The answer to the question “What is life?”, no matter what tradition it is asked, poses a great difficulty for any intellectual attempt to create a consistent picture of the world. Buddhism, like modern science, starts from the basic assumption that at the most fundamental level there is no qualitative difference between the material basis of the bodies of living beings, including humans, and an inanimate object, say, a stone. The human body, just like a stone, arises as a result of the combination of material particles. In fact, the entire cosmos and all the objects contained in it are composed of the same substance, which is in a constant process of circulation; According to scientific concepts, the atoms of our body were once part of stars far removed from us in space and time.
How does the human body become so different from stone that it can be a support for the manifestation of life and consciousness? Answering this question, modern biology turns to the idea of the emergence of higher abilities as a result of the complication of the organization of inanimate matter. In other words, it tells how complex combinations of the simplest atoms gradually form molecular and genetic structures, and then various forms of organic life arise simply from a new combination of material elements.
Darwin’s theory of evolution forms the basis of modern biology. This theory, and especially the proposition of natural selection contained in it, paints a magnificent picture of the origin of various forms of life. As I understand it, the theory of evolution and natural selection is an attempt to explain the existence of a surprising number of different living organisms. Science explains the amazing richness of life forms and the huge difference between different types of living beings by the emergence of new forms by changing previous ones, adding that newly emerging properties are better suited to changed environmental conditions, and therefore they are inherited by subsequent generations, while species that are less adapted to survive in these conditions, they gradually die out.
So, according to Darwin’s theory, all complex living beings arose from the primordial simplest forms of life. And since all living organisms belong to an evolutionary line going back to a single ancestor, this theory implies the original interconnection of all living things in the world.
I first became aware of the theory of evolution during my first visit to India in 1956, and around the same time I became acquainted with some aspects of modern biology. But it was only much later that I was able to have an in-depth conversation about Darwinian evolutionary theory with real scientists. As funny as it may seem, the first person who helped me learn this theory more fully was not a representative of the scientific world, but a theologian. In 1960, Houston Smith came to Dharamsala to meet me. We talked about world religions, the need for mutual understanding between their followers, the role of spirituality in the context of increasing materialism in the modern world, as well as possible points of contact between Buddhist and Christian mysticism. However, what interested me most was the topic of modern biology and especially the message about DNA, how many of the secrets of life may lie in the amazing properties of these wonderful biological spirals. When I think of my teachers in science, I always include Huston Smith among them, although I am not sure that he himself would agree with such a characterization.
The rapid development of biological knowledge and especially revolutionary discoveries in the field of genetics have incredibly deepened our understanding of the role of DNA in the mystery of life. I owe much of my own understanding of modern biology to the explanations of my great teachers, such as Robert Livingston of the University of California, San Diego. He was a very patient mentor and, while explaining a new topic, looked attentively at the listener through the lenses of his glasses. In addition, this scientist was deeply concerned about the problem of general nuclear disarmament. Among his gifts to me is a collapsible plastic model of the brain that now sits on my desk in Dharamsala, and a handwritten list of key neurobiological concepts that he compiled.
Darwinian theory explains the wealth of flora and fauna that makes up the living nature around us, this includes plants and those organisms that Buddhists call “sentient beings.” To date, it has not been refuted by anyone and offers the most coherent and consistent scientific explanation of the evolutionary origin of various forms of life on Earth. This theory is largely applicable at the molecular level, that is, on its basis it is possible to explain adaptability and selection both at the macroscopic level of entire organisms and in terms of genetics. But despite its remarkable applicability to understanding all levels of existence of life, this theory does not address the conceptual question of what life even is. There are a number of key provisions that, according to modern biology, characterize what can be called life, such as the ability of living organisms to be self-regulating systems and the presence of mechanisms that ensure self-reproduction. In addition, one of the key definitions of life is the ability to evolve from chaos to order, which is called “negative entropy.”
The Buddhist Abhidharma, in contrast, defines the term sog (Tib. srog), the Tibetan equivalent of life, as that which maintains warmth and consciousness. This distinction is purely semantic only to some extent, since, according to Buddhist thinkers, the concept of “life” refers only to sentient beings, not to plants, while modern biology denotes a wider category of organisms, including single-celled organisms. The definition of abhidharma diverges from what is accepted in modern biology primarily because the main motive for creating any theory in Buddhism is the formulation of moral problems that make sense only in relation to higher forms of life.
The central point of Darwin’s theory of evolution, as I understand it, is natural selection. What does this mean? The biological model describes natural selection as a series of random genetic mutations followed by a struggle for survival among living organisms in which the fittest wins, or, more precisely, it comes down to the fact that some organisms have a better chance of producing offspring than others. Each new feature of a living organism is tested by exposure to environmental conditions. Those organisms that best withstand this test, and also win the fight against other organisms for survival, produce more offspring, and therefore are better adapted to survive in these conditions. To the extent that, of all the new characteristics that arise as a result of random mutations, those most suitable for environmental conditions are preserved, the existing species of living organisms undergo changes.
The theory of natural selection can be considered an explanation of how new species of living organisms arise, as well as how, for example, modern humans evolved from their ape-like ancestors. Despite the obvious differences in appearance, humans and chimpanzees share 98% similarity in their DNA structure; a difference of just 2% accounts for all the difference between the two species (the difference between human and gorilla DNA is 3%). At the genetic level, this theory explains how gene mutations that occur naturally and are random can undergo natural selection and give rise to new varieties of living things. Gene mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution at the molecular level. And natural selection, according to scientists, is a mechanism that led to the emergence and development of groups of neurons (transmitting, receptor and others), which gave rise to the emergence of different forms of the brain, as a result of which it ultimately became possible for the emergence of such special qualities of living beings as , for example, human consciousness.
Natural selection is also considered a key element in the process of the origin of life itself, in which special molecules capable of self-reproduction or even self-replicating crystals arose (perhaps at first simply by chance) in the primordial proto-organic “soup.” I learned from my physicist friend Stephen Chu at Stanford University that his group is developing models based on physical laws to understand the origin of life. According to currently available ideas about the origin of organic life, soon after the formation of the Earth, RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules, which are very unstable under normal conditions, could arise and reproduce themselves without outside help. In the process of natural selection, more complex and stable DNA molecules (deoxyribonucleic acid, the main carrier of genetic information) emerged from them. Life became possible with the emergence of even more complex formations, those that stored genetic information about self-reproduction in DNA, and built their bodies from proteins.
Scientists call the first organism, consisting of DNA, RNA and proteins, Luca. This hypothetical progenitor of all other life on Earth would have been similar to bacteria living deep below the surface of the soil or in hot springs. Through self-reproduction and natural selection, all other living organisms evolved from this Luke. Hearing this name always makes me smile, because it is also the name of my long-term Italian translator.
This model of evolution involves a series of small and gradual changes that ultimately lead to the emergence of a huge variety of properties of living organisms, which then pass through the sieve of natural selection. There are slightly different versions of this hypothesis. For example, it is possible that unexpected and significant changes occurred in the properties of organisms, which means that evolution proceeded spasmodically, as a series of strong and sudden changes. It is also discussed whether natural selection is the only mechanism for these changes or whether there are other factors as well.
The development of genetics has recently provided a huge field for clarifying and complicating our understanding of the processes of evolution at the molecular and genetic level. In a relatively short period, even before the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, a complete decoding of the human genome was completed. This huge achievement promises to be the basis for some absolutely incredible new technological and medical developments. I myself first learned about deciphering the human genome in a somewhat unusual way. On the day that American President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a joint announcement about this event, I was in the United States and took part in Larry King’s talk show. I usually only listen to the news early in the morning and late in the day, so I was unaware of this report made around noon, and when Larry King asked me what I thought about it, I had no idea what it was about . I couldn’t connect the announcement of a remarkable scientific discovery with a press conference by two of the world’s leading leaders. In addition, my interview was broadcast via satellite, which made the conversation very difficult. It just so happened that this news was brought to me by Larry King, host of Larry King Live.
Over time, I learned the circumstances of this amazing scientific achievement. I had the opportunity to talk with some scientists working in this field, in particular geneticist Eric Lander of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who showed me his laboratory at the Broad Institute, where many powerful computers were working on deciphering the genome, and demonstrated some of the steps in calculating gene sequences.
At one of the Life and Consciousness conferences, Eric explained the complexity of the genome by comparing it to the ganjur, a collection of texts attributed by tradition to the Buddha himself and translated into Tibetan. This collection contains more than one hundred volumes, each of which contains about three hundred pages. The entire “book” of the human genome contains twenty-three “chapters”, twenty-three human chromosomes, and each set of the genome (one set from each parent) contains from thirty to eighty thousand genes. Each of the “chapters” is written on a long strand of DNA in three-letter words using four “letters”: A, C, G and T – adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – in a wide variety of combinations.
“Let’s imagine,” said Eric, “that over millions of years of copying this book, small inaccuracies constantly creep into its text, just as when copying a ganjur by hand , grammatical errors, substitutions of words and discrepancies can creep into it. These errors will be repeated in subsequent copies, which will later become the basis for subsequent variations, and so on. Some of these errors may have no effect on the reading of the text, while others will have far-reaching consequences. In such a canonical text, even one seemingly insignificant mistake, for example, replacing a particle from negative to affirmative, can completely change the meaning of the entire sentence. The mutations that accompany the evolution of living organisms are similar to just such random changes in spelling.”
According to the biologists I spoke with, most scientists agree that all genetic mutations are completely random. But when the change has already taken place, the principle of natural selection comes in, which provides the greatest chance for survival only to the fittest individuals. As the American biologist Ursula Goodenough said at the Life and Consciousness conference in 2002: “All mutations are completely random, but selection is absolutely purposeful.” From a philosophical point of view, it seems completely consistent to me that all these mutations with far-reaching consequences occur naturally, but the fact that they are completely random does not satisfy me. The question remains open: should this randomness itself be understood as an objective property of reality or as a kind of hidden causality?
Unlike science, Buddhist philosophy does not discuss the question of how living beings arose from inanimate matter. In fact, there is no recognition in Buddhism that this question is a real philosophical problem. At best, there is an implicit assumption here that the emergence of living organisms from inanimate matter is simply one of the manifestations of the law of causality, the result of certain primary conditions and natural laws that govern all existence. However, in Buddhism there is recognition of the problem of understanding how sentient beings arose from a base that was not endowed with the capacity for experience.
There is an interesting contrast here between Buddhism and modern science, which is perhaps partly a consequence of the complex historical, social and cultural differences in the development of these two traditions of world study. For modern science, at least from a philosophical point of view, the critical boundary is between inanimate matter and living organisms, while Buddhism is more inclined to consider the division of the world into insentient matter and sentient beings.
One might ask why there is a difference between these two approaches? One of the possible reasons that modern science places so much emphasis on the transition from inanimate matter to living beings lies in the very foundations of the methodology of science. I mean reductionism here, but not as a metaphysical attitude, but rather as a methodological approach. The basic approach of science is to try to explain phenomena in terms of their elementary constituent parts. How can life arise from lifelessness? At one of the Life and Consciousness conferences in Dharamsala, the Italian biologist Luigi Luisi, who works in Zurich, told me about the research of his group, which is working on the problem of the laboratory origin of life. After all, if the modern theory of the origin of life from complexly organized inanimate matter is correct, nothing prevents us from creating life artificially by bringing together all the necessary conditions for this.
Buddhism makes this division in a completely different way – between sentient beings and the insentient world – since its main goal is the elimination of suffering and the attainment of happiness. According to Buddhism, the evolution of the cosmos and the origin of living beings, that is, in fact, everything that falls under the purview of both the natural sciences and the humanities, falls within the realm of the first of the Four Noble Truths expounded by the Buddha in his first sermon. According to the Four Noble Truths, suffering is an inherent quality of all impermanent phenomena, this suffering has a cause, complete cessation of suffering is possible, and there is a path leading to this cessation. In my opinion, the scope of scientific consideration falls within the First Noble Truth, since science studies the material basis of suffering, considering its entire spectrum: the “container”, that is, the conditions of the environment, and the “content”, the sentient beings living in it. The second noble truth, which explains the causes of suffering, we find in the realm of the mind, that is, in the field of psychology, consciousness, emotions and karma. The Third and Fourth Noble Truths are completely beyond scientific consideration and belong exclusively to the realm of philosophy and religion.
The fundamental difference between Buddhism and science—whether we draw the line between sentient beings and the insentient world, or between living organisms and inanimate matter—appears, among other things, in the way these two research traditions approach the consideration of consciousness. From a biological point of view, consciousness is a secondary phenomenon, being a characteristic only of some part of living organisms, but not of life as a whole. In Buddhism, since here the concept of “living” refers only to sentient beings, consciousness becomes the primary characteristic of life.
One of the implicit assumptions that I often find when reading the tradition of Western thought is that in the history of evolution the very existence of man has a certain exceptional status. This exclusivity is often understood in terms such as “soul” or “self-awareness,” which are assumed to be endowed only by humans. There is even an idea of three stages in the development of life: inanimate matter, living organisms and human beings. This view is based on the idea that humans belong to a completely different category of organisms than plants and animals. Strictly speaking, this approach cannot be called scientific.
In contrast, if we look at the history of Buddhist philosophical thought, we find that here animals are considered much closer to humans than plants, since both humans and animals are classified as sentient beings. This understanding is based on the idea that, when viewed from the point of view of the capacity for experience, there is no significant difference between humans and animals. Animals, just like humans, strive to avoid suffering and achieve happiness, and also experience pain and pleasure. From a Buddhist point of view, both humans and animals are endowed with the same, but varying degrees of complexity, ability, called shepa in Tibetan (Tib. shes pa), which means “consciousness”. In Buddhism, there is no idea of any unique “soul” existing only in humans. From the point of view of the presence of consciousness, the difference between humans and animals is only quantitative, not qualitative.
There are various accounts of human evolution in the early Buddhist scriptures, which are then repeated in numerous later Abhidharma texts. The Buddhist cosmos in this description consists of three realms: the world of desire, the world of form, and the world of formlessness, which represent a series of increasingly refined states of being. The desire world is characterized by the fact that living beings residing in it are capable of experiencing sensory desires and pain; It is in this area that people and animals live. In contrast, in the world of forms there is absolutely no pain, and being in it is characterized mainly by a feeling of pleasure. The bodies of the inhabitants of this world are made of light. And finally, the world without forms is completely beyond any physical perception. Staying in it is associated with a state of complete equanimity, and the creatures of this world are deprived of any material corporeality, being on the immaterial, mental plane. Beings of the highest levels of the world of desires, as well as inhabitants of the worlds of form and the formless, are among the celestials. It should be noted that all of these areas are covered by the First Noble Truth. These heavenly abodes, which we may dream of entering, are impermanent; they are all subject to their own kinds of suffering and change.
The evolution of people on Earth is understood by Buddhism as the result of the fall from these heavenly inhabitants of certain beings who exhausted their karma, which ensured their stay in higher spheres. There is no reference here to any original sin which predetermined this fall; This is simply the nature of changeable existence, in which the action of cause and effect forces creatures to change their habitat, that is, to die. When these creatures first experienced the fall and found themselves on Earth, they still retained their former glory for some time. It is believed that people of the first earthly era were like gods. They entered the world through “spontaneous birth”, had a very attractive appearance, their bodies radiated radiance, they were endowed with many superpowers, for example, they could fly, and their food was pure contemplation. In addition, they had no signs of gender or race and there was no division into castes.
But over time, human beings have lost these qualities. By feeding on material food, the bodies became dense, causing their physical appearance to differ. This difference led to a sense of separation, which was expressed in hostility towards those who seemed different and attachment to those who were similar to oneself. Thus, negative emotions gradually began to arise. Further, dependence on material food led to the need to remove food waste from the body, and I do not remember exactly what arguments are given in this regard in classical works, but the essence comes down to the fact that in this way male and female sexual characteristics arose. The story continues by detailing the emergence of a whole range of negative human behaviors such as murder, theft and sexual misconduct.
One of the central points of this approach to understanding human evolution is the theory of four types of birth contained in the Abhidharma. According to this view, living beings enter the world in one of four ways, being born (1) from the womb, like humans; (2) from eggs, like birds and many reptiles; (3) from heat and moisture, like insects; (4) spontaneously – this type of birth is inherent in the celestial inhabitants of the worlds of form and formlessness. Regarding the question of the diversity of life forms, Chandrakirti expresses a general Buddhist point of view on this matter when he writes: “From the mind arises the whole world of sentient beings. From it arise their various spheres of habitat.”
In the earliest Buddhist texts, the authorship of which is attributed to the Buddha himself, we find similar statements that in the absolute sense the mind is the creator of the entire universe. Some Buddhist schools accept such statements literally, resulting in the development of extreme forms of idealism in which the reality of the external world is completely denied. But in general, most Buddhist thinkers tend to interpret them as indicating that the world, at least the world of living beings, came into being as a result of the laws of karma.
The theory of karma is a key tenet of Buddhism, but it is often completely misunderstood. Literally, the Sanskrit word karma means “action” and refers to the intentional actions of living beings. These actions can be performed by the body, speech or mind, that is, actions in this context also include feelings and thoughts, but they all leave their own, even if very insignificant, imprint on the totality of the mental properties of the organism. Intention leads to action, as a result of which certain tendencies and inclinations arise in the mind, which then lead to new intentions and actions. The whole process is seen as endless and self-reproducing. The chain reaction of interrelated actions and their consequences has results not only within one individual, but also groups and societies, and not only within a given life, but in a series of interconnected existences.
Thus, the term karma refers both to the action of individual individuals and to the principle of causality itself. In Buddhism, this karmic causation is seen as a natural process, and not as some kind of “divine mechanism” working according to a predetermined plan. It is a mistake to believe that karma is a single transcendental entity acting like the God of theistic systems, or that it is some kind of fate that completely determines human destiny. From a scientific point of view, the theory of karma may seem like an assumption from the field of metaphysics, but the same, in essence, is the assumption that all life is entirely material and arose due to a purely random coincidence of circumstances.
Regarding the possible mechanisms that allow karma to play a role as the cause of the evolutionary process, here I find useful the explanations contained in the Vajrayana tradition, which is sometimes called “esoteric Buddhism” by modern Western authors. According to the Guhyasamaja Tantra, one of the main traditions of Vajrayana Buddhism, at a fundamental level there is no difference between mind and matter. Matter in its most subtle form is prana, the vital energy that is inseparable from consciousness. Both are aspects of a single indivisible reality. Prana represents the aspect of mobility, dynamics and cohesion, while consciousness is the cognitive aspect and the faculty of reflective thinking.
Thus, according to Guhyasamaja Tantra, when the world system comes into existence, we observe the play of this energy and the reality of consciousness.
Due to the inseparability of consciousness and energy, there is a deep and close connection between the elements of our body and the natural elements of the external world. This subtle correlation can be recognized by people who have reached a certain level of spiritual development, or by those who are naturally capable of higher perception. For example, the Tibetan thinker of the 15th century. Taktsang Lotsawa, through introspection, established that there is complete correspondence between his own changes in the rhythm of breathing during periods of lunar and solar eclipses and how this is described in the Kalachaka Tantra. In fact, Vajrayana Buddhism contains the understanding that our body is a microcosmic reflection of the outer, macrocosmic world. In this regard, Kalachakra Tantra pays great attention to the study of the movement of celestial bodies and contains a detailed astronomical system.
Just as I have never found the Abhidharma cosmology convincing enough, I have never been inclined to share its view of human evolution as a process of progressive degradation. One of the Tibetan myths about the origin of people says that they originated from the union of a monkey and an evil demoness, and I am not inclined to believe this either.
Overall, I believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution, especially when combined with the discoveries of modern genetics, gives us a very consistent picture of the physical evolution of man on Earth. At the same time, I believe that the idea of karma, along with such concepts as “energy” and “consciousness,” should play a central role in understanding the emergence of what in Buddhism is called “feeling” or “experience.”
Despite all the successes of the Darwinian approach, I do not think that this story has been fully told. To begin with, despite the consistent description of the development of life and the various mechanisms underlying this process, such as natural selection, it does not contain a final answer to the question of how life itself actually arose. Further, there is some uncertainty in the understanding of what “survival of the fittest” means. The theory of natural selection states that of all the random mutations that occur in the genes of a given organism, only the most successful ones are fixed in the offspring. But the only way to confirm this theory is to observe the characteristics of these successful mutations. That is, in fact, the theory literally states the following: “Since these genetic mutations were preserved, it means that they had the greatest chance of preservation.”
From a Buddhist point of view, the idea of completely random mutations is completely unsuitable for explaining the origin of life. Karl Popper once told me that in his opinion Darwin’s theory of evolution does not and cannot explain the origin of life on Earth. He believes that this theory of evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis, but rather a metaphysical doctrine that should stimulate further scientific research. In addition, Darwinian theory, while seeing a fundamental difference between inanimate matter and living organisms, is unable to formulate a fundamental difference between the properties of living organisms, such as trees and grass on the one hand, and sentient beings on the other.
Another empirical problem with the emphasis Darwinian theory places on individual competition in the process of natural selection is the need to explain altruism, whether social behavior such as food sharing, conflict resolution such as in chimpanzees, or also acts of direct self-sacrifice. There are many examples, not only among humans, but also among other species, where individuals put their lives in direct danger to save others. For example, a honey bee, defending its hive from invasion, may itself die; some birds also defend their nest against attacks at the risk of their own lives.
In answer to such questions, Darwinian theory at the present stage of its development argues that there are circumstances in which altruistic behavior, including self-sacrifice, increases the chances of a given species being preserved in future generations. However, I do not think that such arguments apply in all cases, since there are examples of interspecies altruism. For example, one can think of birds hatching a cuckoo egg that falls into their nest, although this obviously benefits only the cuckoos. And although such forms of altruism may not always be considered voluntary due to the fact that some living organisms seem to be programmed for behavior associated with self-sacrifice, modern biology considers any form of altruism generally to be genetically determined. But the problem becomes much more complex if we consider human emotions and especially examples of altruism in human society.
Some of the more radical Darwinists believe that the process of natural selection and the survival of the fittest species should be considered at the level of individual genes. Here we see that a consistent metaphysical belief in the primacy of the principle of selfish interest leads to the idea that selfishness is somehow manifested by genes themselves. I don’t know how many scientists currently hold such radical views, but in any case it seems to me that modern biological theory does not allow the possibility of genuine altruism.
At one of the World and Life conferences in Dharamsala, Harvard science historian Anna Harrington gave a memorable talk about how, and to some extent why, the scientific study of human behavior has failed to develop any systematic understanding of such a powerful emotion as compassion. At least in modern psychology, positive emotions, such as compassion and altruism, are given much less attention than aggression, anger and fear. Perhaps such selectivity is determined by the fact that modern psychology is primarily aimed at solving therapeutic problems and therefore strives primarily to achieve an understanding of the pathological states of the human psyche. However, it seems to me that altruism should not be rejected on the basis that non-selfish actions do not fit into the current biological description of the world or are considered just a form of selfish species behavior. Such statements directly contradict the spirit of scientific research. As far as I understand, the scientific approach should not distort empirical facts in favor of one theory or another; on the contrary, the theory must be brought into conformity with the results of observations. Otherwise, we will be like a person who tries to change the size of his feet in order to put on shoes that do not fit him.
In my opinion, this inability or unwillingness to fully consider issues related to manifestations of altruism is perhaps the most significant negative result of Darwinian evolution, at least the popular version. In the natural world, the observation of which is supposed to be the source of evolutionary theory, along with the obvious interspecies struggle for existence, one can also discern a wide variety of forms of cooperation (not necessarily in the sense of conscious manifestations). Likewise, in addition to the observed manifestations of aggression in animals and humans, one can also encounter manifestations of altruism and compassion. Why does modern biology recognize only opposition as the only fundamental principle of development, and aggression as the main quality of living beings? Why is it unwilling to recognize cooperation as an important operating principle, and altruism and compassion as the fundamental motive of behavior?
The extent to which we will be able to find complete scientific justification for our understanding of human nature and existence in general depends on which scientific concept we adhere to. In my opinion, this is largely not a scientific, but a philosophical problem. Radical materialism may seek to support the thesis that evolutionary theory covers all aspects of human life, including morality and religious experience, while other schools of thought may see the limitations of the scientific approach in attempting to understand the nature of human existence. Science may never be able to paint a complete picture of humanity in all its manifestations or provide a comprehensive answer to the question of the origin of life. This, of course, does not deny that, within the framework of a scientific approach, much can be understood about the origin of the huge variety of forms of living organisms. However, I do not believe that society should agree to limit its understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live to the limits set by science.
If the history of the 20th century, with its belief in social Darwinism and the many terrible events resulting from attempts to change society on the basis of the theory of natural selection, has taught us anything, it is that we humans have a terrible tendency to turn our professed views into self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea that the fittest must always survive has been inappropriately applied to condone and sometimes justify various manifestations of human greed and individualism, to the exclusion of ethical models that require people to be more compassionate towards their fellows. Thus, regardless of our current scientific beliefs, and given the fact that modern science has such high authority in society, it is very important that people who choose it as a profession do not forget their influence and responsibility. Science must constantly try to prevent popularization from distorting its ideas, since this can have the most dire consequences for humanity and the whole world.
No matter how compelling Darwinian ideas about the origin of life may be, as a Buddhist I find that they leave crucial questions unexamined. After all, from a Buddhist perspective, the human quest for knowledge and understanding of one’s own existence stems from the deepest desire to find happiness and avoid suffering. And until a convincing understanding of the nature and causes of consciousness is achieved, scientific ideas about the origin of life and the Universe will remain incomplete.
Read online. The book “The Universe in One Atom: Science and Spirituality in the Service of the World.” Tenzin Gyatso
Content
Preface. Introduction
1. Meditation
2. My encounter with science
3. Emptiness, relativity and quantum physics
4. The Big Bang Theory and the Buddhist Beginningless Cosmos
5. Evolution, karma and the world of living beings
6. The problem of the emergence of consciousness
7. Towards a science of consciousness
8. Factors of consciousness
9. Ethical problems of modern genetics
Conclusion. Science, Spirituality and Humanity