With well over one thousand comments, totalling over 270,000 words, the logic and arguments in this comment thread have become laborious to navigate and for WordPress, technically challenging to host. With a synopsis of key arguments by Sujewa Ekanayake, the discussions have now moved to The Agnostics vs. The Believers regarding karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism being real aspects of this world.

Please continue to engage with the topics and issues brought over there.

“How is Karma entirely compatible with current scientific knowledge?”

Whether or not science recognizes karma as valid, it does recognize mental illness. That is why, in a Court of Law, one must prove not only the guilt of the accused party, but a willing intention as well. An insane individual is not sentenced to jail – he is institutionalized in a sanetorium or some place. I find these individuals fascinating – they commit crimes because the urge is so strong they can’t resist. They know that what they’re doing is wrong, but they will do it anyway. I would like to know from where such an urge originates? Surely these are not values that society teaches? Many years ago there was a fellow in the USA who cut up teenage boys and stored the parts in the freezer.. now, I know the classic answers psychology would give: “rage”, “oedipian complex”, “repressed memories”, “insecurity”, “chemical imbalance in the brain”… all good answers, but many of us suffer from similar emotions (at least for short periods of time) – why do we not “crack”, so to speak?

I do not mean to suggest karma is the culprit, but I do find it fascinating that individuals in the 21st century can act just as barbarically as Attila the Hun.

Still following this discussion – though I am having a difficult time commenting at this article from my home computers – working on fixing that issue (hopefully this weekend the problem will be dealt with).

A much more focused version of this debate may begin (once again soon at this site – stay tuned.

In the meantime, no proof has been presented – STILL – by Yapa or the other belivers showing that Buddhism is something more than a faith based religion – or that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this world.

Keep up the good work Agnostics, you are most likely saving many future minds from falling prey to Buddhist blind faith & negative practices that accompany it.

- S

I am learning a lot from your writing. Nicely focused.

Re. GUT – this is not an original Yapaism.

My Buddhist teachers and lay teachers put Buddhism forward as a ‘Grand Unified Theory’ (GUT). Which is where the ‘is true’ delusion comes from.

The difference is, in science the GUT is a theory to unify existing theories. Whereas in Buddhism the believers claim that the Buddha ‘saw’ the GUT all those years ago – even though the theories that it unifies did not exist at the time. In fact, the claim is that the Buddha’s theory of the meaning of life takes into account ALL KNOWLEDGE THAT WILL EVER BE FOUND. In other words, it is a GUT of all GUTS – it unifies all theories that is yet to be envisaged and all proven knowledge that will ever be found. Ever.

Let’s compare this with Islam. Muslims believe that the basis of the religion – ie. the ‘word of god’ – was revealed to Mohammed (pbuh)?

In the Qu’ran, the messages contained in it are ‘the LAST word’ from god. And Mohammed is god’s LAST messenger. Therefore NO ONE else emerging in history anywhere in the world henceforth can claim to bring the ‘word of god’! Not now. Not in 50,000 years time.

Now see what this means. This is clever, innit?
It ensures that Islam can never be refuted! Ever!

Now see what the GUT aspect of Buddhism effectively does? It is the same.

No subsequent theories, no subsequent knowledge that refutes any of the Buddhist teachings can be ‘tolerated’ and ‘must be rejected’. Furthermore, as you can see amply demonstrated in this thread, any and all subsequent knowledge gained by humans, scientific or otherwise, now and in the next 50,000 years and beyond, is used to validate the Buddhist beliefs, validate what the Buddha said 2,500 years ago.

The Bible does a similar thing. It is supposed to be ‘gospel’. It is therefore true. Even in 50,000 years time.

(it’s no wonder we are GUT-ted!)

You may recall (you do don’t you?) that I explained why I think a belief in KRN is untenable in a modern society, particularly in a capitalist one. I am gutted because, clearly you were not convinced!

Your statement in all it’s glory reprinted below.

“There I have clearly shown the justifiability of separating western religion from state

1. God based western religion can be disproved. Hence it is myth.
2. Therefore, it is reasonable to separate it from state.
3. Buddhism cannot be disproved, hence you cannot say it is myth.
4. Therefore,you cannot reasonably say Buddhism should be separated from state.

Now will you tell me logically or reasonably, why the conclusion (4), is not a result of (1), (2) and (3).

Haven’t I logically proved that separating Buddhism from stare is not reasonable?”

I would use some logical reasoning to propose that witchcraft should also be separated from the state, and cookery and also necrophilia.

Mr Yapa, you have a short memory. I have already asked how a state administration can function – actually how the whole of society can function (!) – if KRN is proved to be TRUE FACT.

I won’t bore you again … but … if karma, rebirth, nirvana (KRN) is accepted as TRUE then …

What happens to property rights?
How does society regard people born into poverty?
How does the state regard people who do not believe in KRN? What is their status? Will they be allowed to have children?
How can the state allow advertising?
Can the state allow entertainment of any kind?
Can the state allow the teaching of any other theory/view on the meaning of life?
Can the state allow its citizens to acquire knowledge about alternative views?
Can the internet be allowed?
Will any citizen be allowed to converse with anyone other than a Buddhist believer?
Will all the clergy learn Quantum Physics?
Will we have a cricket team?

(I am sure you have the answers. Please share them with us)

Your statement which you have reprinted deserves a further reprint. So here it is again!

“There is no doubt that Karma as defined by the Buddha (action with intent / conscious action) is entirely compatible with current scientific knowledge when you look at it within the current life span. In fact it is recognized as such in EVERY MODERN JUDICIAL SYSTEM in what is known as the “Developed World” today”

And there I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, that there might be something valid (even a nugget of it) in what you are trying to say. I don’t know how you do it but in your post you have successfully claimed your place as a THE WORLD’s pioneer in linking ‘Karma > Scientific Knowledge > Every Modern Judicial System’. The Nobel Prize awaits!

This is as mind boggling as successfully mating a household cat with a hippopotamus, and a folded umbrella all at the same time.

My first post on this explores the ludicrosity of this. So I won’t repeat it here.

Please explain …

How is Karma entirely compatible with current scientific knowledge?

This would depend on how you define (1) karma (2) compatible and (3) scientific knowledge. I think there would exist a definiton (some obscure definition somewhere) for each of those items where your statement becomes ‘valid’ to a reasonably (un)intelligent person. However, within the normal definitions of those items your statement is sidesplittingly hilarious. The popular expression in response is WTF! SomewhatD might recognise it as a good case of Shilboot.

Give me an example of ONE SINGLE country in which the judicial system recognises Karma as the model it tries to emulate. Or if you mean this, a judicial system that ‘recognises’ the operation of karma in any way (already explored in my first post on this). Take any law book in any country. Turn to the index. Look down to the ‘K’ section. Keep looking until you find ‘karma’ … (Tip: don’t hold your breath).

I have something new for you.

A modern judicial system DOES NOT necessarily recognise and let you off for lack of intent or conscious action. In many countries ignorance of the law is not a defence. You may well break the law inadvertently and still be in the proverbial Shil (or is it boot?!). For example, you may be 3 times over the drink drive limit – you lost count how many whiskeys you had after first legal one! You inadvertently undeclared your income in your tax return. You inadvertently ran into your neighbour’s car and you inadvertently was not insured. You married someone you did not intend to. Does the law care about your lapses? No! (“I’m sorry M’lad, I know one refers to that woman as my wife but marrying my new fiance is not bigamy because, although I went through a wedding ceremony, it was entirely unintentional on my part”. Hey wait, didn’t the Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik claim this recently ?!!!)

On the flip side, there are many gross actions that you may take quite deliberately where the law in your Modern Judicial System has absolutely NOOOOOOOOOOOOO teeth! A perfect example only in SL – you can rape your wife quite deliberately and I understand that it is not illegal (please correct me if this is wrong). You can quite deliberately drive at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone and the law will not chase you (mostly). You can rig elections. You can quite deliberately be taken away in a white van. A whole country can intimidate a minority quite deliberately and many Modern Judicial Systems do nothing to intervene.

So what does this do to your argument? Can you please give us an explanation (hopefully with intent and conscious action on your part)?

“Karma entirely compatible with current scientific knowledge”
Maybe you should collaborate with Mr Yapa on his thesis?

Nevertheless, I agree with you that Yapa should provide concrete examples to prove that Buddhism has any scientific value. For example, he should predict future events or someone’s future life, or outline in painstaking detail someone’s past lives, to prove that karma/nibbana/etc. work “beyond the paper.”

There’s a lot to think about in what you said. I quite enjoyed your treatment of Newton also. It was highly educational, apart from thoroughly decimating Yapa’s random ramblings.

Thanks for the compliments. Although, unlike yourself, I don’t quite like to characterize Yapa as a villain… if we remove the repetition, and some glaring omissions, and the ad hominem attacks, he does have a few good points. He reminds me of the people who currently pursue “String Theory.” String theory tries to unify the four fundamental forces of physics, thereby providing a GFT (Grand Unified Theory… what Einstein spent 20 years doing in vain). Unfortunately there is no empirical basis for string theory… the LHC that you mentioned may or may not provide some evidence… in any case, there are a lot of rather *annoyed* people in the physics community who disapprove of string theory, since it relies entirely on mathematical arguments and lacks any experimental basis. Recall that all of the big revolutions in physics, from quantum mechanics to relativity, were eventually proved “beyond the paper alone.”

I think Yapa is actually trying to suggest Buddhism as a GFT, though he may not realize it. Remember that no GFT exists as of yet – there are unifying theories (e.g. electricity + magnetism = electromagnetism = Maxwell’s Equations), but there is no single theory to explain “everything.” There is no “theory of everything.” As long as this is the case, we will continue to have people like Yapa.

“I totally agree with SomewhatDisgusted’s summing up of why we are fighting this corner.”

True, You have no other alternative, without which (backscratching each other) your existence is in danger.

Policy for you;

I scratch your back, you scratch my back!

(hori kahapiya, gini pimbapiya!)

Thanks!

“Can you show me any other disputable truth?

It should be “indisputable” in the sentence above.

Thanks!

“Mr. Yapa, you have not shown us how KRN (Kamma, Rebirth, Nirvana) is a fact. As long as you cannot show us how KRN is a fact, then you cannot show us that Buddhism contains indisputable truth.”

You are asking the same old question again and again showing your poverty of ideas and the audacity. I will give you the same old answer.

Can you show me any other disputable truth?

Social Science? Economics? Political Science? Music? Art?, Natural Science?

Do you reject these subjects and consider them as faith?

If not why do you consider Buddhism as faith?

Repeat your question giving a reasonable answer for this.

Try to be frank!

Thanks!

“What in the world is it that you think you’ve done? Never mind the agnostics, could you even show us whether you’ve managed to convince one of the believers,”

Convincing believers will not be dissimilar to convincing the blind man about nature of curd.

There I have clearly shown the justifiability of separating western religion from state

1. God based western religion can be disproved. Hence it is myth.
2. Therefore, it is reasonable to separate it from state.
3. Buddhism cannot be disproved, hence you cannot say it is myth.
4. Therefore,you cannot reasonably say Buddhism should be separated from state.

Now will you tell me logically or reasonably, why the conclusion (4), is not a result of (1), (2) and (3).

Haven’t I logically proved that separating Buddhism from stare is not reasonable?

Here is the original essay;.

http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-21/#comment-18066

Please answer specifically. You don’t need to make others give evidence for you. You yourself can prove it.

Be honest .

Thanks!

“The question then arises as to why that cause should be removed? That need be removed only if one realises that Dhukka pervades life not otherwise.”

The fact that Dukha pervades life means that life itself is pointless and mostly just Dukha. If there was something positive in life, then there would be no reason to aim for extinction would there?

This brings things back to a point BalangodaMan made very early on. Most religions seem to believe that “life is a bitch”, as he put it quite humorously. They provide a mechanism to escape the pointlessness of this life to a blissful state in the next. Whether we are leaving this life to attain Nibbana or whether we are leaving it to become God’s pet, the underlying idea is the same. This is not written to insult Buddhism. It is written to show that part of a religion’s purpose is to serve a very real psychological need in human beings – to give a mechanism for coping with the “dukha” in this life.

“This is one reason that I believe in the carry over of Karma. Dr Ian Stevenson’s Birth mark investigation is a recent reason that strengthened that belief.”

I’m not sure I understand how seeing a genius can reinforce a belief in Kamma. For example, Von Neumann could recall verbatim, the text of every book he read. However, all the things he could recall were information he gathered in this life, not information from some past life. So how does seeing a genius reinforce a belief in Kamma?

If on the other hand, you are just saying that to have such great intelligence, he must have had good kamma, that again runs into problems. Here, you are assuming that to be born with great intelligence is really good kamma. But how many geniuses are born into unfortunate families and possibly are unable to make any use of their faculties? So where is the correlation between being intelligent and being born into fortunate circumstances?

Secondly, you are assigning a human value judgement to some physical state and assuming that it is “fortunate” to be born intelligent. But again, what does a human notion of “fortunate” have to do with it? The animal world’s version of fortunate might be to just have a lot of offspring. There is no such concept as “fortunate” in the world, other than the value we humans assign to it, from *our* perspective. This comes back to the point I raised earlier. Somehow, notions of human morality, ethics and good fortune are affecting a world which is devoid of such constructs. I’ve asked earlier – what does an ethical lion mean? What is good kamma for a bacterium? So how do human value judgements affect a universal law? Does that not tell you that kamma is a human construct in the first place?

Thirdly, there is the issue with humans and patterns. We humans are very good at pattern-matching. Most of our sensory organs are pattern matching systems. The whole brain is one gigantic pattern recognition network. That also means that we are very good at seeing patterns where there are none. That’s what gives rise to seeing animals in clouds and various other misreadings. For a good synopsis, see here: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pattern_recognition

The point? The point is, we have to be really wary of seeing patterns where there are none. Why should you even think genius is related to Kamma here? Why is it just not pure dumb luck, as in what you’ve genetically inherited?

“In Buddhism which is Mind centric, the mind can be developed to a level that allows a person to remember his/her previous life / lives. This will confirm rebirth to that person but not to others.”

Such a notion would again undermine neuroscience as we know it.We start our life as a single cell. At that point, there is obviously no brain to store memories. Our brain grows later. So where are the past memories stored in the interim? If you say they are not stored, then that does not explain why there’s a direct, undeniable correlation between the physical brain and memories. So unless you postulate that past memories are floating around and suddenly invade and store themselves in our synapses, such a notion would contradict neuroscience directly.

Secondly, you imply that the brain can be highly developed to see beyond the Maya. Let’s assume that’s a possibility. However, as Heshan said, this is again an assumed rule. But what reason do you have to believe that the mind is capable of jumping outside of the matrix?

Thirdly, how do you separate those who are seeing past lives from those who are seeing delusions? Believe me, sincere delusions are incredibly common (see Sagan). There are thousands of people who have spoken to god, have been, abducted by aliens and communicate with the dead. What makes you accept only those who talk of past lives but reject those who talk about the lost city of Atlantis? (Especially when there is not even an Arahat to be found). It all comes down to belief in authority doesn’t it?

“If and when Science acquires the ability to tap into the mind it may be possible to prove it to others using Science but till then the absence of such proof cannot negate rebirth.”

Certainly, but you have to realize that the onus is on those making the claims to provide the proof.

Apart from this, many many potential incompatibilities with science, and potential absurdities in general, have been highlighted throughout the course of this debate. I think you will agree that many of them have received no concrete answers.

The bottom line is – we have indeed come back full circle. You strongly believe in your religion. That is ok – you may even be right after all – who knows. But I feel it’s high-time we stopped talking about the same thing and suggest instead that we focus on the following.

1. How should religion interact with the state?
2. What are the responsibilities of the believers towards those who do not believe in that same idea?
3. How should a moderate Buddhist react when another Buddhist makes a claim of knowing an absolute truth and/or that Buddhism = Truth and therefore separating Buddhism from the state = separating the truth from the state.
4. What are the negative effects of those suffering from delusions of persecution (as in religious paranoia) and what are the solutions?

Would appreciate your opinions on those.

cheers!

If you mean “Maya” as in apparition then it is not so, as Buddhism recognises an actual state of life. It calls a spade a spade. Buddhism does not project any idea that life is pointless, rather, it values it.

If it values life, then rebirth should be a positive phenomenon. In some sense, the greatest human fear is that of dying. Even a small infant, though he has never witnessed death, if you press a hot iron against him, a reflexive response will emerge whereby he starts crying. You see, evolution has provided us with this instinct to preserve life at any cost.

It is necessary to be born as a human in order to attain Nibbana hence it is neither nihilistic nor pessimistic. It just looks at reality in the face. What it does is to recognise the nature of life. If that nature has more Dukkha, it will be recognised as such. Nibbana is not an escape from reality. It is achieved by removing the fuel that causes rebirth.

For the benefit of those not intimately familiar with Buddhism, such as myself, can you explain the nature of Nibbana? On the one hand, you accept that rebirth is a possibility. At the same time, you assert that rebirth is not a positive phenomenon, hence the need for every human to strive towards Nibbana. I am aware of Nibbana as a cognitive phenomenon, such as Buddha experienced when sitting under the Bo Tree. In this case, his mind reached a heightened state of awareness, whereby the duality that usually pervades normal thinking (what Mr. Yapa calls Aristotilean logic!) was removed, and he could see his past lives. Now, what is missing is the logical synthesis – how to connect Nibbana as a cognitive phenomenon to death and rebirth, which must be physical phenomena. Exactly what is it that survives after death? For God-believers like myself, the answer is the “soul”. But the existence of the soul assumes a primordial cause, e.g. Creator. As a Buddhist, I am aware that such a construct does not fall within your categories of logic… yet the question must remain, what is it that survives after death, and how do you justify it?

Everything has a reason. When there is happiness a reason for that will exist. Similarly when there is Dukkha there must be a reason for it too.

I could also make a similar case, just as strongly, for happiness. Because if we accept that duality is the natural state of the human mind, then it is not possible to have Dukkha without having happiness. I don’t see why the quantity of each should matter… what is logically significant is that both must co-exist, for either to exist. So I could make up a philosophy of “happiness” saying that rebirth is a good thing, because the reality of life is to have happiness, and each time you are reborn you will have happiness. And this philosophy would agree to some extent with Buddhism – that takes Dukkha as the default state of existence – because Buddhism accepts that the dual way of thinking is what causes Dukkha, but the dual way of thinking is only possible as long as rebirth goes on.

Purpose of Buddhism is to face reality not to escape it. Science and Buddhism are not at cross purposes both try to explain things. The difference is in the areas that each operates in. Science is unable to explain many things that are observable. That’s because it’s still not mature in those areas at the moment. There have been an umpteen number of areas that Science was immature in the past but is mature now.”

I agree that science is unable to explain many things (although I do not know if they are necessarily observable). For example, it cannot explain the origin of consciousness. Atoms do not have personalities…

Another concept that is confusing to most is that of Karma. It means action in Pali. In Buddhism it means Thoughtful Action or Premeditated. When you decide to hit an opponent the first thing that happens is the thought. The action follows the thought. That is thoughtful action. It is the same principle that is applied within the modern judicial system. There are many things that can happen without premeditation that will be excluded from the Buddhist interpretation of Karma. An accident is an example. You don’t think about your Heart beating but it happens. Karma can be good or bad. Understanding the above is not difficult. But when the idea of a carry over of Karma to a subsequent life is floated, disbelief arises. In Buddhism Karma is just one aspect that causes rebirth there are others. With the exception of some, bad Karma can also be avoided by overwhelming it with good Karma (means that the bad Karma is not given a chance to act before attainment of Nibbana).

I would like to know, how does one carry karma over to the next life? I do agree with you that people can sometimes imitate their ancestors in rather unusual ways, ways that defy mere coincidence… however, I do not know the reason. It is not something that science can explain, since science cannot clearly identify the form of transmittance. I am glad that science does not attempt to engage in such a process. However, I can see why it is important to humans, as a matter of personal belief.

Something that has intrigued me is the existence of child prodigies. Here are a few of many.

Well, I think that intelligence at least can be explained by science… when Einstein died, they looked at his brain, and found the % of grey matter greatly exceeds the % of white matter. For many child prodigies, it is simply a case of faster brain development… evolution has also shown that human intelligence has evolved over time… a 1000 yrs from now, the human brain will have evolved even more to the extent that we finish university by the age of 15 or so. It is not a guess; in fact, about 200-300 years ago, when education was limited to the gifted, that is the normal age that people entered university.

“On the other hand, just because these events will occur no matter what, is it rational to label them as dukkha and consider such dukkha to be the definitive state of existence? By rational, I am really asking, is the “dukkha” term the most objective one”

Good question, but it does occur no mater what and it does bring sorrow, frustration etc, It also falls within the definition of Dukkha so what else can we label it as other than Dukkha?

That is the problem with language (semantics). You can always find two humans who will disagree on a concept that has been stated in purely qualitative, as opposed to quantitative terms. That is why I always find it difficult to believe that the universe can be defined in purely qualitative terms, e.g. through philosophy/religion. On the other hand, the quantitative argument cannot be meddled with.. when you say 1 + 1 = 2, there is no way to rewrite that and arrive at a different conclusion. At the same time, if you said “Dukkha is the default state of existence” and I asked you “how much Dukkha exists”, you could not give me an exact answer. I have no way of gauging this Dukkha in any objective form, as it every moment it is in a state of fluctuating and the accuracy of even any instantaneous measurement would be overshadowed by the possibility of the variance that came with Dukkha measurement at the next instant or next person.

“by your definition, I could call a tsunami as dukkha. But a scientist would not call it Dukkha. He would just use the word tsunami.”

A Buddhist won’t call it a Dukkha either. To a Buddhist the results of the Tsunami will be Dukkha not the Tsunami itself.

Buddhism does not question the rules of the game either but uses the mind to understand why those rules exist.

It is true that we do not yet know the full powers of the mind, e.g. “awareness” is only vaguely defined. I accept that the mind is a more powerful analytical tool than any external measuring device… after all, these devices must be programmed, and such programming is done in accordance with human logic. On the other hand, there must also be a limit to how far the mind can probe. Surely this limit imposes certain restrictions on the “game.”

We have now come full circle in the discussion. As I have stated before Science cannot prove or disprove many things that are observable as reality. That’s due to Science being immature in those fields. Someday Science will acquire that knowledge. In Buddhism which is Mind centric, the mind can be developed to a level that allows a person to remember his/her previous life / lives. This will confirm rebirth to that person but not to others. If and when Science acquires the ability to tap into the mind it may be possible to prove it to others using Science but till then the absence of such proof cannot negate rebirth. Just as Science cannot negate or explain Acupuncture or Remote Viewing.

There will always be some things which science will not be able to explain. It is not the fault of the Universe… it is that we are limited by our own minds.

I hope I have been able to answer the salient points that you, SomewhatDisgusted and others have raised in this discussion.

Thanks for your enlightening answers. It is a pleasure to debate these issues.

I cannot see why you posted those links to your previous posts. I can only see your conclusions that Buddhism is true because ‘God does not Exist’. But we DO have a god in Buddhism! According to you, have we not been handed an extra-human doctrine by someone extra-human (someone with higher authority than human)? Isn’t that what you are taking great pains to convince us with? So all religions have a god – whether he is called Yahweh, Allah, God, Buddha, celestial administrator of karma, ‘goni billa’, ‘the bogey man’, imaginary friend.

If you are convinced that ‘God does not exist’ then you maybe one of us???! LOL!

Thank you for the detailed exposition. The key expression in all you have said is … ‘In Buddhism’.

Eg. “In Buddhism Karma is just one aspect that causes rebirth there are others”

We do not disagree that ‘in Buddhism’ that is what it says – just as much as ‘in Islam’ that is what it says and ‘in Christianity’ that is what it says etc, and similarly in other religions.

What we are discussing (hopefully) is NOT ‘what it says’ (you are experts at knowing what it says). NO CHALLENGE!

We are discussing whether some aspects of it are relevant to our lives today, how so, and whether the faith based items are any less conjecture than faith based items in other religions.

Just because there are people who are fully conversant with ‘what Buddhism says’ or ‘what Islam says’ or ‘what Christianity says’ – and there are plenty of these, including academics and the clergy – does NOT make any of them believable to those who choose to keep an open mind.

‘What is says’ – we agree. No challenge
‘It is true, while the other-religion’s what-it-says are not true’ – we are not yet convinced.

OTC, I have also asked a question (several times) that will help us understand why you hold this to be ‘true’ while someone born in a Muslim environment will hold his religious dogma to be ‘true’ with equal passion. How does one ‘true’ become more true than the other ‘truths’?

Child Prodiges
—————–

OTC,
Child prodiges exist. You say … therefore it proves the (carry over) working of karma!
How so?

And you also say …
“But if that person wishes to achieve Nibbana there is a Methodology that has to be followed…”
How is this any different (in principle) from ‘No one will enter the kingdom of heaven except through me’?
Or ‘only a believer in Allah will go to paradise’?

KRN vs KRN
————
It should be KRN … but there are more KNR (25) in this thread than KRN (15) !

You say: “He seems to think the GOD has given him the sole authority of summarizing, interpreting, distorting, inferring, concluding about anybody’s writing arbitrarily and authoritatively and to declare his own win over others.”

All you have to do to negate my summary, is to list out, in point form, the convincing reasons why KRN is a fact. One single post should do! That single post will do more to convince others and silence me than writing a 100 on Newton. That single post will do better than writing another 100 on why I’m a decadent, dishonest, western conspirator. All of that may be true but entirely irrelevant to the debate at hand. All we need is that single post! Please write your heading as “TOP REASONS TO BELIEVE IN KRN” and list them out.

“Wait! You will never deceive everybody that way. You never write specific responses, but write general summaries after 10-12 posts.”

I’m not discussing Einstein or Newton so I don’t see the point in commenting on irrelevant issues. Please provide that convincing list Mr. Yapa.

“Please await another RUBBERY as you call it.”

Now this, I’m looking forward to! Your rubberies are always enjoyable. But please give priority to that list Mr. Yapa, because getting to the point will be the best rubbery of all!

“……. … what OTC means when he says ‘karma is the basis of the judicial system’ . I think what he means is there is a similarity between the two in that they both try to be fair” in your post of May 6, 2010 @ 2:09 am

BalangodaMan, you are attributing to me things that I have never written. What I have written is a far cry from your distorted interpretation. What I wrote has nothing to do with either a BASIS or a FAIRNESS.

Buddhism is over 2650 years old. The Buddha realised that there is a difference between Thoughtful action (or in current terminology Premeditated Action) and involuntary or accidental action. He defined Karma as such.

This was long before the modern Judicial System ever realised that there was a difference between the two.

Buddha’s definition has nothing to do with “Fairness” as Buddhism has nothing to do with PUNISHMENT. It only describes the CONSEQUENCES. There is no authority that metes out punishments hence Fairness has no meaning.

If you hit your head against a rock it will hurt you and if you hit it hard enough it might even crack it open resulting in death. The action of yours did not bring about a punishment. The rock did not “PUNISH” you for hitting it but the consequences did hurt you and could have even killed you.

This is what I wrote on April 11, 2010 @ 1:10 am addressed to you Sujewa and SD in response to a post from SomewhatD

“There is no doubt that Karma as defined by the Buddha (action with intent / conscious action) is entirely compatible with current scientific knowledge when you look at it within the current life span. In fact it is recognized as such in EVERY MODERN JUDICIAL SYSTEM in what is known as the “Developed World” today”

“Now I have done my part. Now that somebody can keep his promise.”

What in the world is it that you think you’ve done? Never mind the agnostics, could you even show us whether you’ve managed to convince one of the believers, either OTC or Wijayapala, that separating Buddhism from the state is equivalent to separating the truth from the state? OTC or Wijayapala, has Mr. Yapa convincingly demonstrated this fact? Are the agnostics being unreasonable or unfair about the matter? If so, could one of you please clarify?

Mr. Yapa, you have not shown us how KRN (Kamma, Rebirth, Nirvana) is a fact. As long as you cannot show us how KRN is a fact, then you cannot show us that Buddhism contains indisputable truth. OTC has already accepted this. As I’ve repeatedly said, at best, you might be able to show us how KRN is a hypothesis. So far, I’m not sure you’ve even managed to do that.

I used that abbreviation because BalangodaMan used it several times before and I thought everyone was familiar with it. My apologies.

KNR = Kamma Nibbana Rebirth

Possibly better put as KRN – Kamma Rebirth Nibbana