such a thing, for science is ever in flux, and has oft abandoned one theory in favor of another, as it did when it relinquished the notion of blending inheritance for that of particulate inheritance. > [@Ceisiwr](#): > > The commentaries have the following view of the world. This is taken from a Mahāyāna website, but the general picture is the same for Theravāda I have seen it before, and I have come across various forms claiming to depict the same as mentioned here, along with several Japanese maps illustrating continents and other features. However, the Mahāyānist cosmology presents a far more expansive and profoundly different vision than the pre-Mahāyāna cosmological frameworks. ---
**Author:** ![RobertK](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/robertk/32/1498_2.png) [@RobertK](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/RobertK)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 1:55am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/119 "2025-05-14T01:55:22Z")
for discussion on flat earth: > [@Commentarial Explanation:Flat Earth](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/commentarial-explanation-flat-earth/613): > > Is it true that in the commentarial cosmological model, world is flat? This was mentioned in a lecture by Ven. Maggavihari from IIT. So, it’s safe to assume in classical Theravada world (cosmological) is explained using a flat model? ---
**Author:** ![RobertK](https://classicaltheravada.org/user_avatar/classicaltheravada.org/robertk/32/1498_2.png) [@RobertK](https://classicaltheravada.org/u/RobertK)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 1:55am UTC](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702/120 "2025-05-14T01:55:27Z")
[Previous page](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/how-life-began-and-evolutionary-theory/1702.md?page=5)