SciTechBlog   « Back to Blog Main
February 16, 2009

Was Darwin a Buddhist?

Posted: 05:35 PM ET
Darwin's views of compassion are curiously similar to those of Buddhism, one researcher says.

Darwin's views of compassion are curiously similar to those of Buddhism, one researcher says.

Just days after the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory, journalists and scientists from all over the world converged to confront a fascinating connection: Some of Darwin's views have a lot in common with Buddhist teachings.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, psychologist Paul Ekman, known for his research showing the universality of facial expressions across cultures, told us that Darwin's descriptions of compassion, as well as his view of morality as it relates to compassion, closely mirror Buddhist ideas.

"There’s always the possibility that two wise people looking at the same species will come up with the same conclusions," said Ekman, who co-wrote a book with the Dalai Lama on compassion called "Emotional Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion."

It turns out that Darwin's friend Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, a botanist and explorer, visited Tibet in 1847. He became familiar with Buddhist views there. He also wrote letters to Darwin. This is just one of many ways that Darwin could have been influenced by Buddhist teachings, Ekman said.

For Darwin and Buddhists, the seed for compassion is in the mother-infant relationship - this is "simple compassion," Ekman said. Then there's global compassion - for example, sending money and clothes to victims of a natural disaster. Finally, heroic compassion means risking your own life to save another - and you probably don't know if you have heroic compassion unless you've been in a situation like that, Ekman said.

The fundamental idea in both Darwin's writings and Buddhist views of compassion is that "when I see you suffer, it makes me suffer, and that motivates me to reduce your suffering so I can reduce my suffering," Ekman said.

The curious coincidence of views serves as a backdrop for understanding the nature of compassion, he said.

"I’m not by any means accusing Darwin of plagiarism," he explained.

What do you think? Does this link between Darwin and Buddhism have greater implications? Read more about Darwin on

Posted by:
Filed under: Evolution • science

Share this on:
Sathanuman S. Khalsa   February 17th, 2009 11:18 am ET

Charles Darwin was a Christian. To say he was a Buddhist is remarkable. The Buddhist would never disown him because he was 'outside the box' but he shallow following of the Christ seem to disown their own if the have unorthodox views.
Jefferson created his own bible from the King James version. His views on religion were unorthodox and he was painted by John Adams during the presidential race of 1800 as an atheist.
What remarkable Americans we are. We are the most diverse nation on earth, but our scientists, our clergy, our political leaders seemed to have to follow a linear belief system or they are treated like someone unacceptable to the norm.
Charles Darwin, like his soul-mate Abraham Lincoln were unique and a blessing from the Divine to humanity's evolution as human beings.
God bless him.

Jake   February 17th, 2009 12:20 pm ET

McTim -

I don't think you are being quite fair to Dawkins or athiests.

Dawkins is an athiest. He even has a chapter in his book about why there "almost certainly is no God." But, if you read that chapter, you will see that much of what he says doesn't relate to evolution at all. He speack more generally about the "scientific facts on the ground" – which include, but are not limited to, evolution.

(As an aside – please stop using the term "Darwinism." That is a term made up by ID proponents and creationsitsts – those are synonyms, actually, but that is another discussion – in an attempt to make people think that we are just talking about some loosey-goosey philosophicl viewpoint, not the most higly tested and verified theory in the biological sciences).

Second, I think folks like Dawkins, Hitchens, and their ilk are more rigorous and defensible on ethics than you give them credit for. People do, in fact, display all sorts of ethical impulses and behaviors – routinely. Generally, we don't injure, kill, steal from each other, etc. And, we generally teach our children and others to do the same. These are just empirical facts. And, despite what religious leaders will generally tell you, these facts generally hold true across a wide range of belief and non-belief. On the other hand, the most powerful tool for suppressing natural human moral behaviors and implusles is religion. As Steven Weinberg famously said, "With or without [religion], you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

DJ   February 21st, 2009 2:13 pm ET

Oops, instead of "favored by selective factors" I should have said "acted upon by selection pressures".

Ο Δαρβίνος ίσως επηρεάστηκε από το βουδισμό « Το περιπλανόμενο τουατάρα   November 21st, 2012 4:22 pm ET

[...] και βρήκα το ίδιο περίπου σε διάφορα μέρη, εδώ, εδώ και εδώ, επομένως είναι βέβαιο γεγονός ότι έγινε και [...]

Leave Your Comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Are you a gadgethead? Do you spend hours a day online? Or are you just curious about how technology impacts your life? In this digital age, it's increasingly important to be fluent, or at least familiar, with the big tech trends. From gadgets to Google, smartphones to social media, this blog will help keep you informed.

subscribe RSS Icon
Powered by VIP