Buddhism encourages people to get rid of certain negative qualities like anger, hatred, jealousy, selfishness. But, considering an evolutionary perspective we couldn't completely tell what role they might be playing at a deeper level for the advancement of species as a whole even if they do appear bad on the first look. So how can we be sure that a world without those negative qualities would be a better one.

Is it possible to reconcile the evolution theory with Buddhism, or they are 2 things that simply cannot go along? In other words you have to choose one.

I've started my practice as a Buddhist. Currently, I've read a few books about Buddhism particularly the Theravāda lineage for myself it seems more appropriate. While reading about kamma one thing started to bug me. It is said rebirth is conditioned by kamma. Which implies my good deeds may lead me to be born as human for example, while bad ones as mosquito. Homo Sapiens are on Earth for circa 200 000 years. Does that mean more than 1 million years ago no one could reach Nibbana, since there were no modern humans?

Can nirvana be called as some sort of directed evolution? Can a Buddha or Arahat be considered as an evolved being as compared to the rest?

If brain cease to function all phenomenon also cease to function as well. Body including brain is so vulnerable to break up and Buddha emphasized that no one should cling to this body and its function to avoid all sufferings. Evolution is truth and all religions are mere fantasy which originated from ignorance to the scientific findings. Everything which is brought about should perish in no time. That's the essence of Buddha's teaching(Dhamma).

Does Buddhism uphold and/or advocate the theory of Evolution, the theory of Charles Darwin? Does Buddhism believes that our ancestors were monkeys and apes? I as a Christian don't believe in Evolution, I can't believe this that my ancestors were apes and I am a MUTANT APE! If you tell a child that he or she is an animal, gradually they behave like animals! But, What Mahatma Gautama Buddha and his Dhamma say on this issue? Please help with a Nichiren Buddhist point of view.

What's the Buddhist view of evolution of mankind? Why can't we accede to the theory of evolution? Can we get same path of an evolution theory and aggajha sutta ?

As I understand it, Buddhism is not inconsistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Since the law of karma is central to Buddhism and applies to sentient beings, is the law of karma something that evolved, too?

Many people try to approach meditation and Buddhism from a scientific materialist perspective, despite the fact that Buddhism makes explicit claims about the after life, and despite the fact that Buddhism explicitly state that it is a Wrong View to believe in materialist Annihilation. I posted the following questions rhetorically as part of an answer to another question, but it was suggested to be moved to its own question: So, are there any materialist explanations to the following? 1. Why is meditation pleasurable and helpful in a materialist world that is run based on natural selection? 2. How is the possibility of experiencing states of joy and peace and realizations through meditation possible through an evolutionary model? 3. What evolutionary advantage would make the desire to end greed, anger and selflessness such the desire to become a monastic (not reproducing and passing on your genes) occur? What are the materialist claims by **other philosophies** with regards to meditation that you have seen? For example: (Evolutionary psychology) people are driven to help others because it enhance group survival. According to the same thinking though, people are also jerks because it enhance their own survival. What are the counter arguments from Buddhism to these claims?

About the doctrine of the 31 realms of existence. I have a few questions, because science, especially the theory of evolution, makes a good argument for categorizing humans **as animals**. 1. Is this list of 31 realms *static* or can single realms vanish? Because due to science we know that this earth won't last forever. This would mean, that there are no animals or humans anymore, unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this universe (which is very, very, very unlikely if you consider the set of condition it took of several billion years to evolve humans). 2. The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals and just use different techniques for surviving as every other species as well. So knowing that there was a time of transition, where there only existed primordial human beings, how could you at that time say if it was a human or an animal? How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every other one? Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years humans will have evolved to a totally different species according to the conditions in the environment. So how should you understand this classification of beings. Is it just a provisional and time-dependent concept? Or is it only related to the degree of suffering, which predominate each realm? I know on this topic are already many questions. But none of these related to this particular question. So please don't tag as duplicate.

According to the Agganna Sutta we humans beings from Abbhassara Brahma world. They are mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious. So basically a much more advance species than humans. Because of desire they deteriorated to what we are right now.

But evolution on the other hand basically talks about the reverse of this. That out ancestors were primates/chimps who had less developed intelligence. While the evidence to support the theory of evolution has been compelling still it remains unproven, however, still is widely expected as the most plausible explanation for the beginning of man kind.

Is there anyway that both of these can mean the same although it seems to contradict on the surface?

Some philosophers have the idea that humanity is undergoing a spiritual evolution. The most famous representative of this idea is G. W. F. Hegel (whose ideas Marx used and later Communism tried to put into practice). There are also many, more esoteric and religious thinkers, with ideas like that. Rudolf Steiner is one of them; he thinks humanity is evolving spiritually. The common idea between them is that we are in a better position to become acquainted with ourselves as spirit (this idea does not pertain to Marx’ materialist view, though). One of my teachers, a Plato researcher, said: “we understand Plato better than Plato could understand himself”? How is this in Buddhism? Is mankind now, 2500 years after the historical Buddha, in a better position to make use of the Dharma? Are we better “equipped for enlightenment”? Is the understanding and insights growing as time goes by? Or perhaps it is the other way around? Maybe the distance in time since the start of the spreading of the Dharma makes it more and more difficult for us? Could talk about a spiritual devolution? Or is it not changing at all, neither spiritual evolution nor devolution of mankind?

From infancy till old age, our bodily, psychological and even spiritual change and evolve. Also, their faults or risks differ at each stage of life. For instance, the greatest "fault" of an infant is ignorance of the world, and simultaneously, her greatest need is to physically explore. The same infant may grow into a youth whose greatest fault is lack of self-knowledge, and his/her greatest need is to explore the word of relationships and seek romance. The same youth may grow into an old person whose greatest fault may be a false sense of power, authority and ownership over other people, and whose deepest need may simply be peace and rest. So, is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

Just as a companion question to this I want to ask if Buddhists believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection. The aforementioned question makes me think that the answers might be different depending on which tradition you are coming from. I'm interested in canonical scriptures and more modern commentaries and reinterpretation of the texts.