[taryal]

One of the utterly valuable lessons that I learnt from practicing Dhamma is to be open to all possibilities of the world. If Death is nothing, let it be nothing. If Nibbana is nothing, let it be nothing. Of course, the Tipitaka says that it exists but we don’t exactly know what it is (no thoughts and matter), so it is imperative to be open to accepting it for what it is. The world is full of mysteries and there is little that we control.

We see many debates these days, mostly in the West, between Materialists/Evolutionists and Creationists/Eternalists. Most of the times, Creationism doesn’t stand a chance against Science which reveals many inconsistencies of religious scriptures. In a way, I am thankful that Modern Science has been good in exposing the many unsubstantiated claims that religious people have been making for a long time.

The following video is a little different from most debates of Origin of Life as it is between a Youtuber (Professor Dave Explains), who is in favor of Abiogenesis and a chemist (James Tour) who is a Christian. I found it comical to see how Dave repeatedly goes off at James for the apparent lies he had been uttering, while James keeps on yelling at Dave. The strange part is that throughout the 2 hours of debate, neither of them talked about the most important aspect of life and that has to do with the complexity of the conscious experience. “How can inert matter give rise to complex mental phenomena like thoughts, feelings, and perception?” Abiogenesis does not explain that. Of course, even though it hasn’t been proven that consciousness originates in the brain, many scientists are convinced that it does.

It is quite clear that the youtuber Dave in this video isn’t able to take his opponent’s claims seriously because of the erroneous alternative he offered that “Jesus created life”, made even worse by the disrespectful evangelicals in the crowd. “You don’t fear the Lord, you fear Mortality.”

P.S. I really like the channel of Professor Dave Explains and think it would be really interesting to hear his thoughts on the Dhamma perspective of Origin of Life.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[ravi777]

Dear Taryal, thanks for your explanation and the video.
However according to the Buddha Dhamma, the Origin of life is Neither God Nor Abiogenesis. According the the late Ven. Waharaka Abhayarathanalankara thero, The Lord Buddha kept the Origin of life as unrevealed knowledge (since it is just an useless hindrance in the quest for Nibbana).
The Buddha only said that it is an extremely long long time; far far longer than the “puny” 5 billion year history of the Earth, and the almost equally puny 13.5 to 14 billion year Big Bang.

A pupil of Waharaka Thero, the Wallasmulle Abhaya thero stated that according to the Buddha’s message in the Tripitaka, the process of the Origin of a single Being, cannot be understood even by Arhaths like Sariputta and Moggallana, but only by a Great Samma Sambuddha.

However, Samsaric Time as a whole, is Eternal and Infinite both to the past and to the future. Beings “Leave” samsara by becoming Arhaths and Parinibbana or passing away, but there are countless other beings still in samsara.

With Mettha,

ravi.

 

[taryal]

Hello Ravi, I agree with you that we should not spend too much time trying to figure out the details of the origin of universe. But as Dhamma practitioners, we should be aware of the different worldviews of the world. In the absence of a Buddha, there are primarily 2 types of worldviews that exist: Materialism and Creationism (Eternalism). I posted the above video for general information, in a way to highlight how humans argue over 2 extreme views (without Dhamma knowledge):

• Materialism takes precedence over Creationism in the contemporary world because of Modern Science. The theory of Abiogenesis provides a general map of how life might have evolved starting with inert matter. But how complex mental phenomena can arise out of dead matter remains a mystery.
• Creationism suggests that life was created by an almighty God who will grant humans “eternal life” if they have faith in that idea. But due to issues like the lack of evidence, problem of suffering and the unstable nature of the universe, scientists are unwilling to accept this idea. This is why I highlighted that the fact that many scientists (including Professor Dave Explains above) are unwilling to consider anything other than matter in this universe.

[Author]

Posts