Thanks for the input, Tobias. If more people commented, I would be able to address these key issues better.
You made two comments above. Let us categorize them #1 and #2.
___________
#1: You agree that colors are mind-made and do not exist in sunlight or external objects. You also agree that ‘perception of color’ (our experience of color) is for our survival.
- However, you are not making the connection to Buddha’s teachings on the anicca nature.
- Modern science makes the same argument as you do. They say that the perception of color evolved over time. They say that life evolved into more complex forms, starting with primitive forms that lacked color perception. That is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which says life evolves to generate ‘more capabilities’ for survival.
- Buddha’s description is the opposite. Life did not evolve on Earth. The first lifeform on the newly formed Earth was humans with ‘Brahma-like subtle bodies’ (not the dense physical bodies we have today); they were also unisexual like Brahmas, no men or women. Initially, they did not need dense food either. However, with time, their minds defiled (because their samyojana or anusaya were NOT eliminated) and they gradually started engaging in immoral deeds. Their bodies changed over millions of years to become denser, and sex organs also evolved (more correctly, it is devolution, the opposite of evolution). Then, the environment also changed with vegetation appearing. That was necessary for the next step: those humans who had engaged in immoral deeds were reborn as animals. I have discussed/summarized that complex account in two posts :
- “Aggañña Sutta Discussion – Introduction” and “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)“
____________________
Issue #2 on the anicca nature is firmly attached to issue #1.
- One must first decide which of the two ways to explain how ‘color perception’ appeared. Did it evolve over billions of years as modern science proposes, or is it “built in differently to different living beings based on their gati“? That second process operates via Paticca Samuppada. For example, humans who have better moral gati but crave sensual pleasure are born with sense faculties to ‘enjoy life’ with colorful, tasteful… sensory experiences, while most animals do not ‘enjoy such pleasures’ because of the immoral gati that led to their births.
- As I have explained, the theory of evolution is based on one critical basis. Thoughts arise in the brain. When the brain (i.e., the physical body) dies, that lifeform ends. The ‘evolution of species’ propagates via random mutations in the DNA. Let us get that fact established first. If someone bases their argument on the ‘theory of evolution,’ then Tobias’s explanation holds. If that is the case, then one should first get rid of that ‘wrong worldview’ to follow the Buddha’s teachings. However, that is for each person to decide.
- Regarding the choice between those two possibilities, I can only provide evidence that thoughts can not arise in the brain. This is the main obstacle facing those who advocate Darwin’s theory. They cannot explain how thoughts and perception (including color perception) can arise in the brain, which is made of inert atoms/molecules. It is called the “hard problem of consciousness.” There are two other pieces of evidence against Darwin’s theory (same as the proposition that thoughts/perceptions arise in the brain), and those are rebirth accounts and Near-Death Experiences (NDE): “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind.”
______________
We can continue the discussion, but we need to make a distinction about how to proceed.
- We cannot have two separate discussions: (i) Discuss the choice between Darwin’s theory of evolution and Buddha’s theory of Paticca Samuppada, or (ii) Discuss how to explain color perception within Paticca Samuppada.
- The basis of my posts is the Buddha’s teachings, i.e., color perception arises via Paticca Samuppada.
