The origin of "life" on earth

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 1789
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Rick » Wed May 23, 2018 2:08 pm

What would we do with all our energy if we didn't spend so much of it wondering about the nature of the universe?

Image
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1615
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Wed May 23, 2018 2:23 pm

Didn't the discoverer of DNA say something like that, what was his name, Crick?

User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by tomschwarz » Thu May 24, 2018 12:04 am

Supramundane wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:49 am
(...)but is it not possible that the Ocean can come alive? It may just be that it is the intermediate state between (...)
how about both life-traveling (e.g. ice in commits/moons/asteroids/etc...) and life spontaneously originating, like in native american animism, together? both asteroid-sperm/earth egg and kreepy crawly water are surely in play in the reaching out of life. and then the mind, and buddhism/"origin of the mind can only be the mind" is a similar description of viral/creeping, crawling, living, stuff, or?

funny about that sutra, "my water", "my fire" and so on, of course it is true. but what if we beat that game and lost self-centered perspective, do you really think that we would be anything other than earth, water, fire and air? does anyone think that the mind is uncompounded (not made up of any sort of electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and so on)? i mean it could be, like some sort of holy ghost stuff, i feel like a holy ghost sometimes. but logic tells me that i am no ghost, just a mortal human, made of chewing gum like, pinkish tubes and that i will die and face true selflessness, and if i can accept all of that i wont be reborn but if i really need that hubba bubba, i am going to run back to the candy store for more. but in either case, that mind must still be like some sort of electricity or heat or ?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3007
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by PadmaVonSamba » Thu May 24, 2018 12:06 am

Two apes are sitting in a tree 200,000 years ago and see the first homo sapien walk by
the one ape says to the other: "Must be some new samsaric realm..."
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Wayfarer » Thu May 24, 2018 2:05 am

Not that simians would have any such knowledge.....
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Supramundane » Thu May 24, 2018 2:14 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 12:06 am
Two apes are sitting in a tree 200,000 years ago and see the first homo sapien walk by
the one ape says to the other: "Must be some new samsaric realm..."
.
.
.
lol !

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Supramundane » Thu May 24, 2018 2:28 am

as you have reminded us, Tom, we are made of nuclear waste (!).

thus, the biological evolution began in the heart of a star. we are like the universe waking up. i was taught at school that evolution is the 'survival of the fittest', but upon reflection, it seems to me that this is not the case. every species is a survival strategy not a battle to be 'fitter'. the better survival strategies let you survive, but all species are all soldiers in a common battle, survival. they are all on the same team. for reasons of diversification, there are as many strategies as possible. from bacteria to insects to mammals, etc. thus, in this light, homo sapiens are simply an expediency, one more branch on the tree, one more survival strategy.

every species is an information collecting corpus, roaming over this earth whose history is embedded in our bodies. an examination of our bodies can reveal an evolutionary story going back millions of years. but what is the purpose of the gathering of information by all these diverse species? is it enlightenment? what else could it be? survival itself, but to what end?

at the same time all this occurs against the backdrop of entropy. i was taught that it entropy is bringing the universe to stagnation and ultimately 'heat death', a state of utter inertness and death. but could entropy actually be seen as 'harmonization'?

perhaps science is looking at things the wrong way.

Isaac Asimov wrote a short story, "The Final Question' which gives one possible explanation to the fate of the universe, the battle against ultimate entropy, and our role as 'information gathering beings". perhaps he was onto something...

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Wayfarer » Fri May 25, 2018 1:04 am

Supramundane wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 2:28 am
as you have reminded us, Tom, we are made of nuclear waste (!).
'We are stardust' is a nicer way of putting it. (From Joni Mitchell)
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Supramundane » Fri May 25, 2018 2:00 am

yes i was trying to be funny:)

Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Fortyeightvows » Fri May 25, 2018 2:27 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:04 am
We are stardust' is a nicer way of putting it.
http://www.drbachinese.org/online_readi ... -ce-08.htm

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Wayfarer » Fri May 25, 2018 3:49 am

From which:
As for the so-called science, there is no real thing called science. People just made up the name "science" and called it that. It's actually just a body of theories.
Anyone who believes this should clearly renounce modern technology as it's all obviously bogus. :tongue:
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

Bristollad
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Bristollad » Fri May 25, 2018 1:53 pm

Supramundane wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 2:28 am
i was taught at school that evolution is the 'survival of the fittest', but upon reflection, it seems to me that this is not the case.
Many people including many teachers think this phrase means the survival of the strongest; that is incorrect. The fittest organism is the one that best fits its particular ecological niche; it is able to best respond to the problems and opportunities it is faced with, being that organism in that place at that time. And by best respond, I mean best able to pass on its particular genetic information of itself or its close relatives.

User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by tomschwarz » Fri May 25, 2018 10:52 pm

friends (and enemies and neutral) amazing ideas and understanding, truly in the spirit of narlanda/nagajura in that this is logic on steroids. quick question, vasana, have been wanting to ask, where on earth(?) did you get that series of quotes? is that something that you have amassed over some longer period based on (?)....
Vasana wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:25 am


"Consider one definite molecule. It is part of nature. It has moved about for millions of years. Perhaps it started from a distant nebula. It enters the body; it may be as a factor in some edible vegetable; or it passes into the lungs as part of the air. At what exact point as it enters the mouth, or as it is absorbed through the skin, is it part of the body? At what exact moment, later on, does it cease to be part of the body? Exactness is out of the question. "
— Alfred North Whitehead

“In a chemical sense, we really blend in with the people around us like spilled paint; your molecules and mine are continually drifting off the surface of our skin, breathed out of our noses, flaked off hair and scalps. Individuals don’t have sharp edges. We blur into each other’s space like perfume molecules wafting from an open bottle.”
— K.C.Cole

“The human skin is an artificial boundary: the world wanders into it, and the self wanders out of it, traffic is two-way and constant.”
— Bernard Wolfe

"I would like you to show me, if you can, where the line can be drawn between an organism and it’s environment. The environment is in you. It’s passing through you. You’re breathing it in and out. You and every other creature."-
— Wendell Berry

"Where do I begin and end in space? I have relations to the sun and air which are just as vital parts of my existence as my heart."
— Alan Watts

“Our existence is not so much individual as it is emergent from an inconceivable profusion of intimacies, relations, exchanges and ineffibles... nearly all of which are as invisible to our language and tradition as they are to ordinary awareness. And yet ordinary awareness is one of the results of their fusion. We are alive ‘in a constellation’ of relationships... physical, historical, emotional, temporal... endless domains of them. We do not live merely in a body, in a place, and yet, it is »from this position that our experience is rendered tangible, coherent, and relatively... linear.”
— Darin Stevenson

"Every moment of experience is contingent on a vast complex of myriad conditions. Nothing exists in and of itself as ‘this’ or 'that,’ 'self’ or 'other.’ Everything is what it is only in relation to what it is not. To recognize this emptiness is not to negate things but to glimpse what enables anything to happen at all."
— Stephen Batchelor

"Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves."
— Nagarjuna

" Recalling the principle of interdependence, we can expand our sense of ourselves beyond the narrow limits of our own body and experiences, to encompass everything our life connects to.Interdependence is our reality, whether we accept it or not. In order to live productively within such a reality, it is better to acknowledge and work with interdependence, wholeheartedly and without resistance. This is where love and compassion come in. It is love that leads us to embrace our connectedness to others, and to participate willingly in the relations created by our interdependence"
— HHKarmapa17 OTD


Richard...
Rick wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 4:19 pm
Another way to look at it:

Life (living organisms) is the primary entity, non-living matter/energy serves to complexify, strengthen, and spread life.

I'm not endorsing or denouncing this view, just sharing it. (Mine is more: A "living" organism is a temporary sub-process within The Grand Process, just like a wave is a temporary arising of the ocean.)
....fast forward to your personal understanding, life temporary, check... ...and the grand process is emptiness itself? and goign back to the first idea, where is it from? so what they call in buddhism "phenomenal world" serves to "complexify, strengthen, and spread life"? it makes sense, from my perspective... but it does feel like new territory.... ...because in Buddhism, the mind (something special) relates to the phenomenal world (something banal)..... no?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by tomschwarz » Fri May 25, 2018 11:15 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:53 pm
Supramundane wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 2:28 am
i was taught at school that evolution is the 'survival of the fittest', but upon reflection, it seems to me that this is not the case.
Many people including many teachers think this phrase means the survival of the strongest; that is incorrect. The fittest organism is the one that best fits its particular ecological niche; it is able to best respond to the problems and opportunities it is faced with, being that organism in that place at that time. And by best respond, I mean best able to pass on its particular genetic information of itself or its close relatives.
right, clear. so question, what is the relationship (or is there any) between "fittest" and "happiest"? so what i am thinking, is "survival" a wise goal? when not? ...after the bardo of dying, before potential (re)birth, if you potentially believe in reincarnation, how to be "fit" for happiness going forwards?

btw, in terms of Darwinian evolution, no question, i am a believer, and my key belief there, is "survival of the fittest", in terms of evolution.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by tomschwarz » Fri May 25, 2018 11:24 pm

hm... i would not mess with that, does not sound like buddhism to me. to you?
People came to the earth from the Heaven of Light-Sound.
something like the book of genises, no? i say that people came to the earth from monkeys. the question here, how did algae come to the earth? from kreepy crawly water (mother of all)? or from another planet? or?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Fortyeightvows » Sat May 26, 2018 12:52 am

tomschwarz wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 11:24 pm
hm... i would not mess with that, does not sound like buddhism to me. to you?
Maybe the buddhism I know is different from the buddhism you know

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Wayfarer » Sat May 26, 2018 1:27 am

Supramundane wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 2:28 am
I was taught at school that evolution is the 'survival of the fittest', but upon reflection, it seems to me that this is not the case.
The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer who was a contemporary of Darwin. But Darwin approved of it, and according to the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868. In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869, intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".
It does indeed have implications for economics and politics, as many commentators have noted.

The interesting thing is, Alfred Russel Wallace and Darwin eventually fell out because Wallace was a 'spiritualist', in the Victorian sense - not an orthodox Christian, but more like a kind of theosophical thinker that was typical of his times. His essay Darwinism Applied to Man, ends with this paragraph:
We thus find that the Darwinian theory, even when carried out to its extreme logical conclusion, not only does not oppose, but lends a decided support to, a belief in the spiritual nature of man. It shows us how man's body may have been developed from that of a lower animal form under the law of natural selection; but it also teaches us that we possess intellectual and moral faculties which could not have been so developed, but must have had another origin; and for this origin we can only find an adequate cause in the unseen universe of Spirit.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by tomschwarz » Sat May 26, 2018 9:01 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 1:27 am
His essay Darwinism Applied to Man, ends with this paragraph:
(...) we possess intellectual and moral faculties which could not have been so developed, but must have had another origin; and for this origin we can only find an adequate cause in the unseen universe of Spirit.
In this thread was the phrase "kick the can down the road". ...that applies here. One key point in this thread is the relationship of mind and life as we know it. Empathy (aspect of groser level of mind/conciousness) could certainly evolve based on survival of the fittest. See evolutionary psychology.

.....then.... the real questions
1) what was the process of the origin of the first life on earth (e.g. it was a seed from space, the seed was water, water is itself alive. Etc....)
2) is the mind's origin, death, rebirth (it and its bardos) fundamentally seperated/ something other than life itself?

1 - water space seed, 2 - no
?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Wayfarer » Sat May 26, 2018 11:59 pm

tomschwarz wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 9:01 pm
Wayfarer wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 1:27 am
His essay Darwinism Applied to Man, ends with this paragraph:
(...) we possess intellectual and moral faculties which could not have been so developed, but must have had another origin; and for this origin we can only find an adequate cause in the unseen universe of Spirit.
In this thread was the phrase "kick the can down the road". ...that applies here. One key point in this thread is the relationship of mind and life as we know it. Empathy (aspect of groser level of mind/conciousness) could certainly evolve based on survival of the fittest. See evolutionary psychology.

.....then.... the real questions
1) what was the process of the origin of the first life on earth (e.g. it was a seed from space, the seed was water, water is itself alive. Etc....)
2) is the mind's origin, death, rebirth (it and its bardos) fundamentally seperated/ something other than life itself?

1 - water space seed, 2 - no
?
Well - they're scientific questions. Buddhism side-steps the issue in the sense that it regards questions about the origin of life, or the origin of the world, as being 'undetermined questions' - you can speculate about them forever, and still not get any closer to 'laying down the burden of self'. That is the meaning of the 'poisoned arrow sutta'. (See Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta.)

The Biblical religions start with an account of creation - 'in the beginning, God created the Earth'. The whole narrative sequence develops from that beginning, so if you discredit the beginning - so it is said - then the whole tapestry begins to unravel. But Buddhism doesn't start with 'in the beginning God created the earth'. Buddhism starts with the truth of dukkha and 'the cause of dukkha'. And this isn't really dependent on the narrative sequence that is laid out in the Bible or anything else. In Mahayana, as I understand it, there is the acceptance that life develops on many other worlds ('life-bearing orbs') - but beings everywhere suffer from the same causes, and are released from suffering by the understanding the Buddha teaches. So it is really not all that important to Buddhism, 'how it all began', so much as 'the cause and ending of suffering'.

Remember that key passage in the Pali texts. It is a very profound passage, but as this is a Buddhist forum, then it is suitable to quote it in this context:
I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
Rohitassa Sutta
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 1789
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: The origin of "life" on earth

Post by Rick » Tue May 29, 2018 3:50 pm

tomschwarz wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 10:52 pm
Rick wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 4:19 pm
Another way to look at it: Life (living organisms) is the primary entity, non-living matter/energy serves to complexify, strengthen, and spread life.
it makes sense, from my perspective... but it does feel like new territory....
Yes, very different from the Buddhist view. It arose from talks I had with people interested in Goetheanismus, which I think you'd find interesting.
tomschwarz wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 10:52 pm
Rick wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 4:19 pm
A "living" organism is a temporary sub-process within The Grand Process, just like a wave is a temporary arising of the ocean.
... life temporary, check... ...and the grand process is emptiness itself?
Sounds about right to me!
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: vajra khandro and 42 guests