Subsequent to the publication of the earlier edition it was brought to light that a proper scientific comparison of Sensory Becoming contra Natural Selection was a deficiency, especially as ‘Natural Selection’ was fluted about by Darwinians as being the only scientific explanation around.

In fact, the reader will soon observe that Darwin’s version of why creatures transform, has also been " in a state of flux " since the first appearance of Darwin’s “On The Origin of Species.’ Indeed to the earlier advocates of this theory, ‘evolution’ was a group (species) process, but modern thinking is beginning to call it an ‘individual’ process. Upon closer investigation of Darwin’s ‘scientific’ speculation, why ‘X’ species gave rise to several ‘Y’ daughter species, we find that it is anything but scientific. And readers will soon realise ‘Natural Selection’ is nothing but an empty chant, just as much as the invocation of God by creationists is, when confronted with a quandary. Indeed, just as creationists invoke God to explain their conjectures, Darwinians incorporate ‘chance’ to plug those Scientific ‘holes’ of their dogma.

In order to project how empty these ‘scientific’ explanations of Darwinism are, I have now added a new chapter (Chapter IV) under the caption ‘Natural Selection Contra Sensory, Becoming’. This will make evident that the Sensory Becoming theory, by far, is more scientific, more logical, more rational and above all that it is more an inclusive theory, since it encompasses all the creature qualities of living beings.

Mahinda Weerasinghe
2 February 2004

Introduction To " ORIGIN OF SPECIES ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA "

According to popular belief, it is through the efforts of Darwin, that the evolutionary process of species was first discerned. The year 1859 is pivotal in this context for modern man, in that, it not only saw the appearance of Marx’s “Critique Of Political Economy”, and the completion of Wagner’s “Tristan,” but also the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin Of Species.” Indeed, it is taken for granted that, it is through Darwin’s famous work that we were exposed to evolution. This is a an erratic notion. There is substantial evidence to show that, Darwin and his disciples have not only “reinvented the wheel,” but also that they have reinvented it minus its essential “spokes.”

Contrary to the established certainty, Darwin did not produce a theory of evolution as a whole, but merely a theory, which promoted evolution by natural selection from accidental variations. Magnified for the sake of clarity, we can see Darwinism as purporting that the whole of the evolutionary process has taken place among absolute robots, which reproduced their types, with slight accidental variations of form.

The denial of a purpose is Darwin’s distinctive contention. By an automatic or natural selection, variations favouring survival would be preserved. The sum total of the accidents of life acting upon the sum total of the accidents of variation thus provided completely mechanical and material systems by which the changes in living forms are to be accounted for.

Is it possible to isolate some sort of a mystical destiny for species through the workings of “natural selection”? In fact we are informed of that slippery principle which states that these “robots” must simply preserve their prototypes for posterity so that “the continuation of species” is ensured. For what earthly reason was this so important, was never made clear.

An individual is left dangling between the “scientific ideas” of the late nineteenth century and the “obscurantism and superstition of the Middle Ages.” He has no third choice. We can imagine him exclaiming “ You are not a Darwinist? – You must be a Fundamentalist.”! Not a materialist? – You must be a mystical idealist.”!

The two contending camps of thought, in principle, have drawn up their battle lines. On balance we find, on one side of the divide, the Mechanistic Determinists- proponents of Darwin’s theory, and on the rival side, their adversaries, the fatalistic determinists- the ones subscribing to a magical theory.

To put it more succinctly, the fatalistic ones are of the opinion that, no matter whether one is born an imbecile or an Einstein, this race or that race a man or a donkey, everything is hinged on the throw of the divine dice at the hour of creation. Surely then, should not all of man’s urges, desires and perversions also be consequences of this mysterious divine scheme? Why indeed should the pervert and the imbecile be responsible for their actions under the circumstances after all? His body and mind are also a design of this universal clockmaker!

Darwin replaced these static theories of fatalistic determinism with “mechanistic” ones. Accordingly man’s station in life was attributed to a whole series of lucky chances! Indeed, to be born a Galileo or a listless idiot, a Bishop or a Darwin, for that matter a man or a lizard, or in this race or that race was purely a mechanical outcome of a gigantic genetic lottery! The individual, going by this new religion, was a slave to his genetic inheritance, and denied of any choices for his station in life.

To pray at the temple of one variety or the other of “determinism,” is to endorse the hypothesis that the individual is lacking power to steer his destiny; he has no purpose of his own, no aims and ambitions to be fulfilled. Indeed to accept that, destiny is controlled by an external deity, chance or gratuitous and senseless material forces, is to accept that we do not have aims, aspirations, passions and ambitions of our own. In which case we should bow down and concede that we do not possess a free will, since some bizarre creator or external forces of chance supervise and direct our lives.

Due to the addictive power of one variety or the other, the intellectual world overlooked the ancient casual theory.

I wish to advance substantial evidence to prove, that " A SENSORY BECOMING THEORY” (EVOLUTIONARY to DARWINIANS) was first promulgated over 2550 years ago.

According to the aforesaid theory, all animate and inanimate entities, are in a “state of dynamic flux and changing momentarily.” Change, according to the ‘third theory’ (or, should we call it the original theory’?) is inherent in all “compounded things.” According to Buddha, all beings obey the Law of Impermanence. “Causes and effects” govern the dynamics of such change. Darwin and his disciples called this change, evolution, whereas Buddha called it “becoming”. The word “becoming” has more going for it than evolution, as I shall demonstrate.

As per Buddha’s explanation, existence is not an objective in itself. Rather, it’s what lies beyond! Existence becomes merely a preamble to a more vital goal. Biological evolution is subservient to a pleasure principle. The net result of evolution is creatures with progressively developed sensory potential. Evolution we notice heightens the sensory experience, including the pleasures of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. A closer investigation yields the validation of this extraordinary principle. Sensory additions to the original single celled amoeba, did not necessarily contribute its ability to survive, though such additions certainly did contribute to his ability to enjoy!

Being equipped with this knowledge, if we were to scrutinise the broad evolutionary ladder, we would be in for a shock: species with ascending orders of sensory complexity in body and mind were extending their possibilities of sensory stimulation, and thereby enjoying gratification! Humankind, the ultimate result of this sensory struggle, provides ample evidence of this phenomenon. If we were to compare him with the lower orders of species, it is not hard to spot his ultra sophisticated and balanced sensory apparatus, which would help him reap myriads of sensory pleasures.

Eliminate the sensory possibilities and life becomes a meaningless mechanical struggle. In fact, with The Buddha’s senosry theory, we can effortlessly explain what Darwin termed “evolution.” But in fact, the evolutionary part is the elementary section of his teaching.

If a creature is to achieve the ability of experiencing sensory stimuli, on a developmental basis, it must act. Hence “an action” theory is affiliated to sensory evolution. Actions are conditioned by one’s sensory status and socio-economic and geophysical conditions. All of this becomes comprehensible when woven together using Buddha’s basic law, known as ‘conditional genesis,’ or popularly termed “The Cycle of Birth, Death and Birth.” With a concern to direct beings towards an advantageous path of evolution, Buddha incorporated an ethical theory, which is a corollary to his basic sensory evolutionary theory.

To assert that an individual lacks self-determination and is fatalistically or mechanistically bound is to mock his needs, desires ambitions, and aspirations. Without self-determination, life becomes a meaningless and a mechanical struggle, and an inanity. Human kind is not on this planet for the “greater glory” of some outlandish God. Nor does the noble species just exist to produce more of its type, to simply send them on further, in time and space. Rather, man exists to experience pleasure and pain here, and now.