Apologies that I am using this neologism “Buddhist evolutionology.” Why
am I using it? Because I need it. Should anyone else follow suit? No. The topic
of the Buddhist concept of how external world of habitat and internal world of
inhabitants, i.e. bhājanaloka and sattvaloka,
originated and evolved, is fascinating. One does not have to believe what the
Buddhist sources say. But one should, in my view, attempt to understand what
they say or try to say. The venues of exploration are plenty. Here, too, as
anywhere else, it will be desirable to look at the topic from both its
diachronic and synchronic perspectives. What are the most archaic ideas of
evolution that we can trace? How did these ideas evolve in due course at
various times in history and in different places, systems, schools, and sources?
Right
now, I am working on the idea of secrecy in Buddhism. It just occurs to me that
according to the “Buddhist evolutionology” suggested by Abhidharmic sources,
which I am not giving them away yet, the psychology of secrecy is actually
rooted in the psychology of privacy, the need for privacy is rooted in the
psychology of guilt and shame, the psychology of guilt and shame is rooted in
gender and sexuality. Interestingly, Buddhist evolutionology does not seem to
ascribe the function of procreation as the primary function of gender and
sexuality but rather what I call Buddhist bromatology (or Buddhist nutriology,
Buddhist sitiology/sitology, and Buddhist alimentology). For better or worse
(from the perspective of Buddhist soteriology), the evolution or distinction of
gender has been directly attributed to the kind of nutrition that sentient
beings take to sustain. Gender specific physical features evolved as a direct
consequence of shifting from a much finer, lighter, and subtler form of
nutriment to a grosser, heavier, and coarser form of nutriment. By the way,
Buddhist nutriology speaks of four kinds of nutriment (i.e. kavaḍīkārāhāra:
kham gyi zas; sparśāhāra: reg pa’i zas; manaḥsaṃcetanāhāra:
yid la sems pa’i zas; and vijñānāhāra: rnam par shes
pa’i zas). The intake of nutriment also has a direct consequence on the
mode of excretion. Apparently, for example, there is no (and no need for)
excretion if one can sustain on samādhic nutriment, for samādhic nutriment
would produce no waste. Genitals thus evolved to function as apertures of
excretion. There is nothing romantic about them. But what about sexual desire
and sexual acts? Well, again according to Buddhist evolutionology, internal
world of inhabitants evolves in a descending order and thus saṃsāric evolution
is seen as a form of decadence and the hierarchy of the world is inversely
proportional to the intensity and density of cognitional-emotional defilements
(kleśa: nyon mongs pa) and detrimental karmic yields. It is the kāmarāga (sensual
and particularly sexual desire) that propels the evolution of kāmadhātu,
and not vice versa. In this regard, the evolution of sexual organs and sexual
activities maybe seen as the actualization and manifestation of one’s sexual
desire. One is, so to speak, born in the kāmadhātu to live out
one’s kāmarāga (with all its implications). But obviously
human beings in the kāmic sphere are not particularly proud of
their kāmic desires and pleasures, kāmic organs, and kāmic activities. So, they
prefer to keep these private and secret. The Abhidharmic evolutionology, in
fact, clearly tells us that home or house was felt necessary and hence built,
not primarily to protect oneself from other dangers but to protect one’s
privacy, so that one’s kāmic activities can be performed and kāmic desire
fulfilled in privacy and secrecy, without the peering or jeering eyes of
onlookers besieged with all kinds of cognitional-emotional defilements. In
short, at least according to Abhidharmic evolutionology, the need for secrecy
is rooted in the need for privacy, and the need for privacy is rooted in one’s
cognitional-emotional defilements, about which one is not particularly proud but
rather embarrassed and ashamed of.
