The Dalai Lama on the Origins of the Universe

This was the weekly quote from the Dalai Lama that Snow Lion Publications sent:

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week

...when we ask, what is the substantial cause of the material universe way back in the early history of the universe, we trace it back to the space particles which transform into the elements of this manifest universe. And then we can ask whether those space particles have an ultimate beginning. The answer is no. They are beginningless. Where other philosophical systems maintain that the original cause was God, Buddha suggested the alternative that there aren't any ultimate causes. The world is beginningless. Then the question would be: Why is it beginningless? And the answer is, it is just nature. There is no reason. Matter is just matter.

Now we have a problem: What accounts for the evolution of the universe as we know it? What accounts for the loose particles in space forming into the universe that is apparent to us? Why did it go through orderly processes of change? Buddhists would say there is a condition which makes it possible, and we speak of that condition as the awareness of sentient beings.

~ From Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism edited by Zara Houshmand, Robert B. Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace, published by Snow Lion Publications.

There is some seriously flawed logic and physics at the end of this passage. Unless one believes in sentient beings who exist outside of time and space, which is little more than mythic thinking, this is gibberish.

We also have the issue of relying on the observer effect to explain the evolution of the universe, which is impossible because no one was there to observe it, and because reality arises without my observation or your observation or any observation.

This is an example of the Buddhism that Sam Harris wants to get rid of when he suggests that we kill the Buddha. Harris argues, and here I agree with him:

For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence.

Believing that the universe arose through the awareness of sentient beings falls into the category of belief without sufficient evidence.

But there are a lot of Buddhists in the world who hold these views, educated men and women with highly developed rational thinking capabilities. How do we account for this willingness to accept illogical premises for the entire existence of the universe?

I'm thinking that the traditional Spiral Dynamics and AQAL approach is missing something. There is a developmental line -- or something -- that has to do with the ability to live with ambiguity, and not just on a small level in our day-to-day lives, but on a grand scale.

Otherwise educated and intelligent people operating at what must be considered a rational or higher level of consciousness and holding a predominantly rational worldview can still attribute existence to mythical-magical forces -- and not in a trans-rational way. This is true in many other religions outside of Buddhism.

My thinking is that some of us need for the universe to make sense in a way that allows us to derive meaning from existence. One way to do that is to hold onto these mythical beliefs that explain why and how we came to be here. And we will often hold onto these beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So I propose as an explanation -- and, of course, I have no evidence for this -- that the ability to live with ambiguity is an incredibly powerful determinant in how we view the world and how we explain our place in it. I would go so far as to say that it is one of the primary developmental lines upon which the evolution of other lines is contingent.

But, of course, I could be all wrong.

Tags: Dalai Lama, universe, science, evolution, mythic thinking, integral theory, ambiguity, Buddhism, Sam Harris