My thoughts
on Reality, Religion, Science, Philosophy, Existence and Buddhism
I like to welcome readers after quite a long lapse. My last post was in July 2021. A lot has happened since then, and this is an attempt to share my thoughts with my readers. I would love to hear your views.
-Mahendra-
As I get older (may not be
wiser!), my views on these important topics keep changing. I don’t think this
is in any way unusual.
I am fascinated by the fact
that all matter in the known Universe, is ultimately made of fundamental
particles (and waves). The deep question of whether living matter has something
more than non-living is the subject of an ongoing debate. There is also the
question of differences and similarities within everything that has life. How
are plants different from animals? Do they both have consciousness (? What is
consciousness)? Others go to the extent of saying that everything in this
Universe has consciousness but they all fail to give a clear, consistent and
coherent definition of consciousness. One of the simplest definitions is that
consciousness is something that gives self-awareness and awareness of the external
world.
Focussing on animals, we begin
to wonder whether ALL animals have consciousness and if so whether they differ
only qualitatively and quantitatively. In such a scenario, amphibian, reptilian
and mammalian consciousness would be just a progressive increase in complexity,
with the human brain topping them all.
All animals mature progressively after birth, are subject to disease and injury, attempt to reproduce and
finally, without exception, die. As far as we know, only humans can construct possible scenarios in their imagination. They also utilise a vast
amount of information which they get through inheritance (genes), through learning
from stored information sources such as books, and constantly gather
information from their surroundings which include both physical and social.
Each generation of human beings, therefore, does not have to start all over again
because of this intergenerational and cross-generational exchange of
information, leading to virtually exponential advancement.
Only humans appear to be
concerned about life after death. This may be due to many factors. A human life
span is very complex and filled with a multitude of events, and some find it hard to imagine that all this comes
to a sudden halt at death. They believe in some form of continuation of the
“self”. Some believe that this post death existence is conditioned by the way
the present life was conducted. With it comes a belief in a moral law that
rewards good behaviour and punishes bad ones. For Theistic religions, this
operates through an all powerful God and for non-theists, there operates a
“natural” moral law such as the Buddhist concept of Karma. Such beliefs that
life continues after death can lead to fear and apprehension if the person has
reason to believe his life was not pure and in the same way, those who led a clean
life will be calm and at ease. The origin of Religion and the need for a system of laws
which make society harmonious has been attributed by some to this very reason,
or in other words, Man created God not God created Man! If a society does not
recognise intrinsic morality, it needs to rely on systems of Law and Justice to ensure
that it functions harmoniously. Religion could be very effective and
cost-effective as no manpower or resources are necessary to provide a visible deterrent,
(apart from managing the cost of a ritualistic religious system). Sadly,
Religiion has largely failed in this respect; but whether Religion has done
more harm or more good is the subject of debate, often with very polarised views.
Every human shows some or all
of these characteristics which play a part in his behaviour within a community. There are much more of course but I have selected these as important.
(1)
To be loved and not ostracised
(2)
To pursue pleasant sensations. (pursuit of happiness)
(3)
To be try and avoid unpleasant ones
including the sensation of Pain.
The first is of great
importance and has a major role in altruistic and compassionate behaviour. It
is one of the most powerful (and primitive) features.
The second one has mixed
consequences as the pursuit of pleasant material things can lead to greed and
attachment. Attachment, in turn, could lead to misery when parted from the object of
attachment. Greed can provide a pleasant sensation, albeit short-lived,
when it is satisfied and misery when the desire is unmet.
The third one is similar to
the second but in a negative way so that rather than do things which give pleasant
sensations, avoidance of such actions is pursued.
The first one, I believe, is
evolutionary and is perfectly natural from the point of natural selection. There
is no need to postulate a God or Moral (spiritual) law underlying it.
Even the second and third are
really similar to number one in a broad sense, with the possible exception of
pain. If pain is only recognised as an unpleasant sensation rather than a
signal for preventive action that may be needed, it could lead to problems.
How do we
know which is true?
There is no simple answer. The plethora of views that have existed through centuries have been contested, and there is none
which has been scientifically proven. Not all humans need evidence (scientific)
to accept an explanation. It is often a personal decision based on whether it helps towards being content in a World full of instability. Faith is the ultimate form
of this type of belief and is a very powerful force.
If we focus on human beings, we
must not forget that Human beings, like
all life on Earth, have a very long evolved history over hundreds of thousands
of years. Was the consciousness possessed by a caveman living more than 200 thousand
years ago very different from a current day Homo Sapiens, and if so was it just
in complexity?
As my enquiring nature was
always attracted to the Scientific method, I found it difficult to accept any
Religious teaching as a provider of the “truth”. By the scientific method, I mean
the process of observing a phenomenon, forming a hypothesis to explain it,
testing it experimentally, and accepting, rejecting or modifying (and
retesting) it on the basis of the results obtained.
Briefly digressing further into religion,
religion is, for many, a code of practice
or a system of behaviour based on beliefs (faith) to promote the pursuit of
happiness.
But in reality, religions go deeper, and each claim
that theirs is the Absolute Truth, not just about all living (sentient) beings but of all phenomena, both mental and
physical, in the Universe. These are often labelled as “Universal truths”. This poses
a problem for me. If Religion is just about developing correct attitudes and
behaviour to help the subject live a happier life, it would be perfectly acceptable. It
is just like saying that we are on a journey and there are many ways of
reaching our desired destination and no one method can claim to be the Right or
the Only One, or even that they all ultimately lead to the desired destination!
If a Religion states that theirs is the only correct one, then either
all religions are wrong or only one is correct.
The other aspect of religion
is morality. I find it difficult to believe that there is a “Moral Law of
Nature” which recognises Right and Wrong Actions or Virtuous and Villainous
actions, just as there are physical laws governing the Universe, even if such a
law does not require belief in a God. To posit that results of actions are influenced by
conditions preceding the action is entirely understandable. It does not require
a “moral” or “spiritual” hidden universal. For example, if you have a family
history of diabetes and you have a wrong lifestyle, it is very likely that you
will develop Diabetes- you are not being punished! Moral law, on the other hand, suggests
that there is in operation either a divine law or intrinsic "spiritual" moral law which
governs the effects or results of our actions. For example, taking another’s
life is bad, whatever the reason for doing it. If you take a life, retribution follows, as it is the moral law,
just as there are laws governing physical phenomena, such as an object falling to
the ground if released from a height, because of the law of gravitation. I can’t see that
operating and I see a purely material explanation of how at least some of these
apparently moral laws operate. The often-stated “cause and effect” is also misleading, in my view. Not everything that
happens has a cause, and most effects are influenced by many factors and not
just one cause- there are conditions which operate and not a cause.
I accept that I may be wrong.
This is being debated by very eminent scientists and philosophers, with no
agreement. (I shall return to that theme later). If a person kills a man who
was about to stab his mother to death, I can’t see how that action can be
regarded as necessarily wrong or evil, and the person responsible should be punished. This
is, in fact, how the Law of the Land operates in most countries. Mitigating
factors are always considered in arriving at a verdict. If we enter his mindset
and imagine for a moment that he has no religion or religious upbringing, he
can only feel good that by his action, he has saved his mother’s life. He may, of course, feel uncomfortable that he had to take another’s life, but overall, he
won’t feel guilty of a crime.
On the other hand, if he has religious
convictions, he may be plagued by feelings of guilt. If
there is a moral law in operation that killing is always followed by an
unpleasant consequence, it does not matter how you feel, although the final
result may be possibly modified by the motive. But bad effects follow like a
shadow follows the cart. I am suggesting this as some religions state that the
effect or result of the action affects the person only because it
affects the way he behaves and the way he controls his mind. Therefore, the
effect of the same action will be different in different people. But if there is such a thing as a moral law, there
will always be a non-beneficial effect, whatever the circumstances. I believe
that there is no absolute moral law that killing is “bad”, whatever the
circumstances, and that the consequences could be explained without invoking a
moral law. In fact, it is possible to kill without the inevitable dire
consequence that follows according to moral law. The consequences of the
action can be explained by purely physical and mental factors without invoking
either a God who judges you or a Moral Law, which is inherent in the Universe, just as are the Laws of Thermodynamics.
People who are worried about
ruling out moral laws say that without moral laws, morality would not exist.
In other words, we owe Morality to Religion as religion tells us that there are
Intrinsic Universal Moral Laws. If so, how
do we explain moral behaviour seen in atheists and agnostics, moral behaviour
in people who do not believe in life after death or a vaguely defined
“spirituality”? Some contest this notion by saying that even atheists and
agnostics grew up in a culture of religion and are influenced by it; and maybe
consciously unaware of it.
I am a firm believer in the
Theory of Evolution; It will probably undergo revision in the light of emerging
data, but it gives the most rational and acceptable explanation for the
biodiversity and archaeological history we observe.
Evolution declares that animals
survive by trying to be “fit” for survival. Animals cannot wish to
adapt to an environment (although epigenetics is making it clear that some
adaptations that occur during an individual life can be genetically transferred
to the progeny for a few generations). But through naturally occurring random mutations, animals with a new and favourable
characteristic will have a better chance of survival, pass on this advantage to
their progeny and thus increase in numbers, whereas those with unfavourable
features will gradually dwindle in number. We must not forget that this process took a very
long time, thousands and millions of years! When Charles Darwin proposed this theory, genes had not been
discovered and genetics has revealed how this process operates in Nature. This is the process of natural selection. It is entirely logical that species with favourable features will survive
better, and as stated before, we now know
that genes are the basis on which these are passed on to the progeny. There is
nothing magical or spiritual about it. It also explains why there is such
diversity as random mutations occur all the time and evolution into many types
of species occurs as there is no one species which is better than the others. A
species which thrives in deep sea waters would not survive outside, but neither
would a species living outside deep water survive in deep water. This shows how
over millions of years, a process of natural selection resulted in the
evolution of millions of species that are better equipped to survive in their
environments. Over 96% of known past species no longer exist, but the wide range of species that evolved from them are
better adapted to survive than their ancestors. Moving into land from water leading to amphibians, reptiles and mammals did not eliminate these pre-mammalian species.
How is moral
behaviour explained by evolution?
This is the way I see it.
Species that have beneficial
features are more likely to survive and thereby pass on these features to
their progeny. Over millions of years, many factors operated in this milieu.
The features that were needed to survive could be very basic at lower levels; for example, animals with longer necks, thus able to reach higher for food from
trees and also able to spot coming danger earlier, continued where they were, whereas those
with shorter ones had to move to other areas where short necks were not a disadvantage,
or gradually peter out if they didn’t.
Morality origins
Fast forward to mammals, and we
find that they increasingly survived better when they cooperated with each
other. There is nothing magical or mystical in this. They found, for example, that if they worked as a group, at times ignoring their own “selfish” need,
they had a better chance of survival. Animals learned to share things as group behaviour was beneficial. This had nothing to do with “morals”- pure
practicality. Species where mothers with intense love and a sense of
protection for their offspring had a greater chance of survival. I see, therefore, the emergence of “good” as opposed to “bad” as the natural way, a simple system of logic based on
how Natural selection works. In that case, why are there evil and bad things
still present? Simply because natural selection favours the persistence of
those with beneficial features but does not eliminate those who haven’t, as
survival is still possible without all the good features. There will always be
a mix of good and evil, but who knows, over the next millions of years, the Human
species may largely be better, as judged by our sense of morality, than at
present.
I prefer to call moral behaviour adaptive social behaviour, and I shall proceed to restate
some of my views. As
animals live in communities, it is clear that they need cooperative behaviour to survive. Genetics operates in a way that mothers who loved their
newborns were more likely to propagate the species. The implication is that Genes play a large role in our behaviour, and
mutations produce different modes of behaviour. Those with genes for good behaviour
survive and pass on this feature to their progeny. Thus cooperative behaviour would
pass on from generation to generation. It is in our genes to care for other
human beings and be altruistic, even if we recognise such behaviour as
“altruistic selfishness”. In my view, Evolution provides an excellent answer to why
people are “good”. It also explains why not everybody is good, as evolutionary
characteristics are in proportion, not in all. The “good” characteristic populations are likely to increase in number as generations pass, at least theoretically.
I know of no statistics to prove or disprove this. Thus the concept of “good”
and “bad” becomes a social construct, and it cannot be reduced to precise
mathematical equations as there are no absolutes.
In very general terms, a good
action is regarded as one which is likely to produce a beneficial effect on the
person and the social group to which the
person belongs, and vice versa for a bad.
Space and
Time
There is space, and there is time.
Space is occupied by “things” which have three dimensions. Time is complex, and some Cosmologists regard time as the Fourth Dimension. All “things” are
aggregates formed from minuscule entities called fundamental particles. A
fundamental particle, by definition, is in our present state of knowledge, not
divisible further the Greek Philosopher Democritus had the same notion, and he
called the smallest particle an “atomos”, which means “uncuttable”, in 400 BC. Plato and Aristotle had different theories. They thought that
matter was divisible into air, fire, earth and water, which was put forward by
ancient Greek philosophers. This is very reminiscent of the Buddhist teaching
of everything being constructed of the four humours, earth, wind, fire and
water (Apo, thejo, vaayu and patavi). The concept of the four humours was prevalent
in Eastern philosophy and is not unique to Buddhism. Some added a fifth component called space (similar to
Aristotle in some respects, who called the 5th element “aether”).
“Things” have properties such
as texture, ability to absorb some waves in the spectrum of light giving the
observer a sense of colour, which is in reality, an illusion. “Things” can have a
range of physical properties but have they got “mental” properties? Physical
things can be explained using Laws such as the Laws of thermodynamics,
Gravitation etc, but can mental features be explained on a physical basis? Is
there a force or entity which is not physical but which operates in conjunction
with physical objects? The concept of “Embodied mind” says that the body and
mind, although separate, work as a joint mind-body complex. This is also similar to the
Morphic Resonance theory put forward by Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake believes
that there is an underlying “morphic resonance” in the Universe which links all human life and
that after death, this persists although the body no longer exists. This
resonates with some Eastern Philosophies favouring reincarnation and rebirth.
Plants and animals are living
things and share many properties. But animals have unique properties which
become more and more complex within the animal kingdom. But some believe that
even non-living objects, such as stones, possess a consciousness. The
Panpsychics follow the German philosopher Liebniz who believes that everything, including
plants and inanimate objects, has a mind or something analogous to a mind. Panpsychists
typically see the human mind as a unique, highly-refined instance of some more
universal concept. They argue that the mind in, say, lower animals, plants, or
rocks is less sophisticated and complex than a human's.
This was just a brief
foray into a territory I am unfamiliar with, just to show that even after
centuries of propositions, there is no universal agreement on this topic.
Buddhism and
problems in explaining what we know.
There is no mention of
evolution at all. Some scholars suggest that this is so as the Buddha was only
concerned in what matters now, which is a solution to the unsatisfactory nature
of life. Time spent in speculation is time wasted. This is arguably a very
practical approach akin to taking action to put out a raging fire rather than
waste time arguing about the cause of the fire!
Buddhism cannot explain fossil
and archaeological findings. One could also question the apparent special place
given to human life. As far as I am aware, according to Buddhism, only a Human
being can achieve the ultimate bliss of Nirvana, not even “higher beings”
living in other domains.
Buddhism describes 31 realms
of existence. Do we need to accept this as true if we say that Buddhism deals
with the absolute truth, the “Theory of everything”? If Buddhism is true,
everything it says has to be true with the caveat that we cannot be absolutely certain
on what Buddhism states as it has been handed down first by oral recitation
and then later by the written word which
are always open to interpretation. But it is generally accepted that the
essence of Buddhism is in the four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold path.
Buddhism speaks of epochs with
a Buddha emerging in each one. Not much scientific evidence of this. But there
are theories of expanding and shrinking Universes with the death of one being
followed by the birth of another, proceeding in cyclical form.
Buddhism denies a “self” or a
“soul” but implies some sort of continuum or trail of existence from which we
must break free.
Buddhism describes the
presence of consciousness or “mind”, the true nature of which can only be
realised through insight and introspection and not through the accumulation of
knowledge.
Human life
The life of a Human exists only for a
fleeting moment compared to the age of the Universe and is minuscule in size in
comparison to the Universe. Yet, from an individual point of view, this is the
most important one.
It also appears that the
quality of life of a person is dependent on “feelings” he or she is capable of
experiencing, which produces a state of satisfaction, dissatisfaction or neither
of them (neutral). The feelings experienced also appear to be almost bipolar-
you cannot have one without the other. The satisfaction provided by a good meal
cannot be experienced without knowledge and experience of what it is to be
hungry without a meal. We seem to move our indicator horizontally in a continuum
of states, and every time the indicator moves, we feel elated or despondent; at that moment, we become aware – elated if it moves to the right and despondent if
it moves to the left The degree of elation also appears to be influenced by the
amount of movement that occurs – larger the movement, bigger the difference.
This is highly simplified because, in reality, there will be hundreds of scales
for movement with a lot of interaction and overlap. The point I am making, however, is that without our ability to experience emotions, we would neither be
happy or unhappy. The other important factor is our ability to experience pain,
something which we share with a lot of animals.
From an evolutionary point of
view, pain can be regarded as an essential requirement for survival. It is one
of the most important defence mechanisms and signals danger and the need for
action. The ability to experience pain gave an evolutionary advantage to a
species. But pain is also a cause of discontent. Pain is not something which is
there to make us happy or unhappy, although it can arouse these feelings in us.
Pain has evolved to protect us. It has no agency capable of causing us to
experience emotions and does not manifest itself as an unwelcome visitor. Pain
is not our enemy, nor is it our friend. When we take preemptive action to treat
the cause of the pain, it is our friend. When it persists when underlying
causes have been addressed, it is our enemy. Friend and enemy are our
constructs, not inherent ones.
This brings me to the final
conundrum- is there a soul or an individual consciousness or a series of occurrences within a source, or is
there no source at all? The postulate that there is no permanent, unchanging
self is believable, but this does not exclude an ever-changing impermanent self
or selves which are separate entities, changing and impermanent but
nevertheless with a core identity; a whole group of transient but unique sets
of identities. In other words, does the
concept of a soul demand permanence, or could a soul be an entity which is
changing all the time, yet unique in the sense that it is undergoing a change in
parallel with a host of other entities which are also changing? Or, putting it
in another way, is there a universal consciousness within which are a host of
discreet consciousness?
What is
unique about humans
Their concern for what happens
after death and, in some, the desire for an identity which is not lost at death
appears to be unique to humans. Certainly, higher mammals experience pleasure,
empathy, and pain – both physical and emotional like humans, but it is doubtful
whether they spend time pondering what happens after death. Why should we
humans worry about morality, death, the soul etc.? Is it just possible that
humans have reached a point where evolution has made us self-aware animals who
have the ability to reflect and project both to the past and future and thereby
have created a position where we are overly concerned with these issues? Is
this the expected result of evolution and not something to worry about?
After thinking, reading,
listening, and studying, I am none the wiser. I have concluded that
Man may never fully understand Nature and the Universe. They will go on
uncovering more and more but without the discovery of the Ultimate Truth. The famous elusive Theory of Everything will remain so.
Religion does not answer the
Big Questions, and the very fact that there are so many suggests that the real
“truth” has not been provided through religion. But religion has been a powerful influence in
shaping human history, and it is possible to argue in support or against the
position that it has done more harm or good.
My position
For an individual, if religion
provides comfort, by all means, embrace it. Whether it is the truth or not does
not matter, as no one knows the Ultimate Truth. If you believe in a guardian
angel, that belief by itself is very comforting, whether there is an angel or not.
There is no religion or
philosophy which is evidence-based and testable. Philosophies rely on
speculation based on thoughts. Instincts and acquired knowledge rather than proven
facts. Science is strong in analysing evidence but cannot claim to be the only method by which the mystery of
existence can be solved. The basic fact is that there is no satisfactory proof
for religious teaching being the Truth and no satisfactory reason to believe that Science is the only way to
discover the Truth. There can only be speculation, opinions and hypotheses.
Being that the case, what
matters is whether a belief or faith is beneficial to (a) individuals and (b)
to the Human race and (c) to the planet. As there is no proof, it is ultimately
a personal choice, and as reasonable beings who are honest, we must respect
other opinions however much they go against our own. A person may have private views on what offers
the Truth, but this does not empower them to coerce others to agree with them. I am unequivocally opposed to evangelism.
The most acceptable position
to me is to admit that we are still seeking answers to deep questions. While Science has succeeded quite stunningly in explaining the physical universe, it has
so far not provided answers for mental factors (including
psychological and emotional) that operate in our Universe.
As members of the Human
species, we have responsibilities – not necessarily in a moral or religious sense but in a purely pragmatic and material
way. We are part of a community, and we cannot shirk our joint responsibilities. We
also should not embrace a religion or philosophy which harms fellow human
beings or go against the law of the land.
It is entirely logical and
reasonable to expect that natural selection will continue and that those who
care for the Planet and other living beings will, in the long term, grow in
numbers.
Buddhism and its place
As far as Buddhism is concerned, it promotes a way of life which can bring
Peace of mind to the practitioner and provide a society where human beings can flourish. However, I need to be convinced that it is The Truth capable of explaining all phenomena in the Universe.
Some reasons given as to why Buddhist teaching is “true”.
The recollection of past births, some of which are well-documented, where fake stories have been ruled out exist. It is all too easy to dismiss them merely because it does not fit with current beliefs.
The phenomenon of child prodigies.
This can be in the field of music, art, mathematics and many more, where a child of only a few years old displays
unbelievably precocious talent.
Provides a possible basis for
morality (without using an evolutionary perspective). Still, I don’t find this
entirely satisfactory as it points to a hidden “moral law”, which is very
close to belief in a God or some sort of supernatural or spiritual power.
Conclusion
Religion is ultimately a personal choice to meet the needs of a person. But as people are all parts of Society, religious beliefs must not be allowed to override the accepted codes of behaviour and the Law of the land. Nobody can be truly free and have "rights", the exercise of which leads to disharmony and suffering. But sadly, this continues to happen because many embrace religion in an absolute way leaving no room for non-believers. They justify actions, in some cases sincerely so, because of their conviction that, in the long run, it will be beneficial. That is the main reason why I oppose any form of belief in an Absolute Truth.
Another feature that is shared by all religions is that the World we see and experience is, if not an illusion, much more than what we see. The current life is almost an incident in a far wider picture which we fail to grasp. This can change the attitude towards current life. It can be seen as a golden opportunity for better things. Whatever pleasant or unpleasant things we experience can be dealt with more easily as what we can look forward to is better. An illustration is the attitude of the mother who had a child with a serious illness and prayed to God to save her child. But the child died. Was the devoted Christian mother disappointed or even angry? No, because she felt God had chosen a better place for her daughter, in Heaven.
