Music from Red Dead Redemption 2 performed live at The Game Awards 2018

Darwin vs. Meher Baba on Evolution

I recently asked ChatGPT to explain the difference between Meher Baba's teaching about evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection. I was surprised that it got it quite wrong. The way AI programs work is they scour the internet for what is written on a topic and regurgitate it, often with very good grammar. But if other people have misunderstood or misrepresented something, it will robotically mirror those falsehoods as true. It has no way to study something and discern.

For this reason I want to re-clarify the difference between Baba and Darwin on evolution. Meher Baba does not agree with Darwin about the control mechanism of evolution. He does not say it is random mutation and natural selection. Baba agrees that evolution has occurred, but says it has an entirely different cause.

Baba is not talking about "another level" of cause. He disagrees with Darwin. Baba and Darwin cannot be right at the same time, a common misconception about what Baba taught. They are mutually exclusive. Either Darwin was right about the cause of the origin of species or Baba was.

While Baba's teaching on the force behind evolutionary change does not agree with Darwin's, he does not teach Intelligent Design. In Baba's teaching, an intelligence could not have designed evolution, because it is the kind of intelligence required to do such things that is part of what evolved. In Baba, while there was originally Infinite Intelligence in a cosmic sense, it was not the kind of intelligence that can think, though that capacity was a latent potential in it. The ability to think and consciously realize thoughts was what the evolutionary process largely took place to bring about. So Baba definitely did not teach Intelligence Design.

However, Baba also did not teach the Darwinian principle that evolution is random, purposeless, aimless, and accidental, or that it continues once human form is reached. Baba teaches that evolution occurred to bring about the human form to bring about the capacity for God-realization.

Darwin concluded that evolution lacks any directionality or purpose. It occurred through random accidents. Darwin did not appear to notice that over the course of evolution, consciousness is always increasing and never regressing. Baba points out what anyone can see if they take notice, that consciousness increases over evolution, and he says this is the real underlying drive behind evolution. Evolving consciousness must constantly forge more and more complex media for its expression. And this is the subconscious underlying driver of evolution.

ChatGPT also said another falsity. It said what is commonly taught, that random mutation and natural selection as drivers of evolutionary change is scientifically observed and proven. This misconception about science is a relic of what has come to be called 'scientism.' In the field of philosophy of science, which played a major role in philosophy in the 20th century, it has been realized that science is theory laden (See Norwood Hanson's Patterns of Discovery). This means scientific procedures and its emphasis of specific facts and not others are often directed by its theories, rather than the other way around. It has also been realized that science works within changing explanatory paradigms when seeking and interpreting data (See Thomas Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions). In other words, science, including scientific observation and interpretation, is far less objective than most people realize.

I have frequently brought up an example to show this. The most common example given of observed evolution in schools is the example of the 19th century peppered moths that changed from mostly white to mostly black over time due to the trees in a certain forest becoming darker due to soot from London smokestacks, allow birds to better see and pick off the white ones. 

This is supposed to be an example of natural selection observed. In Baba, evolution refers to new species evolving, not the color of a species being selected through culling. The color didn't change. Rather the white moths were simply culled from the gene pool. To conflate this with evolution is lazy thinking. This is not an example of the origin of a new species. For Baba's teaching on evolution see his main book God Speaks: The Theme of Creation and Its Purpose.

I am surprised that ChatGPT got this wrong, because the difference between Baba and Darwin is prominently stated in the Introduction to the Second Edition of God Speaks.

The very force of evolution of form becomes, not a random selection of the fittest, but a result of the necessity of the residues of experience to express themselves through increasingly more complex instruments. The evolution and perfecting of consciousness is itself described as the entire purpose of Creation. (God Speaks, 1973 2nd edition, p. xxxi)

I wish to add and emphasize what some do not understand about Baba's teaching on evolution. Baba is not talking about a second 'spiritual' evolution occurring concurrently with biological evolution. Baba is speaking of the only evolution that is, which includes biological. He is not describing 'another level' of Darwin's. For Baba, Darwin't theory of natural selection is simply wrong.

And, in regard to the evolutionary process, it is well to remember always that the beginning is a beginning in consciousness, the evolution is an evolution in consciousness, the end, if there be an end, is an end in consciousness. (Ditto)

You don't have to believe Baba on this, but it behooves one to know what he taught, and not pretend he gave a teaching consistent with a more popular and common narrative. And incidentally, for the many who likely don't know this, Darwin's theory, along with our current theory of reductive materialism, is no longer universally accepted by intellectuals. Philosopher Thomas Nagel, professor emeritus at New York University, expresses his skepticism boldly in his 2012 book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Other professors, such as professor of mind David Chalmers, have come close to suggesting ideas quite close to the evolution of perception concept I have talked about. 

We don't have karma; we are our karma

If we follow Meher Baba, ordinarily we think of ourselves as a person first, who has acquired specific karma in previous lives that we must play out. But really, if we think about it, we don't just have karma, but are our karma.  

Let me give an analogy to clarify what I mean. We’ll use the analogy of a first person computer game.  

Consider the popular computer game Red Dead Redemption 2. The game takes about 70 hours to complete its main missions and most people become extremely immersed in its story. In such a game a player not only becomes immersed in the story but even identifies with the character they are playing. If you watch reaction videos of the game you will see players refer to the main character Arthur in first person. Of course we all know that Arthur is really just the visual representation of scripted computer code. 

Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2

Arthur is not a character who simply has a code added to him that determines his physique and actions. He is none-other than that code. Arthur is that code.

This gives us a good analogy by which to explain our relationship with our karma, as well as the sanskaras we have gathered that determines that karma. 

Let me give an example of how events in the game are predetermined by the script embedded in its code. A main turn in the story is when Arthur visits a man named Thomas Downes and contracts Tuberculosis from him. People have asked if they can avoid this occurring. This is what ChatGPT had to say:

You can't put off visiting Thomas Downes indefinitely in Red Dead Redemption 2; the game forces the mission after a certain amount of time, usually when you try to rest or trigger another event, making it mandatory to progress and ultimately leading to Arthur contracting tuberculosis. Trying to avoid it too long results in Strauss intervening, locking you into the mission, and skipping it leads directly to the inevitable cough. 

Now of course, the player playing the game is not controlled by such code. The player, like the soul of a man, is not really in the illusion of the game. He or she are simply observing it and identifying with Arthur.

Using this as an analogy, we can compare the scripted story to Arthur's karma. And the code in which that story is embedded can be compared to Arthur's sanskaras or impressions.

So the analogy goes like this:

• The player is the soul, the conscious witness. He or she is not in the game, but immersed in it, and identifies his or her self as Arthur and feels the full emotional impact of the story.
• The story is Arthur's karma.
• The code that determines the events in the story can be compared to sanskaras.

Playable characters like Arthur don't have code. They are code. They don't exist and then someone adds code to them. They are that code. A person is his karma.

Everything about our lives, including the shape and look of our body and even the moment we will die is determined by our karma. Our body does not have consciousness. You who identify with your body and its actions have consciousness. And you are really a transcendent soul.

Clearly, Meher Baba says that we are not really our bodies or our actions, but are really the Oversoul, the witness. But those qualities we take ourselves to be before God-Realization, along with our life and all that occurs in it, is simply code. Sanskaric code. 

So, though one’s real self is God, all that one currently takes himself to be, i.e. his body, his thoughts, the story of his life, are an illusion determined by his sanskaras.

A cinema operator who is cranking the projector with his own hand and is at the same time deeply absorbed in watching the images on the screen. He becomes so deeply absorbed that he forgets that it is his own hand which is cranking the machine, out of which is being projected all of this which he sees on the screen. He laughs and weeps according to the scenes presented on the screen. In the process he forgets the unreality and non existing state of the scenes on the screen. (Meher Baba, Intelligence Notebooks, Second Notebook, p. 32)

Arthur Morgan's Last Ride

The Future of the Baba World

First of all, the United States Baba world, as it is currently put together, has no future at all. Throughout history, numerous minor religions and cults have vanished due to cultural shifts or outright self-destruction. Examples from the ancient past include Neoplatonism, Manichaeism, Donatism and the Adamites. More modern examples include the Peoples Temple, Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo, and Heaven's Gate. An example of a dying religion is the Shakers, who have dwindled from thousands in the 1800s to only two remaining members as of recent records.

The Baba followers will not commit suicide, nor will they be exterminated or banned by any authorities. The reason for their disappearance will be loss of interest. The Baba followers are 70-90 years old. Their children drifted away long ago and there are no new converts.

Why the loss of interest? 

The current surviving followers of Baba came from the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. They were adverse to authority, certainty, any fixed orthodox interpretations of Baba's writings, and anything they perceive as organized. This is a recipe for extinction as no one agrees on anything except that the community never organize into a religion. There is no positive conception of what they are. They also happened to be hostile to young people and fresh ideas due to a kind of generational narcissism common to their generation. They were also adverse to relinquishing positions. So instead of retiring, they just lost their vitality. Essentially they were afraid of the future and wishing things to remain stagnant. They became a very uninteresting gerontocracy with no clear ideas. 

So, why is this paper titled The Future of the Baba World? For while I think the Baba community in its current state is doomed to die out, I see Baba himself leaving behind a legacy that will endure. It simply needs to be rediscovered by a generation in the future. When they do die off this will liberate enormous potential to be put together in numerous vigorous and interesting ways.

Why would anyone bother? What would be the allure? Why would it spread? And what would the consequences of such a vibrant movement, based on Baba's actual teachings, be? A lot of good questions. I'm going to try to answer each one.

Andre Rieu playing Romeo and Juliet

Looking for Dumb Ideas to Improve

It sounds terrible, but philosophy would not exist if there weren't people who need straightening out. A philosopher doesn't think in a vacuum, but most of his deeper thoughts are inspired from hearing other people say the most absurd things, and his desire to help them with those thoughts. There is no better example of this than Socrates, who walked with his followers in the streets of Athens helping people with their thinking -- and in doing so leaving the first great written legacy of wisdom on nearly every subject. Philosophy can actually be described as hearing thinking and seeking to improve upon it. So a philosopher should never condemn ignorance, but be grateful for it. As it is his life's blood.

This of course will never thrill the people around a philosopher. Socrates was, after all, sentenced to death for his efforts. And rather than discouraging future thinkers his sacrifice only inspired more to want to be like him. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest. 

Most people don't like to hear they might be wrong, though real contemplatives enjoy learning they are wrong, for it opens up new vistas.

Socrates condemned to drink hemlock for his words