ZeonChar said:
I'm a firm proponent of the sciences, including evolution, but I also believe in more spiritual matters, such as reincarnation. This begs the question, at what point did we start inhabiting humanoid bodies? Did we start at the beginning as single-celled organisms without consciousness and evolve both physically and spiritually from there or was there a point in time when consciousness came to the fore and we started to inhabit bodies?
I'll state my own theory, but first I'd like to say, I love this reflection made by dking77:
dking77 said:
Isn't homosapiens classified as an animal? How do we know that this isn't the opposite? How do we know that the dolphins are not spiritually superior to the human being - and the goal is to develop enough to have the privilege to incarnate in a superior life from in the body of a dolphin? According to some researchers - this is a possibility.
I think science is the way. And philosophy too. Recently I was regretting in one of my blogs it seems there's not philosophy anymore, we only have dogmas coming from science or religion, and I have the feeling it's no good if you dare to think by yourself. So for me the ideal would be the combination of science and philosophy, then maybe science would recover a lot of the spirituality that lost at some point in history.
This said, I'll add esoteric schools haven't answered anything. They only have hypothesis coming from different sources, just like the rest of us. No one can know for sure which the purpose of reincarnation is, and the concept of spiritual evolution is debatable too, as while we are here incarnated we only have a partial vision of the spiritual world. My personal view is that we all are the same when we return to our spiritual condition, hence we don't need to "evolve" towards perfection or anywhere else, as we are already "perfect" beings, meaning with this a wiser or more experienced soul isn't more "perfect" than a young or less experienced soul.
Though Darwin's evolution theory is widely accepted, we must not forget it is only an unproved theory. I think probably the truth is made of a combination of the evolution theory and "something else" we still have to uncover. Earthly beings are classiffied in different kingdoms: mineral, vegetable and animal, and there's a reason for it. I don't discard completely we could reincarnate in any of the three, but personally I think each kingdom needs different "kinds of souls/consciousness". The leap between vegetable and animal kingdoms (I'd say also between animal and human) needs something more than a random DNA mutation, no matter how many thousands of years of evolution we're talking about. Genetists say it's impossible that evolution took place as Darwin says in such a short time (
if chronology is right). So, in my opinion, there would be souls intended to inhabit animal bodies, and souls intended to inhabit humanoid bodies. This doesn't make ones better than the others, they are just different, though the essence is the same.
I also admit human beings have a great animal part, that's undeniable, but there's something on us which makes us different. I don't know what it is, and science hasn't found where this difference lies yet. Of course we have things in common with animals, and like dking said, they clearly are "better" than us in many aspects (for example they are much better adapted and they don't commit themselves to destroy the place where they live), the same way we are "better" in other aspects. I also know that great apes, the ones we consider are in the highest places of animal evolution, are incredibly similar to human beings and of course we share 98% of the DNA. Still, I believe the main difference comes from something that resides in our souls: the certainty (though it can be more or less buried in our subconcious) of our immortality as spiritual beings.
Obviously, all this is open to discussion.