The Agnostics vs. The Believers regarding karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism being real aspects of this world
One of the challenges put forth by The Agnostics camp (myself, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan, with help from Heshan) to The Believers (Yapa, Wijayapala, Off The Cuff, etc.) in the 1000+ comments discussion/debate that’s taking place in the comments section of the Akon & Buddhism article at Groundviews is: prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.
So far, in spite of their strong feeling that karma, reincarnation, & nirvana are real, and in spite of hundreds of comments by them, The Believers have not been able to show that karma, reincarnation and nirvana are in fact real – and not just speculative items used to introduce and sustain the Buddhist world view.
So, I will renew the call at this new article (since the previous article mentioned now has over 1000 comments – many wildly off point – and is reportedly making WordPress behave in strange ways); I invite The Believers to focus strictly at the question at hand – not on parables and pointless anger and name calling and mythological “history” – but to lay out the proof for the existence of karma, reincarnation, and nirvana in the real world. In the same way that one may lay out the proof for the existence of lightning or the brain’s capacity to think or the existence of gravity or the ability to travel at a thousand miles an hour – The Believers can use any hard-to-understand math or science, or even just common sense – and show how, as some believers (specially Yapa) claim – Buddhism is something more than a faith based religion (a great world religion, a human intellectual creation that is very useful to many, but, in the end, however, only a religion – with core elements such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana dependent on faith, with those items that cannot be verified to be real/true by a non-believer).
I am certain that hundreds of comments will issue forth here (as it did in the Akon & Buddhism article) from the minds & finger tips of The Believers. I plan on (& hopefully my agnostic brothers & sisters will aid me in this mission) pointing out whenever The Believers go off topic & try to evade the key question. So, lay out the facts Believers (& only the facts please), show us how karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this world/this universe.
[Editors note: With well over one thousand comments, totalling over 270,000 words, the logic and arguments in the comment thread on Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka became laborious to navigate and for WordPress, technically challenging to host.
Sujewa, who on numerous occasions had problems commenting on the thread, was invited to submit this synopsis of the key arguments on that epic comment thread. We invite you to continue your debate and discussions here, perhaps for another 1000+ comments!]
1,076 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald
The scientific pursuit of knowledge/insight has been limited – by definition – to the physical, measurable world. It is not possible – no matter who claims otherwise – to prove or disprove the spiritual concepts of karma, reincarnation, nirvana, god, heaven or hell within the bounds of science.
However, particle physicists in particular have been stretching the envelope of science beyond the physical, visible and quantifiable; into the imagined, invisible, intangible and subliminal. They even call the yet undiscovered, hypothesised ‘Higgs Boson” the “God particle” hinting, perhaps not entirely in jest, the almost spiritual nature of their research.
Will humanity find God in the Large Hadron Collider? Probably not – because neither the concept of God nor any other arbitrary constructs of human spirituality can be wrung into the thimble of human intelligence to be made fathomable, let alone the measurable or quantifiable; simply because all those concepts are idols – or place holders – for the unfathomable, immeasurable and unquantifiable in the first place.
The one most enduring lesson that science has taught us – in one of its most enlightened discoveries in the 20th century – is the fact that we may never know anything for certain (read: uncertainty principle). (See Dr Jacob Bronowski’s enduring essay on the broader implications of the subject)
It is as unscientific to deny God, Nirvana, Karma, reincarnation – not merely the constructs of our spiritual longing, but acknowledgements of the deficits, if not fallibility of our knowledge. They are waypoints in our journey to higher wisdom that offer shelter in compassionate humility. God, Nirvana, Karma and reincarnation can never be offered as facts or absolute truths, let alone be pitted against one another to asses the truthfulness of one concept compared to another – simply because any arrogant belief in their certainty leaves no room for the inquisitive, questioning pursuit of higher wisdom they all espouse and encourage.
First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it. Kamma in the Buddha’s Dhamma is intention (or cetanÄ), and the result of kamma can be seen here and now. If you put your finger in the fire, it burns. That’s kamma in action. If you have an angry thought, it affects your breathing and body. That’s kamma.
Now since the poster seems to focus exclusively on kamma and rebirth (not reincarnation btw – which presupposes a soul that transmigrates), this the Buddha teaches can be directly experienced by meditation practice – specifically through entering the fourth jhÄna and inclining your mind towards the knowledge. Of course, if you want some kind of mathematical equation proving rebirth, you’re missing the whole point. The Buddha’s teaching is about experiences that are directly realizable through practice – he just shows what the practice is. This is like criticizing Einstein that his theory of relativity makes no sense by a guy who has no understanding of physics.
You are asking for proof through the scientific method which fails to give you conclusive answers in this regard. Science is no closer to knowing whether there is life after death than anytime before. There is however, good para-psychological research done on claims of rebirth, with very good evidence. A great example is the research done by Ian Stevenson – I recommend his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Even avowed western atheists such as Sam Harris considers this research warranting more interest.
But does this prove rebirth? Of course not. There is no scientific method to prove rebirth. Instead of concluding that therefore this must be untrue, the logical conclusion is to consider it a possible hypothesis with good historical evidence (based on the above). This is completely different from Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), where blind faith on a creator entity and eternal life have no evidence whatsoever.
Also, the although I’d disagree that Buddhism is a science. That’s doing a Buddhism a disservice considering how fast scientific theories change (consider for example Newton’s laws of motion which have all shown to not be true under certain circumstance with the advent of Einsteinian physics). The Dhamma on the other hand has the quality of being akÄlika (timeless), and ehipassika (inviting verification). If you consider teachings such as rebirth untenable, you have to at least follow the path of practice the Buddha recommends that he claims lets you find out – instead of making assumption based on one’s own views.
Regarding proof of NirvÄna, there is a discourse in the PÄḷi Canon specifically relating to this, where the Buddha states that until one reaches the far shore there is an element of conviction (saddhÄ) that needs to come to play.
Also I’d like to comment that faith in Buddhism is not the same as the blind faith you get in other religions. Actually a better translation of the PÄḷi term saddhÄ is conviction. And it really is something similar to trusting your guitar teacher to teach you how to master the guitar when you have very little idea if his instructions would work. But with practice, as you get better, what little conviction you had increases and you start believing mastery is possible. This practice of the Dhamma works the same way. The Buddha’s teaching is a matter of skill (kusala), which is practiced to attain the desirable results. When you start off, the conviction you have could be as small as trusting a friend who says meditation helps you get more control of the mind, or trusting scientific research that suggests that meditation helps sound cognitive functioning. But the further you go along the path, as you see that what the Buddha claims is indeed verifiable with your own experience, your conviction of the goal increases. This is very different from blind faith – the Buddha talks of guarding the truth and being completely honest on what you know and what you believe – the simile of the elephant footprint clearly points to that fact.
There are numerous other relevant discourses, I recommend the site Access to Insight to anyone interested.
It’s hard for the believers to give up on certain beliefs even though no scientific proof is found. I personally think living with doubt is better than having a blind faith. And most importantly you don’t have to believe in karma, reincarnation, nirvana, etc… to be a good person. Karma is a concept invented to keep people away from doing bad things.
If you remember the ‘Goni-Billa’ concept which our parents told us about when we were young to keep us away from doing bad things it won’t be hard for you to understand what Karma is (that is if you have grown up mentally)
Buddhism does not teach “reincarnation” but rather “rebirth.” Reincarnation is a Hindu teaching. Buddhism denies the existence of an eternal, unchanging soul.
Karma (Pali Kamma) simply means “action.” And this is exactly what it desribes. According to Buddhist teaching there are three types
(1) Kusala Kamma (wholesome kamma)
(2) Akusala Kamma (unwholesome kamma)
(3) Ahosi Kamma (neither wholesome nor unwholesome kamma)
According to Buddhist teaching, kamma (action) has vipaka (result).
According to Buddhist teaching, kamma can be performed in three ways:
(1) Bodily
(2) Verbally
(3) Mentally
The teaching of kamma-vipaka is often directly observable in the case of (1) bodily and (2) verbal actions.
eg 1. you leave the shutters to your windows open at night before going to bed (physical action), then later in the morning the sun rises and floods your room making it uncomfortably hot (vipaka).
eg 1 . Someone engages you in an argument. You call the other person a nasty name (verbal kamma) and get abused in return (vipaka).
However, Buddhism also teaches that mental thoughts also cause kamma. It is often the precursor of bodily and verbal kamma. This is where it is difficult to “prove.”
Buddhism also holds that vipaka can come into fruition:
(1) immediately in this present life
(2) at some point in the future but still in this present life
(3) in another future life
Again (1) and (2) are directly observable.
eg. You slap someone and they slap you in return (immediate vipaka). You don’t use part of your salary for savings now, and as a result later in life you struggle because of it (vipaka at some point in the future). Once again, where it is difficult to ‘prove’ is in the situation (3).
As you can see, physical kamma-vipaka is directly observable. But mental (moral) kamma-vipaka is difficult to prove.
Dear Yapa,
You said:
“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 state is not reasonable?”
All I can say is, using this logic, we can show that Santa should not be separated from the state because Santa cannot be disproved. Flying teapottery cannot be separated nor can Shilboot! According to this logic, anything that cannot be disproved cannot be reasonably separated from the state. Therefore, there’s nothing to stop me from suggesting that Shilboot should become Sri Lanka’s official religion. Would your consider that a reasonable rebuttal of your point?
Dear Sujeewa,
As the writer of Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, I like to thank you for taking your time in commenting on my article and enhancing the debate from your article.
First of all, I wish to inform that religion and philosophy are not categorized under sciences and and is a system of beliefs according to French sociologist Emile Durkheim. it’s a well known fact that religious beliefs and teachings cannot be tested scientifically nor it cannot be tested or proven through scientific experiments.
Buddhism is perceived as a philosophy and also a religion. so it cannot be tested or proved through scientific experiments.
The concepts in question, re-incarnation, karma and nirvana are at times are too complicated and difficult to understand. especially nirvana. I think are minds, souls are filled with kleshas, tanha and asha and therefore we find it difficult to understand or see it.
I believe in Karma, Nirvana and re-incarnation based on my knowledge on the philosophy of Lord Buddha, although i cannot prove my beliefs scientifically.
Lord Buddha, upon completing Sath Sathiya was invited by a Brahma to preach his teachings or philosophy to the people. Lord Buddha was at first reluctant to do that because he felt that his philosophy or Dharma was too complex or advanced for the people to understand. Yes I agree with Lord Buddha on the complexity of his philosophy. Because I also find it difficult to understand the pattichcha samuppadaya, karma and nirvana concepts.
Since Lord Buddha allows his shrawakas to question his teachings, you have the freedom to raise questions regarding the teachings of lord buddha. Even though I don’t agree with the believers camp Yapa, Wijepala and off the cuff on certain issues, I stand with them as a believer in the existence of karma, nirvana and re-incarnation.
Hope you’ll be able to solve your question and hope your article will generate a lot of responses as it did with the “Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka” All the Best!
Dear Citizen
Nice piece. I would especially like to highlight the following in what you said: “God, Nirvana, Karma and reincarnation can never be offered as facts or absolute truths, let alone be pitted against one another to asses the truthfulness of one concept compared to another – simply because any arrogant belief in their certainty leaves no room for the inquisitive, questioning pursuit of higher wisdom they all espouse and encourage.”
Unfortunately, if you followed the Akon thread, you’ll see that this is not the attitude adopted by some of the believers.
I would like to highlight, once again, the main reasons why the validity of Kamma, Rebirth, Nibbana (KRN) are being questioned.
1. To emphasize that religion – a personal belief – must be separate from the state
2. To dismantle these conceited claims of knowing absolute truths or being special – while having no basis upon which to do so (allowing such claims to go unchallenged automatically enables a privileged, unquestionable status – which no belief deserves)
3. To question the paranoia resulting from considering oneself a guardian of some holy, indisputable truth – when no such holy, indisputable truth is apparent. (Not to mention the resultant debilitating effect on society)
Therefore, this whole issue came about *not* because anyone thinks KRN is impossible or because of some “decadent, western conspiracy” to undermine Buddhism, as a certain believer seemed to think. It is to challenge dangerous and fundamentalist claims such as “Separating Buddhism from the state = Separating the Truth from the state”.
Is it hoped that the following would be addressed by those discussing this issue.
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?
cheers!
/SD (I really need to shorten my ill-thought nom de plume)
Dear Chula,
Your thoughts are well expressed. Most of the points you’ve raised however, have already been addressed, therefore it might be a good idea to read the Akon thread so we do not repeatedly cover the same ground.
I will comment on two things.
You said: “There is no scientific method to prove rebirth. Instead of concluding that therefore this must be untrue, the logical conclusion is to consider it a possible hypothesis with good historical evidence (based on the above).”
No one is saying it’s untrue, there is no basis on which to do so, just as there is currently no basis on which to say it’s true. However, if there is no scientific method to prove rebirth, it cannot be a hypothesis. It will have to remain a conjecture.
You also said: “But the further you go along the path, as you see that what the Buddha claims is indeed verifiable with your own experience, your conviction of the goal increases”
Your point is understood and such a thing indeed lies in the realm of possibility, as has already been acknowledged previously. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be a single Arahat alive to confirm the tale.
cheers!
/SD
Dear Tis-a-small-world,
You said: “it’s a well known fact that religious beliefs and teachings cannot be tested scientifically nor it cannot be tested or proven through scientific experiments.”
I understand your point but I don’t feel that it is necessarily correct. If a religion claims to be able to affect the physical world around it, which is within the purview of science, then there may be a way to highlight the occurrence of these events. For example, if someone claims a miracle, then such miracles must be shown around us. So far, miracles have only proven to be “God-of-the-gaps” style arguments.
Similarly, if someone claims that past lives can be recalled, then one can potentially take steps to prove it. Unfortunately, apart from that one paper that believers often cite, which is “20 cases suggestive of reincarnation” with “suggestive” being the operative word, there does not seem to be any credible evidence in this regard (Apart from the wild ramblings of “Lost city of Atlantis” type characters). And one should read the criticisms against that paper too before one becomes overly impressed that the paper is conclusive in any way.
Therefore, it is far better to take steps to verify that these things are indeed true, rather than simply assuming they are. What if they are not true? I would think carrying out more research in such areas would be a very good idea and something that believers should concentrate on (With the scientific attitude of disproving oneself, rather than proving oneself).
You said: “I believe in Karma, Nirvana and re-incarnation based on my knowledge on the philosophy of Lord Buddha, although i cannot prove my beliefs scientifically.”
Sure. Your personal choices are your own and no one would need to take issue with it, even if someone decides to believe in the FSM or Santa. Therefore, I personally don’t even find it productive to raise the issue. Many possible scientific contradictions have already been raised but believer are rarely shaken by such arguments. Instead, it would be good to focus on how you see your belief interacting with those with different beliefs.
In that regard, could you please let us know your position on this post.
Thanks!
/SD
Buddhism believes in denying desires !!! Is this pragmatic? desiring to abandon desire is itself a desire!!!!
I mentioned it was a hypothesis based on the research already concluded. The book I cited is not the only source but probably the most recognized one. I was pointing out that his methodology amounted to historical research, and no matter how many cases one brings up that doesn’t conclusively “prove” anything, scientifically speaking. For example, does archeological evidence of the existence of different civilizations “prove” their existence? It’s merely the most plausible explanation.
So as I mentioned before, you are looking for proof from a system that fails in this regard. The evidence from this research was suggestive of rebirth, and since there is no other plausible explanation, it would be unscientific to dismiss the evidence just based on one’s preferential views, don’t you think? Research in this area is sparse because any scientist has to be extremely courageous since it amounts to career suicide to pursue – especially in the west where god-believers would put one to task. You might find this professor’s conclusions on this research relevant.
About an Arahant living, I think you should find out about the Thai Forest Tradition. The monk who started the tradition Ajahn Mun is widely considered an Arahant and around 20-30 of his disciples as well. Ajahn Maha Boowa is the only direct disciple still living, and the tradition is still strong. Again, it seems you are talking of a topic you do not know much about except for what you heard from your misguided parents when you were a kid. If you know anything of Buddhism, you would know that what you get as Buddhism and what is considered kamma in Sri Lankan culture sometimes has no relation to what the earliest known texts say.
My dear Sujeewa
let me ask you something. WHY do you pose this challenge? do you really have a desire – a thirst to know the truth or do you desire that satisfaction we feel when we think – ahh I have been very clever, very smart. These believers will get twisted and trapped in words trying to prove the validity of their dogmas to me …..
so this is my first question to you –
i must speak on behalf of the truly religious – irrespective of what their faith is – one thing is we believe that words are energy – and they must be used as efficiently as possible. Speech must above all be used to put ourselves out of suffering – to increase our happiness. It must above all not be used to simply establish some point over another – because that we feel is a waste …
the next point – and this is connected. True religion is not about being ‘right’ it is not about being ‘perfect’ or ‘correct’. it is not even being higher or superior to others. In fact – all these things are side tracks on the spiritual path. they are traps laid by the ego. in this case you may be simply baiting people into an egoistic tussle. i dont know – i hope not.
True religion is about being human – accepting both the positive and negative sides and having the gumption to see through life without taking sides. It is about living – and living harmoniously and peacefully and in accord with the truth of inter-dependence. not competing like children
what you need to know most of all is that there is NO PROOF. certainly not the kind of proof that can be established by words. truth is an EXPERIENCE – and if i tell you what I have experienced – it is second hand news to you. So we come to YOU. Yes you hold the truth – you experience it just like anyone else. truth is a process – like life it is in motion – and things appear and disappear just like us human beings on this planet. we appear and diasppear right? so what do you call that – illusion may be.
you’ve got to experience it yourself brother. others may tell you – this and that – and of course there are concepts – like what you have mentioned – those are all just words – the real thing is for every man to experience – make sense and find whatever – if there is peace to be found you will find it within you. likewise if there is war – that too you will find within
perhaps you could ask a different question?
@Chathura R De Silva: I suggest you read up on what Kamma really means based on the early discourses of the Pali Canon instead of assuming that your parents know what they are talking about.
@spiritualist: Buddhism teaches the path to abandon desire (not denying desire). Your point that that itself is a desire is oft-quoted by people who have no idea about the Dhamma. This is one of the first things that’s clarified. You need desire to follow the path. This discourse is specifically about a person who’s making the same claim – I suggest you read it. Ven. Ananda brings up a great simile to answer the question.
Dear All,
It was proved to the Agnostics that “Science” is still immature to be used as a tool to dissect Buddhist Philosophy. Anyone who wants to use Science as the tool should first establish that Science is an appropriate tool and that it has the ability to explain physically observable events that remain mysteries.
If one fails to establish the authority with which Science can explain everything that can be experienced and observed then trying to use Science to Prove or Disprove a mind centric Philosophy such as Buddhism fails miserably.
The Agnostics who have been harping on Science have failed to explain the failure of Science to explain the following.
Acupuncture is based on the Chinese philosophy of Yin Yang forces. It has been used in Lanka to carry out over 5000 major operations including Caesarean sections where the mother was fully conscious and chatting with the Acupuncturist Dr Anton Jayasuriya, a specialist in Rheumatology and Consultant at the Colombo South Teaching Hospital. Though unexplainable by Science, Acupuncture is recognised by the WHO as a treatment for many illnesses including life threatening ones and to induce the turning of a baby presenting a breach position in the womb to the head down position required for normal delivery. No Scientific explanation is presented as to how arbitrary sticking of needles can achieve physical results. The Chinese Philosophy claims that these needles restore the balanced state of Yin Yang forces the imbalance of which cause illnesses.
Remote Viewing has documented use by the USA Military (Stargate project). It was used to locate a downed Soviet bomber in Africa. President Carter referred to this in one of his speeches. It also provided strategic information about Russia’s Nuclear facilities and a description of a new class of Soviet strategic submarine. This documented use of “Remote Viewing” by the USA military has so far been unexplainable by Science. The Buddha whose mind was developed to a very high level is said to have possessed this ability. Can anyone refute it because Science has no explanation?
The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at, is that Science does not know. The carry over of Karma to a subsequent birth, Rebirth and Nibbana may be True and may be not be true. Science is too primitive a tool in this field to make a definite statement. It’s foolhardy to assert that it can negate the Buddhist core principles in view of the obvious failings of Science some of which were shown above.
I would agree with Chula’s statement “First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it.”
Chula,
Welcome to the debate. I think you will find the original Akon thread interesting!
The author Sujewa is not criticising Buddhism. The repost from SomewhatDisgusted summarises why this debate is important for all of us who desires a world free from hostility, prejudice, bigotry.
Karma
——
You describe karma as ‘consequences of actions’ like (1) the result of exercising free-will and (2) the effect of positive or negative thinking.
Well (1) is obvious. Needs no proof. If you put your finger in a fire it will hurt.
(2) has been much discussed and is well observed and much written about in books on self-improvement. Again, is observable and can be experienced at first hand. We see this for ourselves in our daily lives. (You may have read the classic ‘The Power of Positive Thinking’ by Norman Vincent Peale (who lived to 95 so I believe he practiced what he preached – literally, as he was a preacher!). Good. Most people can verify (1) and (2).
BUT the ‘karma’ debated here (let’s call it ‘Karma Experiences of the Third Kind’) is something entirely different. This debate is about a metaphysical process that transgresses separate and serial human lives. IOW, something like ‘if you put your finger in a fire it will hurt … in the next life’.
This 3rd idea requires a HUGE ‘leap of faith’ to regard as even similar to (1) and (2)!
The Believers have been using the obvious validity of (1) and (2) to put forward a case that (3) is therefore similarly valid. Which is poppycock. This is the problem!
Dear All,
The reference to scientific proof and mathematical/Quantum Physics came from The Believers who used the research from these authoritative modern day disciplines to validate ancient religious faith.
Sujewa is merely restating the call for the proof that The Believers (Mr Yapa actually) promised to supply, which he said he will do with references to papers on Quantum Physics and Mathematics that we can all study.
I thought I should clarify this, as reading Sujewa’s article above, without studying the looong 1,000+ Akon thread that went before, may give the incorrect impression that it is Sujewa who is asking for the impossible – rather than Mr Yapa who claims to be able to supply the impossible!
Thanks! (as Mr Y would say)
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
While I agree with much of what you say I think you have missed the point of this debate.
It started evidently in November 2009 with The Believers justifying certain religious claims on the basis that their religion is the TRUTH. Then going on to claim that it can be proved – while proving that others are not. Then claiming that it should be the basis on which a state should (or even can?) be run, because ‘it is the truth’. These statements raise some big issues for society. The moderates reading these statements have put to the proponents the natural consequences of such narrow-minded thinking. I entered this discussion when I was appalled by some of the ludicrous claims of ‘my god is better than your god’.
The Agnostic camp DOES regard religion as a personal and private thing for believers. What they are arguing for is not to have religion IMPOSED upon them by the state.
“These believers will get twisted and trapped in words trying to prove the validity of their dogmas to me …..”
I have made this point numerous times over and over… you cannot completely describe reality – relying on just (qualitative) language… there is a certain lack of precision, the end result of which is ambiguity. Another problem with language is lack of originality. If it has been said once, it has probably been said tens of thousands of times before, thanks to man’s boundless imagination. How many of us can honestly say the Buddha was the first to conceive of karma, rebirth, etc? Let us go back to the original religions, the most primitive, whereby man worshiped nature alone, and we can easily find numerous parallels to rebirth, karma, etc.
Quantitative – as opposed to qualitative – logic, however, is a much more powerful too. We are able to build a self-contained system, complete with axioms, lemmas, theorems, and propositions. The axioms allow us to maintain consistency, so that we can avoid the pitfalls of qualitative logic, such as circular reasoning.
The ambiguity I spoke of earlier is easily seen in Buddhism, which relies on qualitative reasoning alone. How many schools of Buddhism are there? Quite a few. In terms of structure, there is a glaring lack of consistency as one proceeds across the different schools – a lack of consistency which no synthesis can hope to resolve. For example, a Theravada Buddhist will be sharply opposed to the idea of a Bodhisatva – for a Mahanayaka Buddhist, however, the Bodhisatva is an essential construct.
A system of logic which lacks so many holes should not be deemed worthy as a “theory of everything”, such as many of its followers aim to do… at best, it can offer a limited number of cognitive insights.
Dear All,
The Agnostics were challenged to prove that Science was a “Mature” tool to investigate a Philosophy like Buddhism. So far that proof has not been forthcoming.
It was proved to the Agnostics that “Science” is still immature and cannot be used as a tool to dissect Buddhist Philosophy (please see below). Anyone who wishes to use Science as a tool should first establish that Science is an appropriate tool and that it has the ability to explain physically observable phenomena. That this is not so, is seen by the many events that still remain mysteries unexplainable by Science.
If one fails to establish that Science can authoritatively explain or prove all facets of reality, then the use of Science to disprove or prove Buddhism would be akin to using a yardstick to measure one’s weight. The Challenge before the Agnostics is therefore to first prove that Science indeed has the authority that they claim it to have in the field of Philosophy.
The Agnostics who have been harping on Science have failed to explain the failure of Science to either explain or disprove or prove the following physically observed, documented and repeatable phenomena.
Acupuncture is based on the Chinese philosophy of Yin Yang forces. It has been used in Lanka to carry out over 5000 major operations including Caesarean sections where the mother was fully conscious and chatting with the Acupuncturist Dr Anton Jayasuriya, a specialist in Rheumatology and Consultant at the Colombo South Teaching Hospital. She ate Biscuits while the Obstetrician was cutting into her abdomen, an unheard of event in Medical Anaesthesia. Though unexplainable by Science, Acupuncture is recognised by the WHO as a treatment for many illnesses including life threatening ones and to induce the turning of a baby presenting a breach position in the womb to the head down position required for normal delivery. No Scientific explanation is presented as to how the apparently arbitrary, sticking of needles in to the body can achieve such physical results. The Chinese Philosophy claims that these needles restore the balanced state of Yin Yang forces the imbalance of which cause illnesses.
The Buddha whose mind was developed to a very high level of acuity is said to have possessed the ability to “See” events happening thousands of miles away. An Agnostic would sneer at such a claim as it is not at all “Scientific”. It cannot be proven using Science hence it is False, Hallucination, Old wives tales, Conjecture and belongs in the Realm of Fairy Tales. Aesop could have done better they would say. But is it?
“Remote Viewing” or the ability of the “Mind to See” objects / events that is situated or happening at unknown locations thousands of miles away was used by the US Military (documented in the Stargate project). It was used to locate a downed Soviet bomber in Africa. President Carter referred to this in one of his speeches. It also provided strategic information about Russia’s Nuclear facilities and a description of a new class of Soviet strategic submarine. The use of “Remote Viewing” by the US military has so far been unexplainable by Science.
The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that Science does not know.
The carry over of Karma to a subsequent birth, Rebirth and Nibbana may be True and may be not be true. Buddhists believe it to be true as Karma (action) and Vipaka (result) that follows Karma is observable in the current life. It is a reality observable daily. Science is too primitive a tool in the field of Philosophy to make a definite statement. It’s foolhardy to assert that it can.
Science is just too primitive and is not up to the task of investigating a Philosophy.
I would agree with Chula’s statement “First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it.”
Hi All,
Thanks for reading the brief article above & commenting. I will start responding to your comments this weekend – all comments will be read, & the ones that deal with the subject at hand will be responded to. And a welcome goes out to the agnostics & the belivers (& lurkers who may have been reading & not commenting) who have come here from the previous/Akon & Buddhism article.
Agnostics Team (SomewhatD, B-Man, Heshan, etc.),
Feel free to respond to believers comments that are of great interest to you – in any order that you see fit, I will go through each comment & respond, in the order that they came in – which could take a while, no doubt, but you can deal with the latest or urgent comments as you see fit (this way not everyone will have to wait long to participate in the discussion).
Thanks, talk to everyone soon, & thanks to Groundviews for making space available for this discussion.
Also, if I encounter too many comments/strange computer problems (as I did when the previous article went over 1000 comments) & am absent from the discussion for more than 3 days at a time, click on my name above & you will get to my SL & diaspora agnostics blog – leave a comment there for me & also I will reply/write original related material there if I cannot reply here for some reason.
- S
@BalangodaMan: I never said Sujewa was against Buddhism – just that he didn’t know enough of what it was to talk about it. Thinking Buddhism is what you see in Sri Lankan culture is just being naive. It might be fun for arguments but serves no purpose in terms of understanding the teachings. I think this is due to the lack of availability of the earliest known Pali texts to the general public – something that would hopefully change with the adoption of the internet.
I never argued that I could prove kamma when it came to rebirth. The kamma that is observable here and now convinces one to practice the path. When it comes to whether rebirth is true, the Buddha claims that knowledge can be attained through meditation (4th jhana onwards). I was simply stating that Sujewa was asking for proof from a field incapable of providing conclusive evidence while neglecting the fact that the Buddha laid out a path of practice inviting verification. The conviction that people have that rebirth is true is a hypothesis which actually has some scientific evidence to back it as I pointed out earlier. So it’s not some irrational leap of faith as people claim when trying to put Buddhism (I should say I mean only the early teachings here) into the typical “religion” basket.
A lot of this criticism is stemming from the atheist movement in the west that is gaining ground. What some people seem not realize is that those criticisms are mainly directed towards the Abrahamic religions those scientists grew up with, and the criticism of Buddhism is mainly coming from ignorant ideas of what it is assuming Dalai Lama’s Tibetan version is all it is.
Hi Citizen,
Thanks for reading & commenting.
Re: “The scientific pursuit of knowledge/insight has been limited – by definition – to the physical, measurable world. It is not possible – no matter who claims otherwise – to prove or disprove the spiritual concepts of karma, reincarnation, nirvana, god, heaven or hell within the bounds of science.”
Sounds good, may be true forever, appears to be true at this point in time. However, things that do not appear to exist (Thor, heaven & hell, karma, etc.) are of less concern to me (and to most agnostics I imagine) than things that actually exist/can be observed to be actual aspects of the world (poverty, war, The Simpsons TV show, etc.)
RE:
“It is as unscientific to deny God, Nirvana, Karma, reincarnation – not merely the constructs of our spiritual longing, but acknowledgements of the deficits, if not fallibility of our knowledge.”
I think I need a little bit more of clarification here. Are you saying that it is unreasonable for me to reject the concepts of karma, rebirth, nirvana? If so, why? I see no great reason to spend too much time worrying about speculative items that exist in religions – since there is a very strong possibility that they are fictional devices invented to impart/teach a certain set of ideas to people/gain followers and not descriptions of real things in this universe.
RE:
“God, Nirvana, Karma and reincarnation can never be offered as facts or absolute truths, let alone be pitted against one another to asses the truthfulness of one concept compared to another – simply because any arrogant belief in their certainty leaves no room for the inquisitive, questioning pursuit of higher wisdom they all espouse and encourage.”
Yeah, I would have to agree with that. So, in effect, any religion (or any beliver of any religion) claiming that their religion has the absolute truth, even though their religion is buit on speculative items, is basically putting forth nonsense – and not something that non-belivers/atheisist/agnostics need to worry too much about.
Clarify if any of your statements were misinterperted. Thanks.
- S
Hi All,
The intro to this article (at the previous – Akon & Buddhism – article) says that the key arguments have been summarised here – that is not accurate – what I wanted to do was remove the most interesting aspect of the previous article – which, to me, was Yapa claiming that he can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation, nirvana using modern science & math, etc., & the conversation/debate that followed from that point – & keep the discussion focused & easy to follow at a new place. So, any participants from the previous debate/discussion who want to summarize (sp?) the key points of their view as it relates to the topic of this article, please feel free to do so. Since there were over 1000 comments at the previous article & since many comments were from people who were arguing the point opposite to mine, I felt that it was better to allow the original authors to summarize their views, as opposed to me selecting certain parts of their views out of the 1000+ comments & re-posting here (which could miss important aspects of their argument). So, summarize away Belivers – why do you think that karma, reincarnation, nirvana should be accepted as a real item/a real thing that exists in this world & affects us/actual, real humans? (also, feel free to summarize your views non-belivers/agnostics)
Thanks a lot!
- S
Hi Ordinary Lankan,
(by the way, this response is out of order, so I will respond just to the para 1of your response quoted below, will get to rest of it in order)
RE: My dear Sujeewa
“let me ask you something. WHY do you pose this challenge?”
The belivers, or, at least some of the believers, have stated that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana are real aspects of this world. And they proceed to treat others/non-belivers with an arrogance that seems to/may grow out of their certainty (that their religion is the one true religion, etc.) So, the question is a challenge to their arrogance – I belive it will be useful to the world if even a few people motivated by blind faith are forced to examine why they may belive what they say they belive. More on that soon.
RE: “do you really have a desire – a thirst to know the truth or do you desire that satisfaction we feel when we think – ahh I have been very clever, very smart. These believers will get twisted and trapped in words trying to prove the validity of their dogmas to me ….. ”
As far as a thirt to know the turth – sure, sounds great, I got that. As far as finding out the truth about speculative religious concepts – that one looks abvious (as in, those items look like devices created for maintaining the religion), but, hey, if some speculative items from various religions, including Buddhism, are shown to be true/real/actual aspects of the world, then I would be very interested in learning all about that proof. Re: getting trapped by words – sure, language is an imprecise tool, but I am sure, with effort, people are able to (or at least many should be able to) make other people understand the key ideas that they are attempting to communicate.
Alright, back to reading & responding to the comments in order. Should be able to get through the ones from today before the end of this weekend.
- S
OTC,
“Where did the Buddha say that you cannot avoid Karma? Where did the Buddha advice to be resigned to one’s fate passively?”
The Buddha never advised to be passive (SomewhatDisgusted is having problems comprehending that). However, Dhammapada verse 127 says this about avoiding kamma:
Neither in sky nor surrounding by sea,
nor by dwelling in a mountain cave,
nowhere is found that place in earth
where one’s from evil kamma free.
Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi had to say (his entire article on the Dhammapada is worth reading):
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/dhammapada.html
Our moral intuition, our innate sense of moral justice, tells us that there must be some principle of compensation at work in the world whereby goodness meets with happiness and evil meets with suffering. But everyday experience shows us exactly the opposite. We all know of highly virtuous people beset with every kind of hardship and thoroughly bad people who succeed in everything they do. We feel that there must be some correction to this imbalance, some force that will tilt the scales of justice into the balance that seems right, but our daily experience seems to contradict this intuition totally.
However, in his teachings the Buddha reveals that there is a force at work which can satisfy our demand for moral justice. This force cannot be seen with the eye of the flesh nor can it be registered by any instruments of measurement, but its working becomes visible to the supernormal vision of sages and saints, while all its principles in their full complexity are fathomed by a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha. This force is called kamma. The law of kamma ensures that our morally determinate actions do not disappear into nothingness, but rather continue on as traces in the deep hidden layers of the mind, where they function in such a way that our good deeds eventually issue in happiness and success, our evil deeds in suffering and misery.
The word kamma, in the Buddha’s teaching, means volitional action. Such action may be bodily or verbal, when volition is expressed in deed or speech, or it may be purely mental, when volition remains unexpressed as thoughts, emotions, wishes and desires. The actions may be either wholesome or unwholesome: wholesome when they are rooted in generosity, amity and understanding; unwholesome when they spring from greed, hatred and delusion. According to the principle of kamma, the willed actions we perform in the course of a life have long-term consequences that correspond to the moral quality of the original action. The deeds may utterly fade from our memory, but once performed they leave subtle impressions upon the mind, potencies capable of ripening in the future to our weal or our woe.
According to Buddhism, conscious life is not a chance by-product of molecular configurations or a gift from a divine Creator, but a beginningless process which repeatedly springs up at birth and passes away at death, to be followed by a new birth. There are many spheres besides the human into which rebirth can occur: heavenly realms of great bliss, beauty and power, infernal realms where suffering and misery prevail. The Dhammapada does not give us any systematic teaching on kamma and rebirth. As a book of spiritual counsel it presupposes the theoretical principles explained elsewhere in the Buddhist scriptures and concerns itself with their practical bearings on the conduct of life. The essentials of the law of kamma, however, are made perfectly clear: our willed actions determine the sphere of existence into which we will be reborn after death, the circumstances and endowments of our lives within any given form of rebirth, and our potentials for spiritual progress or decline.
At the second level of instruction found in the Dhammapada the content of the message is basically the same as that of the first level: it is the same set of moral injunctions for abstaining from evil and doing good. The difference lies in the viewpoint from which these precepts are issued and the purpose for which they are taken up. At this level the precepts are prescribed to show us the way to achieve long-range happiness and freedom from sorrow, not only in the visible sphere of the present life, but far beyond into the distant future in our subsequent transmigration in samsara. Despite the apparent discrepancy between action and result, an all-embracing law ensures that ultimately moral justice triumphs. In the short run the good may suffer and the evil may prosper. But all willed actions bring their appropriate results: if one acts or speaks with an evil mind, suffering follows just as the wheel follows the foot of the draught-ox; if one acts or speaks with a pure mind, happiness follows like a shadow that never departs (vv.1-2). The evil-doer grieves here and hereafter; he is tormented by his conscience and destined to planes of misery. The doer of good rejoices here and hereafter, he enjoys a good conscience and is destined to realms of bliss (vv. 15- 18). To follow the law of virtue leads upwards, to happiness and joy and to higher rebirths; to violate the lead leads downwards, to suffering and to lower rebirths. The law is inflexible. Nowhere in the world can the evil-doer escape the result of his evil kamma, “neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean nor by entering into mountain clefts” (v. 127). The good person will reap the rewards of his or her good kamma in future lives with the same certainty with which a traveler, returning home after a long journey, can expect to be greeted by his family and friends (v. 220).
Sujeewa, you actually embarrase agnostics like my self. I was cringing reading the discussion in the Akon thread but for some reason I was never able to post there. Soon as a thread gets long I get a blank php page when submitting a comment and are unable to comment. This has happened to me on many threads and got dropped out.. anyway that’s another matter.
A true agnostic doesn’t brand them selves and trumpet to others! Atheists do – and that’s perfectly fine as long as you get the tag right! Agnostics have no foundation to preach to people who have faith. You can argue/question but you can never win. Why?? Agnostic really means you’re a skeptic! That of course means you perfectly have the right to question all the religions out there including Buddhism but you cannot simply disagree with them either. Because you have to understand you’re questioning faith, not science!
“In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.”
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
To me religion is nothing more than a set of rules people devised centuries ago to maintain civilised society. Also god concept is really nothing more than embodiment of what we know as HOPE. Hope is fundamental for human survival. Humans are such fragile creatures who are unable to grapple with the vast complexities of the nature/universe resorted to myth in order to satisfy their fears. Boy that was a murderous, bloody sorry history from there on… that’s also another story.
My point? Quit it if you’re going to tag your self as an agnostic. Agnostics inherently can’t win against people with faith! You need to have a belief before you can engage others with belief! So Sujeewa, et al.. please don’t misrepresent agnosticism. Many thanks!
Dear Somewhat Disgusted,
“To me, ending suffering is an important priority. But somehow, the Buddhist version of ending suffering doesn’t quite do it for me. You know, looking at people and going, oh too bad for that dude’s karma, must have been a serial killer in his previous life, good lesson for all of us. Let’s just sit under a bo tree and meditate for Nibbana….They don’t even know what in the world they are paying for so they can never really correct themselves! Aaww… These universal laws are so unfair! Life sucks. Let’s meditate!…No thank you. I prefer suffering to end through provision of earthly comforts to those in need due to *no fault of their own*, followed by intellectual liberation.”
Yet again your incredible secular agnostic capacity for STRAW MAN arguments has rendered me speechless.
Clearly my knowledge of Buddhism is vastly inferior to yours, ***as I was never taught nor have I ever learned on my own that Buddhists are supposed to ignore the suffering and misfortune of others, or that Buddhists should look down on people because of their kamma.***
Apparently your knowledge of the Dhamma is so vast that it exceeds even the Buddha’s! As the Vinaya says, the Buddha and Ananda tended to sick monks that others ignored, saying “He who attends on the sick attends on me.”:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/sick.html
I know it’s asking a great deal for a “secular rationalist” to cite evidence, but would it be possible for you to show me the exact teaching of the Buddha’s that tells us to be blissfully detached from others’ suffering?
And to take things further, could you share with us your personal experiences in providing “earthly comforts to those in need due to *no fault of their own*?” After all, you would never make an empty claim, right?
Let me turn your argument in your own face: why would secular agnostics who reject kamma and samsara have any interest in helping others, when they can use the time and effort on themselves? After all, we Buddhists are bound by the dogma that the effects of responding to or ignoring others’ suffering will manifest either in the same lifetime or a future birth. If I were in your place, I wouldn’t worry about any of these effects as everything would end with death. What did Epicurus say about altruism?
“In fact, current research bears out the notion quite well. Please read “The Happines Hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom” by Jonathan Haidt.”
Before I read this book, why don’t you cite some of this pathbreaking research?
I went to amazon.com and read a review that said, “First of all, the main hypothesis, that people make decisions with their gut and then use their brains to rationalize those decisions, is well supported.” Obviously this is a total lie. We all know that secular agnostics never rely on such unscientific, irrational things like intuition or faith and are beings of pure reason. So already I am distrusting Mr. Haidt’s conclusions.
“IMHO, The main priority for humankind should be finding out the reasons for our existence – i.e. Finding Yapa’s elephant. This is not a problem for Buddhists, because someone has already found it,”
Really, Mr. Straw Man? Who found the reasons for our existence, or whom do the Buddhists believe found them (since I clearly don’t know)? Certainly not the Buddha; the answers he generally gave to these kinds of questions gave the impression that he wasn’t interested in simple existence as compared with samsara, a condition which you do not accept (based on your faith).
“If you can point to anybody else who laid out the means to find the end of suffering without requiring faith”
End of suffering? Without requiring faith? Oh dear Wijayapala. I’m unable to compute as usual. Could you kindly explain?
I already explained that Siddhartha Gautama clearly did not invoke any kind of faith to become a Buddha (whoops caught myself.. I almost referred to him incorrectly as THE Buddha), as there was no clear path for him to follow. He just tried different things- although not in a sporadic or undisciplined way- until he found something that worked. As a Buddhist I have to accept the tragedy that Siddhartha probably somewhat resembled you “unable to compute” secular agnostics, although his priorities were clearly different- finding the end to Dukkha.
“I already knew that!! Is this supposed to be the Fifth Noble Truth or something???”
If you already knew that, why do you keep demanding the same response?
Because you are?
“You can do better- you can provide evidence of your own to back YOUR claims! At least you can practice what you preach!”
Sure thing. What is it that you want me to back up? You don’t seem to fundamentally understand that an agnostic’s position can *never* be undermined. For the simple reason that they do not believe in anything if there is not enough *reason* to believe it.
What is your *reason* for believing that the mind is an illusion? You never explained that one, instead relying on your identity as secular agnostic to serve as an authority unto yourself.
“Current evidence? Our post-life responsibility is to provide nutrition to maggots.”
And here we come to the next weapon in the Secular Agnostic’s arsenal, Circular Logic:
1) Physical evidence is the only evidence we can accept, because
2) only physical phenomena are real, the rest are illusions;
3) our proof that only physical phenomena are real is that they’re the only evidence that we can accept…
“Thank you again for answering my own point. How did the Sinhala-Buddhists become the “single most powerful entity in SL?””
What other group makes up 70% of the population and are capable of making or breaking government?
Sigh.. as usual, you aren’t able to compute! I didn’t ask whether the Sinhala Buddhists are the “single most powerful entity in SL” but how they came to be.
“Read Dawkins. Hitler was a catholic.”
Instead of simply name-dropping, why don’t you list the arguments in favor of your position (here, that Hitler was a practicing Catholic)?
Wikipedia claims that Dawkins took Hitler’s statements out of context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views
In the below quote, the first two sentences are often left out, as has been done by Richard Dawkins,[33] for example, leaving the context to seem as if, as opposed to mocking Christianity and Christian belief, Hitler were making some public statement of his own embrace of Christianity. In response to Lerchenfeld, Hitler – feigning respect for Lerchenfeld – mocked both Lerchenfeld and Lerchenfeld’s beliefs and then skillfully turned the life of Jesus on its head for the purposes of furthering National Socialism. At the Bürgerbräukeller on April 12, 1922, Hitler said:
“I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling ‘as a man and a Christian’ prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.[34][35]“
“Stalin was an atheist. But *neither of them* killed in the name of atheism. But there have been enough wars where people have killed in the *name of religion*. Not a difficult point to grasp I believe.”
The least difficult point to grasp is Tool #3 in your Secular Agnostic box: Shifting the Context of the Argument When it Isn’t Going Your Way.
I asked what you guys would do if Buddhism in SL were threatened. You answered, “As for the secular rationalist brigade, they might not fight, no. Fighting, killing and murdering is best left to religious people,” implying that secular rationalists do not fight, kill, or murder people the way religious people do. I demonstrated that they most certainly do, in the name of “secular rationalist” belief systems like Naziism and Leninism-Stalinism.
“As absolutely reassuring as that is, I’m afraid that here I have to say that I don’t believe that you will.”
Doesn’t matter either way. But FYI, in that last thread, I was promoted to General by no other than Mr. Yapa over here. For fighting against the unethical Christians – no less! Now that I am ready to accept the Yapa-Godel synthesis, doubtless another promotion is due – maybe chief of Buddhist defense staff?
I entirely agree with your statement that your intentions/beliefs do not matter. But is the rest of your above statement Tool #3 at work again?
“Please explain, in concrete, NON-ABSTRACT terms how Sri Lanka is not a “secular” or whatever you want country, how that is harming non-Buddhists, and what should be changed that will prevent this harm. Be SPECIFIC, and please avoid generalities that you can apply to any country.”
Currently. I think Sri Lanka looks good on paper as usual. First, I would like it to *at least stay that way*. In practice, we both know that this whole Sinhala-Tamil problem was at least partly fueled by the identity crisis of the Sinhalese. We both agreed that in turn was fueled at least partly by Buddhist paranoia. So that is clearly hurting Tamils – who are non-Buddhists. I don’t know how this harm can be prevented, but we can jolly well start by dismantling this insane conceit.
What “insane conceit” are you talking about?
The problem with your argument is that “this whole Sinhala-Tamil problem” is not the same now as it was before the war. The Tamils today are in no condition to threaten Buddhism (or anything else) largely thanks to V. Prabakaran’s destruction of Tamil society. This is certainly not to say that the Tamils ever had any hostile intent towards Buddhism, but simply to point out that even a complete idiot would be hard pressed to justify suppressing Tamils today.
“And I’ve repeatedly explained, we branched into this topic on Yapa’s claims of Buddhists being guardians of holy, absolute truths.”
What does any of this have to do with Akon? Akon’s rejection was primarily the result of Dr. Mervyn Silva wanting to settle a score with Sirasa TV, and the video provided a convenient excuse to hold a thug convention. Akon’s use of the Buddha statue explains why most people did not speak out against Mervyn’s actions- why defend something which you find to be insulting?
“As long as these delusions of grandeur persist, I fail to see how we can talk about secularism, without dismantling the conceit! Didn’t Yapa claim that religion and state cannot be separate, because that would be akin to separating the absolute truth from the state?”
What is your fixation with Yapa anyway? You seem far more interested in interacting with him than me or OTC. Do you consider us to be less Buddhists than Yapa is?
“Didn’t you argue earlier that Kamma and rebirth were an essential part of Buddhism? How did it suddenly become something “directly observable by experience”?”
Uh, how are those two statements contradictory, and more importantly how did YOU resolve those contradictions?? After all, Sur pointed out your own claim that the Four Noble Truths- which inherently accept the phenomenon of samsara as the key problem- “are all understandable phenomena which can be subjected to a reasoned analysis based on our own observations.” (your words not mine)
Dear Heshan,
“In terms of structure, there is a glaring lack of consistency as one proceeds across the different schools – a lack of consistency which no synthesis can hope to resolve. For example, a Theravada Buddhist will be sharply opposed to the idea of a Bodhisatva – for a Mahanayaka Buddhist, however, the Bodhisatva is an essential construct.”
You’ll have to do better. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists (a “Mahanayaka” is a senior monk in the Theravada tradition) both believe in:
1) Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha)
2) Four Noble Truths
3) Noble Eightfold Path
At the most fundamental and important level, we are the same. If the Mahayanas believed in only 3 Noble Truths or added a ninth part to the Noble Eightfold Path, then your argument would have some validity. Personally I would argue that Mahayanas are more “Buddhist” than Mahinda or Gotabhaya who added “God” to the Triple Gem.
What is this “Bodhisatva” issue you’re talking about? A Bodhisatva is a future or potential Buddha. Siddhartha before he became a Buddha was a Bodhisatva. So what is this rubbish that Theravadins sharply oppose this idea???
Maybe you’re having problems understanding the unity among different Buddhists given your Christian history of Protestants and Catholics brutalizing each other to show their support for Jesus. I assure you that we do not have this kind of history!
Dear spiritualist
“Buddhism believes in denying desires !!! Is this pragmatic? desiring to abandon desire is itself a desire!!!!”
Somebody pointed this out to the Buddha and he gave a good, simple response. Unfortunately I cannot find it so we’ll have to settle for the long and confusing answer. Enjoy!
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/013-desire.htm
Whoops sorry spiritualist, I didn’t see Chula’s better answer. It was Ananda not Buddha. Yeah it’s way better than the link I gave you.
Hi Chula,
Thanks for the comment.
RE: “First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it.”
Not criticizing anything, just asking how something works, from people who say they are certain that something works a certain way & that they can show that it works that way.
RE:
“Kamma in the Buddha’s Dhamma is intention (or cetanÄ), and the result of kamma can be seen here and now. If you put your finger in the fire, it burns. That’s kamma in action. If you have an angry thought, it affects your breathing and body. That’s kamma.”
That’s also cause & effect. What about the karma that affects the next life, or this one from a previous life, as taught in Buddhism?
RE:
“Now since the poster seems to focus exclusively on kamma and rebirth (not reincarnation btw – which presupposes a soul that transmigrates), this the Buddha teaches can be directly experienced by meditation practice – specifically through entering the fourth jhÄna and inclining your mind towards the knowledge. Of course, if you want some kind of mathematical equation proving rebirth, you’re missing the whole point. The Buddha’s teaching is about experiences that are directly realizable through practice – he just shows what the practice is.”
How many practitioners have directly realized nirvana through the methods prescribed by the Buddha? 100? 10,000? 1 million? If none that you know of have attained nirvana, then why not? & or if some have (or say they have) can they show you that they were able to do so using methods described in Buddhism? Is the system/the method faulty? Or is nirvana, instead of being an achievement that a human being is capable of accomplishing, more of a symbol – an idea to get people to follow a certain way of looking at the world & living in the world?
RE:
“This is like criticizing Einstein that his theory of relativity makes no sense by a guy who has no understanding of physics.”
I assume Einstein’s theory of relativity makes sense to physicists, or some physicists. And, as far as I know (perhaps Heshan can add some thoughts re: this) theory of relativity has been demonstrated to be true using experiments & examples. Regardless, we are not debating the theory of relativity here.
RE:
“You are asking for proof through the scientific method which fails to give you conclusive answers in this regard.”
Use whatever method you wish, as long as it is something that can be tested by a non-beliver.
RE:
“Science is no closer to knowing whether there is life after death than anytime before.”
Great, not a concern here, however.
RE:
“There is however, good para-psychological research done on claims of rebirth, with very good evidence. A great example is the research done by Ian Stevenson – I recommend his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Even avowed western atheists such as Sam Harris considers this research warranting more interest.”
I’ve read recently a couple of cases re: rebirth pointed out by commenter OTC, & also I read up on sites that debunk rebirth claims – at present I can’t support the rebirth theory – primarily because I do not have any memories of life before this one, & neither do thousands of people I know (as far as I know). However, if you are confident that rebirth can be proven to be true/real, get things organized & make it happen – looking forward to seeing the tests that prove that rebirth is true/real.
RE:
“But does this prove rebirth? Of course not. There is no scientific method to prove rebirth. Instead of concluding that therefore this must be untrue, the logical conclusion is to consider it a possible hypothesis with good historical evidence (based on the above). This is completely different from Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), where blind faith on a creator entity and eternal life have no evidence whatsoever.”
I see no difference between blind faith in a creator, & blind faith in the mechanisms that make Buddhism work as a religion – primarily karma, & related to that rebirth, & then nirvana – as the way out of the karma based rebirth cycle. Both the creator god & the existence of karma are fantastic & speculative religious ideas. If someone wanted to point to something that they belive proves the existence of a creator god, i am sure they can point to many complex & little understood phenomenon (as you did when you pointed to rebirth in support of ideas in Buddhism) – however, that would not be proof for the existence of a creator god (for me, that would require an actual meeting with the god & then testing the god out to see if he/she/it is in fact the creator of the worlds, so, basically, my barrier for accepting the creator god idea being real is pretty much the same as the barrier i have for accepting karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as true/real).
RE:
“Also, the although I’d disagree that Buddhism is a science. That’s doing a Buddhism a disservice considering how fast scientific theories change (consider for example Newton’s laws of motion which have all shown to not be true under certain circumstance with the advent of Einsteinian physics). The Dhamma on the other hand has the quality of being akÄlika (timeless),”
I am pretty sure that it is meaningless to say that the Dhamma is timeless in this context. Do you mean that the ideas that make up the Buddha’s teachings have lasted a long time? Well, so have many other things – including very bizarre stuff that have very little use to modern humans (such as belief in the existence of faries, etc.). Timeless does not equal real (as opposed to fabricated, imagined, speculative).
RE:
“… and ehipassika (inviting verification). ”
Yeah, that’s what we (the agnostics) are trying to get – some verification for the grand claims made by buddhism & more to the point – the belivers who belive that the speculative elements in Buddhism are real/true/can be proven to be a part of this world.
RE:
“If you consider teachings such as rebirth untenable, you have to at least follow the path of practice the Buddha recommends that he claims lets you find out – instead of making assumption based on one’s own views.”
I have followed the path recommended by the Buddha, and, though it has many useful things, it does not (or did not for me at least) result in being able to verify karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana as being real things that exist in this world/universe & affects humans as described in Buddhism. Nor do I know of any Buddhist who has proven that they have attained direct knowledge of karma, rebirth, nirvana & can demonstrate that they in fact have achieved what they say they achieved.
RE:
“Regarding proof of NirvÄna, there is a discourse in the PÄḷi Canon specifically relating to this, where the Buddha states that until one reaches the far shore there is an element of conviction (saddhÄ) that needs to come to play.”
So, a little bit of faith is required, another words. However, many have traveled the Buddhist path since the path was reportedly first laid out in this world by The Buddha 2500+ years or so ago. How many out of these followers of the path realized the ultimate goal – nirvana? How can you be certain, regardless of the number that you may give?
Buddhism – SL Buddhism – Therevada Buddhism – has many useful elements (such as promotion of self-reliance, promotion of testing accepted teachings, an anti-racist stance – though this may have been often overlooked in SL), however, being an ancient religion, it also has several key faith based items – such as accepting that the Buddha is who he was/is said to be, that karma, rebirth, nirvana are real things that exist in the universe, etc. Even though reminding people that certain elements of Buddhism cannot be demonstrated as real to a non-believer will not do any significant harm to Buddhism, it may save some non-belivers from the evil actions that may come from blind belivers who are under the impression that their religion is ture/real, the one true religion, & that all other religions & philosophical views (including non-belief) are speculation/false & thus, their religion must be protected at all costs (including at the cost of living human beings). Thus, this discussion has come into being. We are going to try to trade a little bit of the believers’ closed arrogance & ignorance for the agnostics’ naturally humble & open not-knowing-for-certain-ness, at least that’s the plan
- S
Observer, I laughed out loud reading your response to Sujewa the know-it-all Buddha of the “secular agnostics.”
“Agnostics have no foundation to preach to people who have faith. You can argue/question but you can never win.”
Clearly you are utterly confused regarding the intricacies and depth of Sujewa’s “secular agnosticism”- it is people who have faith who have no foundation to preach to agnostics; it is THEY who can argue/question but can never win. You got things reversed!
You are giving me the suspicion that you are a secret Buddhist who is trying to undermine Sujewa’s secular agnostic faith. It is time to confess your sins.
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
[... rather than Mr Yapa who claims to be able to supply the impossible!
Thanks! (as Mr Y would say)]
For my benefit could you please specifically show the readers and me (quoting my posts) how I claims to be able to supply the impossibles?
Then we can see whether “your claim” (about my supply of impossibilities) is something claimed by me or a misinterpretation created by you.
Please be kind enough to show what I said very, very specifically.
Thanks!
Hi Observer,
(this reply too is out of order – not in the order in which the comments were received – but an exception is being made since this is a new type of a response, back to order after this)
Thanks for the comment.
RE:
“Sujeewa, you actually embarrase agnostics like my self.”
There are many types of agnostics. Some may get embarrased by the actions of others, perhaps an unfortunate aspect of living on a heavily populated planet with a diversity of ideas/types of people.
There are, however, at least 3 agnostics involved in this conversation who are comfortable with what we are discussing, so, obviously not all agnostics feel the way you do.
RE:
“I was cringing reading the discussion in the Akon thread but for some reason I was never able to post there. Soon as a thread gets long I get a blank php page when submitting a comment and are unable to comment. This has happened to me on many threads and got dropped out.. anyway that’s another matter.”
Same thing happened to me. It may be that once threads get long, the time it takes to re-load the page after submitting a new comment may mess, somehow, with the catpha process that is used to tell machines from humans, anyway, further research is needed to see how we can get around this problem.
RE:
“A true agnostic doesn’t brand them selves and trumpet to others!”
Anyone can brand themselves & trumpet to others, if they so wish, even if others are uncomfortable with it.
RE:
“Atheists do – and that’s perfectly fine as long as you get the tag right! ”
Sounds good.
RE:
“Agnostics have no foundation to preach to people who have faith.”
Wrong. Both the agnostics and the faithful share the same physical world. Thus, if actions of the faithful are deemed to be not in the best interest of many people by an agnostic, or wise versa, they can, & should, speak up. Further, anyone can speak to or preach to anyone else for whatever reason that they may have (however, if the reason is fairly ridiculous (sp?), they may not get much of an audience).
Also, read up on organized secularism. If needed, I can provide some links. Various non-believer communities can work together in an organized fashion to achieve common goals. Also, various non-beliver & beliver communities can work together to achieve common goals. There is nothing about agnosticism that prevents people from working together, getting organized, or branding themselves – as you put it.
RE:
“You can argue/question but you can never win.”
A simple win/lose scenario is not relevant to this discussion. Basically, the larger question is do we organize society based on actual things that can be shown to exist or do we organize society based on speculative things? Or do we make room for both – using each when each are called for & make room for both to survive within one society, w/ out getting in each other’s way. So, simply engaging in such a conversation is victory to me, if you want to paint things in a win/lose scenario.
RE:
“Why?? Agnostic really means you’re a skeptic! That of course means you perfectly have the right to question all the religions out there including Buddhism but you cannot simply disagree with them either.”
If they claim that a certain thing is real, & they cannot demonstrate that the thing is real, then I can point that out. Most reasonable people probably would not have a problem with it.
RE:
“Because you have to understand you’re questioning faith, not science!”
Yes, I understand that I am questioning faith. All things are questionable, nothing is off limits – specially when the questioned things affect millions/billions of people on a daily basis.
For example – if all of one group – whether Buddhists, or agnostics-who-do-not -like-to-tell-other-people-that-they-exist on this planet decide to do something like ending poverty or ending hunger, it can be made to happen virtually overnight. So, it is a very good idea to engage others who belong to groups that have millions of members.
RE:
” “In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.”
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism”
Sounds good.
RE:
“To me religion is nothing more than a set of rules people devised centuries ago to maintain civilised society.”
Those set of rules are constantly changing, adapting to new situations, etc. – it is a dynamic thing, not just something relevant to life centuries ago. Thus, of relevance to all now, whether they belive or not.
RE:
“Also god concept is really nothing more than embodiment of what we know as HOPE.”
That is certainly one way to put it. There are also a thousand other ways to define the human relationship to the concept of god or gods.
RE:
“Hope is fundamental for human survival.”
Sure, along with many other things. Hope is cool, I am down with hope.
RE:
“Humans are such fragile creatures who are unable to grapple with the vast complexities of the nature/universe resorted to myth in order to satisfy their fears. Boy that was a murderous, bloody sorry history from there on… that’s also another story.”
All true. But much progress has been made, both inside religions & outside.
RE:
“My point? Quit it if you’re going to tag your self as an agnostic.”
Not going to happen.
RE:
“Agnostics inherently can’t win against people with faith!”
Feel free to belive as you please. As I described above, it is not a simple matter of win/lose.
RE:
“You need to have a belief before you can engage others with belief!”
Not true. Anyone can engage with anyone else, if there is a good reason, & if both parties are open to it.
RE:
“So Sujeewa, et al.. please don’t misrepresent agnosticism. Many thanks!”
Thanks for observing & responding Observer, but I am sure your request will not be complied with – but, thanks for the interest anyway. Take care.
Also, Observer, this whole discussion came out of a beliver or two stating that what they feel towards Buddhism is not faith, that the important/core ideas in Buddhism are self-evident, & that it can be proven. So we discuss.
::
It’s sleep time here all, will be back tomorrow for more.
::
- S
One last thought before I quit for the day – I see that OTC is using his acupuncture (sp?) defense again & that Wijayapala (& OTC) are fully ignoring that fact that Yapa said that he can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation/rebith, nirvana using modern science/math – except that it would be very difficult for ordinary people to understand. So, those “misunderstandings” will have to be cleared away tomorrow (fellow agnostics, feel free to assist).
Perhaps it is a language/symbol issue, I will try to use a new set of symbols/words to see if OTC & Wijayapala can comprehend the agnostics’ challenge and what it means so that they may respond to it directly & not divert themselves to side issues.
Be back tomorrow, good night all, & thanks for your interest in this discussion.
- S
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
[Yapa claiming that he can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation, nirvana using modern science & math, etc., & the conversation/debate that followed from that point – & keep the discussion focused & easy to follow at a new place. ]
Please don’t try to be dishonest, because you have nothing valuable to contribute. Haven/t you ever come across any article of mine that these cannot be proved due to the lack of knowledge systems based on human perception?Didn’t I logically showed in numerous ways there are knowledge gaining systems out side the limitation of human perception? Didn’t I prove this position with the notions of the modern science? Didn’t I reiterate this position with the notions of modern Philosophy? Didn’t I show you exacts from modern Science that Mathematics and Science is not the language of reality? Didn’t I show tell you about the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? Didn’t I show you what Godel’s Theorems say? Didn’t I show you the Similar concussions arrived by modern science and Philosophy that are consistent with Buddhism. Didn’t I show you that the views of the modern scientists praising Buddhism as it is compatible with Buddhism? Didn’t I show you that how Modern Philosophy’s view how (methodology) reality could be realized and the similarity of the Buddhism’s method to this? Didn’t I show clearly explain the methodology to achieve this end (under Middle Path- Noble Eight Fold Path). Didn’t I show that the poverty of Science (especially Newtonian Science) to act as a yardstick/base line/thumb rule/measurement? Still you are crying for the moon, because you know that that is the only way you can cover up your poverty in ideas and the only way to exist in the forum without making any valuable contribution. It is a very smart way of doing things!!!
Off the Cuff, wijayapala and many others too very specifically addressed these issues. Without making any effort to understand Buddhism, Science or philosophy or any other deep subjects, you try to question everything with crazy ideas coming randomly into your mind.
Anyway why are you deaf and blind to all of these contributions and just clinging in to one demand? Are you dishonest or too childish to understand what we say?
Thanks!
Chula,
RE: “Also I’d like to comment that faith in Buddhism is not the same as the blind faith you get in other religions. Actually a better translation of the PÄḷi term saddhÄ is conviction.”
Semantics, but let’s see if we can clarify this futher by answering some of the other statements you post below.
“And it really is something similar to trusting your guitar teacher to teach you how to master the guitar when you have very little idea if his instructions would work. But with practice, as you get better, what little conviction you had increases and you start believing mastery is possible. This practice of the Dhamma works the same way.”
So, in essence, practicing Buddhism or the Dharma should get the practitioner close to nirvana, right? But, since it cannot be demonstrated that nirvana is a real element of this world or this universe, how can one demonstrate “getting closer to” the promised goal – nirvana? Thus, Buddhism does not work like guitar lessons – in guitar lessons the student can test him/her self (via using recordings at various points in time, etc.) to determine if he/she is learning anything.
RE:
“The Buddha’s teaching is a matter of skill (kusala), which is practiced to attain the desirable results. When you start off, the conviction you have could be as small as trusting a friend who says meditation helps you get more control of the mind, or trusting scientific research that suggests that meditation helps sound cognitive functioning.”
But the core goal, or the main goal, is not meditation proficiency. The Buddha is not famous for being a meditation teacher only/the key offer from Buddhism has not been just meditation – but an escape from a never ending round of birth & death & rebirth that the Buddhists say their path can liberate one from.
Of course, unless nirvana is a symbolic device only, which the belivers do not accept, thus we continue
RE:
“But the further you go along the path, as you see that what the Buddha claims is indeed verifiable with your own experience, your conviction of the goal increases.”
Tell us then, how far have you gone along the path & what proof have you discovered that tells you that you are closer to nirvana than, let’s say, 10 years ago?
RE:
“This is very different from blind faith – the Buddha talks of guarding the truth and being completely honest on what you know and what you believe – the simile of the elephant footprint clearly points to that fact.”
The very same thing as blind faith, though expressed differently. Both the priests of Christianity and the monks of Buddhism are asking you to belive that Christ and Buddha are who the priests/monks say they are & that the path, the religions, will take you closer to the goals reportedly demonstrated as achieveable by the two founders (or the so-called founders/inventors) of the religions.
RE:
“There are numerous other relevant discourses, I recommend the site Access to Insight to anyone interested.”
Sounds good, check it out interested people.
More non-belief-bliss inducing writing tomorrow
, hopefully.
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted ;
RE: Your post of May 7, 2010 @ 10:04 am
Ok! Now if you think you countered my argument, please support your universal Principle that “BUDDHISM SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE STATE OF SRI LANKA.
Now it is your opportunity to do a great service to this country by reasonably rejecting our old myth which is an obstacle to the to the progress of the mankind, as you have promised to fight with your total capability. Please render your great service to the humanity.
I hope you will not miss this valuable opportunity.
Thanks!
Correction……
Didn’t I show you the Similar concussions arrived by modern science……..
In above “concussions” should be replaced with “conclusions”.
Thanks!
(let me try to quickly address at least one of the relevant items from “old friends” Wijayapala & OTC – from their most recent post before I quit for the night, will get to the earlier posts starting tomorrow),
Wijayapala,
RE:
“Let me turn your argument in your own face: why would secular agnostics who reject kamma and samsara have any interest in helping others, when they can use the time and effort on themselves? After all, we Buddhists are bound by the dogma that the effects of responding to or ignoring others’ suffering will manifest either in the same lifetime or a future birth. If I were in your place, I wouldn’t worry about any of these effects as everything would end with death. What did Epicurus say about altruism?”
Here are two reasons why people help others: if raised or taught to feel good about heping others, if it is considered a virtue/a positive thing to help others, then people may help others – in order to feel good about themselves, etc. Also, helping others is an indirect way of helping oneself – as in helping to put out a fire in the town may keep one’s own house safe from fire, etc. So, obviously fear of karmic retribution or having to spend an extra lifetime or two in samsara are not the only reasons for helping others.
RE: “What is your fixation with Yapa anyway? You seem far more interested in interacting with him than me or OTC. Do you consider us to be less Buddhists than Yapa is?”
Yapa claimed, at one point during the previous incarnation of this conversation, that modern science & math can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation & nirvana. I will have to comb through the 1000+ comments & re-post the statement here, so that you can see what you missed.
::
OTC,
RE:
“The Agnostics were challenged to prove that Science was a “Mature” tool to investigate a Philosophy like Buddhism. So far that proof has not been forthcoming.”
It is also impossible to prove that Star Wars (the movie) – the story within it – is a real event, or a real set of events. Science cannot show you, nor can common sense, that imagined, fabricated, non-existant, speculative mental creations are real aspects of this world. You seem to belive that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana are real things, instead of those being speculative items/symbolic devices that exist to teach a set of ideas to people. So, if we follow your argument further, & follow my argument further, then, karma, rebirth, nirvana become things that cannot be proven or disproven, thus, agnostic items – not certain whether they are real or not (except, in my case, I lean strongly towards most likely not real). After that, religion/Buddhism is merely an individual preference (just as someone may be a fan of Star Wars movies because it feels good to them & not because it tells a true story that everyone else must believe in also). So, then we are on to the area of intellectual/religious freedom, including the freedom from religion – which the agnostics feel is a very useful thing to us & probably to most humans, thus we are engaged in this discussion. So, no, science cannot demonstrate that fiction is true. But, if you want us to belive that karma, reincarnation, nirvana is something more than useful fiction, then, by all means, show us how those items are a part of the real makeup of this world/this universe.
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
RE: Your post of May 7, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Here you are trying to narrow down the scope of the discussion for your advantage as cunningly as ever. The discussion was never limited or confined to to such a narrow strip, which you are trying to limit as you have already sensed the destiny of your arguments. You are cunningly trying to wash “your hand” from the other perspectives, sending your peers to the guillotine for your “collective sins”
You are again trying to run away betraying your long lasting friends.
Please at least be honest to your friends!
Thanks!
Dear All/ specially for Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
[One of the challenges put forth by The Agnostics camp (myself, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan, with help from Heshan) to The Believers (Yapa, Wijayapala, Off The Cuff, etc.)]
Though you try to take HESHAN into your side as an Agnostics, he doesn’t belong to your ranks.
Unlike you, and other two peers of yours he reasonably challenged our views and engaged in a reasonable discussion with some of his excellently rich contributions to to the forum. I saw several times you, SomewhatDisgusted and BaalgodaMan trying to get get him on board of your sinking ship, falsely admiring and appreciating his views, knowing that his capacity to fill your empty tin of arguments.. But he himself averted those moves, may be understanding your dishonest objectives.
You really cannot name him a agnostic, because he had clearly declared that he is a Christian.
Please use honest tactics/strategies.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted ;
You say;
[Therefore, it is far better to take steps to verify that these things are indeed true, rather than simply assuming they are.]
How do you verify? With your thimble of outdated knowledge trickled down from Newtonian + faith based world outlook?
Are you dreaming to measure the ocean with your outdated metre ruler?
I cannot stop my laughter. My god!
Thanks!
Thank you Balangoda man and thank you Sujeewa. You have clarified the background to this discussion well. now i can add something more in point
In this country there are 2 strands of buddhism – whilst they are connected we must not confuse them. Political buddhism is the attempt by some to use buddhism to further political objectives. this is not unlike the way other religions were used in other countries for political ends. while this is not inherently wrong – this can and it has frequently taken political buddhists right out of the framework of actual buddhism. But that is plain politics.
the second strand is spiritual buddhism – and this is really the quest of the individual who seeks liberation – for self and may be a few others. This strand dates from the legendary visits of the Buddha up to the present day. Spiritual buddhists acknowledge that political buddhism provides a background and some outward frames for their practice – but we do not consider this an essential part of practice. In fact it is well known that organized and institutionalized religion frequesntly subverts the genuine spiritual quest of the truth seeker. sincere buddhists know that the buddha taught to strengthen the individual and help the individual overcome suffering. as Buddha was a humanist there was no question of a preferred race or language to him – it is the same for us who follow his path as best as we can.
so as part of your challenge to political buddhism it may not make sense to challenge buddhist concepts – some of which have parallels in other religions too. USE them and force the political buddhists to live up to their stated allegiances to buddhism. there is no better strategy than to use their own weapons against them – as sri lankans we must all learn our buddhism – this is truly our collective heritage – it is the ground we stand on – so do not consider buddhism to be separate from you – I believe no sri lankan can honestly disavow buddhism – it is truly a part of us – and esp its breadth – tolerance and gentleness. these qualities must live in us and we must hand them over to our children ….
so let me reiterate – these concepts are tools to be used – and i for one would gladly use the best tools available – irrespective of their source or origin – that is the way of the practitioner
Hello Everyone,
Here is just one of the many instances where Yapa indicated that he may be able to demonstrate to non-belivers the truth/real-ness of karma, rebirth, nirvana (more examples to follow):
From: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538, by Yapa:
“I think I am in the middle of a sequential process trying to explain the “KRN model” so that it is convinced to the non believers. I don’t know whether it will work out, due to various reasons. But I’ll try my best. However, to understand the final conclusion (result), one has to be aware of what I have already said and going to say in my essays, as they are interlinked. You also may have observed that I am in a somewhat systematic process. I don’t think I can do what you request in a single post. Buddha himself has said that subject of universe and karma are unthinkable. (“Loka Vishaya saha karma vishaya achinthyai”). Really what I am trying to do is something Buddha said as almost impossible. However, still I am trying to formulate a some sort of methodology.”
To read rest of Yapa’s comment, & related comments, go here:
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538
More, & clearly expressed, views re: the ability to prove karma, rebirth, nirvana being real aspects of this world – in statements made by Yapa (& perhaps other belivers), coming soon.
- S
Dear Off the Cuff, Wijayapala and All;
I would like to draw your kind attention of the post of SomewhatDisgusted May 7, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
In this post he tries to emphasize some of the main objectives of him for involving in the discussion against Buddhism, out of which his fear against the Secular State concept is one of the main. In the past he has assertively shown his determination to fight against any move against the secular state according to his capability. Now he has shown the same desire for this noble goal. Shall we relieve him from the other responsibilities of the other aspects of Buddhism for some time to facilitate him to solely concentrate this noble goal which he thinks his inalienable duty as a human being to the whole human kind?
Shall we refrain from burdening him with other responsibilities. This is my humble request to you and I sincerely hope you will corporate.
Please SomewhatDisgusted without getting disturbed from other activities prove your case.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapal;
Thank you wijayapala for providing the conceptualize notion, of A straw man argument.
This is all these three blind men have been doing all this time.
Thanks again and I re- post the link considering its valuable significance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw%20man
Thanks again!
is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually re
Hi tis-a-small-world,
Thanks for reading & commenting.
RE:
“As the writer of Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, I like to thank you for taking your time in commenting on my article and enhancing the debate from your article.”
No problem, good job on the previous/your article. It lead to a very interesting, if at times frustrating, conversation. Perhaps we can deal with just one aspect of that discussion here.
RE:
“First of all, I wish to inform that religion and philosophy are not categorized under sciences and and is a system of beliefs according to French sociologist Emile Durkheim. it’s a well known fact that religious beliefs and teachings cannot be tested scientifically nor it cannot be tested or proven through scientific experiments.”
Sure, I know that. However, some believers act as if religious statements & ideas are facts that all – including non-belivers – need to respect/follow & live by. Thus, we have this discussion – which seeks to point out the speculative nature of religion & the value of both a secular approach to living & of skepticism.
RE:
“Buddhism is perceived as a philosophy and also a religion. so it cannot be tested or proved through scientific experiments.”
Yeah, re: speculative items such as karma, rebirth, nirvana, I agree. Hoewever, more earth bound items – such as the value of the prohibition against killing – can be demonstrated as, having real value/value in the real world, and thus, in a way, can be proven to be useful.
RE:
“The concepts in question, re-incarnation, karma and nirvana are at times are too complicated and difficult to understand. especially nirvana. I think are minds, souls are filled with kleshas, tanha and asha and therefore we find it difficult to understand or see it.”
Not certain what, if any, out of items described in Buddhism or other religions our minds, souls, etc. are filled with. Maybe none of them – just the desire to survive & be happy – out of which other positive & negative (as seen by others) actions & thoughts arise.
RE:
“I believe in Karma, Nirvana and re-incarnation based on my knowledge on the philosophy of Lord Buddha, although i cannot prove my beliefs scientifically.”
Nor can you prove it through any other method – common sense, observation, etc., not just the scientific method/scientifically. And, since we are discussing a religious matter – a subject that is built on speculative items re: nature of man & universe, for your own personl faith based practices, no external or reasonable proof (proof that a non-beliver may be able to see/recognbize as proof) are needed. However, the entire reason for this discussion is that believers have taken their faith in a religion – in this case Buddhism – to be reflective of indisputable truths, and they have questioned the value of separating the state from the temple – as a practical matter. So, this discussion is a part of an attempt to demonstrate why it may be best – for all – to separate secular life/common life from religious life when it comes to dealing with non-belivers & different belivers or no belivers.
RE:
“Lord Buddha, upon completing Sath Sathiya was invited by a Brahma to preach his teachings or philosophy to the people. Lord Buddha was at first reluctant to do that because he felt that his philosophy or Dharma was too complex or advanced for the people to understand. Yes I agree with Lord Buddha on the complexity of his philosophy. Because I also find it difficult to understand the pattichcha samuppadaya, karma and nirvana concepts.”
Yes, I’ve heard that story before. Either the concepts are very difficult to understand or they are entirely fictional, symbolic devices, thus designed to be impossible to understand through any means available to us.
RE:
“Since Lord Buddha allows his shrawakas to question his teachings, you have the freedom to raise questions regarding the teachings of lord buddha.”
Even without the Budddha’s recommendations, I have the freedom to question his or anyone else’s teachings. However, the advice attributed to The Buddha – re: testing to see if teachings are accurate, is very useful when dealing with many murky things in life – including blind faith based Buddhism.
RE:
“Even though I don’t agree with the believers camp Yapa, Wijepala and off the cuff on certain issues, I stand with them as a believer in the existence of karma, nirvana and re-incarnation.”
Sounds good, hopefully it brings peace & joy & happiness to you & is generally a positive thing for you.
RE:
“Hope you’ll be able to solve your question and hope your article will generate a lot of responses as it did with the “Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka” All the Best!”
Thanks for the positive thoughts. I have no serious expectation that the belivers will be able to show how karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this world (but if they do, excellent, will be very interesting no doubt). But I do hope that having to deal fully & directly with the speculative nature of key aspects of their faith, some blind believers will realize that the undisputed truth that they seek to aggressively protect from the rest of the world is merely a set of old human ideas that they have grown very attached to – and in fact, their hostile stance towards others negates any positive benefits that their society /they themselves may derive from the practice of Buddhism. A lot to hope for out of a discussion on the web, but who knows, ideas introduced can stay with us & grow & be useful in many moons to come – even if not today. I do see a near future where Sri Lankans (in classic Sri Lanka – the isalnd, & in Greater Sri Lanka – the Sri Lankan diaspora on rest of Earth as well as on the island) are able to think past religiously imposed limitations & other limiting cultural conditioning & are able to create a prosperous, productive, & free society (& for all that, asking questions about why things are the way they are – though they may not make sense & thuogh they may not be productive/useful why certain habits, actions, ways are still followed – is essential). And, yes, in this future, SL Buddhism still exists, along with a healthy & useful secularism/agnosticism (and the ancestors are happy, the future generations are happy, and, most importantly, the present generation is happy & no longer at war.
- S
Dear Observer,
Re. ‘Agnostic’ tag.
Ok, fair point – agnosticism is a passive intellectual position – but see this …
Agreed also, the motivations of the Agnostics in this debate is more like that of ‘Skeptics’.
However, Agnostics can (and do, and should, in my view) challenge Dogmatists when something significant in society (and the world) is at stake because of bigotry, prejudice, and childhood brainwashing. The world cannot sit back when religious ‘TRUTH’ that promises fantastic rewards make young men fly aeroplanes into tall buildings full of innocent people.
Sujewa has already pointed to the arrogance of claiming the ‘TRUTH’ as belonging to one’s own religion – whether it is ‘the god given promised land’ (Isreal and SL) or Jesus said ‘no one will enter the kingdom of heaven except through me’ or any other such.
Dear Observer, we can ‘observe’ as much as we like BUT if we do nothing about it there could soon be nothing to observe!
Hey Agnostics;
You are trying to couple Heshan into your own bullock cart? Not being fully agree with us, see what he had said. He is not blind from birth like you. Don’t insult him trying to include him into your Montessori. Please read (Oh! I am sorry. How can you read you are blind, especially for the things that are disadvantageous for you )
………………………
Heshan said,
April 22, 2010 @ 3:42 am
Dear Somewhat Disgusted and Off the Cuff:
Thanks for the compliments. Let me point, though, that my purpose is not to debunk/disprove karma/reincarnation. They are metaphysical constructs whose properties are beyond the scope of scientific methodology. However, once we accept that science cannot explain everything, then this need not be a hindrance. I think Yapa has already pointed this out; that the rationality behind science is limited. On the other hand, he also says that Buddhism is not meant to be rational – a contradiction. I will let Yapa explain that.
May all blind eyes be opened. May all biased minds be freed.
Thanks!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
I can see this new thread fast becoming a whirlpool of the same arguments that went before.
Dear Wijayapala, OTC, Mr Yapa,
May I just repeat, trust me, there are many other religions in the world. They too believe passionately about what they have been told as children, by people they trust. In my view, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, all of you, have essentially the same belief pattern – they are just called something different, or explained differently, by people in different frocks.
There is the promise of a ‘good place’, there is a ‘bad place’, there is a god, there is a chief celestial administrator, there are the terrestrial administrators and the supreme ambassador on Earth. There is sin, and virtuous acts. There is penance. We just call them different words. The easiest common denominator to pin down is ‘faith’.
In Christianity/Islam the good place is heaven/paradise. In Buddhism it is nirvana. The bad place is hell, or in Buddhism it is being born. All humans pray to some degree – a desire to connect or plead or negotiate (?) with a higher power, even just acknowledge. Why do people in temples place their palms together and place it at the forehead? So Buddhists too believe in a god.
It’s only when cultures came into conflict (by physical proximity, migration, politics, war) that humans started to ‘differentiate’ our ‘truth’ from their ‘lies’. Then follows prejudice, hostility, death. But it does not take a lot of brains to see that essentially the original ideas were the same.
In a modern society (educated?) we should be able to see beyond the cosmetic differences. Forget the divisive tactics of our recent ancestors – they had a good reason at the time, but those reasons are no longer appropriate in today’s world. Our problem (the one we are trying to end) is that some people believe that it IS necessary to propagate these differences into future generations.
Whilst having been born in a Buddhist society, I have had the good fortune of living amongst people of many of the world’s great cultures. Trust me, we do not have a monopoly on ‘truth’.
I have asked you (Mr Yapa mainly) whether you would be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?
Still waiting for your comments on that …
Dear Sujewa,
We are not discussing Fantasy.
The examples I gave are real world verifiable ones. They have nothing to do with films and the celluloid fantasies that most of those create. So please don’t try to divert from the issue at hand.
You state in your synopsis above as follows,
“One of the challenges put forth by The Agnostics camp ……is: prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.” Your words not Yapa’s or mine.
My counter challenge as stated in my posts of May 7, 2010 @ 8:27 pm and May 8, 2010 @ 12:56 am is for you or your camp to PROVE that the tool that you have selected is appropriate and has the authority and the maturity to analyse a Philosophy such as Buddhism.
If you cannot rise to that challenge then your tool is too puny to dissect Buddhism. Period.
@Sujewa:
From your responses, it seems to me that you think I have the onus to prove to you that karma, rebirth and nirvana can be demonstrated in the real world. I was trying to point out the Buddha taught that these things are verifiable through practice. It also seems that you haven’t read the links I’ve included in the posts since your arguments don’t reflect that fact. I’ll respond to your posts but if it seems that you’re not really reading and just having fun arguing by stating the same points without considering what I’ve mentioned, I would have to leave this “discussion”.
“Not criticizing anything, just asking how something works, from people who say they are certain that something works a certain way & that they can show that it works that way.”
I never claim that this works a certain way and I can prove it to you. Even the Buddha couldn’t make people believe. Are you serious? I think you are basing your arguments from people who have very little idea about the teachings and assuming that all Buddhists share their absurdity.
“How many practitioners have directly realized nirvana through the methods prescribed by the Buddha? 100? 10,000? 1 million? If none that you know of have attained nirvana, then why not? & or if some have (or say they have) can they show you that they were able to do so using methods described in Buddhism? Is the system/the method faulty? Or is nirvana, instead of being an achievement that a human being is capable of accomplishing, more of a symbol – an idea to get people to follow a certain way of looking at the world & living in the world?”
This is a stupid question because realizing nirvÄna is not like getting some certificate in that unless one is wise enough to see the difference between a wise person and one who is not, there is no way to know for certain the attainments of another. This is why I quoted the discourse of the simile of the elephant footprint simile – obviously it looks like you haven’t read it but just rehashed your tired views. The Buddha specifically mentions that until you reach nirvana, there is an element of conviction. So he never claims that you can do some sort of statistical analysis on Arahants – why do you think that would be possible in the case in the first place? It’s almost like you’re saying since it’s not falsifiable it must be false. That just makes no sense. And about people I know, I have read of a monk in Thailand who is considered an Arahant (I do too), and I’ve met monks who I believe have attained different stages of the path. From their practice and whatever progress I’ve made in mine, it’s clear to me the step-by-step path laid out by the Buddha does bring about results. Now is that proof? It’s proof to me, but not for you. If you want proof, you have practice.
“I assume Einstein’s theory of relativity makes sense to physicists, or some physicists. And, as far as I know (perhaps Heshan can add some thoughts re: this) theory of relativity has been demonstrated to be true using experiments & examples.”
And the path of the Buddha’s teachings can be verified by practice. The difference is it’s not quantifiable or falsifiable through scientific means.
“I see no difference between blind faith in a creator, & blind faith in the mechanisms that make Buddhism work as a religion – primarily karma, & related to that rebirth, & then nirvana – as the way out of the karma based rebirth cycle. Both the creator god & the existence of karma are fantastic & speculative religious ideas. If someone wanted to point to something that they believe proves the existence of a creator god, i am sure they can point to many complex & little understood phenomenon (as you did when you pointed to rebirth in support of ideas in Buddhism) – however, that would not be proof for the existence of a creator god (for me, that would require an actual meeting with the god & then testing the god out to see if he/she/it is in fact the creator of the worlds, so, basically, my barrier for accepting the creator god idea being real is pretty much the same as the barrier i have for accepting karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as true/real).”
I’m not sure if you know but in the practice there is no requirement for one completely believe rebirth and karma to its full extent as if it’s some commandment. It seems that you think this is so. Actually, considering that these ideas a plausible are enough for a person to practice. In this discourse (and please read this before you reply to my post), the Buddha talks of safeguarding the truth by separating what you know from what you believe. If someone claims that they know rebirth and karma (in terms of the next life) is true just because the Buddha said so, he/she is not following what the Buddha taught because he is categorizing something that he believes as what he knows.
“I am pretty sure that it is meaningless to say that the Dhamma is timeless in this context. Do you mean that the ideas that make up the Buddha’s teachings have lasted a long time? Well, so have many other things – including very bizarre stuff that have very little use to modern humans (such as belief in the existence of faries, etc.). Timeless does not equal real (as opposed to fabricated, imagined, speculative).”
Timeless in the sense the practice does not change with time to time.
“I have followed the path recommended by the Buddha, and, though it has many useful things, it does not (or did not for me at least) result in being able to verify karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana as being real things that exist in this world/universe & affects humans as described in Buddhism. Nor do I know of any Buddhist who has proven that they have attained direct knowledge of karma, rebirth, nirvana & can demonstrate that they in fact have achieved what they say they achieved.”
Have you attained the fourth jhÄna? What is the extent of your practice. If it’s just following the five precepts and meditating daily, that’s not fully following his path. I know of such people (especially from the Thai Forest Tradition) – maybe you should consider looking outside Sri
“Thus, this discussion has come into being. We are going to try to trade a little bit of the believers’ closed arrogance & ignorance for the agnostics’ naturally humble & open not-knowing-for-certain-ness, at least that’s the plan “
Like I said you are categorizing belief with certainty which I do not claim and the Buddha would criticize (the discourse I would quote above). Just because the believers you have met have not at least read the Buddha’s teachings in full doesn’t mean all believers are what you claim them to be.
“So, in essence, practicing Buddhism or the Dharma should get the practitioner close to nirvana, right? But, since it cannot be demonstrated that nirvana is a real element of this world or this universe, how can one demonstrate “getting closer to” the promised goal – nirvana? Thus, Buddhism does not work like guitar lessons – in guitar lessons the student can test him/her self (via using recordings at various points in time, etc.) to determine if he/she is learning anything.”
You can for sure test for oneself that one is getting closer to the goal. For example, before I practiced sincerely, I had comparatively very little control over my mind. Now I have more control over my actions, calm, stability and a source of happiness (through meditation) that is much more dependable than what is available in the outside world. I can verify that I am making progress by comparing my state with the Buddha’s step-by-step teachings to see what I should focus on next. There is no question of being able to verify progress for oneself.
“But the core goal, or the main goal, is not meditation proficiency. The Buddha is not famous for being a meditation teacher only/the key offer from Buddhism has not been just meditation – but an escape from a never ending round of birth & death & rebirth that the Buddhists say their path can liberate one from.”
Meditation is a central aspect of the path. I think you fail to see it’s a step-by-step path. It’s not like it’s a 10-day course where at the end you’re guaranteed nirvana. It’s more like a life’s work.
“Tell us then, how far have you gone along the path & what proof have you discovered that tells you that you are closer to nirvana than, let’s say, 10 years ago?”
Check my answer above.
“The very same thing as blind faith, though expressed differently. Both the priests of Christianity and the monks of Buddhism are asking you to belive that Christ and Buddha are who the priests/monks say they are & that the path, the religions, will take you closer to the goals reportedly demonstrated as achieveable by the two founders (or the so-called founders/inventors) of the religions.”
The Buddha does not require one to believe that before starting to practice. Please read the discourse (Canki Sutta), that I have linked. It’s not you’re either with me or not. There is room for not knowing and being honest.
Dear Heshan,
Congratulations on your post at http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18445
Your point about Mental Sickness is well taken. You have also observed that “INTENT” plays a crucial part in the Modern Judicial system. A point that I too made long ago which some failed to grasp.
Kamma is nothing but a word describing action. Action can be accidental or premeditated. The Buddhist meaning of Kamma differentiates between them. Premeditated or Thoughtful action is what is meant by Buddhism as Kamma.
In the current life, Kamma can be found to be true. A simple example is the killing of a man. Premeditated murder carries a higher penalty than an accidental one (the accidental case may not even receive a penalty). Vipaka or result always follows Kamma. The Vipaka could be immediate or delayed.
At the present time there is hardly any research about Rebirth (Karma is intimately entwined with rebirth). Not many scientists would be bold enough to put their carriers at risk by investigating a phenomenon like Rebirth. The US Govt funded Stargate project closed down due to pressure against what was thought as research into the paranormal.
Dear All/Specially for BalangodaMan;
Can you remember I asked a single question from BalangodaMan for he tried his best not to answer it. This is that simple question.
………………………
I think you live in the USA. Now if you you talk in Sinhala to an average American citizen, why he cannot understand?
………………………………………..
I didn’t let him run away from the question and cornered him with several reminders.
Can you remember how he was stunned, startled and went his mind off with this simple question after he sat himself on his own beautiful tail? Want to see? Yes please;
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-19/#comment-18117
Do you know why I waned to ask this simple question?
To show the limitations, pettiness of a mind and to show inability of it to tackle unfamiliar things. Three BalangodaMen ( BM, SE and SD) were emphasizing their ability to handle Buddhism, Modern Science and Philosophy or whatever it is with their “pure minds” without a fair knowledge of them. They vehemently rejected our proposals to gain a fair knowledge for smooth discussion. There stance was it was not a shortcoming from their part or hindrance to maintain the discussion. But we believed the opposite and still believe so and hope any sensible person would do so.
I told them it is difficult understand Buddhism with their “Pure Thought.” But they laughed at me as omnipotent. But now see why the “ordinary USA citizen” cannot understand when BalangodaMan talks to him in Sinhala.
This USA citizen can understand English, because he is used to it by listening, responding …etc… in English speaking society of USA. If say that in another words, he can talk English because his mind was “conditioned” with English. If his mind was conditioned in French, he can understand French. Otherwise he cannot. Same is true for Spanish. Then why do you think that, that ordinary USA citizen to whom BalangodaMan spoke in Sinhala could not understand it.
Isn’t that because his mind was not conditioned to Sinhala Language?
This means mind only can grasp or can respond only to conditioned scenarios. Isn’t my conclusion correct?
This shows that just “empty minds” cannot grasp or communicate anything. These three blind mice don’t grasp what I say, is it because their their minds are empty?
Tell me my dear friends, I don’t understand this paradox.
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?
As three BalangodaMen?
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“Yapa claimed, at one point during the previous incarnation of this conversation, that modern science & math can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation & nirvana. I will have to comb through the 1000+ comments & re-post the statement here, so that you can see what you missed.”
Please specifically show the place/ post where I said so or tell me whether are you bashing a “straw man” as wijayapala pointed out or you are fighting with a created brute as I used to say?
Please also get checked whether your honesty organ has some fault.
Thanks! (especially for being dishonest)
Dear BalangodaMan,
“All humans pray to some degree – a desire to connect or plead or negotiate (?) with a higher power, even just acknowledge. Why do people in temples place their palms together and place it at the forehead? So Buddhists too believe in a god.”
Great Logic
Is that Agnostic Reasoning?
Just shows that you don’t have an Iota of knowledge about Buddhist Philosophy.
OTC,
RE:
The Agnostics were challenged to prove that Science was a “Mature” tool to investigate a Philosophy like Buddhism. So far that proof has not been forthcoming.”
It is also impossible to prove that Star Wars (the movie) – the story within it – is a real event, or a real set of events. Science cannot show you, nor can common sense, that imagined, fabricated, non-existant, speculative mental creations are real aspects of this world. You seem to belive that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana are real things, instead of those being speculative items/symbolic devices that exist to teach a set of ideas to people. So, if we follow your argument further, & follow my argument further, then, karma, rebirth, nirvana become things that cannot be proven or disproven, thus, agnostic items – not certain whether they are real or not (except, in my case, I lean strongly towards most likely not real). After that, religion/Buddhism is merely an individual preference (just as someone may be a fan of Star Wars movies because it feels good to them & not because it tells a true story that everyone else must believe in also). So, then we are on to the area of intellectual/religious freedom, including the freedom from religion – which the agnostics feel is a very useful thing to us & probably to most humans, thus we are engaged in this discussion. So, no, science cannot demonstrate that fiction is true. But, if you want us to belive that karma, reincarnation, nirvana is something more than useful fiction, then, by all means, show us how those items are a part of the real makeup of this world/this univer
…………………………
Has this man’s mind gone off?
Sujewa Ekanayake;
RE: Your post of May 8, 2010 @ 11:22 am
Please gentleman, be kind enough to reprint my wordings with your own key board to show that I have said that I will be able to demonstrate to non-believers the truth/realness of karma, rebirth, nirvana.
Please do not bash a straw man. It will hurt his straw body.
Thanks! (especially for telling untruths)
RE: the post of May 8, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
I think another man has gone mad!
Dear BM (Original);
I have answered that question and told even before, that I had answered that question. Just see a few posts after your question.
Please see a physician if you feel something like dissiness.
Take care.
Thanks!
Now it is BalangodaMad, not BalangodaMan!
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala,
Thank you for the link (in your post of May 8, 2010 @ 5:40 am)
I was referring to “Ahosi Karma” without confusing others by writing directly about it.
Dear Yapa,
Reference your post of May 8, 2010 @ 4:34 pm.
That was Hilarious.
Sujewa’s response was either a cunning attempt at escaping the thrust of my argument, a Hudini Act or just plain ignorance.
He has forgotten that I was writing about Real World Phenomena that is backed by the recognition given them by the WHO (UN body) and The declassified Stargate documentation of the US Govt.
The poor guy has confused “Stargate” with “Star wars”. Probably due to his self professed film making bent.
We need to have Upeksha
Dear Chula,
The challenge in Sujewa’s article here is to the claims of ‘truth’ made by Mr Yapa’s camp in the Akon thread.
Clearly you agree with us – that a religious belief is ‘true’ to someone who has faith or conviction in it. It is a personal position the validity of which only a believer can verify. Such a ‘truth’ is commonly referred to as ‘faith’ or a ‘conviction’.
Now, our problem is, Mr Yapa vehemently objects to the word ‘faith’ (I suggested that that might be because it is the term used in other religions like Christianity). He substituted ‘verifiable proof’ in place of ‘faith’, bringing in Quantum Physics big guns to a party already in full swing.
My point is, I know many Christians who are utterly convinced that Jesus was the son of god. And Muslims who are utterly convinced that Mohammed is god’s messenger. They see the ‘truth’ in their belief through their conviction. So Mr Yapa differentiating his faith as something that is ‘true’ (which has since been re-defined as ‘conviction’) has not really differentiated the elements in Buddhist belief that requires an element of faith – from things that we commonly understand as true in everyday usage – eg. ‘Colombo is the capital of SL’, and ‘the Sun will rise tomorrow’ are true in everyday usage. The key differentiating point being, there are things that we can bank on and there are things that are purely speculative (that we accept and go along with for a variety of good reasons).
(The tangent of debating whether Newtonian mechanics gives more Air Miles than Einsteinian theories, whether salmon can swim with hands tied behind their backs, whether Yings and Yanks live in the USA, whether acupuncturists are just pricks are way off the issue at hand)
Perhaps Mr Yapa’s claim that he can prove that ‘karma, rebirth, nirvana are true’ with Quantum Physics was mere fluff – a throw away ‘my god is better than your god and I can prove it’ statement, an exaggeration that he later regrets making? In which case the scientific reasoning he promised will not be forthcoming. Let’s not hold our breath.
So, Dear All – there is no point in writing reams about ‘you cannot prove religious faith except through the faith itself’ as if it is in opposition to Sujewa’s challenge …. this is EXACTLY the point Sujewa is making, along with SomewhatDisgusted and myself. Please read Sujewa’s artice … in context). Christians too would say you cannot know god except as a believer, and the Muslims have a similar conviction. The claim of ‘religious truth for the purpose of glorification at the exclusion of others’ is not confined to Buddhism. Though each does it with a different story.
And please don’t charge back with a ‘ah but Buddhism is a philosophy, ethics, morality, a way of life’ differentiation. All regions are a mixture of dogma, moral code, ethics, rules, politics, wise teachings, and philosophy (and, unfortunately, also bad stuff like divisive ideas).
Mr Yapa,
TRUTH and OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR
———————————
There is no point in arguing about ‘truth’ without agreeing what we mean by ‘truth’. If we behave in a way consistent with what we say then that says something about what we say we believe in, what we believe to be ‘true’.
I have given numerous examples in the honourable-Akon-thread that we as individuals, and as society, do not appear to behave as if we believe that these items of faith (karma, rebirth, nirvana) are real things. I can re-post them here if it might help.
Separation of Religion from the State
———————————
And on the matter highlighted by SomewhatDisgusted, (ie. separation of religion from the state, which you say Mr Yapa is unnecessary) I have shown that a country cannot be run on the basis that the claims of any religion are ‘true’, giving examples in popular Buddhist belief and showing that such a proposition is untenable. As an example, we cannot practice the middle path in a competitive society, in any capitalist society, and we have a cricket team which has to perform at the extreme end of excellence to beat the coconuts out of the opposition. Advertising cannot be lawful, the primary aim of which is to stimulate desire (craving) – at best it would be unfair on those struggling with curbing their weaknesses. Then there are bizarre absurdities in relation to the state recognition of rebirth. It seems like religious concepts work only in the confines of personal belief, in church sermons and temples, mosques – not in the law of the land (unless there are specific elements in it by design – as in Islam which is a system of law).
There is a good case, I think, for redesigning Buddhism from the ground up. Clearly separating philosophy from the dogma. Identifying what the ethical principles are and relating these to generally accepted ethical principles of the modern world (like re. racism, prejudice, how we treat minorities). Making Buddhism A PART of the knowledge and training and understanding we should have, rather than Buddhism being the only and last word on everything there is to know about the meaning of life.
(the last word on everything there is to know … is where Mr Yapa confuses Buddhism with Islam. Mr Yapa I respectfully refer you to the Kalama Sutra)
Dear Wijayapala
Here is a long and laborious reply. All I can say is, 99% of the arguments are recycled, because you keep raising arguments which are strawmen or have been replied to a hundred times over. I hope you read these arguments carefully because I’m not interested in semantic wordplay, which seems to be your past-time, only in communicating the idea, which I believe you are more than capable of grasping if you really wanted to.
I will also break my reply into two posts. The reply which is relevant to the topic, and the reply which addresses irrelevant digressions.
REPLY RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC
—————————-
You said: “What is your *reason* for believing that the mind is an illusion? You never explained that one, instead relying on your identity as secular agnostic to serve as an authority unto yourself.”
Another strawman Wijayapala. I directly answered this question. I will do so again. I have no idea! There is some evidence to believe that the mind could be an illusion. The most obvious and the strongest reason is the direct physical correlation between physical brain and the mind. I’ve already provided an analogy with a computer, apart from other examples. But overall, I HAVE NO CONCLUSIVE IDEA. Said in uppercase bold because I’m repeating myself so often.
You said: “And here we come to the next weapon in the Secular Agnostic’s arsenal, Circular Logic:
1) Physical evidence is the only evidence we can accept, because
2) only physical phenomena are real, the rest are illusions;
3) our proof that only physical phenomena are real is that they’re the only evidence that we can accept…”
At least, this is ostensibly a good argument and a reasonable critique to make. The only problem is, I’ve already clarified this many, many times, laboriously, but you simply do not seem to be listening. Why is that?
I will try for the last time.
I have NEVER said that “only physical phenomena are real, the rest are illusions”. This is your own biased assumption because you already think you’ve got the agnostics all figured out. This world is far stranger and more complex than we can imagine. I full acknowledge and recognize our limitations. This is why I’ve said, I have no opposition to people following the strangest imaginable paths to discover their own reality. The only problem is, how do you establish a *shared reality*, so we can all live together on one planet? That can generally only be done when there is preferably some physical evidence or a reasoning process which is unassailable and propels a concept to a level of certainty that is difficult to deny. Otherwise, how do you plan to separate your claim from the hundreds of thousands of similar claims? What makes you think your claim is any more plausible than Ying Yang? Astrology? Personal revelations of God, alien abductions, UFOs, flying teapottery etc. So far, you are yet to highlight how this differentiation can be clearly and undeniably done. Q1: Can you please do that or in the event of a failure to do so, kindly explain very clearly, your proposal for what the reasonable/fair thing to do might be?
And secondly Q2: Can you explain why it is *impossible* that some of these ideas could merely be sincerely mistaken products of the imagination, which the human mind has been commonly shown to be prone to?
If anything, all we’ve discovered is that the human mind is extremely prone to cognitive biases, that naturally gives rise to a belief in mysticism. There are highly plausible hypotheses for why this might be and we must remain extremely skeptical. But at the end of the day, I do not essentially deny any such possibility, I’ve repeatedly said I have no basis to. I only oppose *certainty*. Please do not raise this argument again because I have refuted it far more times than I care to remember.
“What “insane conceit” are you talking about?”
Wijayapala. You do not even SEE the insane conceit? Have you been following the claims made here?
1. That Buddhism is an indisputal, absolute truth, whilst other truths are just relative truths.
2. That Buddhism is above everything, including science.
3. That people who do not follow Buddhism are essentially misguided fools who are wasting their lives.
4. That Buddhists are the holy guardians of eternal truths.
amongst others. I did not see you write one post in protest of such arguments. Why not?
“This is certainly not to say that the Tamils ever had any hostile intent towards Buddhism, but simply to point out that even a complete idiot would be hard pressed to justify suppressing Tamils today”
Do you really think so? Tell me honestly, do you really think that Buddhists do not think their culture should be the dominant culture, not as an accidental consequence of numbers, but by right? What percentage would you peg it down to? Didn’t someone reaffirm this belief a few posts ago?
“why defend something which you find to be insulting?”
Who’s defending Akon? I emphasized at the very outset the I had no interest in Akon or his slimy undulations. The parameters of this argument have been clearly defined in several posts. So what are you not responding to them?
“What is your fixation with Yapa anyway? You seem far more interested in interacting with him than me or OTC. Do you consider us to be less Buddhists than Yapa is?”
An excellent question. Here is the main reason. Q3: Neither of you have ever written a single post challenging Yapa’s absurd claims. Why not? You advocated earlier that Buddhists themselves should reign in the fundies. How come you aren’t doing that? What do you keep mum on the topic? If you had raised your voice against such claims, instead of appearing to passively endorse them, this argument would have been over a long time ago.
Do comment on anything but please give clear answers to Q1, Q2 and Q3.
cheers,
/SD
IT IS EASY TO ARGUE, EASY TO FIGHT AND EASY TO GO TO WAR.
THE CHALLENGE IS TO CONVERSE – TO SEEK TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER – TO RESPECT DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW – BECAUSE WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT
RELIGION TO ME IS ABOUT THIS NOBLE EFFORT – ANYTHING THAT HELPS EACH OTHER TO BE MORE WISE, MORE COMPASSIONATE – ANYTHING THAT HELPS IN THIS DIRECTION IS BUDDHISM TO ME
THE PERSON TO WHOM YOU ARE TALKING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING …. UNTIL WE REALIZE THIS WE WILL NOT HAVE A DECENT DISCUSSION – JUST A SHOUTING MATCH
PLEASE BE HAPPY
OTC,
“The US Govt funded Stargate project closed down due to pressure against what was thought as research into the paranormal.”
Again, a question I asked in Akon Mk I – don’t you think it would be helpful to SL, and to the world, if some serious academic research was done to extend the work of Ian Stevenson (reincarnation) – to explore the extent to which bad and good deeds done in this life carry over to the next? Whether serial lives are linked in some way? Whether there is a case for attributing rights and responsibilities from a previous life to a present one?
(unless we have the ultimate aim of addressing these questions quoting research by Stevenson is a herring rouge, or ‘red herring’ in English)
The consequences of the findings, either way, will be blindning! Why doesn’t the Universities in SL conduct this research? Or are they already? Or they have but are suppressing the results?
This is NOT to prove that anyone’s beliefs are misguided.
I genuinely feel that discoveries made in this regard will guide us towards more of what we want and away from what we don’t want, with greater CERTAINTY.
We do research on cancer for the same reason. And other illnesses like AIDS. We have tsunami warning systems. We have screening to prevent terrorist attacks….. However, I feel that THIS SUBJECT over shadows all of them put together!
Do the readers agree with this?
OTC,
Karma and intent
——————-
To harbour the notion that ‘good things happen to people who do good things’ AS A RULE and vice versa is rather naive, I’m sorry to say.
It is not how the world works. There is not an observable mechanism that does so (sadly) and our empirical observations do not hold that to be true (sadly), though it is true that there is such a thing as reciprocal altruism.
We know of many cases where bad people have prospered or escaped. Hitler is one, he never paid for his sins (except he may have been reborn as the little boy next door, and he can’t see why he is being punished for Hitler’s sins as he has no connection with the Fuhrer, but you’re not talking about transmigration of sin). Many cases in politics, business, you name it. Similarly, there are many good people doing good work having a dreadful time. Last week I was reading about a well known writer who gave away all his wealth, having discovered Eastern philosophy, and ended up miserable, outcast (as he was now poor) and committed suicide.
So OTC, your thinking that ‘karma works in this life’ as an observable reality needs further scrutiny.
(if you mean ‘holding your finger in the fire and it hurts’ then that is obvious and direct. you’re talking in the wider sense I believe, as in ‘do something good and you are assured a good return by some remote paranormal mechanism’)
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say (addressing wijayapala)
[Q3: Neither of you have ever written a single post challenging Yapa's absurd claims. Why not?]
Again this is very unethical hidden in somebody else’s post to make undue comments on me. (I stress on me.). I am not able to change your born behaviour.
However, can you please point out my absurd claims and justify them as absurd. Just your calling a flower as junk will not make it junk. When you have a bendable tongue and a keyboard of your own you can say and write whatever you want, but responsible writing is something else. Your false views based on ignorance and false pride is the main reason for your suffering. Please justify your claim.
Further, You have an inalienable undertaking to render a great service to the mankind. Please concentration on it. Please refer my post of May 8, 2010 @ 8:50 am
(Why you cannot compete with me alone, to seek the assistance of wijayapala. You seems to have the “pack hunting” mentality. Can you remember, how you cunningly set poor Sujewa and BalangodaMan after me and see how they are struggling now? Your attempt to set Heshan after me failed, Eh! Karawala kutu keva num duk vindpun balalo! That is karma, willful action, volitional action. There is no doer, it has its own system of operation)
Na anthalikke na samudda majje,
na pabbathanan wiwaran pawis,,
na wijjathi so jagathippadesoo
yaththattitho mujjecheiyan paapakamma …
Bana num niboruya munivarayanne,
pana num nisaruya adhaganne
pana num thana aga pinibindu wenne
pina num nopamawama kara ganne
Thanks!
OTC,
RE:
“Reference your post of May 8, 2010 @ 4:34 pm.
That was Hilarious.
Sujewa’s response was either a cunning attempt at escaping the thrust of my argument, a Hudini Act or just plain ignorance.”
Since you are avoiding the question posed by the article, I assume that you agree that karma, reincarnation, nirvana cannot be proven as true to a non-beliver. Sounds good – & keep that in mind the next time you try to talk about Buddhism as an absolute truth, the undisputed/universal truth, etc.
- S
Yapa,
RE:
“Please don’t try to be dishonest, because you have nothing valuable to contribute.”
If you think that, that must mean there is in fact something valuable I can contribute, something that might even unsettle your blind faith a little, let’s see
“Haven/t you ever come across any article of mine that these cannot be proved due to the lack of knowledge systems based on human perception?”
Or, because karma, reincarnation, nirvana are completely fictional devices. Thus, no type of real methods of demonstrating proof can be applied to prove that something that does not exist does in fact exist.
“Didn’t I logically showed in numerous ways there are knowledge gaining systems out side the limitation of human perception?”
There are numerous ways to get knowledge about various things, however, you have not logically or in any other way shown how a non-beliver can verify the existence of karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as described in Buddhism.
“Didn’t I prove this position with the notions of the modern science? ”
No, but feel free to re-post a clear argument as to how modern science can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana.
“Didn’t I reiterate this position with the notions of modern Philosophy? ”
Not really. It does often appear that since you cannot prove the existence of karma, reincarnation, & nirvana that you attempt to divert from that fact by quoting or paraphrasing many pages of material that are not directly related to the matter at hand.
“Didn’t I show you exacts from modern Science that Mathematics and Science is not the language of reality?”
Well, here you are hiding behind the faith cannot be proven argument, which I agree with, so, it sounds like that you are saying that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are faith based items, thus cannot be proven as real to non-belivers, & thus, for a multi-religious country, using Buddhism as a de-facto state religion or keeping Buddhism bound in with the state is not a very bright idea. Clarify if I am mistaken here. If Buddhism – including the core items karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real (instead of them being speculative/fictional teaching devices) then I do not think many people will have a problem with the state relying on Buddhism for governance, etc. But, if Buddhism is just another religion – as you seem to indirectly say it is – then, people are free to belive or not belive it, & there is no great responsibility by the state to govern with Buddhism as a body of ideas that shape laws, etc.
“Didn’t I show tell you about the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?”
Yeah, that still does not show that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as described in Buddhism are anything more than speculative religious ideas.
Didn’t I show you what Godel’s Theorems say?
Yeah, that still does not show that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as described in Buddhism are anything more than speculative religious ideas. (i am just going to repeat myself here until there is something new & useful to respond to)
RE:
“Didn’t I show you the Similar concussions arrived by modern science and Philosophy that are consistent with Buddhism.”
Yeah, that still does not show that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as described in Buddhism are anything more than speculative religious ideas.
RE:
“Didn’t I show you that the views of the modern scientists praising Buddhism as it is compatible with Buddhism?”
Yeah, that still does not show that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as described in Buddhism are anything more than speculative religious ideas.
RE:
“Didn’t I show you that how Modern Philosophy’s view how (methodology) reality could be realized and the similarity of the Buddhism’s method to this?”
There are many things that are similar in their method. However, this does not mean that a speculative religious items is a real fact.
RE:
“Didn’t I show clearly explain the methodology to achieve this end (under Middle Path- Noble Eight Fold Path). ”
To achieve what exactly? To show that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this world? No, you did not. But if you think you did, feel free to re-post your findings.
RE:
“Didn’t I show that the poverty of Science (especially Newtonian Science) to act as a yardstick/base line/thumb rule/measurement? ”
Not just that, no kind of measurement will be useful to showing your non-existent/faith based ideas are true. But if you think something can demonstrate those ideas (karma, reincarnation, nirvana) to be true, then go ahead & show it to us.
RE:
“Still you are crying for the moon, because you know that that is the only way you can cover up your poverty in ideas and the only way to exist in the forum without making any valuable contribution.”
And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? Demonstrating blind faith of believers is a very valuable contribution, in my opinion.
RE:
“It is a very smart way of doing things!!!”
Yes, pointing out, essentially, lies, is indeed a very smart way to go. Will be beneficial to others.
RE:
“Off the Cuff, wijayapala and many others too very specifically addressed these issues. Without making any effort to understand Buddhism, Science or philosophy or any other deep subjects, you try to question everything with crazy ideas coming randomly into your mind.”
So basically I think what you are trying to yell is that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana cannot be proven to be real aspects of this world, & that OTC & Wijayapala agree. Sounds good to me. This is, however, a major change from your position (also your camp’s position) that Buddhism is an indisputable truth.
RE:
“Anyway why are you deaf and blind to all of these contributions and just clinging in to one demand? Are you dishonest or too childish to understand what we say?”
The contributions are evading the topic. The believers believe that they are following an indisputable truth & that non-believers must accept this & get out of the way. So I have to show you that at least 3 core ideas in Buddhism, perhaps a lot more, are most likely fictional, & have no effect in this world, so that the arrogance of the believers might get turned down a few notches, might make life a tiny bit better for non-belivers in SL & elsewhere, now & in the future.
And, in my next post, I’ll try to give some of your direct quotes where you state your belief that karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proven through modern science, math, & other methods. Stay tuned.
- S
Yapa,
RE:
“This USA citizen can understand English, because he is used to it by listening, responding …etc… in English speaking society of USA. If say that in another words, he can talk English because his mind was “conditioned” with English. If his mind was conditioned in French, he can understand French. Otherwise he cannot. Same is true for Spanish. Then why do you think that, that ordinary USA citizen to whom BalangodaMan spoke in Sinhala could not understand it.
Isn’t that because his mind was not conditioned to Sinhala Language?
This means mind only can grasp or can respond only to conditioned scenarios. Isn’t my conclusion correct?”
Incorrect. Let’s clarify – first, many people are able to speak both Sinhala & English, & are able to think using both languages – switching from one to the other at will. So, both English & Sinhala are similar kinds of things – languages, things that use words (sounds made by the human mouth, or symbols/characters written down) – which are essentially a set of symbols that correspond to things that exist in the outside world or in the mind – so, the two items – Sinhala & English are not very different as types of things go, with a little bit of guidance, a language dictionary, etc., the speaker of one language can begin to understand a speaker of another language.
Mistaking faith for fact is an entirely different kind of thing. There are common things that exist in this world – things that are observable by generally all & those things are filed under facts – things that actually exist. Then there are imagined things – such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana, gods, hells, heavens, etc. – that are used to influence people so that they may behave in one way or another (in a way that the influencer – the teacher or a supporter of a religion for example – finds useful). So, belief that an imagined thing may be real is something that many people like to do – because it makes them feel better about themselves, however, when that approach comes into conflict with actual things that exist in the world, things that can be verified by non-belivers & belivers alike, then we are forced to separate private religious practices with secular life – life accessible to all, not just believers.
Anyway, I am using very simple methods (words, sentences) here to try to break this difference between imagined & real down to you in a way that you may be able to follow Yapa. Let me know if this is still not clear, will see if I can find an even easier to understand set of words so that you may be able to grasp this (apparently very difficult for you to understand for some reason) difference that exists between religious “truths” (really a plesant way of saying religious fiction, most likely) & actual truths (actual things that exist in this world/universe).
Be back with more soon. Including more Yapa quotes (one was posted a few comments up) stating how you believe (or believed? perhaps we have forced you to move on from your indefensible position on this matter) that karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proved as real.
- S
Dear BalangodaMan,
Your post entitled “Karma and intent” addressed to me refers
The Buddhist definition of Kamma includes intent Without intent Kamma ceases to be the Buddhist Kamma and becomes Hindu Karma instead.
Know what you are writing about before you start criticising.
You say
“To harbour the notion that ‘good things happen to people who do good things’ AS A RULE and vice versa is rather naive, I’m sorry to say.”
You should be sorry. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Could you please quote the Full Paragraph that I have written which conveys that idea.
You seem to be having a penchant for getting your knickers (briefs?) in a twist.
You state
“It is not how the world works. There is not an observable mechanism that does so (sadly) and our empirical observations do not hold that to be true (sadly), though it is true that there is such a thing as reciprocal altruism.”
So how does your Reciprocal Altruism negate Kamma?
Can you give us a step by step reasoning?
Your post starts off with Karma and intent but intent was no where to be found. After some irrelevant ramblings you postulate that “karma works in this life as an observable reality needs further scrutiny.”
“if you mean ‘holding your finger in the fire and it hurts’ then that is obvious and direct. you’re talking in the wider sense I believe, as in ‘do something good and you are assured a good return by some remote paranormal mechanism’
Without making assumptions about what I think why don’t you read and comprehend what I write. I have explained Kamma in the previous thread and even in this thread. Please see my post to Heshan of May 8, 2010 @ 4:04 pm which has a brief description and an example of Kamma in action in the current life.
If you know anything about Buddhism, you will know that Hitler would not have been able to get a Human Rebirth for an EXTREMELY long time. He probably would be a Donkey pulling a Shit cart in some obscure place on this planet.
Your ability to conjure ideas and attributing it to others was observed in your post of http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18406
I exposed your dishonesty in my post of http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18421
You would have read my first two posts on this thread. Those two posts is a challenge to prove the ability of the Scientific Tool that you have been flaunting to Explain or Discard as Rubbish, Observable and Documented Real World Physical Phenomena. How about a reply?
Hi Everyone,
I just went through the entire Akon & Buddhism discussion & pulled out many of Yapa’s quotes that relate to the discussion continued with this article. Read through below, there is some amusing material, but, re: the current discussion, Yapa generally makes the following claim: that Buddhism is closer to modern science & philosophy than any other religion & that Buddhism contains/or is absolute truth. When pressed to show how this is so, Yapa cuts & pastes a lot of articles & stories instead of directly laying out his understanding that all of Buddhism, or at least karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real items/real things that exist in this world & affect people. An amusing quote by SomewhatD re: a crane & gold & frogs have been thrown in to make the lengthy process of following Yapa’s thinking a little bit more enjoyable. It is primarily the ideas & statements contained in Yapa quotes below (& the full comments they are pulled from, which you can go & read following the links) & the support these ideas received (actively or passively) from other believers that encouraged me to create this new discussion where the believers are challenged to demonstrate their deeply held belief that Buddhism is something more than a religion with speculative items, & is closer to or is the absolute truth re: the universe/existence & should not be separated from the State in SL. Read on, it will take a while:
::
The Quotable Yapa
(quotes related to agnostics vs. believers/k/r/n proof article)
::
Yapa on people who disagree with his views:
“These are not more than modern parrots who do not know anything more than what they were taught. They are repeatedly uttering what they were taught by their masters. No, they are just tape records or CD’s which play when their masters push their buttons.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16173
::
Yapa’s categorization of anyone who says anything that might be interperted as criticism of Buddhism – “anti-buddhists”, & his recommendation on how Buddhists should deal with such “anti-Buddhists”:
“Most of the anti- Buddhists want us to be tolerant for any bloody thing, to be in meditation until we are massacred, try to achieve Nirvana until they come and put their shit on our door steps. This is the kind of Buddhists they want.
Anti-Buddhists want Buddhist to behave the way they (anti-Buddhists) want. Please preach the people of your category:anti-Buddhists. We very well know how to react and behave according to the situation. (You must have heard of Contingency Theory)
(Above is a very crude and very popular argument among not much educated commons. People who have no creativity have to copy such arguments. Shame!)”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16257
::
Yapa on what kinds of questions are permitted in Buddhism:
“If somebody says that Buddhism allows to asks any amount or any sort of questions, it is not true. The purpose of Buddhism is not to answer unending questions. It is true that Lord Buddha has encouraged and praised asking questions in some cases, but there are instances where Buddha has discouraged it and advised not to ask some sort of questions too. If the questions are helpful for the liberation of somebody, the Buddha allowed them to be asked. Questions fruitful in this line were encouraged and futile questions were discouraged. Further, the Buddha knew that he would not live forever and therefore taught the people the way to find answers to the questions by themselves, through his doctrine. If somebody has some discipline obtained through Dhamma, he will only have proper questions but not weird questions to ask. Most basic questions of the sort asked in this forum are self answerable with a basic discipline of Buddhism.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16721
So, a very loose guideline on what Yapa considers a proper question to ask from Buddhists vs. what he considers to be an improper question. Sounds to me like he is saying don’t ask any questions that Buddhists/Buddhism is uncomfortable with answering.
A secular, open society, however, tolerates all kinds of questions, even ones that are uncomfortable to deal with.
::
Yapa on Buddhism and science:
“If somebody who is conversant in worldly matters like an expert in Mathematics, Political Science, Psychology or any other discipline thinks he is capable of easily pin pointing errors in in Buddhist Doctrine, he is miserably misled. There are a few subject that is so consistent and non contradictory like Buddhism. Tripitaka that contains the core of Buddhism in writing is about 25 times as big as the Holy Bible is unbelievably consistent and non contradicting. Classifications and explanations given in the Abhi-Dhamma is much more profound and subtler than in modern Science.
But the people who has no at all exposure to “Science” try to disgrace Buddhism, by citing which they think as Science. Most of these people have no an iota of knowledge of Science or modern knowledge, but try to show off as Pundits showing their bottom line as Science. How can somebody who has not learned Science in a formal way acquire the whole quantum of modern knowledge of Science and cite them to contradict a prestige body of knowledge like Buddhism ? Modern Science is something like the ocean and non can say Buddhism is smaller.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16724
::
Yapa finally getting around to articulating his position on whether karma, nirvana , etc. are true/real (this is just one take of his on this matter, other, contradictory takes will follow):
“Really karma and reincarnation are not “scientifically true”, but in real sense it does not imply they are “faiths”.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16846
So, karma & reincarnation are not scientifically true and they are also not faith based items, let’s see where this goes.
::
Yapa on truth:
“Most of the things people think as true are only “conventions” and “agreements”, and there is no truths in a deeper sense.”
For the full comment, & to see ones around it, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16850
::
Yapa on the subtle but important differences between Buddhist faith in unprovable matters & the less important faith that exists in other religions, also, the true intentions, as divined by Yapa, of an agnostic commenter:
“Please note that I have never expect others to accept karma/rebirth/nirvana as ‘true’. What I was objecting from the very beginning is his arbitrary labeling them as faith and equating them with the concept of God which is easily disprovable. karma/rebirth/nirvana have never been disproved.
He later accepted equating them to God as wrong but kept on labeling them as faith, deft and dumb to my repeated facts and examples.
Further, he meant a negative aspect by the word faith. If you go through the discussion you will realize it. He meant to give a negative impact to Buddhism by labeling so. That is why I vehemently opposed him. He meant business.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16860
::
Yapa on the superiority of Buddhist concepts:
“Creator god concept is is disprovable, but karma, reincarnation never been disproved. On this basis my “faith” ( I don’t accept it as faith, but as Akarawathi Shadda) is superior and SomewhatDisgusted too accepted it in the discussion)
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/25/the-transformation-of-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-8/#comment-11248
On the other hand, why should anybody hold the popular and attractive (blunt) theory that all faiths are equal? There is no apparent reason to consider so?
I have clearly shown the difference between Akarawathi Shadda and faith during the discussion. These are entirely two different concepts, but he took the advantage of the lack of the awareness of the readers on these concepts.
Do you want to know where SomewhatDisgusted accepted Buddhist concepts as superior to the concept of creator god. Please ask him, if he is honest he will show you. Otherwise tell me I will show you. Will you still think is an objective person. Wait and see you will see the ears of of an another animal coming out of the lion’s skin.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16862
::
Here is Yapa quoting science/at least one scientist as support for his position regarding faith based elements in Buddhism:
“Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“The question our good friend SomewhatDisgusted is asking is – do you accept it as FACT? or do you accept it as FAITH?”
If you are satisfied or if you gain something by my accept thing things superficially I will accept so. But my acceptance does not change the way realities are existing.
In this case you have taken only alternative to “Faith” as “Fact”, but is it really so? Isn’t there any possibility for any other alternative? For me “Akarawathi Araddha which is different from both of them is an alternative.
This is the problem of thinking based on two valued logic or Aristotelian Logic. I have dealt with these things in detail in the previous discussion.
Aristotelian logic is a middle excluded two ended logic. It can have only two alternatives. Newtonian science stuck in this, but modern science achieved major victories by coming out of this Aristotelian trap and opting to four valued logic,which had been a tradition in Sri Lanka due to the philosophy of Buddhism. I have dealt about four valued logic too in the previous discussion, with regard to the same issue and now I am repeating it. You may refer “Nagarjuna” Buddhist philosopher and Buddhist Logic in this regard. Karma, rebirth and Nirvana cannot be dealt with Newtonian logic just as it cannot deal most of the modern issues in Science. If you analyze Quantum Physics with Aristotelian logic just as you did for karma, rebirth or nirvana you will get the same results,and you will name it also as a fact. This is a case of inability of the methodology to deal the subject matter. The methodology is too weak to deal this subject matter. That is the problem here. Please please try to understand this scenario.
That is why the American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer said
“ If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say ‘no.’ The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man’s self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science.”
To see the discussion around this comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16880
::
Here’s Yapa expressing some full on religious believes, items that cannot be proven as true to a non-believer:
“Dhamma is not something relative that depends on a person like perception. Fhamma [Dhamma?] means as it is. I might not believe in the case you mentioned, but it has no effect on Dhamma. Dhamma is not some thing made by anybody. It is not even a creation of the Buddha. Even if the Buddha is not there Dhamma exists. karma/rebirth/nirvana are some Dhamma and I have no power to change them by having my birth in different places.”
For the full quote & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16926
::
Yapa on those who insist that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are faith based items:
“The main proposition of Somewhat Disgusted to me is that he wants me to blatantly accept karma/rebirth/nirvana under the blanket word of “FAITH”, Which I never accepted and will never accepted with good reasons, which I repeatedly offered to him but he turned is blind eye and deft eat for his pseudo intellectual pride and for the cheap personal advantages.
This popular, attractive,emotionally comfortable and highly marketable gross notion seems to impressed some of the people of the forum. But this is an “at the glance conclusion”. Really without disproving many of the facts presented by many people including me and others in this forum and in the forums discussed all over the world, one cannot jump over them and claim such a blanket conclusion about some very deep, wide, respected and significant concepts that have been the subject matters of the intellectual discussions all over the world for thousands of years. Such an effort of anybody would end up with the person becoming a one of the funniest clowns. That is why I have been telling ” Ignorant is the bravest”.
These things have been repeatedly mentioned by many people including me several times in the previous discussions to these people who are armed with blunt and blanket methodologies to analyze and explain any bloody thing, but went unnoticed to the blind and prejudiced eyes and minds of of these irresponsible, cynical intellectual idiots who want to break Ruwanmeli Seya to sell its bricks to earn some pocket money.”
For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16926
::
Yapa on how those who disagree with the exact value of Buddhism to Sri Lanka are “pigs”/intellectual idiots:
“Buddhism for Sri Lanka is not just a religion. It has been the way of life or life itself of the people of this country once it became a “united nation”,. with the unification of the Naga, Yaksa and immigrant tribes by accepting Buddhism as their common religion. It was Buddhism that built this nation, later to become a prompt and proud civilization with the Philosophy, vision and the guide lines of the doctrine of the great personality of Buddha.
It was Buddhism that provided and shaped the Economic model of this country with the symbol of Tank (Wewa) which is a non violent mode of earning the living based on enmity to all beings, not confining it to the humans only. It provided and shaped appropriate technology the country needed, both in material life and spiritual life of its people. They were able to build Tanks, Housing, protective walls and canals for the security of the country and dagabas with this appropriate technology. It provides, shaped and nourished our Art and Literature in a unique way. It provided our moral system, habits, rituals, values, spirituality etc..and the whole culture. Above all It provided us with an unparalleled way of thinking based on free thinking without barriers.
But unfortunate thing is pigs eat even their own legs. Gajamuthu is not value to them. Tooth Relic of Kandy is another a tooth to these cynics. Material thinking made these intellectual idiots to become so. What they can see is material consumables and blind to the underline non material realities. These people have only the material part in them, nothing else.”
For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16946
::
Yapa on how belief in karma, reincarnation, nirvana requires less blind faith than belief in God:
“Now that SomewhatDisgusted has come to “the point” as I mentioned in my post of April 9, 2010 @ 12:44 pm, I will clarify my argument about karma and reincarnation whether it is faith or not for the clarity of all including SomewhatDisgusted for them to answer to the point. (I did the same thing in the previous discussion too but SomewhatDisgusted turned his authoritative blind eye to it.)
Following are our beliefs
1. Belief on “Creator God”
2. Belief on karma and reincarnation
3. Belief on Subjects such as Social Sciences and Natural Science
All these are beliefs in the strict sense that contents of them cannot be proved.
Now that they are all beliefs are the level or degree of credibility of them are the same?
(i).I think the credibility level/degree of the 3rd of the above is high (within the human perception) and hence normally people do not call these subjects as faith.
(ii). Now the credibility level of the second:Belief on karma and reincarnation, is lesser compared to to the 3rd above. Further these “concepts” have never been disproved.
(iii). Credibility level of 1st above is very minimal or none as the concept of creator god is disprovable.
(please read:http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/25/the-transformation-of-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-8/#comment-11248)
But this credibility level of belief is popularly known as “FAITH”.
Now see the credibility levels when organized in a descending order.
3rd > 2nd >1st (= FAITH)
Now mathematically (or logically), If 2nd >1st (= FAITH), 2nd is not equal to 1st.
That is [ Belief on karma and reincarnation] is not equal to [Belief on "Creator God"(=FAITH)].
Therefore [ Belief on karma and reincarnation] is not equal to [FAITH]
That is why karma and reincarnation should not be taken as FAITH.
That is why I and Buddhists call it as “AKARAWATHI SRADDHA”, which is a higher level of credibilty of belief than FAITH.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16964
::
Here’s Yapa elevating his religious beliefs over observable facts:
“Now coming back to the central issue of Two Valued Logic and Four Valued Logic, Two Valued Logic does not contradict with Newtonian system of Knowledge, reason being the Newtonian system was really built on the base of Two Valued Logic. But Two Valued Logic and the Science based on it that is Newtonian Science CONTRADICTS in Modern System of Scientific Knowledge,(especially based on Four Valued Logic) as shown above. But they really should not be taken as contradictions as they take place in two different systems. Same way Knowledge generated in the Four Valued System seems to be contradicting in the eyes of Two Valued System, but they should not be taken as CONTRADICTIONS.
Reality is Knowledge what we are fighting for are really not truths. THEY ARE JUST CONVENTIONAL TRUTHS OR RELATIVE TRUTHS [AS MENTIONED IN BUDDHISM. (SAMMUTHI SATYA)] BASE ON A SE OF AXIOMS. EACH KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM HAS DIFFERENT AXIOMS, STILL THE TRUTHS GENERATED ARE ONLY DIFFERENT RELATIVE TRUTHS.RALLY, THE KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BASED ON HUMAN PERCEPTION CANNOT PERCEIVE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS OR THE REALTY. IN BUDDHISM ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS KNOWN AS PARAMARTHA SATHYAYA AND THE THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS ABSOLUTE TRUTH/KNOWLEDGE AND THIS WAT Y OR THE PATH IS KNOWN AS “NOBLE EIGHT FOLD PATH”.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17015
::
Yapa states that he does not think that Buddhism believes that it can significantly improve the world:
(first, my – SE – comment that gives context to Yapa’s comment to follow)
“Unfortunately, after several hundred to a couple of thousand or more years of existing & working on Earth, all the major religions have failed to fully save the world/humanity (from poverty, war, etc.). So, most likely that – making the Earth a good place to live for all humans – will happen through a combination of religious & secular work/approach.”
[comment posted by me]
Yapa’s response:
“This has never been the motto of Buddhism and also it doesn’t believe it is a possibility.”
For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17076
::
Yapa states that Buddhism may not have been invented by a human:
“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
[Religions, sets of ideas & approaches to living invented by humans] – [my statement]
Not all religions, Buddhism is an exception. [Yapa's response]”
For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17173
::
Yapa on the mysterious nature of Buddhist philosophy/views/etc:
“As I have said some time ago, Buddhism is based on FOUR VALUED LOGIC + SOMETHING.”
Go here to see this comment: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17341
::
Yapa on how nothing else but an aspect of a religion can prove the truthfulness of the same religion:
“Now I hope that I have proved that Buddhism cannot be understood through “Rationality’. It needs a different methodology. The Buddha has very well stated and explained the path to achieve its ultimate goal, that is ” NOBLE EIGHT FOLD PATH”. Those who want to realize/ experience Buddhism, may follow its prescribed paths, and nothing else.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17351
::
Yapa on coming up with a new method to make Buddhism easy-to-understand for rationalists (items placed in bold my me are very relevant to this new article):
“I honestly believe I did something important very clearly this time, which I have been dreaming for a long time. Can you remember, I offered to you that I would try to formulate a rational method to convince you about reincarnation and karma, in the previous discussion sometime back? I think that is also not impossible and I would try. These things especially will help westerners to understand Buddhist Philosophy who are more used to rationality to understand things.”
For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17370
::
Yapa on the intergalactic popularity of Buddhism:
“Buddhism is not confined to the followers on earth!”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17487
::
Yapa on coming up with a system to explain karma, reincarnation, nirvana to non-belivers (in bold since this quote is very relevant to this article):
“I think I am in the middle of a sequential process trying to explain the “KRN model” so that it is convinced to the non believers. I don’t know whether it will work out, due to various reasons. But I’ll try my best. However, to understand the final conclusion (result), one has to be aware of what I have already said and going to say in my essays, as they are interlinked. You also may have observed that I am in a somewhat systematic process. I don’t think I can do what you request in a single post. Buddha himself has said that subject of universe and karma are unthinkable. (“Loka Vishaya saha karma vishaya achinthyai”). Really what I am trying to do is something Buddha said as almost impossible. However, still I am trying to formulate a some sort of methodology.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538
::
Yapa admits that Buddhism requires at least a little bit of faith:
“Can you remember I was continuously talking about “AKARAWATHI SRADDHA”. Really,”AKARAWATHI ARADDHA” is nothing but this “initial willingness”. I think you will accept that you will never be able to learn/realize anything without this initial willingness. How do you begin anything? Buddhism demands it a prerequisite, to realize Dhamma, and demands nothing even an ounce more.”
Full quote & context here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17543
::
Yapa on observing that the dead remain dead is not reasonable (i think):
“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake and All;
“When someone dies they are, most likely, just dead – end of story – no afterlives, heavens, hells, etc.” [my/SE statement]
I think if we don’t go by reasonable opinions/fact based opinions, our discussion either will not end or will end with chaos. Mere opinion has no value or credibility. [Yapa's response]”
::
Yapa saying, basically, what the agnostics are saying – that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are matters of faith, not real things that exist in this world/not things that can be verified to be true by non-believers:
“I have invalidated your main (only?) tool: Rationality, in the contexts of knowledge seeking/mystery solving in the modern era. You have been stripped.Establish your pride/fame again if possible. I have established that transcendental things such as karma/reincarnation/nirvana cannot be realized through rationality, and hence they are not within the reach of you and you have no capacity to prove or disprove or at least to find a clue of it. this is the reason for your ignorance of them, not that they are not true/realities. Your tool is a megalithic tool to fight our modern army.I have very well established it . I challenge you to show if I am wrong and establish your pride again. Otherwise you have no say in this forum, as your “megalithic tool” has been broken into pieces.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17607
::
Yapa predicting the end of the world as we know it (and i think he is saying that Buddhism has something do with it/predicted it, or something):
“You are talking about the definitions in Wickipedia. All these definitions have been given before the modern era of Science. See most of the definitions in Science, given in any dictionary have now been out dated after the Modern Science. Modern knowledge system is a total “paradigm shift “and almost all the concepts/definitions soon will have to be re-defined. People in the Social Sciences, Humanities has no even a clue about this sea change. They are just crabs in a boiling pot. Await your extinction if you don’t crawl out of that “olden day clay pot”. Soon all of your books have to be re-written. What you have learned have been fully out dated. You will have to find new Political theories based on modern concepts developed after the modern era. You will soon see faith based western political theories such as Liberalism, will have to be thrown into dust bins. All the Social Sciences will have to be re defined soon. I think all those things will happen during our life time. Already the heat waves of modern science have been felt in the field of Technology. All the subject areas will have to undergo this sea change. When that happens keep in mind the dictionary you are quoting “dogmas” will have no place even in the dust bin as all the subjects you consider so valuable will fill the dustbins not allowing space to any thing else. Keep in mind your dictionary is “doomed”.The cycle of “Asta Loka Dharma” is spinning even though you have no knowledge of it. You cannot stop turning it. Quickly get out of the pot.
(Take it serious. I am not joking or telling a fairy tale. Ask somebody who has a knowledge in Modern Science. Otherwise search the web, if you don’t have the backward attitude “I cannot understand them”. I have given you a link. Here it is again, I am giving it in compassion to you. It is a life line for you, you outdated lot.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/)”
For the full comment, go here:
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17611
::
Yapa expresses his hatred of agnostics:
“Agnosticism is nothing but another ugly face of consummation [consumerism]. They are not satisfied just eating material consumables. Now these greedy pigs want to eat even sacred religions cutting them into pieces with their dirty folks and spoons.”
Full comment & context here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17640
::
Here Yapa expresses his belief that the agnostics are “ignorant agents of capitalism”, etc:
“Dear All;
These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners. They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.
Oh! God!, Please forgive these ignorant men(women????) as they don’t know what they are doing.
Thanks!”
::
Yapa hinting that he may produce a scientific paper on proving karma, reincarnation, nirvana if he was confident that the agnostics could understand it:
“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
“By the way, how is that scientific poof paper for karma, reincarnation, nirvana coming?”
………..” [a question posed by me]
[the following is Yapa's response]
When you guys don’t understand (or pretending to be so) what I say in plain language and do not reply a single post of mine critically, what is the use even if I produce such a paper?
I give a promise. Please critically analyze my responses I have posted. If you show your ability understand them I will definitely undertake to produce the paper you are so eagerly demanding. I warn that the paper definitely would be harder than what I have already produced. Therefore,please show your capability to understand. (Either you can make “Science Expert General” of your camp answer them)
I ALWAYS KEEP MY PROMISES.
Thanks! [above is Yapa's response]
::
Yapa on why Buddhism is superior to other religions & why Sri Lankans must fight to protect it, and at the same time proposes that blind faith in Buddhism is reasonable:
“Now you can see all other three religions except the Buddhism are based on faith of a Creator God, which is easily disproved by many simple methods. That means if we objectively consider, all three religions mentioned above can be rejected as myths. In the event of this, if we keep aside the minor religions away the Buddhism is the only religion one can have some faith on, even without going in to the details of it. In the event one can reasonably understand to what extent a person with sound knowledge of Buddhism can believe Buddhism. Same way anybody can more reasonably understand what a belief and respect must be having with a group of people living in Buddhism for about 2500 years. It is a treasure for them. Anybody can understand why anybody would fight to protect his treasure. Those who don’t have a treasure, have no reason to fear or fight.
We must protect our treasure for the future generations and for the benefit of the whole world. It is our inalienable duty. There is no parallel religion.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17959
::
Here Yapa seems to express his belief that “modern science” can explain “unresolved mysteries of the world” (i assume mysteries such as karma, etc.):
“I have been telling from the very beginning that Newtonian Science is outdated and the thinking based on it cannot be used to resolved the “unresolved mysteries” of the world, and its place now has taken by the Modern Science. I have explained this in many ways.”
For the rest of the comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17982
::
Here Yapa state’s that he believes that Buddhism offers absolute truth about the universe, existence, etc:
Dear All;
Considering the Discussion so far held it can be easily arrived at following provisional conclusions.
A possibility of achieving (absolute) reality/truth seems to confine to the following subject areas found in the present. (Possibilities of other subject areas can be easily disproved.)
1. Buddhist Philosophy (Buddhism)
2. Modern Science
3. Philosophy
All other subject areas are based on human desires to achieve something and only human based on human centered knowledge that is nothing to do with Universal reality/truth. These tings I have shown in many ways and proved that humans’ main tool of knowledge: Rationality is incapable of achieving reality. Further, Theorem of Kurt Gödel found in Modern Science reiterated my position. (Heshan has raised a doubt about the universal validity of Theorem of Kurt Gödel; I will deal this matter separately)
Philosophy in its definition is dedicated to find reality/truth and has produced some positive result towards this end.
Modern Science has contributed immensely in this respect, especially irradiating popular opinions /dogmas that had been created by Newtonian Science.
When contemplating deep in to Buddhist Philosophy, one can easily see that it deals with finding absolute truth/reality.
In my view, Philosophy and Modern Science are in the way towards achieving this end through two different paths and the Buddhism has achieved this end 2500 years ago through its “fuzzy Logic”, which only now Modern Science has started to touch. In my view, if Modern Science and Philosophy some day achieve their pinnacle, they will end up their journey with Buddhism.
In view of above, it is really sensible somebody searching absolute reality/truth to inclined towards Buddhism or else at least towards Modern Science or Philosophy. Any other effort is no more fruitful than expecting an intelligent child from a barren woman. May all your attention be drawn into this reality.”
See the comment here:
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18033
So, to me, it appears that Yapa is claiming 1) Buddhism expresses the absolute truth about the universe 2500 years ago & continues to do so, & 2) that modern science is compatible with this universal truth that Buddhism is expressing.
Thus, we ask Yapa to show how modern science supports the existence of core items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana in Buddhism – how those items are an actual part of this universe as opposed to being speculative elements in an ancient religion. And, as we have seen from all of Yapa’s comments above & below, no such proof is given by Yapa or any other believer – their main argument seems to be that some items in Buddhism sound similar to some items in modern/quantum sciences & thus Buddhism must be true/has the absolute truth.
::
Here Yapa argues that even though God based religions should be separated from government, Buddhism should not be (in effect, perhaps I assume Yapa believes that Buddhism is the absolute truth, not myth/faith based as the other world religions are, even though Buddhism is clearly as much a religion with speculative elements as the other religions):
“Now can you remember you agreed in a previous discussion that God based religions in Europe were constant battle with state for supremacy. Ultimately state won over the church and determined to keep aside the threat for ever. This one of the reasons why states decided to separate religion from politics in the west. Another reason is that with the revival of Science, the beliefs in such religions seemed to be contradictory. Now actually we know that such religions are disproved and considered as myths.
It is very correct myth to be separated from Politics, Not only from Politics but from any thing else too. It is a great service to the whole man kind to liberate them from myth.
How can you as a parrot say that just because myth is separated from Politics that truth also should be separated from Politics. Such things can be said only by brainless imitators who dance to the tunes of their western masters for a morsel of food.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18066
::
Here Yapa finally admits that not even modern science can show that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real:
“There is no use of engage in endless discussion on karma/reincarnation/nirvana which are proven even with modern science to be unachievable (The Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel).”
Read the full comment here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18069
However, he went on to ignore his own findings a little later on continued to act out of his belief that the existence of those items in Buddhism, & the Buddhist world view in general, are undisputed truths/absolute truths (at least that’s what i gathered from his comments to follow)
::
And now, for a little bit of amusement, SomewhatDisgusted responds to a story told by Yapa:
“Somehow you have an uncanny ability to show others, even through your little parables, that kamma/rebirth/nirvana are just way off the mark. That crane in your parable asked the only pertinent question: where the heck are the crabs? I mean, what good is a gold pond to a crane? The story behind Buddhism is the same isn’t it? You describe all these Nirvanas, and Kammas and Rebirths and Suffering but what good are these if they don’t exist and people prefer to be reborn anyway?”
Get the full story here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18258
::
Back to “serious” work – here Yapa equates non-believers who ask difficult questions from Buddhism to animals:
“Do you think The Buddha preached his doctrines keeping in his mind that a fool after 2500 years would ask foolish questions and as answers to them? Really, NO. Buddhism has no answers to your questions. People corrupted with consumerism think that even Buddhism should be made to cater for their needs. There is no value for these people if it is not consumable. Animals cannot think beyond this limit. That is the difference between animals and humans. Humans have the capability to think against their likings when necessary. The people who are corrupted with consumerism are not different from animals.”
Fro the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18260
::
Any questions?
Let me know.
- S
Hello All,
Now that more context has been provided (i just posted up/submitted eleven pages of Yapa quotes related to the discussion here, they should appear before this comment), I can get back to replying to everyone’s comments in order in which they were received. It may take some time to get to everyone’s relevant posts, but, they will be gotten to in time (mostly on weekends). In the meantime, I am sure the other agnostics will deal with urgent questions as time permits. Thanks.
- S
OTC,
RE:
“If you cannot rise to that challenge then your tool is too puny to dissect Buddhism. Period.”
So, basically, if no tool exists that can show that Buddhism is either true or false, then it is not a matter of great concern to people who are primarily concerned with true/actual things. Buddhism is a private matter – such as a hobby, etc. – just a religion – made up of many things including speculative/most likely non-existent items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana. Thus, Buddhism cannot be demonstrated to be an absolute truth. Thus, since it is mostly a made up thing (most likely), and the processes described in Buddhism have no real effect on the real world, actual people, it can be ignored, generally, by the state or by any non-beliver or a different beliver (someone who believes in something else other than Buddhism).
Anyway, let’s see if I can clarify your own self-defeating stance to you using the model of a symbolic conversation:
You say “I have an invisible car, give me $10,000 for it, and I’ll give it to you”
I say “show me your invisible car first, I don’t think it exists”
To which you say “show me that my invisible car does not exist”
To which I say “you are the one who wants the possible trade of $10K for an invisible car to be taken seriously, so, you need to prove that the invisible car does in fact exist”
To which you say “the invisible car does exist, but the methods by which we can verify its existence are not well developed enough at the moment, but, take my word for it, the invisible car is real”
Then we go ’round & ’round, repeating the same statements in different forms. Ultimately, I come to the conclusion that you do not have an invisible car & I keep my $10K, laugh, & walk off.
The invisible car is Buddism, or the karma, reincarnation, nirvana concepts that Buddhists believe are real aspects of this world.
The $10K is support for Buddhism asked by those who use Buddhism to accomplish certain objectives in this world, support requested by believers & non-belivers.
Hope you can follow the above example, if not, let me know, I’ll try to find an even simpler way to explain the absurdity of your position.
- S
Dear Sujewa,
I joined this thread with the following two posts posing a counter Challenge to the Agnostics to prove that Science is a Mature Tool that could be used to analyse Buddhist Philosophy (May 7, 2010 @ 8:27 pm and May 8, 2010 @ 12:56 am)
Your post May 8, 2010 @ 8:26 am, makes the following comment about those posts
“I see that OTC is using his acupuncture (sp?) defense again & that Wijayapala (& OTC) are fully ignoring that fact that Yapa said that ……
I have responded to that inaccurate and misleading claim with my post of May 8, 2010 @ 3:17 pm.
Then you went on a Star Wars Fantasy completely avoiding the Counter Challenge to the Agnostics to prove the Appropriateness of Science to investigate Buddhism in the face of Science’s failures pointed out in my first two posts.
I pointed out that we were responding to your own words by posting an extract from your article above and referred you again to the Science Challenge that you are avoiding (my post of May 8, 2010 @ 3:17 pm)
I addressed a post to Yapa on May 8, 2010 @ 5:24 pm and you selected ONE LINE to make a comment in your post of May 8, 2010 @ 8:51 pm.
This is the line you selected
“Sujewa’s response was either a cunning attempt at escaping the thrust of my argument, a Hudini Act or just plain ignorance.”
Did you find the rest of its contents unquestionable and hence accepted as accurate?
Did it Sound Good?
Extract
Sujewa’s response was either a cunning attempt at escaping the thrust of my argument, a Hudini Act or just plain ignorance.
He has forgotten that I was writing about Real World Phenomena that is backed by the recognition given them by the WHO (UN body) and The declassified Stargate documentation of the US Govt.
The poor guy has confused “Stargate” with “Star wars”. Probably due to his self professed film making bent.
End Extract
You see Sujewa, you are trying to play Hide and Seek. I have not avoided anything but you are avoiding every direct question that you don’t have answers to.
Sounds Good?
Now please tell us that you did not write that passage about the Science challenge in your article above, which is the one I referred to in my posts. What has Yapa got to do with it?
How about an answer to my Counter Challenge?
Prove that Science is an AUTHORITATIVE tool in the field of Philosophy.
You wrote
“Since you are avoiding the question posed by the article, I assume that you agree that karma, reincarnation, nirvana cannot be proven as true to a non-beliver. Sounds good – & keep that in mind the next time you try to talk about Buddhism as an absolute truth, the undisputed/universal truth, etc.”
You see Sujewa your DISHONESTY has no bounds.
The above is in response to yours of May 8, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“Or, because karma, reincarnation, nirvana are completely fictional devices.”
Are you the omnipotent + omnipresent God to give “wholesale judgments”?
Please get your brain checked.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? ”
I have never said so. You are a deliberate liar. ( may be due to your utmost desperation)
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“And, in my next post, I’ll try to give some of your direct quotes where you state your belief that karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proven through modern science, math, & other methods. Stay tuned.”
I am anxiously looking forward with 2X-.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala
PART2 – REPLY IRRELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND
—————————
You said: “***as I was never taught nor have I ever learned on my own that Buddhists are supposed to ignore the suffering and misfortune of others, or that Buddhists should look down on people because of their kamma.***”
No. This is a strawman. The Buddha was an extremely compassionate individual. I’ve always expressed my admiration for the *real* Buddhist system of ethics, which you were happy to sacrifice for its “preservation”. You know very well I used a rhetorical device to confront you with an implication of the idea (as you often do also), which is already prevalent with popular Buddhist notions in SL.
That bit of reasoning was a mere follow through of the idea that someone’s kamma in this life is what will cause the person suffering in the next. True, the Buddha said that being meritorious towards these other individuals is essential but the reason those individuals suffer more is because of their bad kamma in past lives, apart from the fact that “life sucks anyway”. Therefore, you must be compassionate and realize that the same will befall you if you do not engage in good deeds yourself. I can demonstrate this with your own statement – tell me, why are you saying there is no reason to be virtuous without Samsara?
You said: “If I were in your place, I wouldn’t worry about any of these effects as everything would end with death”
There is nothing to prevent someone from thinking this, indeed as you seem to be. But appeal to consequences is not a rational argument for the truth value of something, including KRN.
Secondly, there is ample reason to think so, even though it looks it looks like you cannot comprehend why not to gravitate towards sin without the bogeyman of KRN
First, such a concept could come even from, guess what! the theory of selfishness – You do your best to enjoy your life even at the expense of others. However, others will do their best to enjoy theirs, even at the expense of yours. Therefore, a logical consequence of this is that you play fair by others, if for nothing but your own interest – i.e. do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Or else, a system of ethics could arise innately, as evidenced by the theory of reciprocal altruism. For many, the right thing to do is self-evident!
In any case, you would be implying that other cultures are inherently less virtuous that a Buddhist one, since they don’t believe in samsara! Are you implying that? If not, what is your point?
Also, are you virtuous only out of a fear of rebirth? You have said no, but then, why are you virtuous? If you say it’s not due to fear of KRN, I guess you already have the answer.
Personally, fear of retribution from KRN is a pretty pathetic reason to be virtuous, and although you agreed to that and I’ve already answered this question, you keep citing the same argument! (I can even cite the post) Why? Are you listening to what’s being said or are you clutching at straws, a la Yapa?
You said: “We all know that secular agnostics never rely on such unscientific, irrational things like intuition or faith and are beings of pure reason.”
Wow, the use of a clever, sarcastic, rhetorical device, except it’s nonsensical.
At no point did I suggest that human beings are inherently rational. I fully acknowledge my own limitations. In fact, I both trust and distrust my own intuition at the same time, because there is ample reason to believe, as Haidt’s book emphasizes, that we do indeed rationalize decisions afterwards. It is precisely because of this that we must compensate for our own cognitive biases.
That’s also why science emphasizes evidence. Personal revelation is *no basis* on which to establish a shared reality. How would you believe or not believe a person who has had a personal revelation of god? So this argument is just a pointless ad-hominem which has been repeatedly debunked.
You said: “the answers he generally gave to these kinds of questions gave the impression that he wasn’t interested in simple existence as compared with samsara, a condition which you do not accept (based on your faith).”
It is a necessary implication, otherwise, how could you advocate to others that escaping samsara is the main thing and the goal should be to aim for extinction? Why would you try unless you know for sure that Dukha is the most important characteristic of life and the rest of it is essentially pointless? Think about the implications man (BalangodaMan already highlighted the Buddha’s omniscience issue). It’s clear that the “devout Buddhists” really haven’t, because BalangodaMan also highlighted a lot of issues that a society really believing in KRN would be confronted with. You have not acknowledged a single one of them while accusing us of not engaging with your irrelevant diatribes, all of which in fact have been repeatedly addressed. The funny thing is, I think you honestly believe we are evading the questions while you are answering them. Religulous you say?
You said: “I already explained that Siddhartha Gautama clearly did not invoke any kind of faith to become a Buddha”
Thank you for that strange piece of logic. The Buddha said he discovered KRN and he did not require faith. I can’t cite a single convincing reason as to why I believe in KRN but I believe in the Buddha. Therefore I do not require faith?
“Sigh.. as usual, you aren’t able to compute! I didn’t ask whether the Sinhala Buddhists are the “single most powerful entity in SL” but how they came to be.”
By breeding I suppose?
“Instead of simply name-dropping, why don’t you list the arguments in favor of your position (here, that Hitler was a practicing Catholic)?”
We are not discussing Hitler, but if you like, you are welcome to read Dawkins’ own arguments in the God Delusion. I will address the issue further below.
“…implying that secular rationalists do not fight, kill, or murder people the way religious people do. I demonstrated that they most certainly do, in the name of “secular rationalist” belief systems like Naziism and Leninism-Stalinism.”
Religulous! The implication was that religion easily gives you a reason to kill, in defense of a set of convictions which are not *necessarily* true. Secular rationalism is an absence of belief in a particular deity. They may have various beliefs of their own. But they have no reason to get together and fight. In the name of what? That’s why I said getting them together would be like herding cats. That does not mean that there are no evil individuals, like Stalin, who do not believe in a god but had their own irrational convictions. And that is the problem isn’t it? Absolute conviction in a concept that cannot be reasonably demonstrated to hold true . It’s true of Hitler, it’s true of Stalin and it’s true of the religious brigade.
“I entirely agree with your statement that your intentions/beliefs do not matter. But is the rest of your above statement Tool #3 at work again?”
And I hope you will agree your beliefs do not matter either. Which is why ones beliefs are best kept to oneself without imposing them on others. Consequently, you are also duty-bound to stop people from forcing a belief system on others, as Mr. Yapa is doing. You cannot make the same argument for the agnostic brigade, because there is no belief to speak of, and we are more than happy to let each person hang on to whatever belief they so wish, as long as others are left alone.
“Uh, how are those two statements contradictory, and more importantly how did YOU resolve those contradictions?”
Because that did not involve some unverifiable construct such as KRN that people generally do not know to exist in this world and cannot be reasonably demonstrated to others to hold true. Dukha can be reasonably seen and observed and it is already a part of our shared reality. It is an earthly concept, not some supernatural concept. Are you denying this?
Yapa,
RE:
“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? ”
I have never said so. You are a deliberate liar. ( may be due to your utmost desperation)
Thanks!”
Here’s your quote where you expresses your belief that the agnostics are “ignorant agents of capitalism”, etc:
“Dear All;
These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners. They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.
Oh! God!, Please forgive these ignorant men(women????) as they don’t know what they are doing.
Thanks!”
I compiled & submitted 11 pages of Yapa quotes to this discussion, post has not shown up yet on the page, hopefully it will (unless, due to length, it can’t make it though, in that case I will have to post the material at my New SL Agnostics blog).
- S
OTC,
RE: “I joined this thread with the following two posts posing a counter Challenge to the Agnostics to prove that Science is a Mature Tool that could be used to analyse Buddhist Philosophy (May 7, 2010 @ 8:27 pm and May 8, 2010 @ 12:56 am)…”
Keep talking in your nonsensical circular arguments.
If you do not understand what I am saying, go back up & read my invisible car analogy (sp?) from a few posts above.
However, if you do find some way for non-believers to verify karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana as being real things that exist in this world & not just speculative religious items, let us know.
In the meantime, I will be reading & responding to other comments.
Of course, feel free to interpert this comment as whatever you wish – evasion, lack of precision in the tool of science to discredit Buddhism or whatever other favorite nonsensical sayings of yours that you keep repeating. Or better yet, cut & paste several more pages of so called “scientific proof” for rebirth material that you clogged up the last discussion with.
But, all that meaningless noise aside, your answer to the question posted by this article is obvious, you have no way of proving that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real things that exist in this world. Thus you are down to accusing me of dishonesty, blah, blah – great, or, should I say – sounds good
Good luck with your deep faith in speculative & most likely non-existent (sp?) things.
- S
OTC,
One last item,
RE:
“How about an answer to my Counter Challenge?
Prove that Science is an AUTHORITATIVE tool in the field of Philosophy.”
Since you are unable to follow this conversation/debate clearly for some unknown reason, let me see if I can simplify the nature of this discussion for you:
1. Believers express the notion that Buddhism is or contains absolute truths, universal truths, & are thus (my interpertation), naturally, significant for & should be of concern for all humans
2. I & other agnostics posed the challenge that Buddhism is not an absolute/universal truth, is only merely a local religion (with a lot of followers world wide), & the truths expressed in Buddhism are religious truths, not to be confused with actual truths/common truths/real things that actually exist in the world
3. The believers continue to repeat their/your position that Buddhism is something more than a faith based religion
4. So the agnostics ask for proof – show us how karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana – 3 key elements in Buddhism – are real things that exist in this world/universe & affect humans
5. Unable to do so, you evade admitting the truth of the situation by asking me to either disprove the existence of KRN or show how science is capable of proving or disproving KRN
6. At this point, I had to use the symbolic situation involving the invisible car to attempt to illustrate the pointlessness of your current position
7. Unable to grasp the fact that you in fact deeply believe in speculative items that exist in a religion & that there is no way to prove to a non-believer that those items are real & not speculative, you keep asking me to show you how science can or cannot prove Buddhism – and that’s where we are now
Hopefully you can follow all that. If not, there is no hope in attempting to make you understand that it is impossible to prove the existence of speculative items as a part of the real world, with those items affecting real people, etc. You may be too blinded by your faith & your love of speculative items in a religion & your deep desire to experience Buddhism as the ultimate & universal truth (all that, on an individual/personal level is not necessarily a bad thing, we all need ways to cope with existence, but, does become a problem when blind faith motivates the belivers to declare that what they believe are univeral & absolute truths, & that’s how you & I ended up in this conversation).
Sounds good?
I’ll leave you with a couple of quotes that may be useful for your spiritual & intellectual development:
“Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand.”
- Baruch Spinoza
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
- attributed to Seneca the Younger, Roman philosopher
(and hopefully this one you may be familiar with)
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
- attributed to the Buddha
- S
Dear Sujewa,
So you have no Argument to defend your pompous claim of Science’s Abilities Viz a Philosophy such as Buddhism?
Have you been writing RUBBISH in the Synopsis you presented in this Article to GV?
Please don’t undress in public Sujewa, your Rationality stands exposed.
Science does not know whether Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana exists or not. That’s the plain truth and that’s what Science says, regardless of your personal opinion.
The car that you wanted to use to race against Buddhist Philosophy has got 4 flat tires and you have got stranded. But please continue with you writing.
“So, basically, if no tool exists that can show that Buddhism is either true or false, then it is not a matter of great concern to people who are primarily concerned with true/actual things.”
Why are you back peddling?
Why the IF?
Have you lost confidence in that All Powerful Scientific tool so soon?
Come on Sujewa, don’t let that exuberance fizzle out like a stale soda bottle.
Please try your hand at proving that Science is Mature enough to Challenge the Core Teachings of the Buddha. You selected the tool anyway.
“Buddhism ….. including speculative/most likely non-existent items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana. Thus, Buddhism cannot be demonstrated to be an absolute truth.”
Wow, where Science has Failed the PONTIFF has spoken.
(the above refers to your May 9, 2010 @ 3:06 am post)
See Sujeewa, you’re a man of faith to me. Faith in what you perceive as “agnosticism”. Having faith in non believing is also a faith to me far as I am concerned and when they get organised it actually scares me much as religious folk who have deep faiths in spiritual mumbo jumbo.
Alright I won’t even go and tag my self as an agnostic if I am going to put my self in your camp. I am just going to say I am a “skeptic” and leave it there. I shall remain skeptic until the day someone convince me any of the stuff in any scriptures other than the common sense stuff that are just good advice is indeed fact or truthful.
Far as the faithful are concerned, I respect them to a degree for that they see something and believe in something I fail to see or feel. But I lose that respect when they don’t constrain that faith to their private life. Anyway I know better than to argue with religious people, including “faithful agnostics”. Belief beats reason unfairly and that’s a fact of life..
BalangodaMan, my biggest stumbling point is how can I challenged what others perceive as the absolute divine truth when I don’t know the whole truth? Sure it sounds very fishy what they say and science cannot explain it but I don’t have a solid wall to hold my back on either. Because my scripture science has holes init too. Therefore I am uncomfortable taking an absolute moral higher ground over them even though they sound like “crazier” people. Many aspects of the universe are still unexplained. As a skeptic I have a sort of understanding what I think is probably the case with limited scientific evidence. That’s all I have. Where as the Atheist believes that there is no god as an absolute truth and he/she has a foundation that matches of which the god believers and provides a framework for argument.
And wijyapala, I am glad that was humorous to you. I was born a Buddhist and I do go to the temple occasionally to keep please my grand mother. She is frail and I take pleasure in taking her to the temple. I probably will stop after she’s passed away one day as far away as possible. I just don’t have the heart to hurt her feelings and that’s probably covertly Buddhist as I get.
Oh and I have no intentions of confessing my ample sins nor seeking forgiveness or salvation. I embrace the day I can have a painless, peaceful death (maybe asking for too much) and find out for my self what really is on the other side if anything at all. I just don’t trust what the prophets have to say…
I probably should not have butt in at all, it’s just I couldn’t bare to see agnosticism taken for a ride. I always thought agnostics like my self were self confessed fence sitters but apparently not going by the demographic here. Anyway Good luck to you all in this fierce conversation
I sort of admire rather fascinating all of yours convictions in this subject area. Because it’s an area I have no feeling for and never could develop any interest even when I tried.
OTC,
Re: “So you have no Argument to defend your pompous claim of Science’s Abilities Viz a Philosophy such as Buddhism?… (& that whole post)”
More meaningless noise. Continue on with your hard core faith in things that most likely do not exist (& continue to waste your reason, energy, & time).
See my previous comment to you re: this.
In addition, if all your useful/coherent thoughts boil down to you saying that karma, reincarnation or rebirth, nirvana cannot be proven by science – or any other means (something that I’ve always said but you keep ignoring & focusing on the science aspect only), then, looks like you agree with agnostics, so, congradulations.
But let me also interpert for you what not being able to prove as real (or prove that it exists) also means – it also means that the core concepts in Buddhism are most likely fictional – yes, as fictional as Star Wars (the movie) or the invisible car I mentioned or the Easter Bunny. Have fun defending non-existent things as undisputed truths.
Also, re: using Buddhist knowledge to argue with blind believers; Buddhism, like all other human creative products, is, well, a human creative product – thus, it belongs to all humans (unfortunately for you, Sri Lankans can’t “own” Buddhism as their/our possession only), thus, any aspect of it can be used by any human – believer or non-beliver or part-time believer – that’s my view. I am sure it is far different than your militant (intellectually) separatist view that comes with being a hard core/blind believer in SL Buddhism – the so-called undisputed truth
- S
Dear Observer,
Not at all. You are opinion is most welcome and I quite agree with it. However, I think you’re commenting while not understanding the context and background of this thread.
It has been repeatedly acknowledged that there is no challenge from the “agnostics” or “secular rationalists” or “secular humanists” or whatever label you wish to call us, which is irrelevant, that we have *no problem whatsoever with people believing whatever*. Why? Because we don’t know either. Q1: Does that fit in with your stance on agnosticism?
The problem is not with that. Claims have been made of knowing absolute truths and that Buddhism = truth therefore the Sri Lankan state and Buddhism are inseparable. In other words, Sri Lanka no longer needs to be a secular country.
If that is the case, Q2: Is it unreasonable to request that it be demonstrated why Buddhism is an absolute truth and how the believers know this?
Also, Q3: Do you agree, as an “agnostic”, that the Sri Lankan state no longer needs to be secular and Buddhism should be made the official religion?
Q4: In any case, what do you consider to be the fair thing to do in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country?
Please let us know your stance on these 4 questions and indicate whether you consider our position unreasonable.
cheers,
/SD
To everyone just joining this conversation (which is over 1000 comments long in the previous Akon & Buddhism article),
Check out my comment above called The Quotable Yapa:
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/comment-page-2/#comment-18558
This article (& much of the comments by the non-believers in the Akon & Buddhism article) exist due to the flat out insanity expressed by the believer Yapa (who seems to believe that Buddhism is the most important human creative/intellectual invention, & then also says it was not even invented by a human, & also says that Buddhism is popular in other planets, & at times says that modern science supports ideas in Buddhism & at other times says modern science cannot prove or disprove Buddhism, & when I asked him to prove the existence of karma, reincarnation, nirvana using ANY AVAILABLE MEANS – common sense, observations, modern science or math, etc., & at times saying that such proof is coming Yapa still has not provided any way that a non-believer can verify the existence of those speculative Buddhist ideas in the real world/how those ideas affect the real world.). Then, quite often, in the previous thread, after Yapa & other believers coming close to lightly admitting that Buddhism is merely a religion, they, few posts later, contiune to argue for it as it were a fact, an undisputed truth, a universal truth, etc. So, this article seeks to bring the believers back to the central question – is Buddhism a religion or is it the absolute truth/the universal truth (implication being, if it is merely a religion than it can be separated from the State in SL & elsewhere, but if it is the absolute truth about the way the world/universe works than it cannot/should not be separated from government).
- S
Hi Observer,
RE: “See Sujeewa, you’re a man of faith to me. Faith in what you perceive as “agnosticism”. Having faith in non believing is also a faith to me far as I am concerned and when they get organised it actually scares me much as religious folk who have deep faiths in spiritual mumbo jumbo.”
I do believe that humans are able to work out our problems without having to rely on most likely non-existant (not active or not a part of the real world, just intellectual items that exist in religious thought) devices such as karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana, gods, hells, heavens, etc.
The ultimate goal (or what I would like to see happen on this planet) is not merely the non-believers* organizing ourselves in order to accomplish goals that we think are important (separation of religions & states, freedom of thought world wide, freedom of expression world wide, freedom of religion or freedom from religion world wide, an end to hunger, homelessness, poverty, etc.), but non-believers, believers & others working together to turn this planet into the paradise that it can easily (w/ the right number of people & effort involved) become.
* also, there is a difference between mere agnostics and atheists and positively motivated agnostics & atheists – by positively motivated I mean people who are interested in making things better in this world and are active in doing so via whatever methods available to them. So, a more accurate term for the kind of people I am speaking of, myslef included, would be Positive Humans (as this group also includes believers, not just agnostics). However, for this discussion with hard core/blind believers of SL Buddhism & since the Positive Human label is not yet well known, agnostics or non-believers is the most useful label for the camp that is skeptical of the grand speculative claims made by Buddhism.
But, some of us are in the middle of building a new way to interact with this world, and agnosticism is a starting point, one aspect of that new method.
So, don’t worry, most people on the planet at the moment would probably agree with your definition of agnosticism
Also, the idea that humans should be able to work out our own problems without having to rely on gods or other speculative devices was probably/most likely introduced to me via SL Buddhism.
Anyway, I am totally cool with all religions – as long as they do not do harm to people, & as long as they realize that any one branch of human knowledge is, at best, only relevant to just one area of human existence, and thus religion is not all/not everything, and should not be wed to the state & forced on non-believers & people who cannot or have not chosen a religious identity & may not want to choose a religious identity. I am however very cool with secular & useful laws, etc. that may have religious origins (since religious ideas have an even earlier basic human need or desire origins or are otherwise products of human creativity).
As the world continues to deal with problems caused by organized religions, specially ones that do not tolerate dissent (more a problem in the Islamic world than in the Buddhist countries I think), I am sure more and more non-believers will become organized & active in order to save themselves & their secular/open societies (or to liberate their societies from religious oppression) from the control of just one religion or several religions.
- S
Observer,
RE: the following:
“BalangodaMan, my biggest stumbling point is how can I challenged what others perceive as the absolute divine truth when I don’t know the whole truth? Sure it sounds very fishy what they say and science cannot explain it but I don’t have a solid wall to hold my back on either. Because my scripture science has holes init too. Therefore I am uncomfortable taking an absolute moral higher ground over them even though they sound like “crazier” people. Many aspects of the universe are still unexplained. As a skeptic I have a sort of understanding what I think is probably the case with limited scientific evidence. That’s all I have. Where as the Atheist believes that there is no god as an absolute truth and he/she has a foundation that matches of which the god believers and provides a framework for argument.”
There is another way to look at this whole situation. In my view, both the religious ideas & atheist ideas & all other ideas for that matter are human creative/intellectual products. Some become useful for some projects, & others become useful for other projects. Thus, a good situation/set up to support is the creation or maintanance of a space/physical space/community, nation, world, etc. where there is freedom of thought and expression, freeodom of religion – including freedom from religion, & most importantly, where the believers & non-believers tackle problems that affect everyone & attemp to solve those problems. So, merely agreeing or disagreeing with believers or non-believers of various variety is not enough, active participation in making the world a better place (which I am sure you do to the best of your ability at the moment – taking care of your grandmother, paying attention to debates re: religion/freedom from religion matters, etc.) would be the better way to go (in my opinion). Both religions and a body of knowledge that opposes religions are tools, the work, for positively motivated humans is solving the problems (or attempting to do so) that affect all humans. Or, ultimately what matters is not who is right, but that the work that needed to get done got done.
- S
Dear Sujewa,
“One of the challenges put forth by The Agnostics camp (myself, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan, with help from Heshan) to The Believers (Yapa, Wijayapala, Off The Cuff, etc.) ……… is: prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.
That Sujewa was extracted from the FIRST paragraph of your article under discussion.
“Keep talking in your nonsensical circular arguments.”
When you don’t have Facts to meet an argument try rhetoric.
Your statement applies perfectly to you, as you are struggling to even disprove my claim that the Buddha could “SEE” events Hundreds of miles removed from where he was located, using his MIND, “Remote Viewing” as it was called by the US Military’s Stargate project.
Does not Sound Good Huh?
Evidence – Similar abilities displayed by some gifted Human beings as documented by The US Governments declassified “Stargate” Documents.
Waiting to see how you negate the above with your Puny Tools of modern science or math or any other verifiable method available.
The events described by me are Facts so don’t try to confuse Stargate with the Celluloid Fiction (your Forte) of “Star Wars”, the smoke screen you tried to pull, in order to avoid the Challenge. If you are contesting that those events are not Facts, PROVE IT
The Non Believers / Agnostics can use any hard-to-understand math or science, or even just common sense – and show how the events documented in the Stargate project that Some Gifted Humans performed, could not have been performed or that it’s some Hocus Pocus perpetrated by the US intelligence services (part of the wording is copied straight off of your article).
Sounds Good, right?
Here is the chance to do your stock “Escape Artist act”. Claim that you will believe it ONLY if you experience it.
OTC,
Your somewhat comical challenges & counter-challenges are very easy for an agnostic or a free thinker to deal with. Observe:
RE:
“Dear Sujewa,
“[One of the challenges put forth by The Agnostics camp (myself, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan, with help from Heshan) to The Believers (Yapa, Wijayapala, Off The Cuff, etc.) ……… is: prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.]
That Sujewa was extracted from the FIRST paragraph of your article under discussion.”
Sounds good, looks familiar.
[“Keep talking in your nonsensical circular arguments.” ]
“When you don’t have Facts to meet an argument try rhetoric.”
OK, still waiting to get to the point, perhaps it is in the next paragraph.
“Your statement applies perfectly to you, as you are struggling to even disprove my claim that the Buddha could “SEE” events Hundreds of miles removed from where he was located, using his MIND, “Remote Viewing” as it was called by the US Military’s Stargate project.”
That claim does not need to be disproven as it has not been positively proven. There are many miraculous (sp?) abilities attributed to the Buddha (that floating in the air, breathing fire & water trick, etc.). And, perhaps remote viewing is possible, who knows, I do not have access to US military research documents. However, special human abilites does not prove that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana in Buddhism are real aspects of this world.
“Does not Sound Good Huh?”
Sounds fine for my project, which is assisting with expanding freedom of thought, expression, freedom of religion & freedom from religion, in SL & elsewhere.
“Evidence – Similar abilities displayed by some gifted Human beings as documented by The US Governments declassified “Stargate” Documents.”
Great, if I ever get a chance to read the actual US gov docs, will check ‘em out, might be a fun read.
“Waiting to see how you negate the above with your Puny Tools of modern science or math or any other verifiable method available.”
OTC, clearly logic is not your area of expertise – are you attempting to prove the weakness of science by citing the existence of a controlled experiment (i assume) carried out by a branch of the modern US gov? Go back to the top of this page & see if I said the Buddhist believers need to prove how remote viewing works. Stick to the question at hand & admit when it is pointless to argue beyond a certain point when no new insight can be gained by continuing the conversation. Here’s how this argument has ended in the past, will end now, & will end in the future: it is impossible to demonstrate karma (the type that influences re-birth), reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana as being real aspects of this world because those items are most likely speculative & fictional devices – created & used by Buddhism to teach a way to perceive human existence, to give it a certain meaning, and to ensure that people stay on a certain path. They are intellectual devices, not things that exist in the outside world or that actually affect real people (as far as I can tell).
“The events described by me are Facts so don’t try to confuse Stargate with the Celluloid Fiction (your Forte) of “Star Wars”, the smoke screen you tried to pull, in order to avoid the Challenge. If you are contesting that those events are not Facts, PROVE IT”
Like I’ve said above, the validity of the Stargate project is not my concern at this article. If you are interested in debating that project, start a blog post somewhere & I am sure interested people will respond.
“The Non Believers / Agnostics can use any hard-to-understand math or science, or even just common sense – and show how the events documented in the Stargate project that Some Gifted Humans performed, could not have been performed or that it’s some Hocus Pocus perpetrated by the US intelligence services (part of the wording is copied straight off of your article). ”
Yeah, I’ll pass on that, since, as this article clearly states at the top, the focus is on karma, reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana, not US gov military projects.
However, proving or disproving the validity of the Stargate project will have no effect on proving or disproving the existence of karma, reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana.
“Sounds Good, right? ”
Sounds excellent. We are still at the point where KRN appear to be speculative items in a religion.
“Here is the chance to do your stock “Escape Artist act”. Claim that you will believe it ONLY if you experience it.”
Believing in only things that you can directly verify, specially if they are fantastical claims made by religious organization, will be very useful to anyone who wants to keep their minds & lives relatively free and outside of the control/manipulation of priestly types & whoever they ultimately work for.
But, since you are happy being controlled by speculative religious inventions, & are unable to see beyond the mental walls that are limiting your thinking, continue on with your blissful blind faith fueled existence. It does not make a huge difference to free thinkers.
Let me know if you have any other so-called “proof” for KRN that you want me to take apart quickly.
As Yoda (that’s a fictional character by the way, just like the fictional devices in Buddhism) may say: “deep in this one is the desire to experience karma, reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana as real items in this world”.
Or
- S
@SomewhatDisgusted: I fully support your stated objectives. More than that, I think they are perhaps the most pertinent questions to be asked of the Sri Lankan society and state – not only because the emotional attachment to matters of faith will draw out the widest possible audience (as the discussion in GV has proved), but it will re-invigorate a more introspective – if not self-critical – self analysis our society from within. This is important, because analysis and criticism from outside of our society is only going to reinforce paranoia about western conspiracies to undermine the dominant faith of the land and by it’s association and implication, the state. Rather, the discourse should spring from within, led by intelligent members of the citizenry and who are knowledgeable enough to explain their views with clarity and confidence and also assured in their beliefs to the extent that they are able to treat others – especially those with different – if not opposite – views with respect.
Suffice to say that only a few participants in this discussion seem assured and comfortable in their own beliefs – so as to treat the beliefs of others with the respect they deserve. However, I hope this will be a catalyst that would encourage introspection and self-criticism in other aspects as well.
@Sujewa: I am slow to judge the ‘truth’ of anything – especially of my own views and beliefs. So if you consider anything I have said to be ‘true’ – at least be aware that I myself am not so sure. I personally see no “reasonable” evidence to reject the notions of God, karma, nirvana etc. They are ‘beliefs’ and are not reasonable to begin with (i.e. are not ‘subject to reason’). In the same vein, I am yet to see how you can employ ‘reason’ to reject them.
Over two thousand years ago, it was perfectly within reason to argue that the Earth was flat but astronomers in India and a Greek librarian named Eratosthenes went against intuition to argue otherwise. As recently as a century ago, it was not religious fanatics, but qualified engineers – reasonable people – who claimed that the Titanic was unsinkable. There are learned political analysts who claimed in the mid 90′s that Mrs C.B Kumaratunga was Sri Lanka’s only hope, who claim now with the same conviction that Mr M. P Rajapakse is our saviour.
Jokes aside, my point is what is ‘reasonable’ is not absolute and it is often confused with what is ‘sensible’. It is hinged on what we think we know and feel with our senses at a moment in time. It is still not sensible (i.e. receptive to our faculties of sense) and everyday experience, that time is relative and that space and time are intertwined – yet Einstein reasoned that it seems to be so. “Poverty, war, The Simpsons TV show” are not things you have discovered with ‘reason’ but observations you have made with your senses. Therefore they are ‘sensible’ (i.e. receptive to your senses) but does not require ‘reason’ for their existence and metamorphosis to be proven (they are not reasonable). The thesis I put forward for you and others to consider is that, religious beliefs are neither based on sensory perceptions nor reason.
New discoveries or the breakdown or refinements of existing knowledge shifts the foundations of reason and sometimes reverse our conclusions. As Professor Cyril Ponnamperuma once humbly explained when queried about the perceived contradiction between his professional objectives and Catholic faith, “Science is my quest to know the unknown; faith is my acknowledgement that despite a lifetime dedicated to that quest, there is yet so much more that is yet unknown.”
Given that we are discussing matters of ‘religious’ faith, I assume no right to challenge the beliefs of another, or patronise them. I consider it my civic responsibility however to safeguard everyone’s right to their own faith – even if they are opposite to my own and regardless of whether or not others respect my right to a personal faith. Though I thoroughly enjoy having an honest, intellectual discourse on faith, I know only a handful of individuals whom I know, trust and respect well enough to consider suitable partners in such a discussion. Even though his religious views are different enough from my own as to be almost opposites, Mr Yapa sounds intelligent and engaging in the way he presents his view and I respect that. Yet I cannot help but notice that the Buddhism he describes is so very different from the Buddhism that I see Televised on Rupavahini and ITN, or promoted and practised at the Malwaththa or Asgiriya Temples… in a country where Buddhism and its power politics is based mostly on the tooth of its great sage, rather than on his teachings.
Burning_Issue,
“I do not feel that one has to be religious in any sense to feel like you do! If one is a democrat and believes in freedom would feel exactly the same. I respect customs that do not undermine freedom, equality, and progression. Rituals and scattering ash in Keerimali Sea is an ancient custom of the Jaffna Hindu Tamils that was being practiced unhindered for centuries.”
Weren’t you the same person who was complaining about cremation in UK?
“I would further argue that it is not Buddhism nor Buddhist identity which is threatening these Tamil Hindu traditions, but rather the disregard and ignorance of these traditions by Sinhalese.”
I disagree; I would say that, such ignorance and disregard is politicised and institutionalised within government machinery. This is why; there is nothing one can do about it!
Then the fault lays with the government- again, not Buddhism or Buddhist identity!
“It is beyond clear that the Buddhist hardliners have been given free hand to do anything that they wish within the North and East; this will not be possible under a secular constitution. You can ask MR and GR whatever you like, but the Tamils will be Second Class nonetheless!”
But this is exactly why I brought up the Keerimalai story; how will a “secular” constitution protect Hindus’ right of using Keerimalai for cremation more than the current one, given that the violation of the Hindus’ right does not involve Buddhism at all?
I am sorry: I meant to acknowledge the positive and intelligent contribution of Chula – and NOT Mr Yapa. I feel the need to correct the record because i felt Mr Yapa – in my humble opinion – does not seem any more inteligent than to do anything more than chase his own tail.
Hi Sur,
Thanks for reading & commenting.
Re:
“Buddhism does not teach “reincarnation” but rather “rebirth.” Reincarnation is a Hindu teaching. Buddhism denies the existence of an eternal, unchanging soul.”
Sounds good.
“Karma (Pali Kamma) simply means “action.” And this is exactly what it desribes. According to Buddhist teaching there are three types
(1) Kusala Kamma (wholesome kamma)
(2) Akusala Kamma (unwholesome kamma)
(3) Ahosi Kamma (neither wholesome nor unwholesome kamma)”
OK
“According to Buddhist teaching, kamma (action) has vipaka (result).
According to Buddhist teaching, kamma can be performed in three ways:
(1) Bodily
(2) Verbally
(3) Mentally
The teaching of kamma-vipaka is often directly observable in the case of (1) bodily and (2) verbal actions.”
Sounds good.
“eg 1. you leave the shutters to your windows open at night before going to bed (physical action), then later in the morning the sun rises and floods your room making it uncomfortably hot (vipaka).
eg 1 . Someone engages you in an argument. You call the other person a nasty name (verbal kamma) and get abused in return (vipaka).
However, Buddhism also teaches that mental thoughts also cause kamma. It is often the precursor of bodily and verbal kamma. This is where it is difficult to “prove.” ”
Sounds good.
“Buddhism also holds that vipaka can come into fruition:
(1) immediately in this present life
(2) at some point in the future but still in this present life
(3) in another future life”
Item #3 is the speculative one that I plan on not believing in until I can see some proof for it.
“Again (1) and (2) are directly observable.
eg. You slap someone and they slap you in return (immediate vipaka). You don’t use part of your salary for savings now, and as a result later in life you struggle because of it (vipaka at some point in the future). Once again, where it is difficult to ‘prove’ is in the situation (3).
As you can see, physical kamma-vipaka is directly observable. But mental (moral) kamma-vipaka is difficult to prove.”
Yup, sounds good.
As in all major world religions, there are many aspects of Buddhism, & in various schools of Buddhism, aspects that can be tested & proven to be true, and aspects that make sense, & then there are the speculative aspects – with karma, rebirth (i am fine with either discussing rebirth or reincarnation, both are speculative items), & nirvana being 3 of those items. So, to those to whom Buddhism is useful, it is a pretty good religion/pretty good way to look at the world. But it definitely is not 100% true in a verifiable in the real world sense, and definitely is not (or does not seem to be, since it is only concerned with a few areas of human life) the absolute truth (the things that explains everything about this universe, no such thing has been discovered yet) or the most important piece of knowledge created by humans.
- S
And quantity does not necessarily mean quality – another spiritual lesson.
what is the use of intelligence without peace of mind? one of the most important aspects of buddhism is metta or loving kindness. just in case that important aspect is left behind let me recite a very useful and very practical buddhist prayer – for both sides in this ‘great debate’
may all beings be happy
may their suffering cease
may their joys never cease
and whatever happens
may I retain my balance of mind knowing that all persons are the true owners of their deeds – my wishes may or may not help them – but ultimately everyone has to help themselves – this is the law – otherwise called kamma.
Dear Citizen,
Thanks again for being a voice of reason. I do not disagree with a single point you raise.
You said: “Suffice to say that only a few participants in this discussion seem assured and comfortable in their own beliefs – so as to treat the beliefs of others with the respect they deserve.”
I agree. This discussion degenerated into an insult fest a long time ago. However, you should know that it started off debunking the conceited claims of some Christians, about 3 threads ago. However, it was not long before some Buddhists started making similarly conceited claims, spearheaded by Mr. Yapa, who claimed in effect, that the “Sinhalese were the holy guardians of indisputable truths which had to be safe-guarded till the western mind was advanced enough to grasp them”.
I did not see a single “Buddhist” object to such an arrogant claim, which I thought was quite alarming. To me, it was directly reflective of an attitude where as long as one’s own belief was protected, not an iota of thought goes into how such unprovable convictions affect others.
It was at that point that the indisputability of Buddhism was questioned. Clearly, the believers were not at all used to, or comfortable with such questioning, and immediately started reacting defensively, despite repeated acknowledgements that no one was questioning the possibility but only the indisputability. I found the whole reaction extremely revealing of the nature and extent of the prejudice and bigotry within our society, whether it stems from paranoia or whether it stems from just plain childhood brainwashing.
I do not apologize for failing to summon any respect for such attitudes. This is because I consider it to be directly harmful to peaceful co-existence as well as further rational inquiry into the origins and nature of our existence, both of which are concerns which trump some bigoted belief any day of the week, at least to me.
You said:
“This is important, because analysis and criticism from outside of our society is only going to reinforce paranoia about western conspiracies to undermine the dominant faith of the land and by it’s association and implication, the state.”
I quite agree. I do suspect that it may indeed do more to reinforce paranoia in some. However, since the paranoia in such people do not seem to show any signs of abating anyway, perhaps stirring up a hornets’ nest is the best way to unsettle the unquestioning beliefs in others, and to at least realize on what basis the concept of secularism is built on. Certainly not decadent, Judeo-Christian conspiracies to unseat Buddhism, as a few seem to suspect.
You said: “As Professor Cyril Ponnamperuma once humbly explained when queried about the perceived contradiction between his professional objectives and Catholic faith, “Science is my quest to know the unknown; faith is my acknowledgement that despite a lifetime dedicated to that quest, there is yet so much more that is yet unknown.””
My own faith in faith was shattered when I understood how prone the human mind was to mysticism and other irrational convictions. As a result, I simply could not find a practical way to determine how to elevate one irrational conviction over the other. However, whatever my personal views, I can neither eliminate the possibility nor object to anyone believing in anything in their private lives. Almost anything is possible.
However, what I do object to is *certainty*, which is a highly dangerous concept, as it encourages all sorts of fundamentalist behaviour. History is littered with countless corpses resulting from the unfounded convictions of those who reason this way. I think we are all duty bound to oppose such unreasonable conviction. After all, once we undermine rationality as the basis upon which a society is built on, well, anything goes really! How would one propose to oppose one irrational conviction over another?
Your thoughts are welcome.
cheers,
/SD
What is the point of ~1100 comments and the gazillion or so key strokes typed away so far? Have we made any progress?
There are atheists, agnostics and believers among the diasporic & native Sri lankans and I do not know why cant people just leave it at that. As long as no group tries to shove their beliefs down someone else’s throat I don’t know what the fuss is all about.
Extra sensory perceptive stuff such as kamma, vipaka, rebirth, nibbana are yet to be proven beyond considerable doubt using any science or math and I do not know whether they ever will be. And this is not to say those stuff are real either.
But I am glad to see free thinking Sri lankans coming along. I too am an agnostic. I prefer to leave the extra sensory sutff on the back burner.
Cheers.
Dear Sujewa,
I observe that you are very good at the Houdini Act.
You are even AVOIDING confirming your own writing by giving non confirmatory dishonest replies like Sounds good, looks familiar.
What are you afraid of, that prevents you from confirming your own writing?
I cannot think of anything other than downright dishonesty. I wonder whether your colleagues subscribe to such evasiveness.
Did you or did you not CHALLENGE Yapa, Wijeyapala and me to “prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, …., that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world” ? The wording in italics is your own.
Please answer Yes or No. (without giving evasive answers)
Hope you have the courage to Stand by what you write.
My intent is to prove that the TOOLS that you have named are immature and cannot be used for the purpose that you mention as those very same tools have failed to explain physically observable and repeatable real world events that I will enumerate again in the future.
If you think that those TOOLS are usable then the onus is on you to prove that they are mature and can do the job.
I have stated my intent and have requested you to confirm your Challenge. Hope this will be within your logical grasp as I am reserving comment on the rest of your post of May 10, 2010 @ 5:08 am till I receive positive answers from you.
@BalangodaMan:
“Clearly you agree with us – that a religious belief is ‘true’ to someone who has faith or conviction in it. It is a personal position the validity of which only a believer can verify. Such a ‘truth’ is commonly referred to as ‘faith’ or a ‘conviction’.
Now, our problem is, Mr Yapa vehemently objects to the word ‘faith’ (I suggested that that might be because it is the term used in other religions like Christianity). He substituted ‘verifiable proof’ in place of ‘faith’, bringing in Quantum Physics big guns to a party already in full swing.”
The difference in the conviction (or faith/saddhÄ) in Buddhism is that it’s verifiable in this life with practice. It’s not the end goal. In Chrisitanity, faith is admirable and there is nothing more asked for in an individual. In the Cankisutta, which I linked before (and while no one seems to have read), the Buddha clearly distinguishes what one believes and what one knows as true. He says a practitioner should “safeguard the truth” – clearly distinguishing the two so that there is no chance to delude onself.
I didn’t read the Akon thread (and I don’t plan to), but this thread is separate so I’d like to keep it that way. I avoided that thread because I know people are unlikely to have a worthwhile conversation. I disagree with Yapa’s claims that the Dhamma is verifiable “proof” as is clear from the above and I think it’s a waste of time to attempt to do so. If you want proof, practice.
Since people don’t seem to read links, let me quote a relevant passage. Looks like it’ll be helpful for both believers and non-believers:
“There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked… truly an unbroken tradition… well-reasoned… Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn’t proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, ‘Only this is true; anything else is worthless.”
- MN 95: Cankisutta
Dear Mr. Yapa.
You said: “Ok! Now if you think you countered my argument, please support your universal Principle that “BUDDHISM SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE STATE OF SRI LANKA.”
You misunderstand me Mr. Yapa. I have no objection whatsoever to having Buddhism as part of the state provided that Yin Yangs, Stargates, UFOs, alien abductions, Flying Teapots, Churches of the FSM, Shilboot, God and any other concept which cannot be disproven, are also made part of the state (since this was your criteria for not separating a concept from a state).
I take it you have no objection to making God and Yin Yang a part of the state? You are a very fair and considerate individual Mr. Yapa. I guess we have no disagreement then!
cheers,
/SD
SomeWhatDisgusted, I’ll be the first to admit I have not gone through the whole debate in the previous thread in fine detail – more or less speed reading. Just don’t have the time and most importantly a deep interest!
Anyway I somehow got the sense that these agnostics were bit more proactive than the type I subscribed to hence I thought, maybe this bunch is a bit beyond the agnosticism level. That’s why I protested to Sujeewa, the leader of the pact. Anyway, I shall answer your questions.
Q1: Does that fit in with your stance on agnosticism?
Well my opinion as I have made clear hopefully is that it is unreasonable for an agnostic to challenge believers’ faith as BEING NOT TRUE. For starters we cannot prove it is NOT TRUE. If we can’t then we can’t expect the other side to PROVE it on behalf of us?? Do I make any sense? Since it is a take it or leave it proposition the believers don’t have to prove anything to us.
And also when we take a stance stating that we’re not so sure our selves, we sort of concede that their belief may have some merit – agnosticsm. Hence being on such a wobbly ground, it is a bit douche to demand that they prove what they “believe” to be true, through a deep spiritual faith.
Of course any religious person who believes in their perspective religions/faiths will state that it is the absolute truth. Surely you’re not going to expect anything less?? Why else would they devout time and money in it otherwise? Admittedly even some intelligent, educated people practice various religions and they wouldn’t be doing so unless they saw something truthful in it. Otherwise they’d be agnostics themselves.
Q2: Is it unreasonable to request that it be demonstrated why Buddhism is an absolute truth and how the believers know this?
Absolutely! It goes to not just Buddhism but all other faiths including ridiculous ones like Scientology. It’s a faith. They can never prove it in an ordinary scientific sense! It is not known to mankind yet to connect the living with the next episode. Then “they” say oh but when you reach Nirvana, you will see what’s on the other side and how it’s all interlinked with Karma and blah blah. Since you me or most agnostics can’t or at least won’t try to reach Nirvana we have to take it at face value. So it is unreasonable to ask for proof knowing it is not possible.
Also, Q3: Do you agree, as an “agnostic”, that the Sri Lankan state no longer needs to be secular and Buddhism should be made the official religion?
This question just threw me off. :-S I believe the Sri Lankan state needs to be secular. The constitution doesn’t prevent a person practicing any particular religion nor coming into power. Proportionally looking at the population, Buddhism believers far exceeds other types of believers in Sri Lanka. So it may look like Buddhism has a special place. But really, it is supply and demand.
Q4: In any case, what do you consider to be the fair thing to do in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country?
Slash the budget for all religious activities altogether. BUTTTTT that’s my view. It’s up to the voters isn’t it? Democracy is supposed to provide for the majority’s wish. If the majority are believers and they vote for what they want, who am I to criticise them? I think it’s fair enough! If you believe in democracy that is.
For example, I can never see a non Christian ever becoming the president of the United States. That’s because a huge conservative voter base consider their president being a Christian as something very important. Then they expect from time to time have their way with that leadership. For instance huge debate over stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, wanting to teach intelligent design in schools, integrating the 10 commandments into the justice system, etc originate from these religious groups.
So my point really is, when most of the world population are believers, us agnostics as a minority, it is unfair to demand our way!
Sujeewa,
“The ultimate goal (or what I would like to see happen on this planet) is not merely the non-believers* organizing ourselves in order to accomplish goals that we think are important (separation of religions & states, freedom of thought world wide, freedom of expression world wide, freedom of religion or freedom from religion world wide, an end to hunger, homelessness, poverty, etc.), but non-believers, believers & others working together to turn this planet into the paradise that it can easily (w/ the right number of people & effort involved) become.”
So after all this, it has nothing to do with religion now? Dude, you just hippied out and fired a barrage of flowers at me. let’s all get together and make the world a better place stuff.. heal the world theme. I don’t know what to say back to you.. other than say it’s nice… haha
If Bo tree was first brought to Mdagal, Buddhism came first to Tamil Eelam, to the Tamils and not to the Sinhalese in the island.
Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka(SL) is based neither on science nor truth. It is based on myth, taught and brainwashed in “Daham Pasal” when Buddhists are kids. It is similar to Taliban teachings of fanatical Islam in “Madrasses”, causing chaos in the country ande world at large.
I have been unsuccessfully seeking answer for the following questions from my Budddhist friends;
1. Law of Karma believes in reward for good deeds and punishment of rebirth for evil. What is good and evil? Who deteermines it?
2. If there is Law of Karma, who created this law?
3. Any law has to be implemented. Who implements the law of Karma? Creator God.
4. There is no specific evidence to show that a person’s grandmother is born as a worm or insect. But persons who died and came back to life had the experience of either being in heaven or hell, which proves that the rebirth theory is ridiculous.
Buddhism I think is an invention of escapism to refrain from responsibility and accountability for wrong doings and wickedness of persons to fellow human beings.
Mankind is created to love one another and be responsible for his actions, in this world, God has created.
Dear citizen;
Your views expressed in the post of May 10, 2010 @ 7:31 am are very much similar to mine.
Do you think the following statement extracted from your last post still holds valid?
“I feel the need to correct the record because i felt Mr Yapa – in my humble opinion – does not seem any more inteligent than to do anything more than chase his own tail.”
Thanks!
Thanks!
Sujewa Ekanayake;
Thanks for your summary (collection of) of my posts. It is definitely useful to me.
It shows your capability in computer and related fields. Definitely it is a commendable effort.
However, the important issue is were you able to achieve your goal. I must remind your expressed goal in that endeavour. It was to prove your proposition that I had mentioned I could prove karma, Buddhist reincarnation and nirvana. Were you able to point out such thing? You may be able to show a “straw man”, but not in my wordings.
I have already said if I say cat, it is only cat and nothing else. If you take my “cat” as “rat” and killed the rat, it doesn’t mean you killed my cat.
Please kill my cat, not your rat. If you cannot at least show my cat.
You are challenging, making allegations, repeating and re-repeating, insulting, cursing, for something which I haven’t said. Whole your arguments were based on this non existent entity. What can you do now?
You can now vomit all what you have said and apologize for your follies as a gentleman.
I think you will behave like a thorough gentleman.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
I think now you will render your vowed service to the mankind, by proving/showing that Buddhism should be separated from the state of Sri Lanka. We have been long awaiting that noble endeavour.
Please be kind enough to fulfill our aspirations.
Thanks!
Dear Spiritual Man;
RE: your post of May 10, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Oh! you have found the absolute truth, all of a sudden. What a miracle? Please let us too know how you gained that wisdom. Its is awesome! Marvelous! Wonderful!, splendid!,magnificent!, fantastic!, superb!, terrific!, cool!…….. I have no enough words to describe your wisdom. Are you another son of the God?
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
“Weren’t you the same person who was complaining about cremation in UK?”
I am sorry that I never complained about cremation at all; I was complaining about some hard-line Hindus who wanted to cremate their dead relatives in open air in UK just like what one sees in Indian Sub-continent. My point was that Open Air Cremation is an alien phenomenon in the West and it is potentially harmful to race relations etc. However, many Europeans opt for cremation these days; it is conducted in a control environment with electricity; ash is handed over at the end of it. I hear now in UK that, there are agencies that one can hire that would take ash to mid sea and scatter.
“Then the fault lays with the government- again, not Buddhism or Buddhist identity!”
Yes, I agree on this point; both Buddhism and Hinduism existed side-by-side many millennia in Sri Lanka; peoples of the island respected each other’s customs; this should continue.
“But this is exactly why I brought up the Keerimalai story; how will a “secular” constitution protect Hindus’ right of using Keerimalai for cremation more than the current one, given that the violation of the Hindus’ right does not involve Buddhism at all?”
Correction; Keerimalai is never used for cremation purposes; it is used as a sacred place to take the ashes of their dead relatives, perform rituals, and scatter the ashes in the sea.
We have had the Portuguese; we have had the Dutch; we have had the English; all promoted Christianity but they never interfered with local customs such as this one. Now, we have the Sinhala Buddhist, the new Masters of the Tamils; who have put a stop to an ancient custom! What does this say about the Sinhala Buddhists and their government? I agree that Buddhism is not an issue here, but the politicised and institutionalised Sinhala Buddhism is an issue; I would like you to recognise this.
A Secular Constitution means that, no religion is politicised and all religions are equal respecting all customs that interfere no one. I do not know as to how the Sri Lankan legal system is placed in conjunction with common customs. One needs to look at this as to how this issue can be challenged legally on the strength of common law. Technically, I agree that this issue is to do with total disregard of the Tamils and their customs; but from the Tamils’ perspective, the Sinhala are Buddhists and they are government; one does not look beyond that!
(Oh! Dear) Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“However, it was not long before some Buddhists started making similarly conceited claims, spearheaded by Mr. Yapa, who claimed in effect, that the “Sinhalese were the holy guardians of indisputable truths which had to be safe-guarded till the western mind was advanced enough to grasp them”.
YOU ARE A STRAW MAN!
Jonny, jonny,…………………….. Telling lies?
Thanks!
Dear Grasshopper,
“I prefer to leave the extra sensory sutff on the back burner.”
Most young SL “agnostics” do.. until they reach advanced age and get the jitters.
I take it you have no objection to making God and Yin Yang a part of the state? You are a very fair and considerate individual Mr. Yapa. I guess we have no disagreement then!
I have no problem. But it was you who objected. Please justify your objection.
Please give reason for separating Buddhism from the state of Sri Lanka. (You vowed to fight, but we don’t expect you to fight. Just justify with your enlightened wisdom.)
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
RE: Your statement of May 9, 2010 @ 10:22 am
How come these two statements are same (or at least similar) to replace the second by the first ? On the other hand why did you want to replace it at all? You could have used my original statement. What is this kindness of yours towards my statements to treat them with your valuable resources?
1.“And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? ”
2.These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners. They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.
You love straw men? Dolls?
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted
RE: Your post of May 9, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
Are you now going to hold a referendum to see whether the Buddhism should be separated from the state of Sri Lanks. Really that was not what you were saying. To fight against opposite moves.
Why appealing for sympathy? What happened to your heroic mentality.
Please fight. Now this is the chance for you.
Thanks!
Dear Spiritual Man,
“If Bo tree was first brought to Mdagal, Buddhism came first to Tamil Eelam, to the Tamils and not to the Sinhalese in the island.”
Where is “Mdagal?” That is an incomprehensible name that doesn’t appear Sinhala nor Tamil.
I would be delighted to hear that Tamils introduced Buddhism to the Sinhalese. Where are the Tamil Buddhists today?
And when did “Tamil Eelam” exist, either now or in the past?
“Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka(SL) is based neither on science nor truth. It is based on myth, taught and brainwashed in “Daham Pasal” when Buddhists are kids. It is similar to Taliban teachings of fanatical Islam in “Madrasses”, causing chaos in the country ande world at large.”
How has Buddhism caused chaos in the world?
And should we blame the Tamils for introducing Buddhism to us?
1. Law of Karma believes in reward for good deeds and punishment of rebirth for evil. What is good and evil? Who deteermines it?”
As described previously, Kamma is best thought of as a force, in terms of action and reaction. “Good” and “Evil” acts are defined in terms of the intent behind them as well as their effects.
“2. If there is Law of Karma, who created this law?”
3. Any law has to be implemented. Who implements the law of Karma? Creator God.”
The same person who “created” and “implements” the Law of Physics.
“But persons who died and came back to life had the experience of either being in heaven or hell, which proves that the rebirth theory is ridiculous.”
Who died and came back to life?
Dear SomewhatDisgusted
“Yapa, who claimed in effect, that the “Sinhalese were the holy guardians of indisputable truths which had to be safe-guarded till the western mind was advanced enough to grasp them”.
I did not see a single “Buddhist” object to such an arrogant claim, which I thought was quite alarming. To me, it was directly reflective of an attitude where as long as one’s own belief was protected, not an iota of thought goes into how such unprovable convictions affect others.
It was at that point that the indisputability of Buddhism was questioned. Clearly, the believers were not at all used to, or comfortable with such questioning, and immediately started reacting defensively, despite repeated acknowledgements that no one was questioning the possibility but only the indisputability. I found the whole reaction extremely revealing of the nature and extent of the prejudice and bigotry within our society, whether it stems from paranoia or whether it stems from just plain childhood brainwashing.”
You are carrying tales to make others angry with us?
You will never give up that unethical and foul tactic.
People without back bone and have no sound facts to support their positions do such ugly things.
Give up lying.
Thanks!
“These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners. They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.”
Ohh; I thought for a minute; was I reading the utterance of an Islamic Fundamentalist; no, it is the utterance of Yapa the Sinhala Buddhist!
“However, what I do object to is *certainty*, which is a highly dangerous concept, as it encourages all sorts of fundamentalist behaviour. History is littered with countless corpses resulting from the unfounded convictions of those who reason this way. I think we are all duty bound to oppose such unreasonable conviction. After all, once we undermine rationality as the basis upon which a society is built on, well, anything goes really! How would one propose to oppose one irrational conviction over another?”
Ho! Ho!! You are the only genuine social worker duty bound to oppose such unreasonable conviction. We are just good for nothing culprits to hold the opposite view?
When you have no arguments, it is best to appeal for sympathy. Isn’t this telling your case in the absence of the opposition to a person to give a judgment? Your audacity is boundless.
Thanks!
Dear Spiritual Man,
You said: “If there is Law of Karma, who created this law?”
You are trying to point out the fact that something must have created all of this and that something was god.
That immediately raises the question, who created god?
Everyone here probably already knows the stock answer that Christians/Muslims give to that question. God was, god is, and god will be. Well, if you postulate god just came into being out of nowhere and was always there, why don’t you save a step, and postulate that the universe came into being out of nowhere and was always there?
Also, if you wish to claim some sort of superiority for your belief in god, we’ll have to ask you also to show what proof you have for this god in the first place?
Also, this conversation is not a Buddhism bashing session. Buddhism is a very nice religion *when practiced privately*, but when it turns into an organized religion like Christianity, I’m not sure how nice it is anymore. Indeed, one of the reasons it has had to organize itself is because of unethical proselytization. Q1: What is your opinion on this? Do you agree that it is unethical to pay money to convert people to believe in God?
The main thrust in this conversation is to explore how religion should interact with the state. All organized religion, IMO, especially god based ones which have an extremely poor track record of this after having run crusades against reason and science, should stay out of government. This is for no other reason other than the fact that a country cannot be run fairly based on the speculative beliefs of religion, which are answers to philosophical questions about life and are essentially person beliefs. No objections to you believing in your god in the privacy of your own home though.
Q2: What is your opinion on the relationship between state and god?
Please comment on anything you please, but hope to hear your answers especially to Q1 and Q2.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Grasshopper,
“Extra sensory perceptive stuff such as kamma, vipaka, rebirth, nibbana are yet to be proven beyond considerable doubt using any science or math and I do not know whether they ever will be. And this is not to say those stuff are real either.”
Kamma (Pali) = Action (English)
Vipaka (Pali) = Result (English)
Do you mean that walking, Running, Eating, Drinking, playing and everything else you do and the results of what you do “is ESP stuff”?
One needs to Know what one writes about.
Regarding your faith in Science as the source of Truth in every field just read about the US Govt financed Stargate project (Google Stargate). Science could not explain the results.
Research Acupuncture and see if Science can explain the affects. Acupuncture is recognised by the WHO.
So far none of the above have been proven by Science yet both Acupuncture and Remote Viewing are repeatable and brings about Tangible results.
Science’s inability to explain the results shows only that Science is weak in those fields and is an immature tool that is unable to deliver the truth.
Science excels in many fields but is Primitive in the field of Philosophy. Someday it will mature but till then nothing definite can be arrived at Citing Science.
Only a fool will believe otherwise
Dear Observer,
Agree with most of what you say but I think you have misunderstood the question.
Let me rephrase: *If* a believer claims superiority for their beliefs, is it unreasonable to ask them to show on what basis they claim this superiority?
Also, if some claim that Buddhism and the state are inseparable, is it unreasonable to ask on what basis others should be affected by their speculative belief system?
I should emphasize that I have no objection to people believing in their religion in the privacy of their own home and see no reason to question their beliefs, but if they wish to impose it on me via the state, they’d better have some way to justify it.
You said: “Democracy is supposed to provide for the majority’s wish.”
No. A democracy does not mean the majority gets carte blanche to trample over the rights of others. It means that the majority is endowed with *responsibility* for making decisions on behalf of others, in a way that is fair and reasonable by all. A democracy should aim to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, anyone can see that it is an unfair system for minorities and an absurd and unethical form of governance in the 21st century.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Spiritual Man,
“Mankind is created to love one another and be responsible for his actions, in this world, God has created.”
Which God?
The Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Loving one?
How many Humans were created at the beginning by this God and what material did He use?
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
Acupuncture (based on Yin Yang Philosophy) is recognised b the WHO. That would not happen without the acceptance of Acupuncture by learned Medical persons who work with the Apex health organisation dealing with World Health.
US Govt sponsored Stargate, delivered Tangible results that so impressed the US President Carter that he referred to it in a Presidential Speech.
I believe that just because Science has Failed to understand the physical results, lumping Real objects with frivolous objects conjured up by imagination does not do justice to your argument.
Dear Observer,
Congratulations on a well written thought provoking balanced post.
There a few Truths that Buddhism regards as Universal
1. The Impermanence of everything
2. That Dukkha pervades life
Would appreciate your views on the above.
(Dukkha has a much wider meaning than “Suffering” the English word oft inappropriately used in place of Dukkha)
This refers to your post of May 10, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“Let me rephrase: *If* a believer claims superiority for their beliefs, is it unreasonable to ask them to show on what basis they claim this superiority?”
Yes I would agree as that is a reasonable question, the Keyword being “IF”.
But the Article has gone beyond that and into areas that Observer correctly points to. It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer. This presupposes that “Science” knows it all. This of course is a fallacy in every branch of Science.
Unfortunately in the field of Philosophy “Science” is just an infant. It will grow someday but today it is in its infancy. Probably due to lack of research.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
I concur completely with your post of May 10, 2010 @ 11:27 PM
“No. A democracy does not mean the majority gets carte blanche to trample over the rights of others. It means that the majority is endowed with *responsibility* for making decisions on behalf of others, in a way that is fair and reasonable by all. A democracy should aim to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, anyone can see that it is an unfair system for minorities and an absurd and unethical form of governance in the 21st century.”
During the debate of the Sinhala Only Language Bill in 1955; Dr. N.M. Perera argued exactly the same manner.
Off the Cuff said: “Do you mean that walking, Running, Eating, Drinking, playing and everything else you do and the results of what you do “is ESP stuff”?”
Oh! is this the kamma – vipaka Buddshim talks about? I honestly dont need a religion to tell me that those are cause and effect. It is so obvious.
Observer,
RE: Sujeewa,
“The ultimate goal (or what I would like to see happen on this planet) is not merely the non-believers* organizing ourselves in order to accomplish goals that we think are important (separation of religions & states, freedom of thought world wide, freedom of expression world wide, freedom of religion or freedom from religion world wide, an end to hunger, homelessness, poverty, etc.), but non-believers, believers & others working together to turn this planet into the paradise that it can easily (w/ the right number of people & effort involved) become.” (my statement)
So after all this, it has nothing to do with religion now? Dude, you just hippied out and fired a barrage of flowers at me. let’s all get together and make the world a better place stuff.. heal the world theme. I don’t know what to say back to you.. other than say it’s nice… haha (your reply)”
Looks like you are unable to follow the full discussion (granted, it is spread out over 1000 comments in the Akon & Buddhiusm article), so, let’s see if I can clarify why the agnostics demand proof for speculative religious items before such religious items are accepted as the absolute truth, is used for supporting laws created by a gov’t which affords the religion the primiary place among religions, & where the religion is used to justify the banning of certain entertainment & economic activities (the Akon issue is one example, not a great one, but close). So, here is a breakdown:
1. Sri Lanka has been a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country for centuries.
2. The inability of the majority – mostly Sinhala Buddhists – to get along with one of the largest minority groups – Tamils – from 1948 until 1983 led to a 26+ year long war. This war ended in 2009.
3. Using Buddhism to justify government policies, under the guise that Buddhism is the truth/the absolute truth/the universal truth, etc. – ignoring the fact that it is just as full of metaphysical speculation & contraditions as the rest of the major religions of this world – will most likely result in a repeat of the 1948 – 1983 problems & thus another long war in SL.
4. Since SL is, at least on paper, a secular country, now is a good time to push for making that secular approach an actual, living fact to be practiced by the gov & other major non-religious institutions in SL. Separating religion from the state has had very positive effects in many countries in this world. Most of the countries that are stuck in poverty & cycles of violence have not adequately separated religon (a set of ideas oriented primarily towards the next life) from secular/common/non-religious life in their important institutions, including gov. (there are also other important things the contribute to the creation of failed states – including xenophobia, racism, not adopting sound economic practices, economic corruption, lack of adequate law & order, etc. – however, creating a secular gov – or laws that are easily justifiable & based on actual things that exist, rather than religious speculative items – is a major step towards improving things in developing countries – specially in SL due to the perception or actuality that the gov favors the Sinhala Buddhists over the Tamils, etc.)
5. Not just Buddhism, but any religion that claims that it is the one true path is dangerous, thus, when those claims are made by the believers, it is a good idea for others to demand proof for the grand claim of the believers. That is how this discussion has come into being.
6. There is another issue, beyond the agnostics vs. believers conflict, that I referred to in my comment above that you quoted – that is that even if the believers & non-believers find the way to co-exist in one country, then the problems that need to be solved STILL need to be tackled. Turning Sri Lanka into an actual secular state with freedom of religion & freedom from religion will not make the poverty, underdevelopment, corruption, the massive brain drain (heavy emigration), lack of employment/work go away on its own – for that, those issues need to be dealt with directly. Ultimately, there will be areas that the believers will be able to excel at when it comes to accomplishing some of the work mentioned above (assisting people who trust the monks & not perhaps secular authorities with things that need to be done, etc.) & some areas where the non-believers may excel at (finance, defense, etc. – since the major religons in SL all, at their core – have an anti-war, anti-wealth building message – but, that has not stopped the SLs from making a lot of war in the past
– that’s another topic I guess).
So, as you can see, this is a wide topic. Seeing how other multi-ethnic/multi-religious countries have prospered by adopting a separation of religion and government approach, I definitely think this is a great way for SL to proceed. But, how things go down in SL is ultimately up to people who live in SL full time, however, there is a very large SL diaspora, and, if things are going well or if SL is attempting to do the right thing, many in the diaspora may want to help – which could speed up development of SL.
Hope all that is somewhat clear. If not, let me know.
If, however, you are approaching this topic lightly as mere entertainment, then it is probably best for me to ignore your future comments (& probably better for you & folks like Yapa & OTC to get together & celebrate their living in denial/ignorance is bliss/our religion knows all & we don’t have to worry about non-believers/we don’t have to think about what we do, we just have to do what the monks tell us to do nonsense – instead of engaging in debates with agnostics) & deal with those ones that may be useful, in some way, to making things better in SL, for the diaspora, & world wide in other places.
- S
OTC,
RE:
“Dear Sujewa,
I observe that you are very good at the Houdini Act.”
More believer make-belive, carry on, let’s see what’s next.
“You are even AVOIDING confirming your own writing by giving non confirmatory dishonest replies…”
Very amusing that the person defending the truthfulness of fictiotious (most likely) concepts is obsessed with the term honesty. But let’s continue anyway…
“…like Sounds good, looks familiar.
What are you afraid of, that prevents you from confirming your own writing?
I cannot think of anything other than downright dishonesty. I wonder whether your colleagues subscribe to such evasiveness.”
Are you ever planning on getting to the point OTC? Let’s see..
“Did you or did you not CHALLENGE Yapa, Wijeyapala and me to “prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, …., that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world” ? The wording in italics is your own.”
Yup. Scroll to the top of this article & read if you are in doubt.
“Please answer Yes or No. (without giving evasive answers)
Hope you have the courage to Stand by what you write.”
Yes to item one, & Yes to item 2 – as should be evident for unbiased readers who are concerned with actual things that exist, I think that exclueds you, so that’s probably why the same thing has to be repeated over & over again to you, but, that’s cool, let’s move on…
“My intent is to prove that the TOOLS that you have named are immature and cannot be used for the purpose that you mention as those very same tools have failed to explain physically observable and repeatable real world events that I will enumerate again in the future.”
So, let’s claify. You can’t prove that karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana are real things. And instead of saying that they are most likely speculative things but you are not sure/it makes you feel good to believe in them, you are stating that when I said “use whatever means…” to prove the existence of the speculative items in the real world that somehow excludes some tools/methods or not others. So, let’s try to break things down even further;
- can the believers show, using any verifiable means, to a non-believer, that karma, reincarnation or rebirth, and nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real things that exist in this world/universe & can affect real people?
– don’t worry about using science if that is too difficult for you, use whatever means you can think of – set up the method for verification & I & other agnostics will take a look & see if your method proves the existence of karma, reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana.
Hopefully the item in discussion is not clear to you. If not (and i am sure you will
, let me know.
“If you think that those TOOLS are usable then the onus is on you to prove that they are mature and can do the job.”
The tools are very useful for showing that things that exist actually exist, though they may be difficult to see. However, the tools available to us/humans cannot turn religious fiction such as karma, R, N, into real things.
“I have stated my intent and have requested you to confirm your Challenge. Hope this will be within your logical grasp as I am reserving comment on the rest of your post of May 10, 2010 @ 5:08 am till I receive positive answers from you.”
Either way, we will be going ’round & ’round on this thread since you are unable to separate fact from fiction. Well, at least some of the blind believer readers may benefit & they may realize that the “undisputed truths” in Buddhism are speculative items & not real items, & that Buddhism is just a religion, not something more – & can & should be separated from the state, etc.
- S
Yapa,
Since you are unable to see the similarity between the two statements quoted & instead would rather think about straw & dolls & cranes & other stuff, let me take a look & see if I can point out the similarities. My pointers will be in [brakets].
RE:
“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
RE: Your statement of May 9, 2010 @ 10:22 am
How come these two statements are same (or at least similar) to replace the second by the first ? On the other hand why did you want to replace it at all? You could have used my original statement. What is this kindness of yours towards my statements to treat them with your valuable resources?
1.“And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? ”
2.These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM [capitalism & neo-imperialism is associted with the west, when used by non-western critics]
who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners
[this implies that the agnostics do not understand the real value of things, in error, trading something good for something not so good but perhaps attractive, indulgent, decadent (sp?)].
They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.
You love straw men? Dolls?”
You are the one who is always talking about rubbing people & humiliating people & running away & straw men & telling people that they are being feminine (whatever that means in the context of an internet discussion) – you tell me Yapa, does someone who constantantly think about those things have a perhaps an unhealthy fascination with them?
“Thanks!”
Anyway, if you are unable to see the similarity between the two statements above, then it does not surprise me that you take speculative metaphysical concepts used in a world religion (& grand claims for holding the undisputed truth) literally. Most of us outgrow literalism or the inability to recognize symbolic speech in our teens, sadly it appears you have not done so yet. Good luck with that problem.
Anyway, on to the larger matter at hand, close to 100 comments in, it appears that the believers are unable to prove that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana are real items that exist in this world & affect real people. So, I guess we can continue to treat Buddhism as merely a religion & not THE only way to do anything of significant importance (outside of Buddhist rituals, etc.).
- S
Mr Yapa et al,
It’a all about the authenticity of the source …
It’s all about whether you think it is possible that a human person (Siddharta Gautama) can suddenly become omniscient (acquire infinite knowledge), and on what grounds we believe such a fantastic thing.
(Similarly, Jesus could have been just telling porky pies that he is the Son of God to impress his friends. And did Mohammed actually write all that stuff? Or was he autistic, or someone helped him?).
Do such things like omniscience happen today?
Yes, they do !!!
When they do happen we put these people in a mental hospital. Isn’t that TRUE? Just see how many people at Angoda think they are ‘The President’ !
It’s easy to test. Mr Yapa – Just put out a press release that you have become omniscient – that through a combination of bathing often and koththamalli – you can now see all of there is to know; you now know EVERYTHING that humans are yet to discover in the next 500 million years and beyond. How many people will take you seriously?
Nobody!
I bet you too will be carted off to Angoda.
Don’t get me wrong – The teachings of the Buddha (as a wise human person) are still useful to millions around the world (as are the teachings of many philosophers and sages) particularly when those teachings have been made relevant to the needs of the modern world by many contemporary writers. The speculative items, on the other hand, presupposes the omniscience theory. On what evidence are we to accept Siddharta Gautama’s omniscience? Is it because it happened 2,500 years ago?
Mr Yapa, here is the real challenge. Can anyone repeat it? Wouldn’t that be exactly what we need at this juncture? Why speculate on things that may or may not have happened 2,500 years ago – or take it as gospel truth? As I mentioned in the other thread, the Theosophical Society which re-introduced Buddhism to Ceylon in the 1880 claimed that Madame Blavatsky was in telepathic communication with such a person – a Tibetan monk who had lived for 600 years in the Himalayas called Coot-Humi (or Kuthumi). You can Google it. Some French physicists studied the case and concluded that Madame Blavatsky’s claims was a scam.
Mr Yapa, I think you believe the Buddha’s omniscience out of tribal loyalty, superstition, peer pressure. Not because you have any other concrete reason. Belief in the Buddhas omniscience (without any corroborative evidence) is the ONLY reason people believe in the karma, rebirth, nirvana model.
(not science. not maths. not Quantum Physics. not Newton)
Omniscience is not plausible – it just isn’t!
I think there must be thousands of alternative explanations for the meaning of life. The Matrix is one. One thing we know for sure is that we DO NOT have a means of telling which is true and which isn’t.
Dear Burning_Issue;
RE: Your post of May 10, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
As a Buddhist or whatever it is I am telling the truth. We have already proved that statement to a certain extent. Truth is not sweet as you think. It may be bitter to many, but it does not make untruth true.
Please come to conclusions based on “Principles of Natural justice. (or without bias) I think you know what principles of Natural justice are?
Further, do you consider all your statements made on the forums on this web are correct, true and justifiable?
You are just trying to judge me by a single statement of mine out of hundreds of my statements and trying to be victorious. Please try to grasp the core of what I was trying to say from all my posts, not from a single one statement that could be interpreted for your preferences and advantageous. .
Don’t you think that it is a little bit unfair and mean?
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan;
Most of your augments especially in the recent past were based on that we (specially I) had said that karma, Buddhist reincarnation and nirvana could be proved so that “non believers” (the way prefer to call yourselves) could understand. You have been making a big noise in this forum almost always repeating the claim. I challenged you to specifically point out that claim by me or others who argued in favour of Buddhism if we had done such a statement. Without listening to them you publicized that “untruth” repeatedly to defame us and undermine our arguments.
With so many attempts, Sujewa Akanayake, combed through all my posts to find such a statement of mine and miserably failed. Now what do you have to say about unethical damage done to our characters and our arguments by frequent quoting of something which we had never said as our statements?
Please as civilized men we request all three of you explanation in this regard. Hope as responsible gentlemen you will explain your position.
Thank you!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Now you say;
[You misunderstand me Mr. Yapa. I have no objection whatsoever to having Buddhism as part of the state provided that Yin Yangs, Stargates, UFOs, alien abductions, Flying Teapots, Churches of the FSM, Shilboot, God and any other concept which cannot be disproven, are also made part of the state (since this was your criteria for not separating a concept from a state).]
But you had no such qualifications at the time you made your heroic (or heroine???) statement that you would fight against to protect the secular state of the country.
Now as a man stand firm on your stance and do the justice to your own statement. Why slippery like an eel? Stand up like a lion.
We need heroes, not cowards who cannot stand their stance. See all of us with your mud slinging, unethical behaviour and popular propaganda stood upright with our facts. We have made so much contributions with bringing in new knowledge into this forum. Can you show anything new and valuable three of you brought into this forum other than just jabbering? You filled the forum with semantics and empty words like word factories, and insulted us with jealousy and in fear of breaking down of your egos.
Come with facts and challenge our views, prove your cases, just don’t try to get popular and cheap advantages.
Any way fulfill your promise. PLEASE SHOW THAT BUDDHISM SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM STATE OF SRI LANKA, as you vouched.
Thanks!
Dear OTC,
I don’t quite agree with your argument. Here’s why.
“Acupuncture (based on Yin Yang Philosophy) is recognised b the WHO”
Acupuncture is recognized. Yin Yang forces are not. You are welcome to cite any papers which talk about Yin Yang. The fact that there is a phenomenon does not make the supernatural explanation given for that phenomenon true. In that case, people who thought earthquakes were caused by God were right too.
“US Govt sponsored Stargate, delivered Tangible results that so impressed the US President Carter that he referred to it in a Presidential Speech.”
A US president referring to Stargate or Francis Collin referring to God or Michael Behe arguing for Intelligent design also do not make these things fact. All of the said programs have been shut down. If there was conclusive evidence, why were these programs shutdown due to *lack of evidence and scientific rigour*? Even, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab shut down operations recently after some 28 years in operation. Reason? Nothing even remotely conclusive and they were doing nothing but generating the same data. The founder, Robert Jahn “felt that the work showed, on average, people can shift 2–3 events out of 10,000 from chance expectations”. Of course the founder would feel that way. I mean it’s 28 years of effort down the drain if not right? No one would be convinced by such odds. I’m willing to bet the Stargate program was the same. It’s founders probably claimed some significance in order to justify the millions of dollars sunk into it. Of course, closer scientific scrutiny revealed otherwise which is why people weren’t jumping for joy and shut it down instead.
The point is not that research into this should stop. The point is, we are yet to find conclusive evidence for any of these claims. Don’t you think if we were to find some evidence, that would be the most impressive and grand discovery in the history of mankind? If you are going to cite some conspiracy, look at the list of prizes on offer, with a combined value of $2.6 million dollars. To date, no one has claimed these prizes. Given the number of people claiming to have supernatural powers, surely at least one of them could claim one? Why haven’t they?
“believe that just because Science has Failed to understand the physical results, lumping Real objects with frivolous objects conjured up by imagination does not do justice to your argument.”
I agree. But what are the objects for which there is conclusive evidence? No evidence whatsoever for any Yin Yang forces (don’t confuse the phenomenon of acupuncture with the explanation for it) and apparently no conclusive evidence for Stargate, since that was shutdown due to lack of proper evidence. I therefore lumped these things together with frivolous objects to highlight the fact that, as long as we can’t separate the facts from the fiction, we might very well be believing in something totally absurd as true.
The point is, till you establish such evidence, it makes no sense to act as if these are conclusive things beyond all doubt. Therefore, making such concepts a part of the state, make even less sense.
I do emphasize though, no objections whatsoever to keeping an open mind and continuing research. I’m sure you do understand what my objection is against?
Dear OTC,
My apologies. Wrong link to the list of prizes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal
And I should have said one of the “most impressive and grand discoveries in the history of mankind”. Still, such a discovery would invalidate the current mainstream scientific world view that the world is causally closed and open up a whole new world of exciting scientific possibilities. I mean, who wouldn’t want these things to be true? The only problem is, we are yet to find any evidence that conclusively shows that causal closure is violated.
The implications would be stunning. After all, such a thing as “miracles” become possible too and Christians can rejoice as much as the Buddhists, since it could potentially validate both world views. Agnostics, rationalists or whatever would rejoice by default because they don’t care about it either way. Strong atheists might be flustered a little bit. Weak atheists would be no different from agnostics (I’m probably best classified as a weak atheist and not an “agnostic”. I don’t believe the existence and non-existence of something is equiprobable or 50-50. I think that’s an absurd position to hold. My personal bet is that most agnostics are either weak atheists or weak believers. It is highly unlikely that anyone thinks the existence and non-existence of fairies for example, is a 50-50 proposition. However, to avoid confusion with the general, mistaken connotations of the word atheist, I will continue to use agnostic to avoid confusion).
cheers,
/SD
Daear SomewhatDisgusted,
“A democracy should aim to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, anyone can see that it is an unfair system for minorities and an absurd and unethical form of governance in the 21st century.”
Completely agree with the first sentence but rather than limiting oneself to the 21st Century that type of governance would be absurd at anytime. Buddha had recognised this in the Dasa Raja Darma, the 10 precepts of good governance.
The 10 principles enunciated by the Buddha are as follows.
They remain equally true today as it was 2600 years ago (and before) and will remain so for all time since truth has no time bar.
1. Dana – Charitableness
2. Parithyaga – Self Sacrifice
3. Sila – Virtue
4. Thapasa – The Ruler must lead a life of simplicity
5. lrju – Uprightness
6. Murdu – Soft, Gentle or pliable
7. Avihimsa – Bears no harm to anyone
8. Akrodaya – Absence of enmity
9. Kanthi – Forbearance
10. Avirodita – Non-conflict
I doubt that the Buddhist system of governance would cause anyone any harm at anytime (I am writing about what the Buddha taught not about corruptions of it).
I hope you agree with the Buddha’s Teachings
So I guess I’ll just have to keep re-posting the following quote since Yapa does not recall saying the following:
Yapa on coming up with a system to explain karma, reincarnation, nirvana to non-belivers:
“I think I am in the middle of a sequential process trying to explain the “KRN model” so that it is convinced to the non believers. I don’t know whether it will work out, due to various reasons. But I’ll try my best. However, to understand the final conclusion (result), one has to be aware of what I have already said and going to say in my essays, as they are interlinked. You also may have observed that I am in a somewhat systematic process. I don’t think I can do what you request in a single post. Buddha himself has said that subject of universe and karma are unthinkable. (“Loka Vishaya saha karma vishaya achinthyai”). Really what I am trying to do is something Buddha said as almost impossible. However, still I am trying to formulate a some sort of methodology.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538
::
Also, stay tuned for The Quotable Yapa II – where we take a close look at the many instances where Yapa aligns Buddhism with modern science in order to put forward the validity & relecance of Buddhism.
Yapa,
Do you recall saying that you are attempting to do something that even Einstein said was impossible (in reference to your attempt to prove the existence of karma, etc.)? If not, stay tuned, that quote is coming tomorrow.
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“Acupuncture is recognized. Yin Yang forces are not. You are welcome to cite any papers which talk about Yin Yang. The fact that there is a phenomenon does not make the supernatural explanation given for that phenomenon true.”
I am not even suggesting that the Chinese explanation of Yin Yang forces are true. That is not the thrust of my argument.
Acupuncture identifies thousands of points on the body based on a Chinese Concept of Yin Yang Forces. Science has no credible explanation on how these points were identified. Though these points seem arbitrary to any Non Chinese (including me), that the apparently random needle sticking has tangible and repeatable results are not in doubt. Turning a baby in the mothers womb defies Scientific explanation.
Unlike your Earthquake example we have in Acupuncture a system developed by the Chinese using a foundation of Yin Yang forces as a base. It provides Tangible and Repeatable results so who are we to question the Credibility of the Foundation that Acupuncture is built on? Dismissing Yin Yang can only be RATIONALLY done if we can provide an explanation that will enable the identification of even just ONE additional Acupuncture point, where science says by sticking a needle in it will produce such and such result. Science has not done that yet. It means Science does not understand the Principle involved but the Chinese do. So far Science cannot predict ANYTHING new about acupuncture unlike what Science can do about Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Tornadoes etc.
Remember that Science PROVES some Hypothesis by predicting the results that can be arrived at using the Hypothesis. So why are you not willing to do the same for Acupuncture?
Science is not a know all to be held as the Standard for Truth. This is what I am trying to argue against. So far I have not seen an argument that does not PRESUME that Science is a “Know All” and IS the litmus test for the TRUTH.
Rather than making definitive arbitrary statements about something that we cannot understand would it not be prudent to say that we don’t Know?
I have to go out for an appointment and will discuss “Stargate” when I return.
Yapa on Science & Buddhism, Quote Analysis 1
Hi All,
Yapa frequently throws in references to his very carefully developed belief that Buddhism is – or Buddhist ideas/world view/philosophy/religious theories – are, supported by modern science. However, like subliminal advertising, the direct expression of this belief is hidden – in plain sight – around a lot of other nonsense. So, we have to take a very close look & point out the direct evidence for the impression that Yapa carefully gives – both stating his position & appearing to not provide instances where his belief can be quoted back to him verbatim. So, take a look at the following (this is one out of hundreds of instances where Yapa attempts to use modern science to support the validity of his faith based claims, a new list of such quotes is coming soon – The Quotable Yapa Part II if you will
:
First, the somewhat isolated Yapa on Buddhism & Science quote:
From this comment: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17346
“Now do you accept that there is a truth in what I said that Buddhism based on Four Valued Logic + Something cannot be understood through Newtonian Knowledge System, the base of which is Two Valued Logic. Doesn’t this say Buddhism cannot be understood by rationality, with any amount of hair splitting arguments? Doesn’t this say there is a possibility to understanding Buddhism through Four Valued System based Modern Science?”
Now, let’s isolate that last line & take a close look at it, now that we have some context for it, & see what it says:
“Doesn’t this say there is a possibility to understanding Buddhism through Four Valued System based Modern Science?”
Or, to put it in another way, the above question by Yapa states that he believes that modern science supports Buddhism. But, since he knows he is incapable of clearly demonstrating this belief to non-believers, he states it in a way that leaves many outs for him – where he can say that he did not literally say that modern science definitely supports Buddhism. However, a closer reading shows that this is in fact what he does say in the above sentence – at the least, he believes that modern science being able to demonstrate Buddhism as being true is a possibility. It appears to be a weak expression, but, when you consider what is being referred to – the possibility that modern science can verifiy the existence of fantastic items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana & other core elements of Buddhism in the real world – this is similar to a Christian claiming to be able to find Noah’s Ark fully in tact on some mountain – it is an epic, & not to overuse a word – & fantastic claim. If what Yapa says is possible, it would completely upend much of the way we perceive human existence (for better or for worse, no such thing will be happening, because Yapa is just engaging in some very clever religious propaganda, promoting non-existent things).
Many more Yapa on Buddhism & Science quotes are on the way, all week long – & the full list this weekend.
It is constantly repeated claims such as the one above – thrown in with a whole lot of other stuff – by Yapa primarily – that lead me to isolate the “show proof for Buddhism via science, etc.” question/challenge that sits at the top of this article. Yapa’s tactic of attempting to confuse & bewilder people with a mass of material & inserting his indefensible faith based beliefs at the middle of it all & then attempting to make it all sound somehow less fantastic/acceptable/reasonable than the nonsense that gets put out to support the “Truths” in the other major religions fails when one carefully isolates & reads & thinks about his claims.
More soon.
The illusions created by Yapa are all around us (when we are staring at this & the other thread
[that's a play on something you said earlier Yapa]
- S
dear spiritual man
I will answer as best as i can just one question – that will be enough – dont need to go into the others
1. Law of Karma believes in reward for good deeds and punishment of rebirth for evil. What is good and evil? Who deteermines it?
when you do something good or bad it has consequences – most of all in your own mind – your thoughts, feelings and emotions shape your own mind and with this mind you can experience heaven or hell. lets take the example of a serial killer – the first killing would have been difficult – but with more and more killings he loses touch with the value of human life – and through his actions he denies the value of human life including his own – his thoughts and actions lead him to an inner environment that turns out to be self detructive. just think about the fate of Prabhakaran. So karmic justice is created and meted out within our own minds –
the opposite is also true. a good person lets say Mother Theresa – they gradually create their own inner environment and the inner qualities that define their lives.
I would suggest not to go very far in thinking about karma – even the issue of rebirth we dont need to get into – just stay with your own mind and observe how karma is created moment to moment.
in fact we are never free of this natural law of cause and effect – you sleep early and you wake up refreshed – you sleep late and you wake up feeling a bit awful –
where does the mango fruit come from? when the conditions are right the fruit comes into being – if not it will not
good seeds produce good fruits – bad seeds produce bad fruits
this is not belief – just look and see – as we say ehi passiko
as for political buddhism – that is samsaric activity – lot of suffering there …
Dear OTC,
You said: “But the Article has gone beyond that and into areas that Observer correctly points to. It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer. This presupposes that “Science” knows it all. This of course is a fallacy in every branch of Science.”
While I completely and have repeatedly agreed with you that science does not know it all (I don’t think it can be done even in principle), I’m not sure where the article says that “the concepts of KRN are questioned on the basis that science has no answer”.
None of the angostics seem worried about science or its limitations, which are freely acknowledged. We are asking for evidence or reasons to believe that this KRN concept is real, especially since it was preceded by a certain someone’s claims that Buddhism was a holy truth, the Sinhalese were the guardians of that truth and that Buddhism and the state are inseparable, all of which are claims that intimately affect the lives of others. Even if Mr. Yapa were to be dismissed as a fringe fundie, we are objecting on the grounds that *none of the Buddhists saw it fit to object to such a claim or voluntarily renounce it*. I strongly believe that the Buddhists themselves must keep the nutters in line and make sure that Buddhism does not degenerate into the brand of fundie cult typically found in Christianity and Islam (sorry, this is not an insult to moderate believers, simply the truth – history bears this out quite well). Wanting to take *reasonable* steps to protect Buddhism is one thing, giving a free-ride to the nutters is another, especially since everyone else is outnumbered 7 to 3.
In any case, so far, the only thing we’ve heard in terms of a fair argument is that the Buddha said do this and do that, and you’ll find out for yourself. This sounds reasonable enough at a surface level. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be people who’ve done this and done that, and who can show us that somehow they have indeed stepped out of the matrix and are not merely hallucinating. I mean, this would be something easy to do right? Why can’t such a person point out a fundamental physical property of the universe or write an equation or something that *only a person who has stepped outside of the matrix* could have known about? I’m simply showing you reasonable means with which a strong case could be built for ESP type phenomena. In the event of a failure to do so, on what grounds would you dismiss the possibility of sincere delusion, a common ailment of the human mind, with a solid and immense body of evidence to back it up?
My point being, as long as no solid evidence is provided, KRN remains a matter of faith and while such a thing might still lie in the realm of possibility and I would certainly not discourage further investigation, to claim it as an absolute truth can only be done in Mr. Yapa’s wildest dreams. Would you disagree?
cheers,
/SD
Dear OTC,
“I hope you agree with the Buddha’s Teachings”
Most of the Buddha’s advice on a lot of things make a lot of sense – they appeal to one’s common sense after all.
This is why I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that there is no doubt that the Buddha was one of the greatest philosophers of all time. There is no doubt also that his teachings will outlive the Sinhalese – who have already forgotten what they are.
However, I prefer to keep my respect for the Buddha as a great and intelligent human being, separate from the *speculative aspects of his teachings*. I have a few observations which might be somewhat controversial but I feel it is cruel to point those out to a person who sincerely believes in the speculative aspects. One thing I will point out, is that there’s a high likelihood that the Buddha took Karma and rebirth as a given in his world view and refined those concepts (For example, do you not take Karma and rebirth as a given in your world view? Why would the Buddha not have accepted it if it was the accepted world view in his day? Is it not coincidental that those were indeed existing concepts?)
Bottom line is, I am personally not planning to live my life on the assumption that these are realities although I have no objections to you living your life under such an assumption. Who knows, at the end of the day, you might be right, and I might be wrong. However, I do not consider it reasonable that one person’s speculative, unproven beliefs are foisted upon another through the state, in the interests of being fair by all concerned. Do you think my position is reasonable or unreasonable?
cheers,
/SD
Dear OTC,
“Dismissing Yin Yang can only be RATIONALLY done if we can provide an explanation that will enable the identification of even just ONE additional Acupuncture point, where science says by sticking a needle in it will produce such and such result. Science has not done that yet.”
Interesting indeed. I didn’t know that and I will take your word for it.
However, I would highlight several things.
1. The circular yin-yang forced predicted by the theory have not been discovered. Where did they come from? Such forces would therefore be beyond 21st century technology and even beyond the 4 fundamental forces identified in the universe, with which even the operation of stars have been accurately described. How would you reckon the ancient Chinese discovered a fundamental force which they had no equipment to detect and which has not been demonstrated to have any physical effect anywhere on this planet, other than in acupuncture?
2. What if the Ancient Chinese simply tried out these acupuncture patterns, and perhaps discovered a particularly effective pattern, which might correspond to certain pressure points or whatever in the human body? They then speculated that forces emanated from the body in that pattern and named them Yin-Yang.
Just an alternate and far more credible explanation. Of course at a fundamental level, I agree that I cannot dismiss the idea. This is also partly because I’ve not read up on the current research on acupuncture enough to make a reasonable decision, however, to the best of my knowledge, no scientists have acknowledged the existence of Yin Yang. No opposition to further research as usual.
cheers,
/SD
Dear OTC,
You said: “Rather than making definitive arbitrary statements about something that we cannot understand would it not be prudent to say that we don’t Know?”
Of course. I think we are in agreement. This is what I’ve been saying all along also. Applying this same logic, Buddhism being presented as an absolute truth should be immediately retracted and strongly opposed. This is further bolstered by the far greater amount of evidence that most such supposedly supernatural phenomena have turned out to be creations of the human mind. So at the end of the day, the best thing is to keep an open mind – both to the possibility that these things may be true, and to possibility that these things may be false.
In most cases, the believers are completely closed to the idea that these things might be false, while they simply paint the agnostics as being closed to the idea that these things may be true. The agnostics, by definition, suffer from no such malady.
cheers,
/SD
Off the Cuff,
Since you’d like to know my views on your 2 propositions.. here it is:
1. The Impermanence of everything
Hmm this is a tough… rather tricky one. You have to be careful what you mean by “everything”. If you take compound constructs of basic material of the universe which is matter, then they’re all impermanent. From minute dust particles & micro organisms to large animals, complex contraptions of modern science and the nature, planets, solar systems, galaxies it self… basically everything!
But then one of the basic principles of physics is that matter can neither be destroyed nor created. Thus implies matter is something permanent in the universe. What you and I are built out of never ceases to exist but merely changes the form. You see where I start to become uneasy now. Then it also comes down to the big bang theory, one of the biggest mysteries of the universe in terms of the origin and the time before that. There are many theories out there but hopefully the large hedron collider experiments can shed some lights into this mystery in our life times.
Anyway leave the matter aside, take all the matter away, what about the empty space we call the infinite universe?? That is something permanently there as well far as my unenlightened mind can comprehend. Universe, nothingness is something and it is permanent!
To summarise, I believe matter is permanent and so is the universe. But the shapes and moulds matter take during the light years of expansion and contraction of the universe is all impermanent as the universe will shrink back into a dense singularity destroying everything.
2. That Dukkha pervades life
First of all I have to understand what Dukkha is before I can answer this. (Dukha yanu kumakda?) Unfortunately I can’t confidently tell you I have gotten past the 1st question of the 4 noble truths. If I am able to answer this question accurately, then according to Buddhist teachings I would be 1/4 of the way to Nirvana! I’m pretty sure I haven’t completed this course even 1% let alone 25%! So sorry!
So – you had a contest and those who contributed were placed by you on two sides? like hora polis …
now you conclude that your side has won?
well …. my congratulations !!
I like to think that each one of us is a lamp with some light to shed on the truth ….
and in this regard I tend to favour experiential truth over speculative argument
when religion is lived certain things are realized – but these things cannot be imposed on others –
even the Buddha was only able to teach WILLING people – those who were humble enough to learn something – the others he left alone – so we should not expect any better from mere mortals … no ??
Dear SomeWhatDisgusted,
“Let me rephrase: *If* a believer claims superiority for their beliefs, is it unreasonable to ask them to show on what basis they claim this superiority?”
It’s not unreasonable to ask for basis of their claims. Boy trust me! They won’t shut up about the reasons. Buttt, you can’t expect answers in the same wavelength.. so to speak.
Let me logically lay this out to you…
We agreed science cannot explain everything!
YET, we’re asking for explanations that fall in line with science!?
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction/impossibility of this? If we accept the limitations of science then we also have to expect that those limitations won’t allow for the explanation you’re seeking… unless that is science has become WHOLE, we finally have a universal theory explaining everything in nature and universe. Which we haven’t achieved yet! Do I make sense to you now? Until then it is absolutely unreasonable to challenge the believers unless you become a believer your self by becoming an Atheist at least.
Also, if some claim that Buddhism and the state are inseparable, is it unreasonable to ask on what basis others should be affected by their speculative belief system?
Why do you say Buddhism and the state are inseparable? I don’t think it is the case in Sri Lanka. Sure we have a Buddhist president, so is it unreasonable for him to go to Temples or worship Buddha? Just like other world leaders go to Church, Mosque, invite the pope for chit chat, etc?
I should emphasize that I have no objection to people believing in their religion in the privacy of their own home and see no reason to question their beliefs, but if they wish to impose it on me via the state, they’d better have some way to justify it.
I totally agree, but how is the Sri Lankan state imposing Buddhism on the population? I disagree with you here stating that I do not believe a bit that the Sri Lankan state is imposing Buddhism on others. I’d like to know your basis for this claim before elaborating my answer. The state funds a range of religious schools from Buddhist to Hindu and Muslim. Obviously more Buddhist schools because the country is predominantly Buddhist. On Vesak we have Buddhist programs, during Christmas we have marathon sessions of Jesus crucifixion & Santa Clause movies. Most religious days of all faiths are public holidays. So I find it hard to understand why you’d imply that the state is shoving Buddhism down people’s throat.
But at the same time most States give special provisions for the majority religions of their respective countries. For instance in Western countries Churches are subsidised by Tax. Is that reasonable? Pope will visit the country at the host government’s expense.. I mean the security for the pope is only second to the US president. Is it fair for a Buddhist/Muslim who live in such a country, his tax money be used to host the pope whom he/she has no interest in seeing? When Dalai Lama has to come through the back entrance, so the Chinese won’t see it? So these unfair things happen and I’m sure in Sri Lanka there is a slight unfair advantage towards Buddhism. But that happens and you just have to make sure it is not over the top. In Sri Lanka I don’t think it’s over the top bias towards Buddhism IMHO.
You said: “Democracy is supposed to provide for the majority’s wish.”
No. A democracy does not mean the majority gets carte blanche to trample over the rights of others. It means that the majority is endowed with *responsibility* for making decisions on behalf of others, in a way that is fair and reasonable by all. A democracy should aim to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, anyone can see that it is an unfair system for minorities and an absurd and unethical form of governance in the 21st century.
While I said that where did I say that I endorsed trampling on individual rights? No absolutely not. But at the same time the candidates have to listen to their supporters, otherwise they will lose votes. If they’re a vocal religious group then you sometimes give sway to craziness. Isn’t that exactly the reason why Bush vetoed stem cell research when it was first passed through the congress? That was to please the majority Christians.
Another example. Why is gay marriage only legally recognised in few state in the US? Isn’t it the right of 2 gay people in love to marry and have a family? Those rights are trampled on by the pressure of religious voters!! So I’m pointing these out in the most advanced democracy in the West.
Democracy isn’t perfect and majority voice sometimes drowns out the minority voice. It happens!
Sujeewa, what I meant was that all of what you said in the previous post was all nice stuff that didn’t require anything for me to answer to. I couldn’t disagree with most of it yet it was not what I expected.
Stuff like.. “but non-believers, believers & others working together to turn this planet into the paradise that it can easily (w/ the right number of people & effort involved) become.”
What am I supposed to say other than yes I hope so too? But it was a complete derailment from what I was discussing with you earlier, the foundations of Agnostics to challenge the believers. So I just left it there.. I didn;t mean to offend to or anything.
In any case its probably good I wind down out of this thread. Already fear dragging my self into a vortex here. Now that I have more or less made clear what I have previously said with the last 2 posts I can retire and leave it to the experts
Dear Observer,
You said: “… unless that is science has become WHOLE, we finally have a universal theory explaining everything in nature and universe. Which we haven’t achieved yet! Do I make sense to you now?”
No. Unfortunately you don’t
You might not realize it, but you are essentially arguing that nothing is knowable. Forget about science. We’ve already covered the philosophical basis behind science. Believe me, science is based on practicality, nothing else. But let’s disregard science for the moment.
The question is, how do you know anything? Are you saying it’s impossible to know anything? Fat lot of good right? So how do you show another person the world is flat for example? How would you explain to another you are sad or happy?
Saying things are unknowable doesn’t hold much water. It makes *philosophical* sense, but no practical sense whatsoever. There are millions and billions of things which are unknowable. For example, can you prove to me conclusively that there’s no such thing as a fairy?
We accept something as true if there is some evidence or we have experienced it ourselves or some such thing. Physical or logical evidence is hard to trump, since it becomes hard to deny. Experiential evidence is less believable. We don’t know whether the other person is deluded – a very common occurence.
Bottom line, if you continue with your line of reasoning, you’ll see that you end up arguing that nothing is knowable. That’s all very well from a philosophical perspective. From a practical perspective, I think you’ll agree that it’s not that useful.
You said: “I disagree with you here stating that I do not believe a bit that the Sri Lankan state is imposing Buddhism on others. I’d like to know your basis for this claim before elaborating my answer.”
No. I’m very happy to say that the Sri Lankan state is not. And it *should stay that way*. The protest is against those who claim that Buddhism should be a part of the state. Again, you would need to read the Akon thread to gain the necessary context.
You said: “For instance in Western countries Churches are subsidised by Tax. Is that reasonable?”
Not at all. It should be banned. A good example of a tyranny of the majority. I see no reasonable basis to request tax exemption. God probably wouldn’t need tax money, in the offhand event that he exists.
You said: “In Sri Lanka I don’t think it’s over the top bias towards Buddhism IMHO.”
Question the state of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Just go speak around a bit. How many of them think like Mr. Yapa here, that they are holy guardians of eternal truths which Judeo-Christian conspirators are actively trying to destroy? Now extrapolate from there where at least a part of Sinhalese paranoia stems from. Observer, I know you want to see a country free of prejudice and bigotry as I’ve followed your posts regularly (and they are very interesting). However, we can’t expect to see that by just asking the Tamils to fix their paranoid attitudes. The Sinhalese need to fix theirs too. There’s a fair amount of literature on this phenomenon. I know that both Sinhalese and Tamil paranoia might stem from understandable reasons. Most things can be sympathized with at the end of the day! But we can’t continue to excuse it on that basis and let these silly attitudes prevail. Plus, not everyone has such attitudes either, but we should strongly oppose those who do.
You said: “While I said that where did I say that I endorsed trampling on individual rights?”
I know you didn’t. But that is a *necessary implication* of simply saying democracy is rule of the majority, is it not? I merely wanted to clarify that democracy is not as simple as that.
“Why is gay marriage only legally recognised in few state in the US? Isn’t it the right of 2 gay people in love to marry and have a family? Those rights are trampled on by the pressure of religious voters!! So I’m pointing these out in the most advanced democracy in the West.”
I agree. That’s a good example of a tyranny of the majority and a failure in democracy. Should we happily try to emulate their failures or learn from their mistakes? Should we not try to prevent similar mindsets from solidifying here in SL? Also, notice the common denominator? It’s usually the religious brigades who cause trouble. Never mind America, look at the Muslim world. Blind, unreasonable convictions almost invariably end up causing trouble. That’s what’s being opposed here, not a private belief in Buddhism.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Observer,
Sorry for cherry picking from your post:
“For instance in Western countries Churches are subsidised by Tax.”
Can you show me an exaple of this happening?
“Pope will visit the country at the host government’s expense..”
I am not a fan of the Pope especially the current one! However, the Pose is classed as a head of state of Vatican; hence, a head of state visits another country, the hosting country puts up the bill of hosting the visiting head; this is normal.
Dear Burning Issue,
I don’t disagree with you about the Sinhala Only bill. I’m happy that it was overturned. It’s of vital importance that Tamils do not feel they are second class citizens in Sri Lanka, it is their own country after all. In that regard, you will not see any hesitance in me voicing support. I cannot comprehend a Sri Lanka without Tamils in it. It simply wouldn’t be Sri Lanka anymore.
At the same time, I do not endorse racism of any kind, whether it comes from the Sinhalese or whether it comes from the Tamils, no matter how justified each party considers it to be. That is because it becomes an intractable problem as long as things degenerate into a finger-pointing exercise. In any case, I suspect most reasonable people would desire to eventually see a Sri Lanka which is largely free of racial and religious bigotry and inline with the attitudes worthy of a 21st century democracy. Unfortunately, given our historic legacy, this is not an easy goal to reach and I think we can only reach it gradually and painfully, by opposing these backward attitudes and putting our humanity above this silly racial and religious paranoia.
Not an easy path and IMHO, all communities need to move! Your thoughts are welcome.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Burning Issue,
One more thing. You said: “Ohh; I thought for a minute; was I reading the utterance of an Islamic Fundamentalist; no, it is the utterance of Yapa the Sinhala Buddhist!”
My honest take on this is that Mr. Yapa is probably a nice, harmless individual in real life. Actually, I think most Sinhalese and Tamil people are pretty harmless. I guess it’s not just Sinhalese and Tamils, most human beings are harmless. What defeats us are the bigoted beliefs that people hang on to very sincerely. It could be an unshakable faith in their religion of birth which they have been brainwashed into since birth, or a strong conviction that somehow it is their “race” that defines them, when anyone with half a brain can see that these are mere accidents of birth. Someone else born in a different part of the globe will hang onto some other belief, common to that geographical region, with equal tenacity.
The biggest challenge to any society is to breakdown such parochial thinking, which we are evolutionarily not primed to do, having been nothing but roving nomads most of human history.
In that regard, it’s a battle of ideas. To grapple with the kind of thinking that Mr. Yapa believes with all good intentions but which have logic holes through which you could sail the Titanic through, and replace them with benign ideas which acknowledge the fact that accidents of birth should not be what define us as human beings.
Clearly, this is no easy task, as we are cannot argue on a rational platform and must deal with deeply held attachments instead. I wouldn’t hold my breath for overnight solutions.
cheers,
/SD
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
The Sinhala Only Bill was a brutal enforcement of Majoritism on the Tamil speaking minorities! The Sinhala hardliners did not have to do that; all they had to do to create conditions for peoples to live wherever they liked; Sinhala being the majority language, eventually the minorities would have had no choice but learning it.
“I cannot comprehend a Sri Lanka without Tamils in it. It simply wouldn’t be Sri Lanka anymore.”
It is very well put; likewise, I have always said that, the Sri Lankan Tamils historically have had more affinity with the Sinhala than their counterpart in South India prior to the ethnic divide. Despite this divide, I still feel that, we Tamils in Sri Lanka can mend relationships with the Sinhala than fostering elusions about Tamil kinship with Tamil Nadu; this is my own opinion. However, I do have a big reservation about this; I hope I am wrong.
I do vehemently oppose the aggressive nature of the army planting Buddha statues all over the North & East. Contrary to what many Sinhala say that, politicised and protected Buddhism in Sri Lanka does harm nothing; the army has taken as its duty to paint the whole of Sri Lanka with Buddhist emblems. This is, especially, at the dawn of the defeat of extreme form of the Tamil nationalism; the very army that executed the death nail of the LTTE that is engaged in such activities sending a triumphed message to the Tamil minorities that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist nation; you Demilas do remember this! This tells me that; the GOSL has eschewed the concept of reconciliation but embracing the blatant and irresponsible act of subjugation!
“That is because it becomes an intractable problem as long as things degenerate into a finger-pointing exercise.”
Ahh; I am sorry; I have pointed my finger at the army and GOSL. What else I can do; I am a Tamil and belong to an insignificant minority group!
” I suspect most reasonable people would desire to eventually see a Sri Lanka which is largely free of racial and religious bigotry and inline with the attitudes worthy of a 21st century democracy.”
This is going to be problematic when insecurity has engulfed all Sri Lankans; the majority is insecure fearing for their very existence; the minorities are insecure for obvious reasons. The fact that, you and I use pseudonyms on these forums speaks volumes; we do not want to be labelled as traitor or terrorist then what chance is there for our desire to see Sri Lanka becoming a 21st century democracy? I am afraid that, the Buddhist Hardliners are in charge and by the time they finish it, Sri Lanka will be 90% Sinhala Buddhists; then perhaps there will be a light at the end of the tunnel! Just like Wijayapala said; at this stage Sri Lanka can think about secularising with no fears for Buddhism disappearing; there is a long way to go!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“My honest take on this is that Mr. Yapa is probably a nice, harmless individual in real life.”
I am sure that you are correct; however, I am not at all worried about the likes of Yapa and Wijayapala; they are decent human beings like you say, but extremely concerned about the politicised Buddhism that they endorse for various reasons. I am sure that Yapa and Wijayapala would harm no one but there are those politicians and chauvinists who ride on these platforms instilling irreparable damage to race relations; en-route causing numerous conflicts, death, and miseries.
I must say that, Wijaypala in one who studied Sri Lankan history well and possesses unbiased knowledge, but torn between protecting Theravada Buddhism and building a nation. I for one think that, in Sri Lankan context; Politicised Buddhism, A Common Sri Lankan Identity, and Nation Building are mutually exclusive. A common Sri Lankan identity cannot be promoted with Buddhist prominence in Constitution; thus, a nation cannot be built; this is my point.
Dear Ordinary Lankan (May 11, 2010 @ 12:16 pm)
You said in your reply to SpiritualMan.
“when you do something good or bad it has consequences …lets take the example of a serial killer – the first killing would have been difficult – but with more and more killings he loses touch with the value of human life – and through his actions he denies the value of human life including his own – his thoughts and actions lead him to an inner environment that turns out to be self detructive.”
Oh how I wish it was like that! It ain’t! Sorry!
On the contrary, serial killers get more and more pleasure from victim to victim. Many people who do bad things do them because they get great pleasure from them, and increasingly so. Take corrupt politicians for example! Take sharp business practices. It is their food. It is what they do and many are good, and progressively get better … at being bad!
Do you really think people who do good things are necessarily happy? Again I hope that is the rule, but sadly, it ain’t!
We like to promote the idea that good leads to good, and bad leads to bad (as the doctrine of karma does).
BUT the issue in this debate is not that. The issue is whether there is some celestial mechanism in place in the universe that ENSURES that, or is DESIGNED to ensure that good leads to good and bad leads to bad. Now (despite what our religious books tell us) we can SEE that that is not necessairly so (I can be a real pain and list hundreds of well known cases where you can observe that the opposite is true).
So let’s talk practicalities. Do we abandon our sense of propriety and go on a killing spree? No! The answer I think is to promote the doing of good deeds on the basis that … they are good to do! Simple. Not because they will (surely/apparently/guaranteed to) bring personal rewards from some unseen celestial reward scheme (the celestial air miles?) in this life or the next – who may let you down and you will be disappointed, as many are. You see, if you study the motivations of bad people you find that (many said) they tried to be good like they were told as children but were disappointed – the ‘naughty boys got away with it’ and vice versa. So they learned early in life that the ‘system’ does not work the way they said it would
(if you too mean karma to mean ‘action/consequence’ like if you put a finger in the fire it will burn then, like someone has already pointed out earlier, it is obvious. We don’t need a Buddha to tell us that. In the field of management consulting you would be struggling to justify billing for that!)
Hey Observer,
Re:
“Sujeewa, what I meant was that all of what you said in the previous post was all nice stuff that didn’t require anything for me to answer to. I couldn’t disagree with most of it yet it was not what I expected. ”
Sounds good. Yeah, opening up space for free thought is not the end goal. The end goal is to use the newly opened up space to tackle old problems in a new way to arrive at good solutions. As we all know, 2500+ or whatever number of years of Buddhism in Sri Lanka did not leave the island prosperous & peaceful. So, time to look at other, & proven, methods of personal & national development & then ultimately use the best of the new ideas along with the good ideas from the old time religion/culture & arrive at workable solutions.
And Yeah, turning this planet into a pretty good place to live for most pretty good people is not all that difficult to do. It does require a relatively small (on the entire population of the planet level, probably less than a million or so people, perhaps, in some parts of the world, a more democratic & secular sangha type idea could be an organizational model for these new development workers that I am thinking about) & dedicated number of people who are able to think outside the older boundaries (of thinking that so far has not stabalized & developed the entire planet). Anyway, w/ in our own lifetimes we may see rapid & positive development of this planet, even in all the forgotten corners. On a much smaller scale, it is very possible for Sri Lanka to become a First World type country – an Ireland or Japan (in all the things that matter, the positive things – out of debt, a vibrant economy that creates a surpuls, w/ out high unemployent, poverty, etc. – & w/ freedom from race theory & racism, freedom of religion & freedom from religion, etc. – also, believe it or not, w/ the best human rights record in the world) w/ in the next 2 decades or less – given that SL does not return to civil war, & that freedom of thought & expression & action are protected in SL.
::
Also, re-reading the above comment for errors made me think of another queston to ask from the believers (but, i am sure they will accuse me of diverting the conversation, but i’ll put it out there anyway for folks to think about): with 2000 some years of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, why isn’t Sri Lanka the country with the best human rights record in the world? Is it the teachings that are flawed (in the sense that they are not practical) or is it the people who are idenifying themselves with the teachings who are flawed? I know the answer to this one, and this is off the main point, but something for the belivers to think about. Another good think to ask yourselves – are you happy with where the Sinhalese are in this world after 2000+ years or whatever of Buddhism?
(i myself am not, hopefully my non-believing self can make at least a small positive contribution during my time on earth towards moving things in the right direction for people in SL, getting thigs to where they can/should be)
::
Back to less important work soon
Next up, on or by this weekend – more Yapa On Buddhism & Science & Related Matters quotes. It will be, if nothing else, at least somewhat entertaining.
::
Also, a sad but true, and maybe there is some hope in this/may be useful in the near future thing that I figured out recently (roughly): it would only take a small, regular commitment by just a fraction of the SL diaspora that lives in the west to double or triple the SL GDP/make a LOT more $s available to SL for development, etc (a small example – 500,000 people giving/investing/trading $1000 a year to SL would result in 5 billion dollars, and $1000 when divided into a whole year is just less than $3 a day per person – which is definitely less than what I spend on coffee & tea each day). In a way, for SL to become largely financially self-sufficient (in this type of thinking I am imagining all Sri Lankans who live anywhere on the planet as one nation/SL or members of one nation though they may also be members of other nations due to where they physically live, & not just the ones that physically live in SL). However, such a thing would require a pretty huge change between how Lankans in SL & Lankans in the diaspora relate to each other (& also how the SL gov deals with both groups). Perhaps something for me/us (at least the agnostics, who are not afraid of change & new ideas) to think further about (as in how can such a new collaboration be brought about?).
- S
Aney Mr Yapa, If you have no doubt about the Buddhist doctrine – which according to you have been logically and scientifically PROVEN to be the truth, the whole truth and the only truth, then there is not much point for you in being part of this discussion is there?
Why do you not spend your time better by trying to rid yourself of all ‘thanha’ and ‘aasha’ (not dancing to ‘Aasha’ – the bhangara song) to attain nirvana…? Unless ofcourse, commenting on a ‘transitionary’ – ‘impermanent’, ‘ever changing’ thread on a ‘Christian conpiratory’ website ‘sponsored by Western INGOs’ to ‘undermine the sublimity of Buddhism’ is your idea of nirvana?! That’s not really the ‘middle path’ to ‘enlightenment’ now is it???
To all those who are fearful of western conspiracies – having elected a government and opposition we thoroughly deserve, and given that the opposition is too busy searching for their balls, the IMF is our only hope to even get a budget!!!
Go figure!
Dear Burning Issue,
You said: “I do vehemently oppose the aggressive nature of the army planting Buddha statues all over the North & East.”
I agree. Completely unnecessary. But there are different kinds of ideas floating around here, apart from the one you mentioned. Some are:
1. That the LTTE destroyed ancient Buddhist relics in the north and east and attempted to erase Buddhist identity there.
2. That the Sinhalese are happy to accommodate Tamil Kovils in the south but the Tamils are too racist to accept it in reverse.
3. Some may be trying to emphasize the victory as you pointed out but *this is not the only motivation*.
I’m not arguing about the truth value of any of these things. My point is, the problem is almost always a matter of *perception*. For example, you perceive the motivation as being subjugation, which is a reasonable suspicion from your point of view. The point of view of the other may be a similar suspicion of the Tamils.
“Ahh; I am sorry; I have pointed my finger at the army and GOSL. What else I can do; I am a Tamil and belong to an insignificant minority group!”
Not at all. I wasn’t pointing to you in particular
The point I was making is that although we are in dire circumstances, both Sinhala and Tamil communities need to take progressive action that will transform us into a society suitable for the 21st century. Unfortunately, the common response from each party is to entrench themselves in reverse racism and vilifying the “other”, which simply will not bring about this transformation. As Einstein said, “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”. I think it’s going to be a long slow journey, since this is a matter of fixing attitudes. I know it makes one feel helpless. But what else can we do?
I do like the example set by the US. Open racism persisted even into the 70s! But almost 40 years later, they have a black president, which is a tremendous change, whichever way you dice it.
“A common Sri Lankan identity cannot be promoted with Buddhist prominence in Constitution; thus, a nation cannot be built; this is my point.”
I agree with you in principle. However, many nations tend to adopt such majoritarian policies. For example, isn’t the Church of England still symbolically connected to the state through some clause? I’m not saying that is right but the Sri Lankan constitution too only has that one clause relating to Buddhism while guaranteeing religious freedom to others. The point is, that clause should not be given undue emphasis, because it is not a harmful clause and serves to alleviate Buddhist paranoia. This is why I am personally not campaigning for its removal but once again, I agree with you in principle.
Trying to overturn that clause will only be seen by the paranoid as some “Judeo-Christian conspiracy” to undermine Buddhism, especially since the Buddhist revival in response to colonial oppression still does not seem to have abated. The only thing is, I just can’t fathom how this Buddhist paranoia can be brought back to normalcy. No need to look far to understand this. Just think about what a runaway train the LTTE turned out to be. Could anyone contain it once the wheels were set in motion? This Buddhist paranoia thing is similar, it has taken a life of its own.
Instead, I think we need to pick our battles. The main thing is gradually breaking down this parochial thinking and transforming our country from a superstitious, ultra-religious, feudal society which is an inevitable result of being mired in poverty and lacking access to modern education, and gradually transforming it into a democracy where the already existing good attitudes of the Hindus, Buddhists etc. are brought out and the militant nonsense phazed out. Education, healthy debate and economic development are the critical factors I believe to breaking down such attitudes. Your thoughts are welcome.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Burning Issue,
You said: “Politicised Buddhism, A Common Sri Lankan Identity, and Nation Building are mutually exclusive. A common Sri Lankan identity cannot be promoted with Buddhist prominence in Constitution; thus, a nation cannot be built; this is my point.”
This is a very good point. However, it is not that a nation cannot be built, it is that an *ideal* and *fair* nation cannot be built. This is probably the point you are making?
However, before we can build an ideal nation, we must have some sort of nation to begin with? That cannot happen as long as we are blowing each other to pieces. No matter how hard we wish for it or demand it, things are just going to take time. That is not to say we shouldn’t try to change things!! But progress will be slow.
My opinion is that instead of exacerbating the situation (which the LTTE definitely did and now have nothing to show for it), we need to take what positive steps we can (i.e. Getting Sinhala Only rolled back. Making Tamil an official language etc.). I just don’t see any shortcuts.
cheers,
/SD
Mr Yapa,
My question to you remains unanswered.
“I have asked you (Mr Yapa mainly) whether you would be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”
Any chance?
(just need to verify the basis of your yardstick of ‘truth’ and ‘lies’. If you ignore this question the readers can justifiably ignore your posts on ‘truth’ and ‘lies’ from now on)
A belated hello to contributors on this thread.
Doubtful – perhaps you can get through to Mr Yapa where we could not! Like it.
!
Chula – I respect your immense knowledge of Buddhism. I think people like you are more likely to succeed in changing bigoted attitudes in SL than us sceptics.
Spiritualist – Mr Yapa hasn’t answered your questions on karma. But I think the answer would be (from his previous posts) karma is not designed or administrated by anyone. It is like gravity. It just is. The Buddha explained this because he is omniscient. The short answer is ‘karma was designed by whoever created gravity’. It could well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who knows? Karma was not invented by the Buddha so we may insult the creator of karma as much we like I guess. However, I do wish it was designed with more transparency, rights of appeal etc.
Ordinary Lankan – I can see you will really enjoy debating on this forum on this topic!
Burning Issue – while I was born into a Sinhala Buddhist family I make it a point to promote the scientific research (Stanford U) that our DNA shows that our ancestors are predominantly from South India – 75% (that is all who label themselves Sinhala or Tamil). Race is a social construct. (should SL have a law to make denying this illegal? like Holocaust Denial?)
Observer – I appreciate you keeping us in check
Grasshopper – (glass-hoppa?) I like your ‘straight to the point’ approach. I wish you (also) lived in the time of all religious leaders. You would have had some great questions for them!
Citizen – hope you are still following this thread. Welcome your insights.
.. and pertinent contributions from old friends SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa, Heshan.
To all. They say you should never discuss religion or politics. Those are the they that has got SL into the mess we are in now, in my opinion. The democratic process requires discussion of key issues, and when religion influences (or is likely to influence) politics then religion also comes under the spotlight. It becomes a candidate for rigorous scrutiny, just as all other political claims and promises and non-delivery.
Keep up this necessary debate.
The Three Buddhas
——————-
I have had a chance to consolidate my thoughts on why there is no much INCONSISTENCY (and the merry-go-round) when discussing karma, rebirth, nirvana.
It comes down to who we regard the Buddha to be exactly. What I find is, the Buddha is one of three difference mutually exclusive persons/concepts – the believers switch between them at certain key point in any discussion. However there is a consistent pattern.
These are the 3 concepts:
(1) the human man Siddhata Gautama. A disillusioned person searching for a meaning to his life.
(2) the Enlightened One. An omniscient being.
(3) a god.
The person of type No 1 is credited with having codified the nature of human existence, albeit a subjective one, naturally. His description of the human condition is consistent with anyone who is unhappy with his lot. Somewhat pessimistic. Quite desiring of escape from reality. Only applicable to other people who have also rejected society.
The believers quote Siddharta Gautama’s personal analysis whenever Buddhism needs to be portrayed as ‘about real useful things’. (all about real things that are real and personally observable in a real world)
When the boundary of its applicability is reached (remember the analysis is a narrow one – ie. of a person in a specific frame of mind ie. dejection), such as ‘karma is action. action has observable consequences in this life. but what happens when life ends and the consequences cannot take place?’ Then the believers switch to the No 2 concept – the Enlightened One – the omniscient. Then it is extended to ‘aaaah, then you will be reborn’. How do we know that? Because an omniscient person told us! Can we verify it? No, only an omniscient person can see it.
Now, this switching process works the other way too.
If we question the non-verifiability of karma, rebirth, nirvana the believers then return to the concept of karma as per No 1 – Siddharta Gauthama’s – personal analysis. That is, like ‘if you put your finger in the fire … it will burn’!
You see, we are expected to accept something unprovable as pronounced by an omniscient being (No 2) on the basis of something everyone can observe as real as pronounced by a human person (No 1). One would need a massive leap of faith to make that jump!
So how are the two linked? We are asked to believe that No 1 (who made very down to earth observations of the human condition – that any reasonably curious schoolboy makes about things within our minds) is the same as No 2 – an omniscient being. How? We are asked to accept that on the basis of what the omniscient being has told us (on faith).
Are we told how No 1 became No 2? Yes, The Noble Eight-Fold Path.
Can we verify that is works? No.
Can we verify that the mechanism that is at work here? No.
Can we repeat the process for ourselves and confirm it? No.
So, the two are not connected (the observations on real but obvious things vs the fantastic claims about karma, rebith, nirvana) .
::
Ok, now for the No 3 concept.
For most believers, the ideas pronounced by No 1 and No 2 are academic. By ‘most’ believers I mean those whose involvement of Buddhism is not for these debates/justification/religiouspolitics – but for some personal need. These people, the majority, just need to believe in some higher being to relate to – like an imaginary friend – who can fix things for them. This is why they offer flowers to the Buddha statues, pray (much like Christians at bedtime and Muslims five times a day). They need the reassurance that someone with super human ability and positioning is watching over them. My parents were at the temple doing just that when I sat my school entrance exam – for divine assistance. Similarly this was the pattern when my father was seriously ill – the monks where called in to chant pirith, not so that the sick person is given a change to learn the dharma at this late hour (! in Pali no less) but to appeal to divine intervention, for immediate result, for him to open his eyes, to recover.
This No 3 is a very different concept than No 1 and No 2. Mr Yapa needs No 1 and 2 as these support his religio-political arguments. He denies No 3 – but most Buddhists need No 3.
No 3 is (in my opinion) no different from the Christian god and the Muslim allah in how the devotees (yes, it is a devotional thing) want to relate to him in their hour of need, or as insurance and spiritual investment in anticipation of subsequent hours of need.
::
‘Buddhism’
———–
Having said that, I have spotted something else.
We sceptics cannot argue against ‘Buddhism’. Period. (Mr Yapa, you will love this my darling!)
‘The Buddha’ means a person who is omniscient (No 2 above). So unless we specifically refer to Siddhata Gautama (No 1) we are referring to the pronouncements of an omniscient person. Which of course no mortal can argue against.
‘Buddhism’ then is the pronouncement of an omniscient. It cannot be challenged (except by another omniscient I suppose, at their club, over a beer).
So Mr Yapa, how is this different from the Muslim idea that the Qu’ran is the word of god, cannot be challenged or altered by any human?
Dear BalangodaMan,
Your last post is beautifully argued. Excellent breakdown. Everyone should read it!
A few would doubtless argue that it is possible to go from concept 1 to concept 2 ourselves and thereby verify that it works. Yes, maybe so, and let us know if someone ever succeeds. Until then, it remains a matter of faith.
There is one complication, its followers feel that the Buddha is a far more plausible authority than the Bible, which is another reason it’s difficult to argue the case. The earthiness of concept 1 is confused as evidence for concept 2. This is what they think propels it from “mere faith” to the so called “akaravathi shradda”. What has changed is the face and form of the omniscient authority, not the fact that there is an omniscient authority. Whether that has any more inherent plausibility, is clearly arguable. I guess both of us have similar views on how much more plausible it makes things – not a lot.
cheers,
/SD
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
“My honest take on this is that Mr. Yapa is probably a nice, harmless individual in real life. Actually, I think most Sinhalese and Tamil people are pretty harmless.”
By saying so,you are hinting here that Mr. Yapa may also be a downright cad or a day light robber and to judge so you are a better man than yapa. You plant seeds of doubt in my character, without any evidence.You are portraying your self in gold and me in bronze or silver.
Like you, I also could have said ” My honest take on this is that SomewhatDisgusted is probably a nice, harmless individual in real life”, but I never did and never do because I do not need and do not take undue advantages in a discussion. This has been your way throughout. Here you are appealing for the emotions of people against me and in favour of you. But I believe that emotional appeals and popular vote should not be tools of a literary discussion. Tactics should not be a parameter of a debater in a discussion, but contents should speak for him. But you never based on such fair methods. You always rely on foul tactics.
Is this not a total total lie you are using for popular vote.
“Actually, I think most Sinhalese and Tamil people are pretty harmless.”
Definitely that harmlessness killed about 200,000 people of this country since 1971.
I think you want to be “Super Star”, by popular vote. Shall I send an SMS for you?
You use unethical and unacceptable tactics in a discussion for your advantages. Either honesty gland is absent in you or you have a brand new gland.
You can win by vote bur not by facts. Organize a canvassing campaign.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“We sceptics cannot argue against ‘Buddhism’. Period. (Mr Yapa, you will love this my darling!)”
You can laugh at yourself. If you think your cheap jokes and common knowledge countered our arguments, based on Science, Modern Science, Philosophy, etc….etc…., laugh as much as you want.
But keep in mind “He who laughs last laughs best”.
You are laughing in ignorance. This is an all time common thing. Many people were laughed at, tortured and killed for telling unfamiliar and unconventional things. You can utter familiar, conventional and emotionally comfortable ideas and laugh at others. But history branded those “important people” as idiots. You will never fail to fall into that bunch of fools. You will never go alone. You have some matching companions.
Oh1 God mercy on these ignorant men.
Thanks!
Dear Balangodaman,
You said: “So, the two are not connected (the observations on real but obvious things vs the fantastic claims about karma, rebith, nirvana) .”
I later realized that the implausibility was precisely what you had argued.
Well, where do we go from here? Believers will remain believers, even in the teeth of evidence as Dawkins would say, and non-believers will remain unconvinced by mere claims of omniscience. I feel the discussion would be best served by finding out how the believers feel their respective faiths should interact with others and especially the state. What are your thoughts on this?
cheers,
/SD
“Your last post is beautifully argued. Excellent breakdown. Everyone should read it!
A few would doubtless argue that it is possible to go from concept 1 to concept 2 ourselves and thereby verify that it works. Yes, maybe so, and let us know if someone ever succeeds. Until then, it remains a matter of faith.”
Writing certificates for accomplices. Motivate each other and try pack hunting, pack of cunning jackals.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa,
“However, such a thing would require a pretty huge change between how Lankans in SL & Lankans in the diaspora relate to each other”
I definitely agree with you. This is something that I too feel is critical to making a change in Sri Lanka. A massive income earner for SL is employment in the middle east – many as domestic workers. It is decidedly unfortunate that we have been unable to tap in similarly into the exodus of qualified professionals, who, as you’ve shown from your quick calculation, could potentially make a far more massive contribution.
There could be many reasons for this. Obviously, domestic workers have clear ties to their home country as usually only the female in the household migrates. Professionals I feel tend to migrate with their entire family unit and thus have fewer ties back to their home base. However, even a small investment on their part could massively outstrip the income generated from the exploitation of poor folk in the domestic worker industry.
IMHO, export of skilled labour could be converted into an industry with great potential, rather than a mere misfortune filed under the term “brain drain”. What we need is clear incentives for bringing the income back, as in the case of the domestic worker scenario. That is obviously where the failure lies.
This is a topic in its own right and I’m sure another matter which could benefit greatly from the insights of many on this forum. Perhaps submitting your ideas as an article could spark off a discussion?
cheers,
/SD
SomewhatDisgusted,
“What has changed is the face and form of the omniscient authority, not the fact that there is an omniscient authority.”
To add to that, you would know … but for the benefit of readers, the name given to SL’s Popular Buddhism is ‘Protestant Buddhism’ (Obeysekera). Meaning, it is a religion promoted to counter (to protest) the growing inroads that the Christian missionaries were making, and that was in the 1880s. What they did was to re-package Buddhism in the same way as Christianity – as a devotional religion. In many ways it is the same thing, with a god-like figurehead to whom followers can pray and show devotion, as far as the devotees care – except with yellow robed monks and temples instead of dog-collared priests and churches. There are many more parallels. This is not surprising because all of the main drivers of this enterprise were originally Christian, perhaps always continued to be !
I have mentioned before, the very first article by Soma Thera in the Sunday Times in the 1990s was to highlight that the Buddhism is SL is really a mixture of Christianity and Hinduism. (Mr Yapa, you listening?)
Whilst we should (I suppose) be thankful that the complete conversion of Ceylon to Christianity was stemmed by this 1880s Buddhist revival we should know the correct history – we can only find out these things now (thanks to the internet pointing to authoritative information) what we were not taught at school.
(Did anyone’s history books say that our treasured Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa were ‘discovered’ covered by the jungle in the early1800s by British explorers? That the locals – that’s us – had no interest in clearing it (for 70 years!), until the British finally cleared it? (The same happened with regards to the archaeological sites in Egypt and Greece that were being pilfered by the locals). Which is just as well as these sites were very valuable to the Buddhist revival that followed, and immensely valuable to the country now. Happy to have this corrected. Anyone?).
(The same happened with regards to the archaeological sites in Egypt and Greece that were being pilfered by the locals)
SD, thanks for your comments
BalangodaMan,
I don’t know enough! Please keep it coming because I’m certainly learning
As for pack hunting – LMAO.
Mr Yapa! Mr Yapa! Mr Yapa!
When I said …
“We sceptics cannot argue against ‘Buddhism’. Period. (Mr Yapa, you will love this my darling!)”
I really did mean it (well not the darling bit. sorry!). You have missed this very important point that actually says that your argument is UNASSAILABLE. Meaning, you WIN by DEFINITION!
Let me try again. ‘Buddhism’ by definition means the doctrine of an omniscient being – that is, someone who knows everything. None of us (who are not Buddhas) can argue against it. Not me, not SD, not Sujewa!
But what truly saddens me is this. I have to say I have benefited from some of the Buddhist teachings. They have helped me keep cool and focused even in the face of pretty dire adversity. Why has it not helped you?
This is another good reason for this thread. I feel that religious politics has overshadowed the real goodness of some Buddhist concepts (compassion for example, elimination of hate) for those who really could do with some …
Dear Mr. Yapa,
I think I’m going to have to retract my belief in your own harmlessness.
“Definitely that harmlessness killed about 200,000 people of this country since 1971.”
You believe in Kamma don’t you Mr. Yapa? Funny thing ain’t it? You preached Bana to the Tamils in 56, 58, 77, 83 etc. etc. and those bloody ungrateful Tamils killed you for 30 years instead! Kamma works in mysterious ways, eh Mr. Yapa?
Another thing I don’t understand about this whole Kamma thing Mr. Yapa. What about the deaths of all those pious Sinhala-Buddhists during JVP times? Why did so many die so brutally Mr. Yapa? They must be reincarnated Tamils right? Anyway, I probably shouldn’t question the will of Kamma.
But you don’t worry, Mr. Yapa, the Buddha would be proud of your understanding, compassion for other human beings and stellar services rendered in preserving holy truths. You might even get a VIP ticket to Nibbana, thanks to the PBFF (Protestant Buddhist Frequent Flier) programme that BalangodaMan had a holy revelation about. Don’t forget us when you get there and remember to write back from time to time.
cheers,
/SD
p.s.
I liked that bit about pack hunting jackals – LOL. Jackals don’t normally hunt in packs Mr. Yapa. These must be a type of conspiratorial jackals indeed.
Dear Observer,
Thank you for your very considered and thoughtful reply. Its greatly appreciated. Please continue to remain on the thread and post even if its for selected comments.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted / Observer,
SomewhatD says that “No. I’m very happy to say that the Sri Lankan state is not. And it *should stay that way*. The protest is against those who claim that Buddhism should be a part of the state.”
But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.
What I don’t understand is how Buddhism being in the Constitution “CURTAILS” or otherwise restrict others from practicing their faiths. In fact the Constitutional clause regarding Buddhism specifically requires that other Religions be allowed free practice, in the absence of which the clause referring to Buddhism becomes a null.
Observer says
“We agreed science cannot explain everything!
YET, we’re asking for explanations that fall in line with science!? ”
That’s why I stated that “the Article has gone beyond that and into areas that Observer correctly points to. It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer. This presupposes that “Science” knows it all. This of course is a fallacy in every branch of Science.
Science is not a know all to be held as the Standard for Truth. This is what I am trying to argue against. So far I have not seen an argument that does not PRESUME that Science is a “Know All” and IS the litmus test for the TRUTH. “
Dear Observer,
Yes, I follow your argument. In all probability Emptiness may be the only permanent thing. But consider this.
The empty space though a vacuum keeps changing in size and shape due to the movement of objects. Since objects are in motion the Vacuum would also be changing shape. Then even the Vacuum too would be impermanent. Would that mean that everything is impermanent?
“But then one of the basic principles of physics is that matter can neither be destroyed nor created. Thus implies matter is something permanent in the universe.”
Not really, as mater changes to energy and Vice versa.
e = mc^2
This is what I mean by Dukkha.
The Pali word DUKKA has no exact equivalent in English. The word suffering is used in English to mean Dukka but the word is inadequate to convey the whole gamut of meanings that the Pali word conveys. In discussing Buddhism the authoritative language is Pali not English.
The Buddhist meaning of Dukka (inadequately called Suffering in English) is as follows
Birth is suffering
Ageing is suffering
Death is suffering;
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering;
Association or connection with objects or persons you dislike is suffering;
Separation from loved ones and objects is suffering;
Desiring to get and not getting it or craving is suffering
That briefly is the Buddhist definition of Dukka (suffering). You can refer to my complete post here.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18232
Looking forward to an elaboration of your post of May 11, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
Dear SomewhatD
In my post of May 12, 2010 @ 11:13 pm I intended to include the following as it dealt with Buddhism and the State
In my post of May 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am I dealt with the Buddha’s ideas of good governance since you mentioned Tyranny by the majority. When I asked you, whether you agreed with Buddha’s teachings I meant what Buddha said about Good governance not anything else. How would such Governance become anything but benign?
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
Thanks for patiently outlining your thoughts on the points that I uttered out of anger and emotion!
I concur with everything that you outlined; however, I would like to comment on the following:
“ That the LTTE destroyed ancient Buddhist relics in the north and east and attempted to erase Buddhist identity there.”
I am not here to defend the LTTE and their actions; however, to my knowledge, there were two main places of Buddhist worship within the Northern region: Naynathevu (Nagathepa) and Jaffna Vihara leaving the alleged historical claims aside. I have no knowledge of these two places were destroyed by the LTTE; if they were, they should be restored to their former glory.
“That the Sinhalese are happy to accommodate Tamil Kovils in the south but the Tamils are too racist to accept it in reverse.”
I think that, if the Sinhalese were to settle in North & East by their own free will and build Buddhist Viharas, I would not think that there would objections from the Tamils at all. I say this because, the Tamils never quarrelled about religions. However, they obviously express uneasiness about state sponsored Sinhala only colonisations and erections of Buddha statues by the state machinery. Instead, the state should create conditions for all to move freely and settle wherever one wants to live. If there is a need for a place of worship, the parties concerned should following the local authority rules. The Tamils did not establish Hindu temples as a prelude to them settling in the southern areas; I will stand corrected, if one were to prove me wrong on this.
“I’m not arguing about the truth value of any of these things. My point is, the problem is almost always a matter of *perception*. For example, you perceive the motivation as being subjugation, which is a reasonable suspicion from your point of view. The point of view of the other may be a similar suspicion of the Tamils.”
I agree on the point about *perception*; however, the recent parliamentary election showed, even at the dawn of complete decimation of the LTTE, that the Tamils voted for TNA in numbers as opposed to siding with a party that still clings on to the Vaddukoddai Resolution. What else can the Tamils do to convince the South that they are not for secession but for meaningful political safeguards? The point here is that, it is not about Tamils Vs Sinhala, but it is about Tamils Vs Sinhala & state; it is a hard pill to swallow from the Tamil perspective.
“For example, isn’t the Church of England still symbolically connected to the state through some clause?”
Yes, I agree with the above; however, in Britain, there is no written constitution, but it is mere tradition with no legal connotations.
“The point is, that clause should not be given undue emphasis, because it is not a harmful clause and serves to alleviate Buddhist paranoia. This is why I am personally not campaigning for its removal but once again, I agree with you in principle.”
But to the contrary; it is being used as a vehicle to plant Buddha statues in contentious areas; this is the point. I think that, the new constitution must stipulate as to its purpose. As far as I can see, once a Buddha statue is planted, it cannot be removed as it can be deemed as unconstitutional. I am very sorry that I harp on about this issue relentlessly, but it is important to control religions; a state should divorce from any religious affinity. I know it is too soon to expect from Sri Lanka for now, but we need to build consensus for this to happen in the future.
“Trying to overturn that clause will only be seen by the paranoid as some “Judeo-Christian conspiracy” to undermine Buddhism, especially since the Buddhist revival in response to colonial oppression still does not seem to have abated.”
I agree; but these guys forget that, the Tamils too were subjected to colonial oppression; the entire Mannar district was almost converted to Christianity by the Portuguese. The Tamils were and still are victims of oppressions!
“ The only thing is, I just can’t fathom how this Buddhist paranoia can be brought back to normalcy. No need to look far to understand this. Just think about what a runaway train the LTTE turned out to be. Could anyone contain it once the wheels were set in motion? This Buddhist paranoia thing is similar, it has taken a life of its own.”
I share you concerns; I do not know as to how it can be stopped. My feeling is that, the MR regime can stop this if it wants to, but I doubt it will happen!
“Instead, I think we need to pick our battles. The main thing is gradually breaking down this parochial thinking and transforming our country from a superstitious, ultra-religious, feudal society which is an inevitable result of being mired in poverty and lacking access to modern education, and gradually transforming it into a democracy where the already existing good attitudes of the Hindus, Buddhists etc. are brought out and the militant nonsense phazed out. Education, healthy debate and economic development are the critical factors I believe to breaking down such attitudes. Your thoughts are welcome.”
I cannot argue against the above; yes, it is exactly what should happen. First thing is to resolve the language issue; presently, such debates can only happen in isolation within communities.
DFear Grasshopper,
My statement
Kamma (Pali) = Action (English)
Vipaka (Pali) = Result (English)
Do you mean that walking, Running, Eating, Drinking, playing and everything else you do and the results of what you do “is ESP stuff”?
Your response
Oh! is this the kamma – vipaka Buddshim talks about? I honestly dont need a religion to tell me that those are cause and effect. It is so obvious.
No that is not Buddhism.
It was an explanation of the word as you obviously did not understand the Word
Should have been Obvious to you as I gave you the English equivalent of the Pali Word of the two words that you incorrectly used.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“My opinion is that instead of exacerbating the situation (which the LTTE definitely did and now have nothing to show for it), we need to take what positive steps we can (i.e. Getting Sinhala Only rolled back. Making Tamil an official language etc.). I just don’t see any shortcuts.”
I completely agree; I do not know how to proceed about it, but will certainly work towards it.
OTC,
“It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer”
Oh gosh!
For the Umpteenth time (!) it was your colleague Mr Yapa who stated that karma, rebirth, nirvana are real things that can be proved with scientific methods. He quoted research in Quantum Physics and what not. He even argued in favour of a particular scientific approach. It was the Agnostics who challenged that. Now you are all saying what the Agnostics were saying all along! THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY OR OTHERWISE SOMETHING THAT IS A MATTER OF RELIGIOUS FAITH.
Phew!
Welcome to this side of the table!
OTC,
Did you really say …
“But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.” By this you mean that we have a Buddhist Constitution?
Wrong! Very wrong.
‘been given a special place’ is a million miles away from being a fundamental or any aspect of the Constitution! (as far apart as Heather Mills and her other leg!)
I have already listed how a Buddhist Constitution would look. But before I am forced to repost my list – let’s take a look at a well known national constitution that IS religious – any Muslim country – say Saudi Arabia. You will see that Islam is woven into the law of the land. That is not difficult, actually entirely natural, because Islam IS a system of LAW. The law of their god Allah, as revealed through their religious hero Mohammed (pbuh) on how society must be run, cutting off hands etc.
If you do the same with Buddhism you have some hilarious absurdities. Because the natural consequences of Buddhist doctrine is unworkable as ‘laws’ (it is not designed to be ‘law’ of a society. It is based on musings of a person who has rejected society and wants to escape from it). I listed these in an earlier post – an example is, the law will have to outlaw advertising as it would be unconstitutional. It would make people do precisely what the Buddhist teachings encourage you not to do (ie. want things). At any rate it would make ‘desire/craving’ more difficult to resist. If you say, the constitution allows OTHER religions to exist – oooooh well well well … does that mean that advertising is unlawful ONLY if targeted towards Buddhists? That advertising to target non-Buddhists will be legal???? Or advertising is allowed but you could fall foul of the law if a Buddhist is persuaded to want the Mercedes-Benz that the lottery is offering as first prize?
What about having a cricket team?
More like Shilboot, right?
OTC, you are seeing words and getting the wrong meaning. This is similar to you saying ‘karma works in this life because if you put your finger in the fire it will burn’ – how’s that anywhere near ‘if you put your finger in the fire … it will burn in the next life’? Or ‘karma is recognised in every modern judicial system’! You’re making tenuous connections between things that are very very far apart.
OTC, when you say ‘Buddhism is already part of the constitution’ it is the same as saying ‘Christianity is part of the Govt of SL’ because there are some Christian MPs in parliament?
Dear Doubtful;
You say;
[Why do you not spend your time better by trying to rid yourself of all ‘thanha' and ‘aasha' (not dancing to ‘Aasha' – the bhangara song) to attain nirvana…? Unless ofcourse, commenting on a ‘transitionary' – ‘impermanent', ‘ever changing' thread on a ‘Christian conpiratory' website 'sponsored by Western INGOs' to ‘undermine the sublimity of Buddhism' is your idea of nirvana?! That's not really the ‘middle path' to ‘enlightenment' now is it???]
I am doing so. But I thought some unfortunate creatures could be shown the path and saved from going to the hell. But I found that their bad karma are so powerful that even Lord Buddha himself cannot save them.
Things happened according to the Laws of Nature, not the way I want. Anicca, dukka and anatta. That is why suffering prevails. What can I do rather than murmuring a small poem? I am powerless against the Law of karma.
Pin mada eka guna dahamin veloowath,
Uge gathiya oo nariy maroowath,
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“it was your colleague Mr Yapa who stated that karma, rebirth, nirvana are real things that can be proved with scientific methods.”
DELIBERATE LIAR. BACK YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE.
(Anyway) thanks!
Dear Off the Cuff;
Re: Your post of May 13, 2010 @ 12:32 am
What a fruitless exercise you are engaged in? He is determined not to be convinced by others.
Why waste your energies?
Thanks!
@Mr Yapa: I did not mean to hurt or pass judgement on you and whether or not you agree with my views is of little consequence in this forum. I was merely stating the fact that your arguments bore little -if any- substance for intellectual reflection and i have not seen anything that made me change my mind. Don’t feel condemed by that however – what i or anyone else thinks should not matter to you if you are assured in your own faith.
Dear Off the Cuff;
Addressing SomewhatDisgusted you say;
[In my post of May 12, 2010 @ 11:13 pm I intended to include the following as it dealt with Buddhism and the State
[
In my post of May 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am I dealt with the Buddha's ideas of good governance since you mentioned Tyranny by the majority. When I asked you, whether you agreed with Buddha's teachings I meant what Buddha said about Good governance not anything else. How would such Governance become anything but benign?]
Their ears are open only to what they say. Their eyes are open only to see the beauty of themselves. They smell themselves and satisfy. Touch themselves and overjoy. Taste their own body and laugh in fulfillment.
You never will be able wake them up. They are imitating that they are sleeping.
Let them go to hell.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Your sarcasm;
[But you don't worry, Mr. Yapa, the Buddha would be proud of your understanding, compassion for other human beings and stellar services rendered in preserving holy truths.]
There were a lot of people who made undue sarcastic remarks in the past. All of them are now suffering in hell.
Did you apply for your Visa?
(Anyway) Thanks!
@SomewhatDisgusted: I do not under-estimate the effects of stirring up the hornet’s nest or the ability of order to spring out of chaos. However, we know that Buddhist philosophy (or rather a twisted version of it that has trickled through the corruptions of two thousand years) occupies a space in our social structure. You may feel strongly about separating religion from the state and its political affairs and make Sri Lanka a secular liberal democracy – to which I agree wholeheartedly and without reservation. The question is, how best can we achieve that?
Do we follow what the Americans did in Iraq – shock and awe those ‘deluded’ Buddhist friends by doing all the thinking for them and delivering a crucial blow or reason to undermine key aspects of their faith? Do we instead carry our a war of attrition for thirty years for our secular state? The danger is; no matter how irrational and even violent the ‘believers’ may seem when their beliefs are questioned, the vacuum that is created in the breakdown of those belief systems can be far more dangerous and detrimental to society.
I raised these very issues early last year on Ground Views. Especially in matters of faith, I have found it difficult and dangerous to try to move people by undermining their beliefs. All major religions of the world are inherently based on sound moral principals, even though they are not inherently tolerant of one another. The point is, if everyone adheres to their five precepts and guides themselves in the eightfold path, loves god with all their hearts and their neighbours as themselves and so on, no religion would need to depend on the patronage of a corrupt state. This is just my opinion, but I prefer to ask my Buddhist friends how they can justify their support for war, to burning down churches, why they feel insecure about the preservation of their faith and why they perceive there are subject to international conspiracies – their paranoia extending to a fear that a lone hip-hop artist may undermine a world religion? I would ask them how state patronage and protection has helped strengthen them spiritually – the sensibility of even having a “Buddha Saasana Ministry” given that those who run it are – if not cronies and henchmen of corrupt regimes – are least enlightened to offer the ‘safeguards’ – if any such thing can be offered – to their faith.
It is far easier, and perhaps more productive in the sense that Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and Agnostics can work together and hand in hand with each other to reform ourselves and the state by eliminating the blatant contradictions that arise when state and religion is meaninglessly coupled together by pandering politics and question whether we live true to the precepts of each of our beliefs and world-views without the unpleasant and unproductive questioning of those beliefs themselves.
With apologies for the lack of brevity on my part, I believe this is all i can positively contribute to this discussion. Thank you all for your patience and tolerance of my views.
OTC & everyone else,
RE OTC’s:
“Science is not a know all to be held as the Standard for Truth. This is what I am trying to argue against. So far I have not seen an argument that does not PRESUME that Science is a “Know All” and IS the litmus test for the TRUTH. “ ”
I think automatically reducing the demand for proof into a demand of scientific proof happened, partially, due to that type of argument being a familiar debate to Buddhists/the believers. This happened somewhere along the 1000+ comments in the Akon thread. So, let me clarify – the proof for karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana need not come in the form of scientific proof (as in, what is considered scientific/based on the method used to prove things in science now or in the recent past), but the proof needs to be verifiable by non-believers or somewhat believers & others – meaning, the proof has to show that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana – as described in Buddhism – are actual aspects of this world/this universe – and not just either religious speculation or fiction or most likely fiction. It appears to me that the karma, R, nirvana are ancient symbolic devices – ideas basically – used in order to get people to follow a certain path – in the same way the conept of God/Heaven, etc. is used in Christianity & in many religions older than both Buddhism & Christianity. Thus, claiming that any ancient religion contains the absolute truth about the world, how the universe works, how the afterlife may work if there is an afterlife is absolute nonsense. If it were not to be received as speculative items, non-existent in the real world items, then the believers have to show that those items do in fact exist in the real world & has an effect on real people. No manner of semantic skills, evasion, & saying that “it has not been proven as false” will not help believers when it comes to attempting to demonstrate to all that what is perceived as speculative items in a religion (perceived by non-believers) are in fact real items – of great concern & relevance to all (& not just the believers).
The real problem, underneath the debate over the realness or fakeness of ideas at the core of Buddhism is, as SomewhatD & others pointed out many times, many Sinhalese are attempting to unify Sri Lanka or create a common Sri Lankan identity using Buddhism – which is a project that is bound to fail – because Sri Lanka (the entire island, no matter what name it has gone by in the past) has never, in recent/recorded history been an entirely Buddhist island. So, if the plan expressed via the constitution – keeping the state secular & still ensuring that Buddhism is protected/assisted is to be carried out in good faith (while at the same time protecting other religions & non-believers) there may be hope for both creating a common & useful Sri Lankan identity & ensuring that SL Buddhism & other religions remain/stay alive on the island.
Here is why neither the Tamil extremist dream of a separate state nor the Sinhala-Buddhist extremist dream of an entirely Buddhist Sri Lanka will never come true: underneath the recently/new (since 1948) in the current level of strength political identities called Sinhala and Tamil, we are talking about the same people (regardless of what european race theory/tool of conquest & government used by the British tells you) – a group of humans who were born on an island & have a both fierce independent nature to them & also think very highly of themselves/have a high degree of self-respect (& knowledge of their histories preserved either in SL in the South for the Sinhalese or in SL North & East & elsewhere/Tamil Nadu/elsewhere in the Tamil diaspora for the Tamils). So, even if the goals of either camp were to be accomplished & sustained for a brief period of time, it will surely be contested & dismantled w/in a generation by the other side. So, the best way for success, I think, for Sri Lanka is to build a common, secular Sri Lankan identity, & at the same time protect freedom of religion & freedom from religion on SL. Of course, it may take another war cycle for this view to be accepted by the hard core on the Sinhala side, but let’s hope not.
::
The recently annouced paln (i saw a press release less than 2 weeks ago) by the SL gov to train a million+ gov employees in tamil/english/sinhala – get them proficient in all 3 languages is definitely a giant step forward/towards improving things in SL/a step in the right direction, if it were to be actually & successfully carried out. [i could not find the link to the SL gov press release w/ the mentioned info, but google thinks that President Rajapaksa’s Vision for SL includes a reference to the new focus on multi-linguistic proficiency:
http://www.priu.gov.lk/mahindachinthana/MahindaChinthanaEnglish.pdf
::
Anyway, for the moment, in my opinion, things look better for SL (the lesser of the two evils since the early 2000′s or so, in my opinion, won the civil war), so let’s use this new peace time to set things up that will take SL beyond the horrible mistakes of the past & into SL being one of the best countries on earth for real (not just in extremist fantasies); meaning – economic development & individual freedom & rights – creating space to think freely for Lankans/unbound by ancient religious prohibitions is key to transforming SL into a far better place.
::
- S
Ordinary Lankan,
RE:
“even the Buddha was only able to teach WILLING people – those who were humble enough to learn something – the others he left alone – so we should not expect any better from mere mortals … no ??”
The Buddha & all other founders or so-called founders of all the religions appear to be human (that’s if they existed on earth at all), so, they too were mere mortals – in my opinion – and if they were transported to our time, they may be able to learn a lot from us also (like, how to surf the net, for example
, so, I think it is not a great idea (not saying that you are doing this, but, this is a good place to express this idea) to believe that great truths/ideas/observation are solely the province of people who lived a long time ago. However, if you feel/believe that the Buddha was something more than human, feel free to submit proof for that so that we can take a look.
- S
SomewhatD,
RE:
“Dear Sujewa,
“However, such a thing would require a pretty huge change between how Lankans in SL & Lankans in the diaspora relate to each other” (my statement)
I definitely agree with you. This is something that I too feel is critical to making a change in Sri Lanka. A massive income earner for SL is employment in the middle east – many as domestic workers. It is decidedly unfortunate that we have been unable to tap in similarly into the exodus of qualified professionals, who, as you’ve shown from your quick calculation, could potentially make a far more massive contribution… (your response)”
Yup, there are some seriously (by any standard, US or SL or otherwise) wealthy people – Sinhala & Tamil – in the SL Western diaspora. Or, even regular folk/people with any kind of a FT job – in the Western diaspora – can & will raise/put aside $1K a year to help SL if they think that it will actually do some good (i think, or at least that is the impression i get when i talk to people).
Yeah, this is definitely an entirely different topic, & a useful one to discuss. I will blog about it at my SL agnostics blog & get feedback & try to develop a useful article from it perhaps. In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions re: this matter, comment here, share.
One of the problems, or two, actually, when dealing w/ fundraising for SL in the west/US in SL diaspora communities that may come up are: 1) is the money goig to be used well/the corruption in SL issue. 2) who will it benefit? just the sinhalese? just the tamils? etc. So, obviously we need an NGO (since many tamils will feel that any SL gov agency is too sinhala) that is trusted & supported by the SL Gov & also trusted & supported by the SL diaspora/all ethnicities. I wonder how people feel about Sarvodaya? Is it too Buddhistic & too Sinhala? How does it rank in term of corruption? (here’s a good little true story – once, in early 2000′s, i donated i think $20 or $50 to i believe sarvodaya & they wrote back saying that the money was used to buy a milk cow for a poor family. my brother & friends thought that was awesome, also the letter made my day – even though i did not try to verify the contents/truth of the letter
Another idea, along the same lines, that I’ve mentioned in passing a couple of times in these forums is a SL diaspora bank. Something like Grameen, except the funds will come from the Western & elsewhere SL diaspora & will be used to assist SLs in Lanka & the diaspora (not everyone who emigrates to the west “makes it”, as we know, & needs help – specially at first). Anyway, such a thing would also need to be more than 100% corruption free.
Also, for the SL diaspora – specially the .5, 1.5, & 2nd gen & beyond to help SL out, people in SL would have to approach the diaspora openly, not as some kind of a front for a Western Conspiracy to take over SL – as some paranoid Lankans do (by the way, Western Conspiracy would be a great name for a Sri Lankan punk band
This would be a difficult thing to set up, but the revenue potential for SL is staggering – I am sure SL can do a lot w/ an extra 5 billion or 10 billion or 15 billion a year that does not have unreasonable strings attached & is coming from people from the land (at one point) & their children or grandchildren. Anyway, such a collaboration between SL & it’s diaspora would require the hard core/militant types in SL to tone down their hatred of the rest of the world & approach them w/ humility & openness – not sure if people who believe in the superiority of their ancient religion & distrusts all foreigners & non-believers are capable of doing that. But I guess it does not hurt to try
- S
Ps.
The link to my previous article which appeared in Ground Views in February 2009 seems to have been distorted in my comment above.
Observer,
RE:
“Let me logically lay this out to you…
We agreed science cannot explain everything!
YET, we’re asking for explanations that fall in line with science!?
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction/impossibility of this? If we accept the limitations of science then we also have to expect that those limitations won’t allow for the explanation you’re seeking… unless that is science has become WHOLE, we finally have a universal theory explaining everything in nature and universe. Which we haven’t achieved yet! Do I make sense to you now? Until then it is absolutely unreasonable to challenge the believers unless you become a believer your self by becoming an Atheist at least.”
We (the agnostics) are not asking for an explanation/demonstration as true/real, of karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism via scientific means only. There are other ways to show that something is real: observation by humans, video tape, audio tape, etc. HOWEVER, I think you are missing the meaning behind this debate – the agnostics believe that the speculative items that exist at the core of all major religions, including Buddhism, takes them out of consideration when it comes to selecting -as the main source – valuable human ideas for buliding/re-building/changing a society for the better – for the simple fact that only the believers agree & accept that the speculative items in religions may be real/actual items that have an effect on this world & universe.
In that light, it is absolutely necessary to challenge not just religous blind belief & plans put forward by the religious to use their religion as the basis for organizaing society, but also all other kinds of negative folk beliefs – racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-capitalism/anti-commerce, etc. To make things (hopefully) painfully clear, organizing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious & no-religion society (SL) under the guidelines provided by one religion (Buddhism) only & then expect it to compete & coorporate with countries & people who have set up their societies with an openess that allows both the religious & the secular to contribute well to society (the west, etc.) is not a great plan. It will result in more of what Sri Lanka has been able to deliver since ’48 – poverty & unrest. The most successful countries in the world, also the most desirable countries in the world (due to the fact that they are peaceful w. in their boundaries at least & successful) use a national development & maintanance formula that allows for both the existence of religions/followers & the existence of a vibrant secular/non-religious communities/people. Each side functions as a check on the excesses of the other side. This would be a good formula/approach for SL to take a long & deep look at.
Anyway, back to your point – religions are merely a set of human ideas organized & interperted & lived out in a certain way – thus, they are not sacred/not-off limits to inquiry by other humans. When you do allow things to be off limits, you will end up with, most likely, tyranny.
Or, to put it another way, would you like to move to an ultra-conservative muslim country? (a place where questioning religion may result in your death) :: [of course, if you are an ultra-conservative muslim, then that question will not work as support for my argument, so, hopefully you are not
]
- S
Brother B-goda-Man,
Re:
“Let me try again. ‘Buddhism’ by definition means the doctrine of an omniscient being – that is, someone who knows everything. None of us (who are not Buddhas) can argue against it. Not me, not SD, not Sujewa!”
I don’t believe that the Buddha or any other thinker/founder of a religion or any other organization in human history/no human period was omniscient, thus, I am able to question Buddhism (true, that is not necessarily arguing against it, but may be considered as arguing against it by some believers).
If, however, the Buddha was omniscient, he would (i think) have advised against both the establishement of Imperial Japan & the creation of the atomic bomb, which stopped Imperial Japan’s war/during WWII – both those things killed a whole lot of Buddhists & many other types of people. Thus, since no such direct prohibition was mentioned by the Buddha, I do not believe that he was omniscient/that he knew everything.
- S
OK SomewhatD, post re: “Sri Lankan diaspora helping Sri Lanka w/ $s” idea has been created:
http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-billion-s-year-or-more-to-sri-lanka.html
Let’s start developing it – list out some things to think about when tackling such a project. Will do same (comment at my blog’s comments section, once we have thought the idea through I may write & submit an article about subject to Groundviews). Also, all interested folks are welcome to comment/contribute ideas.
- S
Dear BalangodaMan,
My posts refer to the Article that was authored by Sujewa. If you think that the article does not use Science as a base to question Buddhism then please make your argument. Using Science as a base includes requesting the use of Science in the proof.
I have stated many a time on this thread and its precursor that Science is an immature tool in the Field of Philosophy and hence it cannot be used to either Prove or Disprove a Philosophy. If you want to use Science PROVE that it is MATURE first.
I have given two examples of Physical Phenomena that are Real and recognised as such but has neither scientific proof nor explanation.
You have been unable to answer why the Apex World Health Organisation accepts Acupuncture when there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
You have been unable to answer how a Human Being could describe the location of a downed aircraft in the African Jungles that led to its recovery when NO ONE knew its location. The absence of knowledge of the location of the plane by anyone rules out “Mind Reading” explanation from being presented. There was no Satellite imagery available at the time.
NO One has been able to explain the above two Phenomena “In the same way that one may lay out the proof for the existence of lightning or the brain’s capacity to think or the existence of gravity or the ability to travel at a thousand miles an hour ”
No One has been able to “prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that Acupuncture and Remote Viewing are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”
(The wording in bold are modified versions from Sujewa’s article)
Acupuncture is accepted Despite Science.
Remote Viewing brought results Despite Science
Hence Only a FOOL can insist that anything that is inexplicable by the methods enumerated in this GV article should be dismissed as rubbish. If you believe that this is not the case, would like to see a real point by point logical refutation of the points raised by me.
BTW – Please leave out the fixation that you have with Yapa in your refutation and deal with facts that you can support or provide references to.
This is in response to your post of May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am
Dear Citizen,
You said: “Do we follow what the Americans did in Iraq – shock and awe those ‘deluded’ Buddhist friends by doing all the thinking for them and delivering a crucial blow or reason to undermine key aspects of their faith?
“Do we instead carry our a war of attrition for thirty years for our secular state?”
Nicely put. I understand your point. It’s certainly something to think about. My personal take on it, is that different approaches have their uses. The type of pugnacious approach I and a few others subscribe to will rattle a few people who have hitherto not bothered to question their convictions. Merely pointing out the correct, “Buddhist way” of doing things will not get the message across that Buddhism is not some indisputable truth in the first place and that a more broad-minded approach is required. Of course, it will admittedly put those who think SL Buddhism is the last word on truth – like our unfuriated Mr. Yapa here – on the warpath.
On the other hand, your type of gentle approach will doubtless be more effective at persuading those who are already not amenable to questioning their beliefs. It will hopefully convince them that they should respect the beliefs of others also. In fact, your type of approach might be made doubly effective with those who have started despising mine.
I might be mistaken here, but I believe this is how the strangle hold of the church was undermined. There were those who were strongly critical and those who were gently persuasive. In the end, people who were already oppressed and disgusted by the state Christianity was in started questioning it.
BTW, I say SL Buddhism – because the Buddha’s own gentle and humble approach is a far cry from the “we are so damn superior, everyone with half-a-brain ought to be a Theravada Buddhist” kind of attitude espoused by certain Buddhists. Sorry, that holier-than-thou position is reserved for agnostics and atheists
I’m more than happy to be persuaded otherwise, this is just my current take on it. I’m especially interested in why you said: “Especially in matters of faith, I have found it difficult and dangerous to try to move people by undermining their beliefs.” There’s no doubt that it’s dangerous. Faith is the absence of reason after all. But how do you get across the message that we just don’t believe in their faith and that it is not reasonable to impose some arbitrary belief on others?
cheers,
/SD
Dear All,
My response to BalangodaMan was posted before I saw the May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am post of Sujewa, My post deals with BalangodaMan’s contentions. and what came before Sujewa’s new post.
Dear BalangodaMan,
You question my statement.…
“But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.”
You say
“By this you mean that we have a Buddhist Constitution?”
No Sir the English meaning is exactly what my statement says. It is ALREADY a PART of the Constitution.
Its not about a Buddhist Constitution. Please read my post of May 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am to SomewhatDisgusted if you want to know what a Buddhist Constitution would be like.
I can quote the SL Constitution and provide references to support what I have stated.
If you doubt what I say read the SL Constitution and reproduce anything that you see in the Constitution that is contrary to my statement.
Why is it that you have so much difficulty with the English Language and regularly try to FOIST your own lopsided views on others?
The rest of your post is an Argument between your own conflicting views a sort of Jekyll and Hyde argument that I am not involved in. Hence no reply is necessary.
Base your questions on what I write not on your own speculation that you are trying to foist on others.
This is a response to your post of May 13, 2010 @ 2:03 am
Citizen said,
May 13, 2010 @ 7:36 am
Sujewa Ekanayake said,
May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am
Both arguments beautifully put (Mr Yapa, learn!).
Early in my entry to this discussion I asked if it is ethical to question ‘faith’, because the discussion itself would undermine the effectiveness of ‘faith’ as a placebo. Contributors like Sujewa/SomewhatDisgusted made me realise that there are some important divisive social and religious/political mechanisms going on that need to be dismantled if we are to move towards sustainable peace and harmony in sL.
Sadly, it would upset the emotional, irrational religious people. I suppose this was brought to the surface in relation to Akon’s video – this debate helped uncover how deep the dilusions of some of these people go.
I don’t know the answer. Education? I suppose this is another subject – to explore how education about ‘real things’ conflict with peoples’ long cherished fantasies. (I would throw in two examples from history: (1) Galileo and the Catholic Church and (2) the Theory of Evolution and the famous ‘monkey trials’ of the 1920s)
Dear Yapa,
Thank you for your comments. I do value them.
Remember that we have an Audience other than those who post on the thread. This should be our target audience and I continually strive to reach this Silent majority.
Though my posts are mostly addressed to the posters as I try to address questions posted by them, I do not have any interest in trying to convince any of them to the Buddhist view point. If that happens as it sometimes does, its good but even if it doesn’t its of no consequence.
Just present the facts as logically and as concisely as possible. It will get through to the intelligent reader, who is the main target.
Mr Yapa,
Re. your ‘claims of scientific proof’.
I think Sujewa has explained this already. When you brought up scientific evidence as proof of certain concepts in Buddhism you established science as a means of anointing religious concepts. Mr Yapa you (alone) refused to accept karma, rebirth, nirvana as ‘faith’. So a challenge to prove that, using any method (but why not Quantum Physics as you have already shown to be your idea of proof?) was in order.
You then rephrased your claim – that KRN are things only believers can see as real. (!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought that’s what ‘faith’ means in a religious sense, but what the heck do I know?). But you also say that is ‘not faith’ but something real, someone suggested ‘conviction’ is a better word. But I know many Christians who have a strong conviction that Jesus (pbuh) was the son of god. So what’s the difference? Those men who flew planes into buildings also had strong conviction. What you’re saying is, only those men would know if their conviction is well founded or a delusion (well they would have found out by now).
A Matter of Faith
——————
I recommend – everyone should read Citizen’s article
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/02/02/a-matter-of-faith/
Dear Mr. Yapa
You said: “Is this not a total total lie you are using for popular vote.
“Actually, I think most Sinhalese and Tamil people are pretty harmless.”
Definitely that harmlessness killed about 200,000 people of this country since 1971.”
No Mr. Yapa, this is the truth. I’m sure you are trying to say that most of the Sinhalese are bloody cads. I disagree. Had all the Sinhalese been bloody cads, way more than 3000 Tamils would have died in ’83. After that, the Sinhalese people too stoically endured suicide bombers and the like, probably thinking it was kamma for the terrible deeds of their “kind”. They did what they could to differentiate between the majority of harmless Tamils and a minority who took up arms – although some like you, simply don’t understand the difference.
Many Tamils similarly differentiated between the majority of harmless Sinhalese and a minority of Sinhala extremists. It is just a few individuals who, like their Sinhalese counterparts, are confused into believing that their race/religion is more important than their humanity.
And that is the core of the problem isn’t it Mr. Yapa? Everyone wanting to foist their race/religion into foremost place and to safeguard it for all eternity? Even though the Buddha himself said all things are impermanent?
Anyway, never mind what the Buddha said, I know you don’t follow his words anyway. The problem with your logic Mr. Yapa, is displayed when you consistently evade BalangodaMan’s question: “would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”.
The same question could be asked of a Sinhalese or a Tamil about race.
cheers,
/SD
OTC,
Scientist?
———–
You are accusing me of being a scientist rather unfairly, perhaps by association? Remember I mentioned Uri Geller bending spoons as an example of a ‘real actual happening thing which many people saw’ that even he could not explain.
As I said, the challenge was to Mr Yapa who chose to bring in science to authenticate Buddhism.
I do believe (as scientists generally do) that what we know is TINY compared with what we don’t know. Let’s not quibble on that because we both agree on that- as do Sujewa and SD.
What I AM saying is, the BASIS on which the pronouncements of the Buddha of the 2nd Kind are accepted needs to be explored before we can decide whether there is a case to answer (ie. if there is a case to answer then the Universities of SL will pump in funding to research karma, rebirth, nirvana – which I don’t think they are doing at the moment).
The Buddha of the 2nd Kind = the omniscient incarnation of Siddharta Gautama.
There are those who believe he was omniscient. That’s Ok for them.
There are those who are NOT convinced that ANY human can become omniscient. Such people (sceptics) do not believe in fantastic visions seen by any human claiming to be ‘omniscient’. (they are dismissed as con men, or mad people, or on drugs)
So OTC, this is nothing at all to do with science – EXCEPT when the believers of ‘the omniscient Siddharta Gautama’ introduce the often-heard claim that ‘science has already proved what the Buddha saw 2,500 years ago. Therefore that is proof that he was omniscient, and therefore we should swallow the whole package (including SL is the promised land for Sinhala-Buddhists as decreed in the Mahawansa)’.
Hey, there are dozens of books written about the truth in Nostradamus’s prophecies too. Was he omniscient? Same argument, innit?
OTC, it does not have to be scientists. You can gather together a team of non-scientist Buddhist monks (with the funding from the Buddha Sasana Ministry) who can setup a controlled experiment.
It may go like this …
Round up 20 volunteers. Say young boys and girls. Divide then into 2 groups.
Group A is told to visit the temple every poya day, chant pirith, take sil, follow the middle path, not get involved in debates like this etc.
Group B is told never to visit the temple, do convert to Christianity, drink beer, take part in society normally, compete, try and excel in their chosen field, dance when they feel like etc.
Now follow up on the 2 Groups (1) whether they are reborn and (2) what they are reborn as.
If you or the monks can carry out that study, and if the results are positive, then we can conclude that karma, rebirth, nirvana ARE real things in the world.
OTC, do you agree?
(note that the word ‘science’ has NOT been used at all in this propsed experiment)
PS: I will help you set this up if you need me to.
OTC,
Oh sorry! I used the term “proposed experiment” which may give the impression that science is involved in this … er …. experiment-like-thing.
Citizen,
“Especially in matters of faith, I have found it difficult and dangerous to try to move people by undermining their beliefs.”
The problem we have in SL is not dissimilar to the problem with the Muslim world today. We are dealing with a mentality of 800 years ago in a world that is very different now. If the people with this mentality appropriate for that age LIVED IN THAT AGE there is no problem, or if they live in isolation from the rest of the world.
It is when they come face to face with the 21st century that we have a major conflict.
Mr Yapa,
For some unexplained reason my key question to you is not getting uploaded into GroundViews. Don’t know why – but I shall post it again.
“Mr Yapa, would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”.
Hope it gets through this time
OTC,
“But it (Buddhism) is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.”
Yes I understood what you meant by that bizarre statement. Which is why I said ‘but that is the same as saying Christianity is part of GOSL because there are MP’s of the Christian faith in parliament’.
The words ‘tenuous’, ‘remote’, ‘far-fetched’ is what I am getting at.
Off the Cuff,
The empty space though a vacuum keeps changing in size and shape due to the movement of objects. Since objects are in motion the Vacuum would also be changing shape. Then even the Vacuum too would be impermanent. Would that mean that everything is impermanent?
Far as I understand the vacuum of space is infinite. Therefore you cannot measure the size and it doesn’t make sense to say space changes size. What you’re saying implies that the furthest edge of the expanding matter/energy (however way you wish to see it) cloud from the big bang is the edge of space. Sorry that logic just doesn’t compute in my head and makes absolute no sense. Read further below why…
“But then one of the basic principles of physics is that matter can neither be destroyed nor created. Thus implies matter is something permanent in the universe.”
Not really, as mater changes to energy and Vice versa.
e = mc^2
First of all the m in that equation refers to mass not matter! So what? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed as well. Energy is something that converts from one form to another. So it doesn’t make a difference differentiating between matter and energy. They’re both permanent.
For instance, you burn fuel (static energy) -> produce electricity -> excite electrons in a conductor -> light a lamp -> dissipate photons & heat -> etc, etc, and become part of a cycle of infinite reactions and transfer of energy including settling back into static energy (“matter” or rather mass to be precise) along the way.
From single photons to self propagating electromagnetic waves, the vast amounts of energy that holds electrons to the nucleus of atoms, etc. all of this energy is accounted for end of the day! In my books anyway.
Also, we see the universe in only 4 dimensions. X, Y, Z and time. For us these 4 dimensions stretch to infinity. My understanding of the universe is exactly this. When you jump dimensions higher, the universe the infinite continuum of these dimensions become one blip of many other infinite universes. In the 7th dimension infinity becomes an irreducible point. I’m not good at explaining this but this video quite elegantly explains what I am talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts
“Birth is suffering
Ageing is suffering
Death is suffering;
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering;
Association or connection with objects or persons you dislike is suffering;
Separation from loved ones and objects is suffering;
Desiring to get and not getting it or craving is suffering
Sure I agree with all that, life in general has suffering and also times of absolute joy and elation but that is simply a result of a chemical reaction in our brains that trigger signals to our nervous system. And that really is it far as I am concerned. Biological creatures have a genome that is essentially a blue print of the product. Most animals have a genome that has the capability to produce a complex molecular/biological structure called the brain that can accommodate self awareness, reduced randomness as I like to coin it. This product is really an evolution of hydro carbon molecules that were released from the big bang. This self-awareness for the first time was able to challenge the random nature of the universe described in quantum theory. which I find fascinating. To me it’s a story of how random occurrences fell into a pattern. Why or how these cells learned to self replicate and then to evolve, I don’t know, but it is beautiful to observe how a single, few cell creatures behave in very random (still guided by their DNA) patterns and then as the cell count grows they become more in control of their actions/destiny. Evolution while explains a lot, also leaves a lot to be answered. We don’t know! That is why I admit readily science has not come up with all the answers. But I’d rather play with that parts missing jigsaw than listen to prophets! At least I find that more interesting…
Here’s one question to ponder about end of the day. Why is it that all the prophets who reckons they realised the absolute truth of the world and universe sprung into existence centuries ago when science was at its infancy?? Why is it not possible for a Jesus or a Buddha to spring into our world now? What’s stopping it? I say people in the dark ages didn’t quite know how to scrutinise what they were told. Because we’re in a much better position now, we can test the claims to a degree. But since science does not have the universal truth either and even more disappointingly cannot disprove what believers say decisively as well, hence I will let the religious folk have a say.
Sujeewa,
We (the agnostics) are not asking for an explanation/demonstration as true/real, of karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism via scientific means only. There are other ways to show that something is real: observation by humans, video tape, audio tape, etc.
Enlightenment is a state of mind? How are you going to video tape that???
HOWEVER, I think you are missing the meaning behind this debate – the agnostics believe that the speculative items that exist at the core of all major religions, including Buddhism, takes them out of consideration when it comes to selecting -as the main source – valuable human ideas for buliding/re-building/changing a society for the better – for the simple fact that only the believers agree & accept that the speculative items in religions may be real/actual items that have an effect on this world & universe.
In that light, it is absolutely necessary to challenge not just religous blind belief
hang on.. i don’t think all the religious people follow with blind faith. there are lots of intelligent people out there, even more than us agnostic folk who believe in religions. clearly they see something we don’t? i think it’s rather brash what you’re implying.
& plans put forward by the religious to use their religion as the basis for organizaing society, but also all other kinds of negative folk beliefs – racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-capitalism/anti-commerce, etc.
To make things (hopefully) painfully clear, organizing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious & no-religion society (SL) under the guidelines provided by one religion (Buddhism) only & then expect it to compete & coorporate with countries & people who have set up their societies with an openess that allows both the religious & the secular to contribute well to society (the west, etc.) is not a great plan.
So who is planning this in Sri Lanka? I can hardly see a day religious extremists rule Sri Lanka. If you’re thinking the likes of JHU then you can forget about it…
It will result in more of what Sri Lanka has been able to deliver since ‘48 – poverty & unrest. The most successful countries in the world, also the most desirable countries in the world (due to the fact that they are peaceful w. in their boundaries at least & successful) use a national development & maintanance formula that allows for both the existence of religions/followers & the existence of a vibrant secular/non-religious communities/people. Each side functions as a check on the excesses of the other side. This would be a good formula/approach for SL to take a long & deep look at.
Sujeewa, I have my own reservations about the successful countries. Slavery and Colonial subjugation comes to my mind. Had the Asians plundered the 7 seas, then Asia might have been the rich block today.. just saying… But I won’t go there today!
Anyway, back to your point – religions are merely a set of human ideas organized & interperted & lived out in a certain way – thus, they are not sacred/not-off limits to inquiry by other humans. When you do allow things to be off limits, you will end up with, most likely, tyranny.
Somethings need to be sacred IMHO. For instance what if I started digging into your mother? She maybe not a saint in reality but she is a saint to you, no matter how many flaws she may have (just being hypothetical!!!). You clearly won’t appreciate that.
Using similar logic, sure religions aren’t sacred to us because we see it in a different light. But to the believers it is as mother.
Or, to put it another way, would you like to move to an ultra-conservative muslim country? (a place where questioning religion may result in your death) :: [of course, if you are an ultra-conservative muslim, then that question will not work as support for my argument, so, hopefully you are not ]
- S
If you make a compelling case that Sharia law is not necessary for going to a heaven filled with virgins then they might actually thank you for that.
Anyway Sujeewa, being an agnostic doesn’t at all give anyone a moral higher ground than a religious person. The tone of your arguments always come across that you feel that agnostics are somehow morally superior. I disagree with that. Some of the greatest people who have served humanity well are quite religious people.. like mother Theresa. I don’t think we need to question what they perceive to be the truth. We should worry about our own quest for finding what we feel is the truth.
My feeling is that we need to separate the two core issues that are being debated on this forum:
1. Believers Vs Non-believers
2. A state and religions
The first point is being debated world-wide; a few years back, John Humphries the Radio 4 presenter, in UK, started a discussion on this very subject; it rustled the hornets’ nests as it were; the program was flooded with calls and letters! John Humphries published a book as a result, entitled: “In God We Doubt”. John confessed that he is an agnostic but justified that faiths play major roles in keeping order. Basically it does not matter whether God exists and he expresses himself through various faiths; if believing in god serves well for an individual it is all well and good; why should one challenge his believe; let it be. However, if that individual thrusts his views on to others; he uses violence, intimidations, entices with opportunities, status, and the rest is unethical and should be condemned.
The second issue is far more serious; through the middle ages when the Western nations were evolving various faiths played major parts. We all know how Henry the VIII split from the Vatican! Each state was attached to a faith or a form of Christian denomination; they persecuted all the other; many violent events took place in the name of faiths; all actions were justified and classed as noble courses! Those countries evolved and modernised accommodating all forms of Christian denomination as well as alien faiths. Today, many of those countries stand as testament of model democracies; some may dispute this; I welcome such views.
In the context of Sri Lanka; Sri Lanka has always been a multi-faith and multi-linguistic nation; it became far more diverse as a result of introduction of Islam and Christianity and enjoyed admirable harmony through out its history. A state must be supreme; it passes laws that bind all of its citizens. It must treat all citizens equally regardless of faith, race, sexuality, rich, poor, and disability; this is the basis of successful democracy and governance.
Off the Cuff said:
“What I don’t understand is how Buddhism being in the Constitution “CURTAILS” or otherwise restrict others from practicing their faiths. In fact the Constitutional clause regarding Buddhism specifically requires that other Religions be allowed free practice, in the absence of which the clause referring to Buddhism becomes a null.”
Buddhism is a faith just like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity; OTC says that it is Buddhism that allows free practice of all other religions in Sri Lanka. Now, the question is; who has made that decision; is it OTC himself or the Buddhist Hierarchy in Sri Lanka, or the politicians? Did the others have any in this matter? Is Buddhism regarded as superior to all other religions? If so, on what basis and who made this decision? Since a state is supreme and if it is associated with one of the faiths in a nation, it cannot be fair to all, can it? Even if the state endeavours to be fair to all, it cannot be perceived as such; this is the point. In a court of law, an accused should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty as charged. Similarly, a state must position itself beyond any reasonable doubt that, it acts fair to all of its citizens.
Observer,
I wrote earlier that no baby is born with bias towards any religion. Every baby is born agnostic.
Religious brainwashing (and racial prejudice) is acquired in the early years – well, not acquired but somewhat forced upon. This process, in my view, limits an individual’s capacity to think rationally, not further it. (so they cannot ‘run away’ into some other way of thinking, or free-thinking god forbid!). Dickie Dawkins (pbuh) in ‘The God Delusion’ referred to this as the most common form of child abuse, for this reason – making children grow up to be humans of reduced capacity that cannot consider alternative points of view. The key point I’m making is, the child has NO choice in the matter! What would you say if we ritually cut off the left leg of our children sometime before they reach the age of 6? (so they cannot run away physically?)
The effect is the same.
I see your point about ‘the mother’. Yes, I too have concerns about this whenever I get drawn into a discussion on religion. HOWEVER, this comes about only because of the ‘child abuse’ they have suffered referred to above. As you can see from some of the emotion expressed by the believers in this thread there is little we can do about adults. But we can save the children.
We can save the next generation. Let’s at least try.
(I hope my comment also answers your piece to Sujewa on ‘agnostics’ taking the higher moral ground. All I can say is, personally I have greater confidence in those who have NOT had their thinking faculties restricted by childhood conditioning – forced limitations. I have greater confidence in people who say ‘sorry, I don’t know’ – agnostics – than those that have absolute confidence in something they have no way of verifying).
Dear Burning_Issue,
I am glad to see you contributing to what was up to now a very dull, abstract, and pointless discussion. Unlike the other “secular agnostics” here, you are able to get to the point and not get side-tracked with circular arguments. I want to answer some points:
“Just like Wijayapala said; at this stage Sri Lanka can think about secularising with no fears for Buddhism disappearing;”
I never said that. I stated that Tamils are not a threat to either Buddhism or Sinhalese.
“I for one think that, in Sri Lankan context; Politicised Buddhism, A Common Sri Lankan Identity, and Nation Building are mutually exclusive. A common Sri Lankan identity cannot be promoted with Buddhist prominence in Constitution; thus, a nation cannot be built; this is my point.”
Thank you for complimenting my understanding of history. Now I have to ask: is it possible to build a common nation that lacks a common understanding of Sri Lankan history?
“We have had the Portuguese; we have had the Dutch; we have had the English; all promoted Christianity but they never interfered with local customs such as this one.”
Not true- the Portuguese destroyed many non-Catholic places of worship throughout Sri Lanka including Jaffna. They forcibly converted many Hindus to Catholicism, and many in Jaffna slipped back to Hinduism after the Portuguese left (although as you mentioned earlier, this did not happen in other places like Mannar).
“Now, we have the Sinhala Buddhist, the new Masters of the Tamils; who have put a stop to an ancient custom! What does this say about the Sinhala Buddhists and their government? I agree that Buddhism is not an issue here, but the politicised and institutionalised Sinhala Buddhism is an issue; I would like you to recognise this.”
How has politicised Buddhism been involved in Keerimalai?
Observer,
“than those that have absolute confidence in something they have no way of verifying.” (my comment)
I am reminded of the numerous emails I get forwarded to me about ‘Microsoft will pay $25,000 if you use IE’ or ‘Nokia will pay for your child’s private education if you forward this email on to all your friends’. You know what I mean …
Does any intelligent person pass these on? Why don’t they check by Googling or Snopes before they pass these lies on to people who trust them? What do you think of people who send these to you?
Yes, I thought so.
So, why do we condone the same thing when it is adults passing on unverified fantastic (religious) sales messages to their unsuspecting children who trust them?
B-Man (original);
You say;
[“Mr Yapa, would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth' of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”.]
I will never repeat it BlindMan!
Thanks [Edited out]!
SomewhatDisgusted said,
Dear All;
SomewhatDisgusted on May 13, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
……………………….
Dear Mr. Yapa
You said: “Is this not a total total lie you are using for popular vote.
“Actually, I think most Sinhalese and Tamil people are pretty harmless.”
Definitely that harmlessness killed about 200,000 people of this country since 1971.”
No Mr. Yapa, this is the truth. I’m sure you are trying to say that most of the Sinhalese are bloody cads. I disagree. Had all the Sinhalese been bloody cads, way more than 3000 Tamils would have died in ‘83.
…………………………………..
Please see, this man’s audacity. Do the first three statements of mine imply the the forth sentence (written by him). He replaces those three sentences by his sentence, which can be very easily used to tarnish me. But please see first three sentences cannot be used that way.
This man can not get rid of his unethical behaviour.
“Kiri diyeni deviyath anguru sudu wana kalek num neth!
(Anyway) Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
["Anyway, never mind what the Buddha said, I know you don't follow his words anyway. The problem with your logic Mr. Yapa, is displayed when you consistently evade BalangodaMan's question: “would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth' of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”.]
Scratch his back. You are blind in prejudice.
As I said earlier “I will never repeat it.”
(Anyway) Thanks!
Three Blind Mice = two jokers + one utterly dishonest man
This is the most important conclusion I arrived at in this long discussion. They are also determined not to be convinced by anything and anybody.
There is a saying that “You can argue with a thousand wise men, but not with a single fool.”
Dear Citizen;
["Anyway, never mind what the Buddha said, I know you don't follow his words anyway. The problem with your logic Mr. Yapa, is displayed when you consistently evade BalangodaMan's question: “would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth' of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”.]
Don’t try to be haste in making conclusions. Wrong decisions and conclusions could be fatal.
You must have heard;
There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They came back from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan,
You have addressed a post to me with the subject
Scientist?
I am at a loss to understand Head or Tail of what you are writing.
Could you please elaborate indicating the post/ posts of mine you are referring to?
Dear Burning Issue,
I agree with pretty much everything you said on May 13, 2010 @ 12:26 am.
“The Tamils did not establish Hindu temples as a prelude to them settling in the southern areas; I will stand corrected, if one were to prove me wrong on this.”
I agree. But try explaining that to those who perceive things from the no. 2 perspective I mentioned. Prejudice, solidified through selective thinking, is a hard thing to deal with. We are dealing with coarse reasoning on all sides that does no justice to the complexity of this problem.
There is however, one concept that no human being living in the 21st century with any form of education and any sense of justice could protest against and expect to win on reasonable grounds. That is a demand for equal rights. People can protest against Eelams. They may even be able to protest against devolution. But one thing no thinking person can continue to challenge and not be ashamed to deny is a demand for equal rights. History shows that sooner or later, given a reasonably educated populace, such justice can be achieved. What we need to do is to work towards making that inevitable justice occur, through education and opinion building as opposed to violence and mayhem. (I would point out that Sinhala Only being rolled back, Tamil being made a national language etc. are signs that such justice is indeed undeniable)
“I know it is too soon to expect from Sri Lanka for now, but we need to build consensus for this to happen in the future.”
I agree. Buddhism has been given a free ride for far too long – since few seem to have questioned it – to the point where there are people who fancy that it’s an absolute truth! whaaaaat???? Where do you get these kind of self-assuredly clueless people from?
I would like to comment on your latest post soon, which will definitely take us in a more fruitful direction – religion and state.
cheers.
/SD
Mr Yapa,
The reason I asked this is because your answer would shed some MUCH NEEDED light to this issue.
My question:
“Mr Yapa, would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”
You are important in this … because … First, because you have shown us the depth of knowledge and conviction you have in the religion of your birth. Then you have shown how much you defend the religion of your birth. Thirdly how much you are offended when others (including those also born in the religion of your birth) question the religion of your birth.
It is therefore very appropriate that this debate endeavours to find out how a person with those 3 aspects of your character responds IF the religion of your birth is some OTHER religion – Islam, Christianity, or some obscure religion like Shilboot, or if you were born in a country with no religion at all. Would you still hold on to the view that Buddhism is the ultimate truth?
If you have already answered this I must apologise for having missed it. Perhaps you would be kind enough to post a link to it please?
Dear BurningIssue,
Hello old friend, I believe you have misinterpreted what I stated. My statement refers to the Constitution. Yours refer to Religion.
My statement
What I don’t understand is how Buddhism being in the Constitution “CURTAILS” or otherwise restrict others
Your statement
OTC says that it is Buddhism that allows free practice of all other religions in Sri Lanka.
They are not one and the same.
The Constitutional Clause that provides a protected status to Buddhism has a proviso that requires ALL religions be guaranteed the simultaneous freedom of being practiced without any obstruction. Hence there is absolutely no room for the State to provide protection to Buddhism without providing religious freedom simultaneously.
Therefore the freedom to practice a minority religion has not been curtailed in any way.
“Buddhism is a faith just like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity”
They are not alike. The first does not entertain a Creator God. The other three does.
When I discuss Buddhism, I always refer to the Buddha’s teaching not to corruptions of it. I believe you would also refer to Hinduism proper and not to corruptions of it.
You cannot discuss religion by discussing corrupted interpretations
Dear Wijayapala,
“I never said that. I stated that Tamils are not a threat to either Buddhism or Sinhalese.”
I think that you have forgotten that you actually said the following:
wijayapala said,
March 12, 2010 @
“Thank you for showing me the Japanese Constitution. When the average Sri Lankan has the equivalent GDP per capita as his Japanese counterpart, or when Buddhists comprise 90% of the 125 million population as in Japan, then it may be time to secularize the SL Constitution.”
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/17/the-%e2%80%98sinhala-nationalist%e2%80%99s-burden%e2%80%99/#comments
May be it is misleading when I did not include the per capita income of Japanese people in the context!
Dear Observer,
“Far as I understand the vacuum of space is infinite. Therefore you cannot measure the size and it doesn’t make sense to say space changes size”
I mentioned shape not size. Here is an example. Beyond the Earth’s atmosphere is a Vacuum. The Earth moves at speed around the Sun. In front of the orbital path and behind the Orbital path is a Vacuum. As the Earth moves forward a space which was vacuum a moment ago gets filled by the Earth hence it no longer is a vacuum. At the same time the space that was occupied by the Earth a moment ago has now become a vacuum as the Earth has vacated that space. This is why I stated even the empty space changes shape. This is similar to a fish moving in water. The fish displaces the water as it moves changing the shape of the water. The space occupied by the fish moves.
“Energy is something that converts from one form to another ”
I don’t know but that looks to me like impermanence.
True there are moments of absolute joy but that joy is followed by Dukkha, the disappointment that comes when the joy is no more. If joy is the crest of a wave then Dukkha is the valley, one follows the other like a shadow.
Good question about the Sages. I don’t know the answer but I sure wish that Science was mature during the Buddha’s time. Then Science could have questioned the Buddha himself which would have provided answers either way.
Dear BalangodaMan,
I requested you to quote the Constitution if you still wanted to contest what I stated regarding Buddhism and the Constitution (mine of May 13, 2010 @ 12:20 pm) but you have been unable to do so.
My statement referring to Buddhism states
But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.
Your statement
but that is the same as saying Christianity is part of GOSL because there are MP’s of the Christian faith in parliament
You sure have problems in understanding English.
My statement refers to the Supreme Law of the Country. The State is subordinate to it.
If you want to contest what I wrote quote the Constitution without making juvenile comments.
(refers to you post of May 13, 2010 @ 5:44 pm)
Dear Citizen;
You say:
[@Mr Yapa: I did not mean to hurt or pass judgement on you and whether or not you agree with my views is of little consequence in this forum. I was merely stating the fact that your arguments bore little -if any- substance for intellectual reflection and i have not seen anything that made me change my mind. Don't feel condemed by that however – what i or anyone else thinks should not matter to you if you are assured in your own faith.]
Really, I wanted to post the comment I made on May 13, 2010 @ 11:17 pm with regard to your comment above. I will repeat it.
Hasty conclusions and decisions could be fatal. You must have heard the following;
There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They came back from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger
Thanks!
OTC & everyone else,
RE: the following:
” “Buddhism is a faith just like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity”
They are not alike. The first does not entertain a Creator God. The other three does.”
Buddhism is similar to Hinduism, Islam, & Christianity – karma, reincarnation, nirvana & the fantastic qualities attributed to the Buddha (omniscience (sp?), etc.) takes the place of the creator God concept in Buddhism. It is the same kind of thing as the other major religions, but in a slightly different form. Of course, the believers want the world (& the Sri Lankans specially in this case) to believe otherwise. All of the major religions are forms of mass social control (now, this social control does have some benefits, don’t get me wrong, there are worse things than religion – such as cannibalism perhaps), however, since, at the core of all these forms of mass social control sit a set of lies/or untruths/or speculative itmes – the tool created – the religions – come with a buit in dishonesty that ends up doing as much harm as good in the minds of the believers (and sometimes more harm than good, based on what the believers are used for by the controllers at the top of the chain). This nature of religion – the ability to use it to control large numbers of people – is the reason that kings – from ancient Egypt & all the way down to the kings of the Sinhala & Jaffna kingdoms took a special interest in religions – on a governmental level it is a very effective form of control in countries where freedom from religion is weak.
But, I am sure you know all this, since you are promoting a religion that cannot be shown to represent an accurate reflection of the world/universe. Lack of religious freedom, including lack of freedom from religion = lack of overall freedom for individuals/less ability for them to work to improve their lives.
- S
If life was a ride in the cosmic sphere
And i am reborn, only to be thrown back here
I hope Mr. Yapa would have done a lot of ‘ping’
Enough to be reborn as a sentient being
Observer,
I wrote a point by point response to your post that contains the quoted text below, but, the magical world of the internet did not let me post it (along with a couple of other comments that I tried to submit), so, since I am out of time for the day, I’ll re-post my response to the following only & then will get back to the rest of your post soon.
RE:
“Anyway Sujeewa, being an agnostic doesn’t at all give anyone a moral higher ground than a religious person.”
Never said it did. However, anyone is free to point out that something that some people believe to be true does not appear to be true. I think that is useful to all.
RE:
“The tone of your arguments always come across that you feel that agnostics are somehow morally superior.”
I think that’s your interpertation. I do think that agnostics may be able to point out that certain views are more useful than views that are based on non-existent (most likely) items such as karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana.
RE:
“I disagree with that.”
Sounds good, you are free to disagree.
RE:
“Some of the greatest people who have served humanity well are quite religious people.. like mother Theresa.”
Greatness is a matter of perspective. Every human has to deal with massive obstacles (dealing with the fact that they are alive for a while & will definitely die one day being one of them), and there are many heroic non-believers out there, most likely, in the 200,000+ years that modern humans have exited – & no doubt there are many today (since many places in the world run relatively smoothly, requiring work & sacrifice by many in order to do so, & I am sure there is a good number of non-believers & agnostics in those groups). Anyway, yeah, religion motivating people to do good & useful things – like helping the poor – is definitely good.
RE:
“I don’t think we need to question what they perceive to be the truth. We should worry about our own quest for finding what we feel is the truth.”
I don’t think there is a “we” here Observer. You seem to fear the religious, whereas I do not, so, we are two different kinds of agnostics. However, do what works best for you. Subjective “truths” are fine, but there is also the common world that exists – when dealing with that world, when it comes to shaping it, best to deal with or use things that actually exist, not religious metaphysical speculative items such as karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana, gods, God, heaven, hell, etc. that cannot be proven to be real.
- S
Everyone (specially the agnostics),
Found an interesting document on the web while doing research for this conversation/debate – Buddhist Nationalism and Religious Violence in Sri Lanka
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
From the document:
“One incident from the MahÄvamsa (chap. 19) demonstrates the ethnic and religious harmony that existed during the reign of King Devanamtissa (247-207 BCE), who introduced Buddhism to the island. The chapter begins with an elaborate description of the transport of the Bodhi tree from King Ashoka in India and its arrival in the northern port of Jubukola. There a brahmin priest named Tivakka was one of the first to worship the holy tree. Two weeks later it arrived in the capital city of Anuradhapura and the tree miraculously sprouted 32 saplings. One was given to Tivakka to plant in his own town, and two others were given to kÅ›atriyas in the north. This demonstrates that not only was there ethnic harmony, but Hindus and Buddhists, as many still do today in India and Nepal, worshiped together honoring common sacred sites and things.
The next major event is the campaign of King Dutthagamani (161-137 BCE) that led to the unification of the island under this Buddhist king. The DÄ«pavamsa (18.50-54), the earliest chronicle from the 4th Century CE, portrays the Tamil king Elara as a just ruler and there appear to be no anti-Buddhist allegations against him. The fact that Dutthagamani starts from the periphery of power in the south and must fight 32 other provincial rulers, some of them presumably Buddhists, on his way north indicates that the actual motivations for Dutthagamani’s campaign could not have been primarily religious. The 1912 English version of the MahÄvamsa contains an unfortunate mistranslation that moves a Buddhist relic from the royal scepter to Dutthagamani’s spear and has given Buddhist militants an illicit, but even stronger justification for Buddhist warfare.[21]
While the DÄ«pavamsa contains only 13 stanzas about Dutthagamani, more than half the MahÄvamsa is devoted to the famous king. The authors are determined to glorify Dutthagamani and they design an edifying narrative framework based on the story of AÅ›oka. The number of provincial rulers who resisted Dutthagamani is obviously exaggerated and most likely is drawn from the 32 opponents of AÅ›oka. But the most significant similarity to AÅ›oka is the post-battle malaise that Dutthagamani suffers over the great number of Tamil causalities. In chapter 25, a group of arhats come to console the grieving king and report a remarkable calculation concerning those killed in the war. According to the wise monks, only one enemy soldier had taken full refuge in the Dharma and another had embraced only the Five Precepts. This means that there had been only one and a half real persons killed among thousands of causalities. This demonstrates that there has been substantial anti-Tamil sentiment for centuries and it provides ready fodder for contemporary Sinhalese propangandists. Even the great Buddhist scholar Wapola Rahula uses this incident without questioning its veracity in his defense of Sinhalese nationalism.[22] ”
So, if para 1 is true, we basically have an island full of Hindus (most likely) – Sinhala speaking Hindus, & then Buddhism is introduced to them, many convert, some do not, & centuries later, after the British concept of race is introduced to the island, the Buddhists begin to view themselves as a separate race than their non-Buddhist fellow country men & women (Tamils), though all are essentially the same type of people – and were outwardly so at point of introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka – now, post 1948, we have two groups of people who identify themselves as two different races & go to war with each other. Am I reading this right? I am sure many comments will follow
Regarding para 2 & 3 quoted, hopefully with the end of the most recent Sinhala-Tamil war in ’09, we won’t see another anytime soon (or perhaps never again, let’s hope). So, even though we are the same basic people, looks like the Sinhalese and the Tamils in SL have been fighting each other for a long time (if the paras quoted are true).
How does this relate to the topic at hand – the real-ness of k,r,n? Since K,R,N are not real/are speculative items, it will be difficult to start wars over protecting an absolute truth in SL (if the word gets out about the true nature of K,R,N that is, & if people in SL were to behave reasonably
Anyway, yup, kind of off topic, but, hopefully this shows -at least a little – why the agnostics here are adamant that proof be provided before we accept K,R,N as real things – since politcs, war, & death, & minority rights & ultimately peace for all – are bound with Buddhism, historically, in SL.
- S
Off the Cuff said,
May 14, 2010 @ 2:45 am
Your statement
“But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.”
Now, here is the context.
SomewhatDisgusted was talking about SL so far not being a theocracy (a state run on religious rules and principles) in his campaign to stop SL from becoming one. That is, to prevent any religion (even Buddhism) from being the principle on which the state of SL will be run (and I had listed some of the absurdities that would arise as Buddhism is, in essence, a personal reflection of one man who sought to escape from reality and was never meant to be a system of law for running a country).
Your statement …
“But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.”
… was made to refute what SD was saying.
Your response indicates that you have misunderstood SD (and misunderstood my list of absurdities).
SD is talking about Buddhism becoming the core on which the law of the land is built and how the country is administered (like Saudi Arabia which is run on Islam – a theocracy). In the other hand, you are talking about the constitution giving Buddhism a PROTECTED STATUS – ie. looking after the heritage and protecting places of worship from destruction (actually it does not need special mention in the contitution for that. it should be automatic and expected, as in other countries).
I am sure SD was not campaigning for SL not to protect its heritage!
So your statement was … er … somewhat surprising!
“In the other hand” is a cross between “In contrast” and “On the other hand”. Mixed up, just like us in SL.
Dear OTC,
My ‘Scientist?’ post was in response to your
“May 13, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Dear BalangodaMan,
“
Dear All;
Sujewa Ekanayake says;
[We (the agnostics) are not asking for an explanation/demonstration as true/real, of karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism via scientific means only. There are other ways to show that something is real: observation by humans, video tape, audio tape, etc.]
My God! I can’t stop laughing!
Please see the narrow thinking of this man. What is more salient is he is not ashamed to say these in public forums, that much is his ignorance.
One of my friend told me a story. It goes like this;
He says there was an insane man in his village who used to sit and pass his time on a culvert. After staying seated for some time on the culvert, all of a sudden he stands up starts walking around murmuring something. Do you know what he was murmuring in Sinhala?
“Salli thiyenawanum, lajja nethnum karanna beri deyak ne…////
(If you have money, and don’t have shame, nothing is impossible for you….////)
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan, OTC,
“I am sure SD was not campaigning for SL not to protect its heritage!”
Indeed I wasn’t. Thanks for setting the record straight. There’s a difference between preserving our history and trying to relive our history.
cheers.
/SD
Dear All;
I was trying to figure out the behaviour of three blind mice when a difficult question was asked.
Can you remember;
1. Somewhat(Totally)Dishonest blind man runs away from the forum for months to come back when the incident is forgotten with a victors song. He mis-interpret things and describes them to tarnish others. He behave as an “all knower”, but separates kasippu using physical methods. He tries to teach Science to all but have never learned. So much of his audacity.
2. “Sounds good” blind man act as a insane man in front of a hard question, and talks entirely irrelevant things. He is shameless to utter any nonsense for any issue in any deep subject.
3. Balangoda blind man was not that cunning at the beginning, except his lack of knowledge, however now corrupted to the core now with the association of “Apayagami Mithra”. Now he is also behaving with the sole intention of trying to make what coming randomly into his mind, true. Several time he acted like a insane man when asked difficult questions. As the (2) above, he is also not hesitant to tell anything comes to his mind as an answer to any question. This is a very easy way of answering questions.
However, the Buddha and olden day intelligent men have seen such people and such answers and arguments before and they have named them as “amaravikkhepavada”. Here “amara” is slimy fish called “Anda” in Sinhala. If caught by hand this fish easily slip away due to its slipperiness. Amaravikkhevapada is such answers,and tactics that let the person slip away from the question.
According to Buddhism there are four types of amaravikkhepavada.
1. The person who slips away from a direct question such as “Is this A, not A or anything else, telling some irrelevant thing.
2.He who does not answer, just because it incurs him a loss.
3. He who does not answer, in fear of insults from the wise.
4. Ignorant, that answers the way “it is neither this nor that etc…. etc….”
Can somebody give more details about this “amaravikkhepavada” and tell which blind man of above belong to which category of above.
Thanks!.
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Amaravikkhepavada.
——————
”
1. The person who slips away from a direct question such as “Is this A, not A or anything else, telling some irrelevant thing.
2.He who does not answer, just because it incurs him a loss.
3. He who does not answer, in fear of insults from the wise.
4. Ignorant, that answers the way “it is neither this nor that etc…. etc….”
Aah Mr. Yapa. A very useful list indeed! We should mark it for future reference – that way, we can map any evasive answers to items on this list as you suggest.
I need a little bit of help understanding this mapping though. Did you not answer this question because of reason no. 2 or reason no. 3 above? Everything else is quite clear to me.
cheers,
/SD
Dear All;
We are very fortunate to have some genius born in Sri Lanka who would soon bring fame to our motherland. These three nerds are so clever that they can understand Modern Science including Quantum Physics and Relativity, Modern Philosophy and a religion that has been a centre of discussion and respect for centuries:Buddhism, even without studying them a bit. They reject knowledge in them like “karapincha natu” with their in born wisdom, that does not need any investigation or explorations. Such subjects are common knowledge to them that they give all sorts of answers to the issues arisen in these subjects without any hesitation. Even “The Principle Of Uncertainty” is certain to them give prompt answers to any issue in the principle. They are gifted with such wisdom that they are capable of giving judgments on everything starting from Gynecology to Black holes, off hand.
You are great assets to our country. Hail our Geniuses.
Thanks!
SomewhatDisgusted said,
May 14, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
[Dear BalangodaMan, OTC,
“I am sure SD was not campaigning for SL not to protect its heritage!”
Indeed I wasn't. Thanks for setting the record straight. There's a difference between preserving our history and trying to relive our history.
cheers.
/SD]
Don’t stop back scratching and blowing your own trumpets and praising your own tails.
Thanks!
OTC,
To add to how Sujewa answered your following statement …
(re. Buddhism is a faith just like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity)
You said “They are not alike. The first does not entertain a Creator God. The other three does.”
And a Muslim would say “Islam is not like Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism because it is the last word from Allah, and none of the other religions are it.”
And a Christian would say “Christianity is not like Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam because Jesus was the Son of God (like he said) and the other religions do not know that”.
And if it could speak my car would say “Me am not like any other car down da road because me is yellow and nun of the other cars is”. (well, it never learned proper English anyway!)
Creator God
———–
Actually, in differentiating Buddhism from other religions a ‘Creator God’ is a ‘La falsa pista’ (as they say in Italy. A ‘herring rouge’ in France. A ‘chin tong ping’ in China. A ‘rathu malu’ in SL).
Mr Yapa,
Here is my reasoning.
The Universe exists – most people think so. It came to exist by some means – it could be by the hands of Jesus’s dad, Allah, or that mighty explosion they refer to as the Big Bang, or something else.
Most will agree that what or whoever created the Universe was not ‘a human’. Therefore it was something with a power higher than a human (I do not think it was something ‘lower’ than a human, like a door knob for instance). This, various people call various things – God, Allah, The Big Bang creator, nature. This is what is conceptually … the ‘Creator God’. To deny a ‘Creator God’ (by my reasoning) is to deny the existence of the Universe altogether.
(unless of course you challenge the existence of the Universe on the basis that you have no real proof that the Universe is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. But then again there is the question of who or what gave you the power to ‘imagine’. So either way you cannot escape the concept of a ‘creator’)
The Buddha knew this but he wanted us to figure it out. So there, I have explained, to make it easier, Mr Yapa.
A BETTER IDEA
————-
The logical way to differentiate Buddhism on the subject of GOD is along the lines the Buddha himself taught. That is, the existence of god or gods is irrelevent – BECAUSE he cannot influence or change our destiny, which is entirely controlled by our karma – only OUR actions (good and bad) determine our destiny (the Buddha’s words, not mine, except he said it in Pali).
Now here is the problem, dear friend Yapa.
Most Buddhists I know, including and (shockingly!) ESPECIALLY the devout Buddhists, appear to (by their observable behaviour) reject this idea completely!
I have described this earlier. You can see that Buddhists do not accept that ‘no god can fix things for them’ because they pray to someone (the Buddha I think, or some other deities) precisely to enable the fixing they require when in desparate need (like when a son or daughter is sitting exams, or when a relative is sick or dying, or to fix things for a dead relative recently departed). Furthermore, they pray as a means of insurance, or spiritual investment, to cover against things that need fixing that will arise in the future.
This is not a minority activity – it IS the mainstream behaviour of people you know.
So from this I conclude that most people who claim to be Buddhist actually reject something quite fundamental to it.
So, bringing in GOD to differentiate Buddhism from other religions is what we call in football ‘an own goal’ – (or in cricket, a ‘bokku’).
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“Did you not answer this question because of reason no. 2 or reason no. 3 above?”
Yes, Off hand genius/ Scientist.
Thanks!
Dear Mr. Yapa
You said: “You are great assets to our country. Hail our Geniuses.”
Thank you Mr. Yapa. We can only blush in modesty. Truly Mr.Yapa, are you not being overly modest yourself? You coyly praise us but we must readily admit to being far more impressed by the phenomenal breadth of your own knowledge. I’m happy that all of us are keeping up this great spirit of friendly debate, an open-minded outlook which is willing to reconsider even one’s most dearly held beliefs (a true sign of SL Buddhist greatness) and an appreciation of the contributions of others.
cheers,
/SD
Burning_Issue,
What do my statements on Japan have anything to do with the Tamils not being a threat to Buddhism and/or Sinhalese? The Tamils may not be a threat, but Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are a different story.
And you did not answer my basic question- is it possible to build a common nation that lacks a common understanding of Sri Lankan history?
Dear All;
Human Knowledge, Science and Reality
I have discussed the nature of Human knowledge earlier. Also I discussed about the Salmon’s, Weaver bird’s and Migratory bird’s knowledge. I further discussed these knowledge are subjective to each “specie” and depend on the limited of the sensory perceptions (+ the capacity of mind) each spice posses. Therefore, as a consequence I said the reality (objective knowledge) cannot be realized through such knowledge gained through sensory perceptions.
Further, I have said that Human Knowledge (except for the raw knowledge endowed by the nature) is a created one. This knowledge is created through the process of mind with the help of sensory perceptions. Now, we will consider how and why this knowledge is created.
When a sensory perception is received by the mind it classifies the perception into pleasant, unpleasant or neutral according to the past knowledge store in the consciousness. When a pleasant thought is created natural craving/desire/passion/greed to acquire or to make a favourable connection with the subject is arisen. When an unpleasant thought is created natural craving to repulse/ resist/drive away it is arisen. In the case of a neutral thought a particular strong feeling may not arise.
With the first two kinds of urges the mind tries to fulfill its desire, using mind, verbal and physical actions. In this endeavour mind makes definitions, differentiations, conventions, summarizations, hypotheses, theories, theorems etc… etc…and creates knowledge. Again based on such knowledge in consciousness on the basis of the repeated perceptions, based on the capacity of mind the human knowledge is created in cycles. Whole such knowledge is created on the basis of “want” that is based on clinging/desire (based on pleasant thought) and repulsion/collision (based on unpleasant thought).
This way the basis for human knowledge is desire (Lobha) and collision (Dwesha or Dosha) and the reason is Avijja or Moha. Avijja is the reason because the mind clings or collides with the object because it does not know the real nature of the object. Really the object itself is not pleasant or unpleasant in its nature. I explained this by “Man’s shit (unpleasant to him) is dog’s food (pleasant to it). Not knowing this real state of the object we react in ignorance (avijja, moha).
All the human knowledge generated so far including Science, Philosophy or any other branch was generated the way mentioned above (in prejudice) and hence does not represent the reality or it is not capable of uncovering the reality.
Some People might say in the 21st century we are very advanced in knowledge, technology and everything, and how could any body in the past know anything more than us. But the thing is even in the 21st century we have not changed the method of acquiring knowledge. Still we are using the old method used by our oldest relative of the homo Sapiens, millions of years back.
If somebody says the “knowledge acquiring method revealed by the Buddha”, 2500 years back is more modern than that old method still used even by the Modern Science; can anybody say it is wrong?
Why don’t we through our “Hanamitiya”.
Thanks!
correction…..
Why don’t we through our “Hanamitiya”.
Above should change as “Why don’t we throw away our “Hanamitiya”.
Thanks!
Dear Observer
“Using similar logic, sure religions aren’t sacred to us because we see it in a different light. But to the believers it is as mother.”
An outwardly moving argument but a one way street to the inquisition. Insulting one’s mother is a personal insult on an individual. A religion is a view on the origin and nature of the universe. Every man and his dog has a view on that. If a person cannot bear to have that questioned (or ridiculed) they need to grow the heck up. No such concept is sacred. It is by proclaiming itself sacred that it protects itself from further inquiry and eventually sends people to their deaths for disagreeing. Better get these people used to the idea now before they nail us to the cross later.
cheers,
/SD
Wijayapala, you asked … May 14, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
“is it possible to build a common nation that lacks a common understanding of Sri Lankan history?”
Hey W, it has been well researched and found that some of the SL history on which we rest our cherished chauvinism is steeped in distortion. The article referenced by Sujewa is a good place to start, if you have an interest in this check out …
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
The trouble is, in SL you cannot openly discuss or research these distortions.
Compare this. The Turin Shroud, which was and still is revered as the cloth on which Jesus’s body was wrapped was found to be a 14th century fake. This was possible to research and publish in the open society of the West (although that has not taken anything away from the devoteed who still worship it).
In SL, any chance similar research can be done on the Sacred Tooth Relic in Kandy? Apparently the entire print run of an SL newpaper that published an article questioning its authenticity was ordered to be destroyed.
The Mahawansa was discovered in 1822 by the British. We Sinhalese assume that it was venerated or even generally known about by the inhabitants of SL for 2,000 years. Wrong! If it’s contents had not supported the nationalist-protestant Sinhala-Buddhist movement of the 1880s we will not know about it even now. (it was translated by Wilhelm Geiger in 1912)
We assume that our cherished ruins of Anuradhapura and Pollonnaruwa stood for 1,000+ years in the shiny splendor that we see it in today? Wrong! These ruins were abandoned and hidden in the jungle for 800 years. Nobody in SL cared about it. They were rediscovered by the British (I bet Mr Yapa you cannot name the British explorer who made the discovery). Of course, the forest monks knew it was there (but see below about the Order of Monks). An eye witness account states that ‘you could not see twenty yards in front of you” – the jungle was so thick.
Even after the rediscovery the locals had no interests in clearing the jungle – for some 70 years! The British rulers then ordered it to be cleared. About a decade later Anagarika Dharmapala successfully obtained agreement from the British rulers that the archaeological findings will stay in Lanka and open for worship. He formed the Maha Bodhi Society to protect it, and of course the ruins greatly supported the Sinhala-Buddhist ‘brand’ that he was promoting.
Today, we also think that the order of monks in SL remained unbroken since 2,300 years ago. Wrong! The only monks since the Chola invasion (11th century) lived in the forest. When we think of monks we think of those in temples in the cities who chant pirith in our homes and have ‘dhana’. It wasn’t until hundreds of years later that the King decided to re-introduce the order of monks but there were no monks in Lanka to ordain them. So they imported an Order from Siam.
You can find the citations by Googling.
I think it is important to preserve our cherished heritage. However, it should not be allowed to be distorted for political reasons, or for any reason.
Now, DNA evidence from the Human Genome project is throwing old theories about race and migration straight out the window (all over the world). I have already mentioned the Stanford U research on we Sinhala people (75% of the ancestors of every one of us lived in South India up to 5,000 years ago. That includes you Mr Yapa. We have just ended a 25 year war against our own brothers!).
The big fear now is, what archaeological treasures and evidence will be found in the North? What if the archaeologists find civilisation advanced for its time in the North of SL dating to 1,000 BC or more ? (this is very probable, given time)
You see Wijayapala, I FULLY endorse your imperative that we have “a common understanding of Sri Lankan history”. But can we do that with the real history please? (we can learn a lot from why we distorted it)
Dear Wijayapala,
“And you did not answer my basic question- is it possible to build a common nation that lacks a common understanding of Sri Lankan history?”
I am sorry I am a bit pressed for time. The problem is that, the Sri Lankan history has been bastardised left, right, and centre to suit nationalistic sentiments, and being taught to unsuspecting young people; how can one turn this tide around? Yes, of course, for instance, if the Sinhalese were to know and accept that they are largely made up of Dravidian stock; it would help immensely to bridge the gap! It is a matter for the Sinhala Buddhist intellectuals to rectify this situation; the Tamils are helpless in this endeavour.
Burning_Issue,
“It is a matter for the Sinhala Buddhist intellectuals to rectify this situation; the Tamils are helpless in this endeavour.”
Not sure if I’m an intellectual (Mr Yapa says I’m not) but I have done my bit above
Dear BalangodaMan,
You came in to a discussion between SD, Observer and me in mid stream. It was incumbent on you to familiarize yourself of what went on earlier before attempting “SMART” comments like the one you wrote on May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am.
Here is how the discussion went in brief (read the original posts for more)
Me to SomewhatDisgusted on May 11, 2010 @ 1:18 am
But the Article has gone beyond that and into areas that Observer correctly points to. It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer. This presupposes that “Science” knows it all. This of course is a fallacy in every branch of Science.
SomewhatDisgusted said, May 11, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
While I completely and have repeatedly agreed with you that science does not know it all (I don’t think it can be done even in principle), I’m not sure where the article says that “the concepts of KRN are questioned on the basis that science has no answer”
Me to SomewhatDisgusted / Observer, post on May 12, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
That’s why I stated that “the Article has gone beyond that and into areas that Observer correctly points to. It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer. This presupposes that “Science” knows it all. This of course is a fallacy in every branch of Science.
This is where you came in with your wise cracking “Oh Gosh ….Phew” post
BalangodaMan said, May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am
Oh gosh!
For the Umpteenth time (!) it was your colleague Mr Yapa who stated that karma, rebirth, nirvana are real things that can be proved with scientific methods. He quoted research in Quantum Physics and what not. He even argued in favour of a particular scientific approach. It was the Agnostics who challenged that. Now you are all saying what the Agnostics were saying all along! THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY OR OTHERWISE SOMETHING THAT IS A MATTER OF RELIGIOUS FAITH.
Phew!
My reply to you on May 13, 2010 @ 10:50 am starts as follows
My posts refer to the Article that was authored by Sujewa. If you think that the article does not use Science as a base to question Buddhism then please make your argument. Using Science as a base includes requesting the use of Science in the proof.
I have also stated the following in the same post
BTW – Please leave out the fixation that you have with Yapa in your refutation and deal with facts that you can support or provide references to.
You responded on May 13, 2010 @ 5:11 pm as follows
“OTC,
Scientist?
———–
You are accusing me of being a scientist rather unfairly, perhaps by association? ”
My challenge to you is based on your post of May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am, reproduced above and asks you to respond ONLY if you think that Sujewa’s article does not request the use of Science.
Now, please indicate where I have accused you of being a Scientist?
When you have so frequently displayed an abysmal knowledge of science, in this thread and its precursor, what made you think I will even think of you as someone with a logical mind to be able to discuss Science?
Even in the post of May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am, you are writing plain BS, things that are TOTALLY irrelevant to the question asked of you. I have specifically asked you to leave out the fixation that you have with Yapa, yet you are unable to do so.
Sujewa’s post of May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am, addressed to me and others have back peddled on the demand of using science as a proof. He has effectively cut your legs off from under you and your “Oh Gosh and Phew” post of May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am
You have on several occasions tried to introduce your own fabrications as my writings as pointed out to you before.
Please refrain from your Dishonest Tricks and write sensible comments AFTER reading and understanding the relevant posts.
I note that you have been writing some nonsense about three Buddhas. I am surprised at your lack of even a RUDIMENTARY knowledge of Buddha’s life since you claimed that you were born a Buddhist.
It surprises me no end to see a man from a Southern Village, claiming to have been brought up in a Buddhist family, who had at least been a Buddhist till he was 13 years, not knowing that Siddhartha the Heir to the Crown was never called the Buddha until he attained enlightenment. I cannot fathom the DISHONESTY of such a man who claims that to “Most” Buddhists, Buddha is a God and continues to elaborate thus “no different from the Christian god and the Muslim Allah.”
You need to educate yourself on the Symbolic reason why flowers are offered. The Pali verse embodies the following
Just as certainly as these flowers wilt away, my body too will wilt away
Hardly a prayer to an all powerful God!!!
Buddha invited critical analysis of what he taught. I am not aware of any other mainstream religion that does so (would like someone to correct me on this). You don’t do a critical analysis. You FABRICATE Canards.
It looks as if you are blaming Buddhism for your Fathers Death. Buddha is no God. He cannot grant you or your mother any favours. So it was your family’s mistake, asking for anything from him, as you were certain to be disappointed. If you or your family knew Buddhism you would not have asked favours from him. He died long ago, never to be reborn again.
OTC,
“It looks as if you are blaming Buddhism for your Fathers Death. Buddha is no God. He cannot grant you or your mother any favours. So it was your family’s mistake, asking for anything from him, as you were certain to be disappointed. If you or your family knew Buddhism you would not have asked favours from him. He died long ago, never to be reborn again.”
LOL! Actually my late father would have been the first to point out the absurdity of leading in a procession of monks into a hospital room to chant pirith. But that does not top the surrounding family from trying to sneak them in disguised as attendants!
I could dismiss my family as eccentric in their religious disposition, but no – I think they are typical in SL. It is no wonder though. The monks in the local temple actually promote the idea that worship is necessary to fix life’s crises, which includes worshipping the monks, that it passes merit to dead relatives and so on. This is an easy sell because they are preaching exactly what the audiences want to hear and want – ie. a quick fix.
Still, I don’t know what the disagreement is. Isn’t it a ‘given’ that it is customary to give offerings before any auspicious event? So, why? To whom?
(are we on the same planet?)
::
The argument about science – highly irrelevant. The often heard expression “science doesn’t know everything” indicates a lack of understanding of what ‘science’ means. It is (in my books anyway) the study of things to find out things about them (funny thing is that’s what Dhamma is supposed to mean also). By definition ‘science’ knows (and will always know) much much LESS than it doesn’t know. But what it knows it can explain why it thinks what it knows, and why it rejects some things as myth where the evidence shows that it is (Galileo, Darwin). It does not mean that science can disprove what it does not know.
You will have a hard time arguing against critics of religion if the only strategy you have is to knock science.
Dear BalangodaMan,
“Not sure if I’m an intellectual (Mr Yapa says I’m not) but I have done my bit above ”
Yes; absolutely agree that real history should come out; we will have battle on our hands to challenge the chauvinists.
Dear Off the Cuff,
If I had misquoted you, I say sorry.
Dear Off the Cuff;
Addressing BalangodaMan you said;
“You don’t do a critical analysis. You FABRICATE Canards.
Not only him, “Sounds Good”BalangodaMan is also unfamiliar with such accepted methodologies of discussion. They utter what comes to their petty minds in random basis without fear or shame in ignorance. They make empty noises to disrupt the ideas put forward by others they don’t like, they act in connivance with ill will to undermine others’ ideas in an unfair way, they are not familiar with or have knowledge to engage in such a fair debate. These two ignorant guys were taken for a ride by the “dishonest” by his false appreciations and motivations and they act like puppets when the strings are pulled. Dishonest too avoid critical analyzes wit audacity, not by ignorance like these two blind men uses his unethical means to reach his ill planned ends.
Dear Off the Cuff;
Do not see it as his fault. It is his ignorance.
Thanks!
The link attached below is the best scientific explanation of Kamma that i have come across, and i believe it makes very good sense:
http://jokerman.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/take-four-is-a-buddhists-idea-of-kamma-vipaaka-rational/
The language is a bit flowery but i hope it helps!
Regards
LG
Dear All;
Burning_Issue says;
[if the Sinhalese were to know and accept that they are largely made up of Dravidian stock;]
See this man’s ignorance and audacity. This man does not know the issue is not on “RACE” but on “ETHNICITY”. Sinhalese are Sinhalese not due to its race or races, but due to its inherent culture. Everybody knows that “Sinhalese race” is a mixture of many races, including natives lived in pre Vijajaya era, Aryans, Tamils, Arabs, Portugese, Dutch, English,….erc…etc…, but Sinhalese Nation or Sinhalese ethnicity is a Single entity only. It does not contain Tamil race or British race or Aryan race or native race. It consists of a single ethnicity formed with the all absorbed races,after accepting Sinhalese culture. There are no more Tamils in Sihala ethnicity, no more Britishes in Sinhala ethnicity, no more natives in Sinhala ethnicity. All have become one Sinhalese nation once it accepted common norms and values.
As you have said many Tamils have become “Sinhalese” in this country and they never complain of ill treatments or whatever discrimination towards them. They never think any more that they are Tamils. They may be Tamils in race, but no one cares about such differences in Sinhalese Society and they are equal partners.
When Tamils settle down in Canada they would like to become Canadians, in Britain, Britishers, in USA, Americans, but in Sri Lanka they are hesitant to be so. They want a separate piece of cake here.
I have no right to suggest Tamils to assimilate into the the main stream. But I feel, if they did so these unfortunate things wouldn’t have happened.
As we don’t have wisdom we fight in ignorance. Avijja is the the main root cause of any evil thing.
Thanks!
OTC is imagining things again; making up things that do not exist & believing those to be true (a common characteristic among the believers i see).
RE:
“Sujewa’s post of May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am, addressed to me and others have back peddled on the demand of using science as a proof. He has effectively cut your legs off from under you and your “Oh Gosh and Phew” post of May 13, 2010 @ 1:20 am”
There is no back peddling. The challenge has always been (read the top of the article when your memory starts to give you problems – as it often seems to do to believers) for the believers to show that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this world, & you can use whatever means (verifiable by non-believers); science, math, observations, common sense, etc.
I don’t see any such proof coming. Thus, Buddhism is merely a religion – not undisputed truth or the universal truth or whatever.
- S
Dear Doubtful;
RE: Your poem posted on May 14, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Thanks for your philosophical poem. I really love it.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan said,
May 15, 2010 @ 2:00 am
Burning_Issue,
“It is a matter for the Sinhala Buddhist intellectuals to rectify this situation; the Tamils are helpless in this endeavour.”
Not sure if I’m an intellectual (Mr Yapa says I’m not) but I have done my bit above
……………………..
Ignorant are most assertive!
Anyone criticizing Sinhalese people or their only true religion Buddhism is a traitor. In the current regime, all such traitors will be punished with death. Judicially or extra-judicially. This is the Sinhala Buddhist island and agnostics and other critics are not welcome here. Stay off in your safe havens and dare not return to Mother Lanka!
SWD,
SomewhatDisgusted said,
May 14, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Dear Observer
“Using similar logic, sure religions aren’t sacred to us because we see it in a different light. But to the believers it is as mother.”
An outwardly moving argument but a one way street to the inquisition. Insulting one’s mother is a personal insult on an individual. A religion is a view on the origin and nature of the universe. Every man and his dog has a view on that. If a person cannot bear to have that questioned (or ridiculed) they need to grow the heck up. No such concept is sacred. It is by proclaiming itself sacred that it protects itself from further inquiry and eventually sends people to their deaths for disagreeing. Better get these people used to the idea now before they nail us to the cross later.
cheers,
/SD
Alright if nothing is sacred is the path you want to adhere to let’s celebrate that!
For starters let’s pay tribute to innocent abused children with this catchy tune! Warning NSFW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
Sujeewa,
I don’t think there is a “we” here Observer. You seem to fear the religious,
I do fear irrational people when grouped together. And I also believe not all religious people are irrational. Hence I do not fear ALL religious people.
BalangodaMan,
BalangodaMan said,
May 13, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Observer,
“than those that have absolute confidence in something they have no way of verifying.” (my comment)
I am reminded of the numerous emails I get forwarded to me about ‘Microsoft will pay $25,000 if you use IE’ or ‘Nokia will pay for your child’s private education if you forward this email on to all your friends’. You know what I mean …
Does any intelligent person pass these on? Why don’t they check by Googling or Snopes before they pass these lies on to people who trust them? What do you think of people who send these to you?
Yes, I thought so.
So, why do we condone the same thing when it is adults passing on unverified fantastic (religious) sales messages to their unsuspecting children who trust them?
Except the difference is scams such as forwarding emails have proven to be fakes over multiple instances and people generally have the perception that
If only we could google spiritual matters and get conclusive answers! Life would be so easy no?
I wonder where this argument is heading, because at the end of it, everyone seems stuck to their beliefs or non-beliefs in the case of the agnostics and it’s going to stay that way.
One thing i find odd is how buddhists treat buddhism as a religion, when i suppose, it’s ‘founder’ siddartha gautama intended it to be a philosophy he cooked up to end suffering and exit the ‘cycle of life’ (whatever that is).
@dasa maha yoda: there is nothing wrong with people having an opinion different from your own, its a basic human right. Srilanka is only a country where Sinhala Buddhist people make the majority and because of that it is governed by some of those principles but the constitution supports co-existence of the different religions in the country, so you have no right to tell agnostics that they aren’t welcome in their own country.
Dear BalangodaMan,
Thanks for the very interesting paper.
I’ve extracted some particularly interesting passages:
“Obeyesekere points out that “it is one of the ironies of ethnicity that the Tamils want a separate state of Ilam, which means ‘Sinhala country’; while the Sinhalas want to hang on to Lanka which is derived from ilankai the Tamil word for ‘island.’”"
How much funnier than that can it get?
Also, the following two passages:
“The supreme irony is that multilingualism was one of cultural ideals of medieval Sinhalese society, where the mastery of six languages was considered to be the educated norm.”
“The Buddhist canon does not use Ärya as a racial term; rather, it is an honorific for all those who embrace the Dharma. Furthermore, as Mahinda Palihawadana has argued, the Buddha believed that racism and nationalism are the result of flawed perception. Like the Body of Christ, there are no distinctions at all within the body of the Buddha. Perceiving a “difference by birth” is, as Palihawadana explains, “a mental propensity (ditthanusaya), something invested with emotional content. The classic example is the idea of me, my self; and, compounded with other conventional views, my clan, my country, my language, my nation, and not least, my creed.”[37] Ultra nationalists take their own nÄma-gotta–name and clan—and mistakenly believe that it is an essential part of their identity. “
Mr. Yapa, I would really like to hear how you reconcile your own position with the Buddha’s? This is the kind of unifying, humane philosophy that I understand comes from the Buddha (and indeed, any compassionate and intelligent man).
And then, the two below:
“In 1908 Dharmapala declared that Buddhism was “completely identified with the racial individuality of the people.”[38] As Peter Schalk states: “This is probably one of the most conflict creating public statements made in the 20th century. It is also a statement that is detrimental nationally and internationally to the reputation of Buddhism. . . . He stated explicitly that Lanka belongs to the Buddhist Sinhalese and for the Tamils there is South India.”[39] It is unfortunate that American evangelical Christian activists unwittingly spread the myth of the Aryan Sinhalese. One of their websites states that the Buddhist portion of the island’s population (75 percent) is Sinhala and Aryan, obviously implying that the Åšri LankÄn Christians, Muslims, and Hindus are not. Incidentally, if there is any historical substance to a North Indian origin of the original immigrants to the island, then one could claim an Aryan origin, but only linguistically, for these people.”
Woah Nelly! Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese because “Dharmapala Thuma” said so! (Must be another akaravathi shradda) So now we follow “Dharmapala Thuma’s” words over the Buddha’s own words which reject racial/ethnic divisions? I’m just wondering why we don’t go the whole hog, erect some statues of “Dharmapala thuma” and worship him instead of the Buddha, since we seem to follow his words more closely anyway? This will “preserve SL Buddhism” plus prevent the good name of the Buddha being tarnished? A win win situation no?
And finally this:
“Before concluding this section, some historical balance is now in order to counter the previous focus on Buddhist nationalism. In the British constitutional reforms of 1911, the Tamils, with only 10 percent of population, were given 42 percent of the representation. In a move to protect their position, high caste Tamils, previously favored by the British, did object to a more equitable formula in the first Donoughmore proposals in 1927. These high caste Tamils, distinct from the more recent tea estate Tamils, thought the Sinhalese were a “uncivilized and backward community,” and their spokesman Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan stated: “Although we may be small in numbers, in terms of caste, official power etc., we are the most powerful community in Åšri Lanka. Both the Sinhalese and the Muslims have accepted this. Therefore, when the British leave, it is the Tamils who should rightfully inherit political power.”[48]“
This is so the Tamils know where they get their own silly superiority complex from.
Please, this kind of illogic needs to be shoved where the sun don’t shine. This kind of thinking has always been a bad idea and it is dangerously anti-human and divisive. People like the Buddha recognized that 2500 years ago. Indeed, anyone who thinks about it for more than 5 minutes would. Yet, do we want to even count the number of people who are (they know it’s taboo to say it out loud), secretly harbouring delusions of superiority and uniqueness, hanging onto holy truths or never before seen language dialects, which can only be preserved for all eternity by mistrusting, assimilating or isolating ourselves from the “other” like in-bred hillbillies?
BalangodaMan said it right. “We are dealing with a mentality of 800 years ago in a world that is very different now. If the people with this mentality appropriate for that age LIVED IN THAT AGE there is no problem, or if they live in isolation from the rest of the world. It is when they come face to face with the 21st century that we have a major conflict”
cheers.
/SD
p.s.
Mr. Yapa will doubtless observe that the “apaaya sahaaya mithraya” is goading BalangodaMan on by kissing his rear end again. Just as well neither B-man nor I believe in any apaaya (hell). BTW, Christians believe in apaaya too. Wonder how they stumbled on to a Buddhist concept? Or is it even a Buddhist concept?
apaaya – hell
sahaaya – to help
mithraya – friend
Therefore, apaaya sahaaya mithraya – friend who helps you to get to hell.
Dear Observer,
“Alright if nothing is sacred is the path you want to adhere to let’s celebrate that!”
Once again, your argument is an appeal to emotion based on an unsuitable comparison. You have not given a single reason as to why religion ought to be held sacred.
Child abuse is an illegal act against a defenseless child.
Religion is supposed to be a view on the origin, nature and purpose of the universe. If you cannot understand the difference between taking child abuse lightly (a known reality) and taking a view on the “unknown” lightly, then we have a problem.
Saying that we can no longer question someone’s views on the unknown and must treat any odd irrational belief with slavish respect, is, to me, an absurd proposition. It means we have already found the answers to life and can no longer make any rational inquiry about it. It also means we cannot critique the destructive influence of religion on society – its divisive nature, its unfounded beliefs being foisted upon young children as the gospel truth etc. Not allowing it to be questioned is – allow me to make my own appeal to emotion which is both suitable and supported by historic fact – a one way street to the inquisition.
BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Burning Issue,
We have had very heated arguments about Tamil/ Sinhala issues. Yet we have agreed with each other by looking at facts devoid of emotion. I have come to respect you as a Gentleman. The reference to me in your post of May 15, 2010 @ 6:39 am confirms the fact.
Thank you
Dear BalangodaMan,
You say,
“LOL! Actually my late father would have been the first to point out the absurdity of leading in a procession of monks into a hospital room to chant pirith. But that does not top the surrounding family from trying to sneak them in disguised as attendants!”
Sure your late father would then have been more educated about Buddhism to know that Buddha was not a God and that there was only ONE Buddha not three in one lifetime as you fantasize.
Pity he could not pass his knowledge on to his son who has a penchant for Pontificating on matters that he is an Ignoramus of.
You say,
“It does not mean that science can disprove what it does not know.”
Yes that is correct but you forget that the corollary is also true.
If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either.
At the current point in time Science does not know anything about Rebirth though it knows something about “Premeditated Action”.
When you and Sujewa keep asking for Scientific or some such “verifiable” proof you keep conveniently forgetting the above.
If you want such Verifiable proof you have to FIRST PROVE to the Religious that the methods you are asking to be used has the Capacity or the Authority or the Maturity to dissect the Subject that you have chosen. You cannot use a spoon to empty an Ocean.
You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.
Both of you have studiously kept away from that discussion. Why? Is it because you have a hard time in doing that?
(This is re your post of May 15, 2010 @ 3:51 am)
Dear OTC,
You said: “When I asked you, whether you agreed with Buddha’s teachings I meant what Buddha said about Good governance not anything else. How would such Governance become anything but benign?”
I think we are having a problem once again with concepts. We are moving interchangeably between several different concepts.
1. What the Buddha said
2. What SL Buddhists follow
3. What we ought to be following based on 21st century understanding.
In this regard I think we both agree that what the Buddha said about governance is benign. We probably also agree that what SL Buddhists follow is a travesty of what the Buddha said (which is why you felt the need to qualify it by saying you were not referring to corruptions of it). What we disagree on is concept no. 3.
The reason is this. You are merely taking one part of Buddhism, the “dasa raja dharma”, and saying it is suitable for all. Yes. I would agree. I would also point out that these are virtues universally valued by *any thinking human being* across cultures. We don’t necessarily need a belief in Buddhism to realize it.
However, that’s not all there is to Buddhism is it? So taking one part of Buddhism, showing that it is suitable for all, and then concluding that no one should have a problem with accepting it, is similar to Christians taking 6 of the commandments, saying it’s suitable for all, and asking that we all accept Christianity. Would you agree to such a thing?
Secondly, on what basis are we to ask that others accept Buddhism? Can you show it to be an indisputable truth? I think we’ve clearly seen that this too, is not possible.
And so we come to the point. What is the *fair* thing to do? I’ve repeatedly asked this question, to which I have received no concrete answer from any of the believers.
My personal view is that all the believers intuitively recognize what the fair thing to do is. Secularism is based on that fairness, that’s why it’s an *unassailable* concept, accepted in the 21st century by most modern nations including Sri Lanka. The only countries which fail to accept it are the backward, fundamentalist nut-job Islamic ones.
Therefore, we can clearly see that having a clause which installs Buddhism as some sacred concept is *inherently unfair*. It is a majoritarian policy, not a fair policy.
Now here comes something that might be a pleasant surprise to you. I don’t actually have a problem with that clause. I think that clause is wrong in principle, but I don’t have too much beef with it in practice. I’ve already explained why.
But what I want believers to acknowledge is that they are completely aware of the fact that such clauses are a *privilege* and not a *right*. Unfortunately most people just don’t see it that way. They have simply used their position as a majority to enforce the idea on others, thinking that Buddhism is some indisputable truth, without largely even realizing that they have no basis on which to do so. Others may be willing to accept it, given that Buddhism is a relatively harmless religion, *provided that the Sinhalese are willing to be scrupulously fair by others in every other respect*.
History shows us that this has not been the case. We have continuously tried to elevate Sinhalese culture, dominant religion, symbols etc. to the forefront, while ignoring the similar concerns of the Tamils. We *must* accept a massive part of the blame for these problems, because we are the most numerous ethnic group in the country, and therefore burdened with greater responsibility. We simply *cannot* form a fair society and ask others to live in it otherwise.
So you probably see now where my protest against Buddhism originates from. It was necessary to show that we are already unfairly privileged by having clauses like these in the constitution. The least we can do is to make sure we provide proper language use for the Tamils.
Do you honestly think we have done that successfully so far? We almost denied it altogether through the ’56 Sinhala Only policy. Tamil language policies are still not satisfactorily implemented. Should this not be one of our greatest concerns?
I will end by saying that, this problem is certainly not a one-sided issue. The Tamils have to take their fair share of the blame too. Many other things are simply an inevitable result of history – no one’s fault. But we need to readily understand and face our reality. Sinhalese culture is facing no threat at the moment. It is therefore of twice the importance now that we do what we can to help the Tamil community recover.
I have long known you are no racist and a fair-minded individual. But we must protest against those who think of things from a lop-sided perspective and simply cannot consider things from another culture/person’s point of view. This is also where correcting concept no. 2 (Dharmapala type thinking – which had its uses then, but is a *problem* now – Seriously, what kind of racist in his/her right mind would say Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese?) and making Buddhism go back to its roots towards concept no. 1 and making sure it aligns itself with modernity as in concept no. 3.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Three BalangodaMen;
Have you got any comments on my post of May 14, 2010 @ 9:30 pm? It talks about your “Hanamitiya”.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
[BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.]
You are abusing “sounds good” child and “BalangodaChild” . Two poor children who do not know A, B, C of these things! Oh! my Gosh!
Thanks!
OTC,
your May 15, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
“there was only ONE Buddha not three”
OTC, you are reading this literally. The point I was making is, that in discussion we are often referring to 3 separate ideas of who the Buddha was (or still is in the case of Buddha of the Third Kind). Consequently we are attributing interchangable characters to quotes/teaching/phenomena. (No, I am not having a vision of 3 Buddhas like The Three Muskateers or The Three Tenors)
And you say …#
“Science … knows something about “Premeditated Action”.
Whoa!
“You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.”
Nooooooooooooo! It is Mr Yapa who says it can be proved. So it is his choice of method. We are only wanting that method to be something more than ‘FAITH’ or ‘CONVICTION’.
I don’t know why we are harping on about this if (as I think) we all agree that it is a faith and so cannot be proved by any method except FAITH. (Only Mr Yapa seems to have a problem with this I think)
Buddhism is a religion with items of faith just like all other religions. There, you can sue me!
This will end the merry-g-round.
All those who agree please say ‘yeah’.
“We the undersigned all agree that Buddhism is a religion that has items that require FAITH, that cannot be proved by any conventional method such as science, Quantum Physics, mathematics. These include the extent to which actions of a human invokes consequences to a living being born in the future”.
Some Quotations from Wise Men to BalangodaMen and All Others
1.The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
2.A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Thanks!
Libertad, clearly you do not grasp that “Dasa Maha Yoda” is not a Sinhala Buddhist but some clown prancing about trying to denigrate Buddhists. I thought that his act would be too overblown for anybody here to accept but clearly I was wrong.
Hey B-Man,
Of course I say “yeah” to what you wrote above, re: Buddhism containing items that need to be taken on faith, cannot be proven to be real in this world.
But, on to more important things – come join the positive agnostics at my blog as we try to come up with a way to get SL out of poverty using resources of the Greater Sri Lanka (SL & diaspora):
http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-billion-s-year-or-more-to-sri-lanka.html
Of course we will keep an eye on this thread to remind the believers from time to time that their faith does contain significant items that cannot be proven as real & that Buddhism is merely a religion like all the other major religions.
- S
Dasa Maha Yoda,
RE:
“Anyone criticizing Sinhalese people or their only true religion Buddhism is a traitor.”
Wrong. Anyone who thinks any group of people or any religion is beyond criticism is a fool who is on a path to self-destruction.
“In the current regime, all such traitors will be punished with death.”
Then, if the current regime starts to kill millions of people in SL (there are millions of non-believers there, as there always have been, & millions of intelligent people who want to improve things & thus will take a critical look at things) then the regime will not last. People who attempt to silence discussion or positive change via murder do not last long in SL.
” Judicially or extra-judicially.”
Sure, we’ll see how long that can last. People who attempt to kill others via illegal means or legal & false means will most likely receive a dose of their own poison. For an example, look up how the last 2 or 3 groups who tried to impose or maintain power in SL via murder turned out – they are all decomposing in graves at the moment.
“This is the Sinhala Buddhist island and agnostics and other critics are not welcome here.”
We are already there/here. Have always been, & will always be.
“Stay off in your safe havens and dare not return to Mother Lanka!”
Keep making threats while hiding behind a fake name. For all we know, you yourself don’t live in SL & probably are not in any way connected to SL. Keep up your hate fantasy, it will destroy you soon so doubt – & that will be a good thing for all – believers & agnostics, & everyone else.
- S
Dear BalangodaMan
“Nooooooooooooo! It is Mr Yapa who says it can be proved. So it is his choice of method. We are only wanting that method to be something more than ‘FAITH’ or ‘CONVICTION’. ”
Sujewa’s post of May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am, addressed to me and others have back peddled on the demand of using science as a proof.
Pat comes the reply “There is no back peddling. The challenge has always been (read the top of the article when your memory starts to give you problems – as it often seems to do to Non believers)”
That reply to you is courtesy Sujewa who does not know whether he is coming or going. I introduced only the word “Non”
While OTC keeps ignoring the obvious (that Buddhism is a religion with speculative/faith based items) due to his pride or inability to recognize reality or whatever other mysterious thing that motivates believers, everyone else who are interested in using your brain to help improve things in this world, check out the Rationalist Day celebration in Borella on 5/18:
http://www.secularsrilanka.com/
- S
OTC,
“That reply to you is courtesy Sujewa who does not know whether he is coming or going.”
The Quantum Physicists will confirm that it is possible to be coming or going at the same time if you are travelling at the speed of light. The only other case of ‘coming and going at the same time’ I know of is an elderly gentleman down the road who sadly and unexpectedly passed away while making love to his wife.
(Like cases of rebirth where the transmigration of karma is observable) it is rare.
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake
Karma means action. In Buddhist philosophy it is not just action but thoughtful action. Not all events in life are determined by it and not all actions will yield immediate results. Karma exists in the present not just carried from the past. It’s presence in the present and the fact that the action precedes the result is one indicator of the possibility that an action in this life could result in an event in the next. But again this is a hypothesis. Possibly as we develop our minds further our understanding of it would grow. What is not clear to us at this time is whether there is a carry over to a subsequent life. That it is true in the present is not in doubt
Rebirth on the other hand is almost UNIVERSALLY believed. Every mainstream religion believes in more than the current birth. Again it remains a belief until we attain a state of mind that can remember our previous birth (which can be achieved through meditation in this birth). Then it will be known to each person who posses such a state of mind as fact but to others it will still remain just a belief. Probably, as Psychological research extends our knowledge and ability to read the Foetal Mind we may discover it as fact someday in the future.
The above is from my very first post on the Akon thread on April 8, 2010 @ 11:10 am
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16898
I do hope your “SUPER BRAIN” will not over heat while you try to comprehend the meanings of the above two paragraphs.
You say
“While OTC keeps ignoring the obvious (that Buddhism is a religion with speculative/faith based items) due to his pride or inability to recognize reality or whatever other mysterious thing that motivates believers, everyone else who are interested in using your brain to help improve things in this world” (your post on May 15, 2010 @ 9:30 pm)
As usual you have displayed your Stupidity by making “Foot in the Mouth statements”
What Happened to that Excellent Memory of yours?
Pot, Shilboot or Dementia?
You see Sujewa, you have done what the Proverbial Dog did on the Stone. I hope you have not forgotten your Sinhala Idiom too.
With that Brain of yours, I pity the world that you are trying to put in order
You have just seen Kamma in action. Premeditated Action and the Result.
Dear BalangodaMan,
Did you read the top of the article as Sujewa Advised?
So who wants Science to be used? The article says its the Agnostics and that includes you and Sujewa.
As I stated before If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either.
If you want such Verifiable proof you have to FIRST PROVE to the Religious that the methods you are asking to be used has the Capacity or the Authority or the Maturity to dissect the Subject that you have chosen. You cannot measure the Depth of the Ocean with a Foot Ruler, can you?
You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.
Both of you have studiously kept away from that discussion. Why? Is it because you have a hard time in doing that?
Without hiding behind Yapa and wise cracking, come out and argue on your own steam.
Are you not Man enough for that?
OTC,
Still no proof that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana are real. But I do see that you keep repeating the same basic thing over & over – that KRN can be neither proven nor dis-proven by using scientific methods or any other means. Meaning, I can basically assume that KRN is religious fiction or at best speculative items that are most likely ficticious (sp?) & continue to not worry about any claims about Buddhism being an absolute truth, the universal truth, etc.
So, Buddhism remains a faith based religion, just like all of the other major faith based religions, and are only of great concern for the believers, & the rest of us can worry about more (or less
important things.
- S
OTC,
With the greatest of respect I am both impressed AND alarmed at the strength of your religious faith.
Impressed becaused you are totally unwavering in your faith. Alarmed because the only other people I have heard of who embraced their religious faith with as much conviction were the 19 muslim men in planes I spoke about earlier.
You said …
“As I stated before If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either.”
OTC, if you look at the Index of this book (picked as a typical book on world religions) and other such books you will see there are hundreds of religions in the world. Science cannot prove any of them. Does that mean they are all ‘true’ until science can disprove them?
http://www.amazon.com/Compact-Guide-World-Religions-Halverson/dp/1556617046/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273959923&sr=8-30
Re. karma you said … “It’s presence in the present and the fact that the action precedes the result is one indicator of the possibility that an action in this life could result in an event in the next” …. and
“Possibly as we develop our minds further our understanding of it would grow”.
Actually our understanding of the universe and the nature of life HAS grown in the past 2,000 years. And guess what? It is not our belief in ancient theories that has grown … it is our DISBELIEF! That is why (in countries where there is more openness of mind) the proportion of normal religious believers continues to fall – while the fanatics continue to rise.
And another gem …
“Rebirth on the other hand is almost UNIVERSALLY believed.”
Universally? On which planet? ‘Universally’ down your street? Do you mean ‘rebirth’ or ‘reincarnation’? All of the research that has been cited in this thread is about reincarnation, which you say is distinctly different. Right?
In my experience, rebirth or reincarnation is not what is universally believed BUT it is what is universally desired. (Maybe everyone I know is wierd!
)
(BTW do not confuse ‘belief in the afterlife’ with belief in ‘rebirth’)
Yapa,
“See this man’s ignorance and audacity.”
You are the last man on this forum that I would expect to comment about ignorance and audacity! I saw you debating with Wijayapala endeavouring to show that the Sinhala language is a product of Sri Lanka; the Sinhala people are decedents of the unique Sri Lankan stock; you could prove nothing!
“As you have said many Tamils have become “Sinhalese” in this country and they never complain of ill treatments or whatever discrimination towards them.”
Of course many Tamils assimilated into Sinhala society; likewise, many Sinhala assimilated into the Tamil Society. Whether you like it or not, the Tamils of Sri Lanka are a unique group of people who have the right to claim Sri Lanka as their country too; they have the right to also exercise their language on par with the Sinhala. You can go as far back in history; the Tamils have always been there enriching the cultures, languages, and customs.
“When Tamils settle down in Canada they would like to become Canadians, in Britain, Britishers, in USA, Americans, but in Sri Lanka they are hesitant to be so. They want a separate piece of cake here.”
I have heard this pathetic argument from many Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists. Does that mean that many, many Sinhala settle in those countries do not do the same? What does this prove; it proves nothing; you need to grow up mister! The Tamils are also Sri Lankans on equal par with the Sinhala; they have maintained their identity for thousands of years and lived in harmony with the Sinhala; they will continue to maintain their identity come what may. I for one believe that, the Sinhalese will regain their senses and marginalise people like you and re-establish Sri Lanka as a true plural nation.
“I have no right to suggest Tamils to assimilate into the the main stream. But I feel, if they did so these unfortunate things wouldn’t have happened.”
Why don’t you flip the coin and look on the other side; if the Sinhala polity had respected the minority rights and had accommodated them with equal rights, this mess wouldn’t have happened, right.
Re: agnosticism, secularism, Buddhism, & Sri Lanka:
My view, along with many others here & elsewhere, as to why “Western” countries were able to out perform Sri Lanka & many other “non-Western” countries for the last couple of hundred years, is that, the “Western” countries where religion & the state (& also mainstream life) are separate allows for greater flexibility for individuals to go after their postive goals (entrepenuerial, creative, etc.). And when millions of individuals are allowed to pursuit their interest without limitations that arise form ancient religious & or religion based cultural restrictions – new work, works, wealth, ideas (another form of wealth), practices, etc. are generated – which benefits the society & also benefits the state, & also benefits religious organizations (the followers will have more money & time to spend on religious matters).
Does or will secularizing Sri Lanka in practice (it already has a secular gov. on paper) result in Buddhism disappearing from the island? No. Most likely it will strengthen Buddhism (see the example in the US – one of the most secular countries on the planet, also the place that invented the separation of Church & State, & it is also one of the biggest Christian countries on the planet – in term of % of the population that takes part in religious life – including participating in the other major world religions), and it will create another powerful source of assistance to all Sri Lankans (this is possible, I can see Buddhist monks ministering to the needs of non-believers & believers of other faiths, specially due to the leverage they have being the largest organized religion in the country when it comes to people who need their support in dealing with other important segments of SL society). Plus, the monks will or can be if they so choose, become an independent & useful (in a political sense) segment of society -accessible to all, instead of being just another unofficial part of a Sinhala-Buddhist government (in the eyes of non-Sinhala people & non-Buddhists in SL & world wide).
In fact, what Sri Lanka can use are more independent monks in this time of great transition (ending of a 26+ year old war, etc.). There is MUCH in Sri Lanka that needs to be reformed & improved. There is also a long culture of violence in SL, also a culture where press freedoms are flimsy at best & vocal critics disappear. However, to use an old phrase – speaking truth to power – appears to be a part of the Buddhist tradtion. The Buddha himself appears to be a social reformer.
(Is there an opposing order of monks who do not agree w/ the JHU for example? If not, why not?)
Anyway, back to the point – government is a messsy affair – where compromises need to be made, and all manner of open & secret deals – including matters that deal with finance & war – are taken into account. Running the goverment according to Buddhist ideals would not be very wise (not that this is in danger of happening for real in SL, but just in case
, since many other governments/the competition of SL gov do not follow/try to stick to Buddhist ideals & ethics. However, a separate – at least a part of the monks – Buddhist order that keeps both the government & the excesses of regular people in check could be very useful for SL. One of the main problems in SL, in my view, has been the lack of checks & balances on power, lack of accountability. So, the more layers of checks & balances there are, the better off SL may be.
Really, I do not see why, w/ 2000+ years of Buddhism on the island, why Sri Lanka is not the #1 country in the world for human rights. Instead it has been one of the top countries for violence, poverty, & evils of all kinds – the kinds of evils that destroy humans as oppose to protecting & nurturing them.
A Buddhist kingdom or a country that is in fact a Buddhist knigdom though on paper it may call itself a modern democracy cannot compete with secular, multi-ethnic, open societies that also have freedom of religion & freedom from religion. If Sri Lankans are interested in claiming what should have been theirs/ours many generations ago, becoming one of the top countries in the world for all manner of positive things (certainly the intelligence & drive is there – I’ve seen how SL immigrants achieve in US & elsewhere, where the frame work & freedom for individual achievement exists), then, they/we should take a serious look at separating the Temple & State in practice & also creating a secular society where religions play a role but is not the dominant force/stiffling other means of acting in the world & perceiving the world.
Anyway, after that long intro, here is an introduction to secularism as it is practiced in many “Western” countries:
“Secular society
In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are widely considered a relevant part of the political discourse in many of these countries. This contrasts with other Western countries where religious references are generally considered out-of-place in mainstream politics.
Among the first to delineate the nature of a secular society, D. L. Munby characterizes a secular society as one which:
Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it.
Is not homogenous, but is pluralistic.
Is tolerant. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed on methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their aims.
Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application.
Positive Ideals behind the secular society
Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
Equality of all people.
Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.[21] ”
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
And to clarify the title of this post, agnostics are a part of the secular tradition – we are not certain about the grand claims made by the religious, however, we see that things need to get done & we keep ourselves open to all possible soultions, not just the ones endorsed from a religious perspective.
- S
A little bit more on secularism, since some who are reading this conversation/debate may not know even in theory what secularism is & also may not have the opportunity to observe secularism in practice via visiting a secular country, etc.
From Leister Secular Society page on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_Secular_Society
“Practical Humanity: Our efforts should be devoted to the elimination of human misery, injustice, poverty and ignorance in the world as it is here and now. We oppose religious teachings that divert people away from realities, into inactive fatalism, supernatural worship, or superstitious ritual. Free Speech: People should be able to express and publish their views, however controversial, without fear of persecution, prosecution or physical harm, so long as they allow others the same freedom. We oppose bigotry and coercion based on factors such as beliefs, racial and ethnic origins, disability, sex, age, sexuality or lifestyle. Rational Argument: Anyone should be prepared to submit their views to vigorous argument, questioning their assumptions and testing their conclusions. We refuse to believe or act on any dogma advocated without evidence just because some authority says so. Working Together: Moral values like kindness, loyalty and honesty arise from the need for people to live together in a peaceful and constructive manner. We advocate separation of church and state, withdrawal of special privileges of religious organisations, and secularisation of church schools.”
Of course not every non-believer/agnostic/atheist/secularist agrees with all of the items above & many recongnize that different emphasis is needed for problems that arise in different times & places, however, the ideas expressed above give a good introduction to the positive secular/non-religious world view.
Hopefully this will help clear up the reason as to why a debate over supernatural/fantastic elements found in Buddhism is necessary & useful.
- S
Dear OTC,
You said: “So who wants Science to be used? The article says its the Agnostics and that includes you and Sujewa.”
I am really not sure I understand. This is what Sujewa says:
“prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”
So it does not limit itself to science.
This makes no sense OTC. You’ve been following this discussion throughout so I’m sure you know the background and context enough by now. Let me rephrase if there’s a problem.
List our 10 (or whatever) convincing reasons to believe in karma that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that Kamma/Rebirth/Nirvana are real. This is the required proof. Simple as that. (Here’s a post in which it was requested. )
So far, we have been writing about everything else under the sun other than
a. Either write that list – Makes KRN a fact
b. Say that it is not possible to write that list – Makes KRN a faith (a euphemism for akaravathi shradda – or the other way around – so Mr. Yapa does not have a paroxysm)
Can the believers please choose either path A or path B?
Secondly, I don’t see why we should get sidetracked over whether it’s using science or not, when it has been repeatedly acknowledged that the dirty word “science” is not relevant. BalangodaMan wrote an entire post dissociating himself from that idea.
cheers,
/SD
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
It has been frequently seen that you are engaged in appreciating useless posts of your two accomplices who are acting as clowns, making the audience burst in laughter. Really they are good actors. You should encourage and motivate them to develop their acting skills. I quite agree with you. But, your act reminded me of an old Sinhala saying. You Know no, that I like sort of stuff.The saying goes thus;
“Kotiyage guhave navathinna theeranaya kalanum koti betith suwanduy kiyanna igena ganna onelu”
, which means if you decided to stay in the tiger’s den, you will have to learn to say tiger shit is sweet smelling.
Now that you had decided living together with two donkeys you have to say both their shit is smelling sweet.
Cheers! (as you say) He! He!!
Thanks!
SomewhatDisgusted,
Religion is supposed to be a view on the origin, nature and purpose of the universe. If you cannot understand the difference between taking child abuse lightly (a known reality) and taking a view on the “unknown” lightly, then we have a problem.
Huh? Take lightly? Ok you have to not misunderstand me. I expressed my absolute anger by posting that video which quite offensively rips into the Catholic Church! I really don’t know what you’re on about here SWD. My actual intention was to show the borderline nature of it. I find such expressions satisfying for the injustices that has been done in the name of religion. But for most people it would be sacrilegious. So the whole idea was to make us think about the 2 sides. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.
Yes I see what you and BalangodaMan are saying. I have very little time during weekdays and I didn’t answer BalangodaMan then because I didn’t think it was a pressing matter.
Anyway, my problem with that statement is how do you define indoctrination and brain washing? Those are quite powerful words and I think it’s a harsh term to use unless someone is in a religious cult. So I’m assuming what you really refer to hear is children being taught religion at a very young age. So I will reply with this assumption.
I personally believe religion should not be taught in school. Unless the child is specifically enrolled into a religious school by the parents choice. You have to understand, until a child has grown to become a youth, parents are their guardians and they do have a right to make choices for them. Whether it be music, sports, languages, religion, history and any other curriculum parents should and do have a say in what their child learns in early stages of their lives. If you try to tell me or most people not just religion anything that I deem worthy for my child to learn is not and equate that to abuse of my child, I would quite rightly flick you the finger and tell you to mind your own children’s business! Hopefully, I’m sure that is not what you implied here.
For example, I have a right to teach my child how to hunt if I chose to do so. If I enjoy hunting and I would like to share that experience with my child as a bonding experience, I will let him handle a gun and teach how to scout, follow a prey and take it down. Most people would cringe at the thought of letting a 13/14 year old even hold a gun and think the violence associated with that activity may have harmful effects on the child, but doesn’t mean they have a say in it! Unless there is a law against that, then I’d respect the law of the land.
To further elaborate I went to a leading Buddhist school in Sri Lanka. I have studied Buddhism formally and it used to be a very good scoring subject for me as well. Meaning I wasn’t lethargic about it. But none of that really made me believe it in entirety. The curriculum I did had nothing that would amount to indoctrination. If anything learning Buddhism in a structured manner helped me identify gaps and truly question aspects I did not quite understand or refused to take it on face value. I would encourage my children to learn any religion and see how they feel about it. It is not my wish they become agnostic just because I am. If they believe in something, the can believe. Hopefully it won’t be anything silly like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, at least after a certain age
I refuse to buy your argument completely. I have seen people from all walks of life, circumstances and backgrounds eventually figuring out the world in a rational manner. The issue here really is how religion is taught. If it is taught in an extremist way implying it is the BE ALL AND END ALL then that is absolutely wrong and would amount to brain washing. But for most children religion is part of the overall curriculum and it comes at the parents choice.
This is just to provide some light relief – from what looks a pretty serious discussion
So you want to know religion?
Lift your carpet
Sweep the dirt
Put the carpet away
Easier to see the dirt
When the floor is bare
Rest of the time
You lead a normal life
Eat work and sleep
Aint no big deal
If you want to know politics
Sweep your dirt
Under the carpet
Pretend it’s not there
Live an extra-ordinary life
No time to eat and sleep
It’s all work!
It’s a mighty big deal
So don’t get fooled
Don’t get taken for rides
Take your pick
Religion or politics?
No big deal either way
The dirt is everywhere…
SWD,
SomewhatDisgusted said,
May 14, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Dear Observer
“Using similar logic, sure religions aren’t sacred to us because we see it in a different light. But to the believers it is as mother.”
An outwardly moving argument but a one way street to the inquisition. Insulting one’s mother is a personal insult on an individual. A religion is a view on the origin and nature of the universe. Every man and his dog has a view on that. If a person cannot bear to have that questioned (or ridiculed) they need to grow the heck up. No such concept is sacred. It is by proclaiming itself sacred that it protects itself from further inquiry and eventually sends people to their deaths for disagreeing. Better get these people used to the idea now before they nail us to the cross later.
cheers,
/SD
Anyway this whole sacred thing. My point essentially is that it is a subjective matter. You cannot decide what is and is not sacred other than to your own self. Each individual holds thing that are uniquely sacred to them. Therefore as a decent human being I believe you should respect (or at least pretend to respect) what they so dearly value as much as their life.
So no the mother insult was perfectly comparable. Let me elaborate in detail in case you missed the case I made. If my friend’s mother is a promiscuous woman who’s secret that I happen to know and I quite tactlessly happened to alert my friend. And then he quite expectedly lashes out at me and nearly knock me out for the disrespectful words that I uttered, what am I to do? I am the rational person here who bases it on a verifiable fact. He is a believer that refuses to believe his mother could have ever betrayed his father and continues to believe that it is not true. A believer vs. rationalist situation where someone should be more sensitive towards a “sacred” subject which happens to by my friend’s dear mother! Yes!? No!?
Dear Burning_Issue;
Except for a few issues in your post I quite agree with you. What I did was countering some negative issues you secretly hiding in your good posts to damage your ingenuity and also our society. I accept that your posts are of quite acceptable and I noted them many times as moderate. However, I think it is my responsibility too, to correct them to go in the right track for the benefit of all. In the circumstance I think I correctly responded to your negative aspect wrapped in your good post, which goes thus;
[if the Sinhalese were to know and accept that they are largely made up of Dravidian stock;]
I wanted to show that you have forgotten the share of responsibility of Tamils to live in peace and harmony in this country. I felt like you are pointing your finger to the other party only, just forgetting the negative share of the Tamils for the unfortunate situation prevailed in the recent past.Such comments and appeals have been a common practice of many Tamils to gain undue advantages on sympathetic grounds and popular notions.
However, you have gone out of topic answering my post and I would like to touch upon the novel issues arisen from it.
You say;
1. I saw you debating with Wijayapala endeavouring to show that the Sinhala language is a product of Sri Lanka; the Sinhala people are decedents of the unique Sri Lankan stock; you could prove nothing!]
Wijayapala and I are two individuals and naturally we have differences in our opinions. We some times argued together and some times argued against each others opinions. It shows that we are doing it objectively, not resting on our personal grounds. However, if I could not prove anything you should have said it then and there and I think pointing out it now may contain some of your bias produced due to my post addressed to you.
2. Of course many Tamils assimilated into Sinhala society; likewise, many Sinhala assimilated into the Tamil Society. Whether you like it or not, the Tamils of Sri Lanka are a unique group of people who have the right to claim Sri Lanka as their country too; they have the right to also exercise their language on par with the Sinhala. You can go as far back in history; the Tamils have always been there enriching the cultures, languages, and customs.]
Quite agree, and we must be thankful to the Tamils who contributed immensely to the progress of our country, however, not forgetting the damage done by some section of them too.
3. “When Tamils settle down in Canada they would like to become Canadians, in Britain, Britishers, in USA, Americans, but in Sri Lanka they are hesitant to be so. They want a separate piece of cake here.”
I have heard this pathetic argument from many Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists. Does that mean that many, many Sinhala settle in those countries do not do the same?]
You can just call names like “Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists or whatever it is when you have no answers to questions. It has been an easy escape goat for many. But can you say what said was wrong?
I didn’t say living in countries as their citizen is wrong. I said it is right and Sinhalese or Tamils living that way is quite reasonable and acceptable. My issue was the opposites of that. I regretted, for Sri Lankan Tamils not adhering to that norm.
4. I for one believe that, the Sinhalese will regain their senses and marginalise people like you and re-establish Sri Lanka as a true plural nation.]
I have never marginalized myself from the reality of core issues of this country. You can see who has marginalized due to their wrong views and violent acts.
5. Why don’t you flip the coin and look on the other side; if the Sinhala polity had respected the minority rights and had accommodated them with equal rights, this mess wouldn’t have happened, right.]
This is again the one sided view of the Tamils that brought misery to them and to the whole country, which has been defeated recently. In my view Tamils should give up such outdated methodologies and strategies that hinders the harmony among the people of this country. When the suspicions are created majority will look at them with suspicion. Peace and harmony is a two way process, not a one way traffic..
Thanks!
Dear Burning Issue,
Don’t get too worked up over Mr. Yapa though. “Doubtful” has already written a poem for his continued good health.
I guess the question in most people’s minds is , how many more “characters” like this inhabit our island? Are these the fringe loons or the mainstream? What percentage can we peg this down to? I asked Wijayapala this question, but he didn’t really give me an answer.
My personal opinion is that it’s not as large as one would immediately be alarmed into thinking. But they are vocal, opinionated and brainwashed. Not a good combination. Most of the rest are just apathetic – caught up in their own immediate realities.
These people can’t rule the roost forever though. Sooner or later, education should automatically undermine their chauvinism, although it alarms me how they have survived for so long with such insular thinking.
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Here’s a thought for you. You are a man who talks a lot about modern education right? Frightening stuff like quantum physics which others on this forum cannot grasp using “common knowledge”? So this means you already know that, in the modern world, there is a general consensus that all human beings should be valued, respected and treated fairly?
Of course, you would doubtless point out that the Buddha said this 2500 years ago. So being fair to others was pioneered by Buddhists also no?
So how’s this for a suggestion. You want to protect Buddhism. Fine. Tamils want to protect their language and culture. Fine.
Why don’t we all assimilate into Tamil culture and recruit the Tamils to also help protect Buddhism? Isn’t that a far more fair proposition than asking Tamils to adopt both Sinhala culture and protect Buddhism to boot? We give them something, they give us something. Doesn’t that sound like a fair thing to do? Problem solved instantly? Buddhism transcends culture anyway right? You said it was timeless as I recall?
Instead, it looks to me Mr. Yapa, that you want everything to work your way – Tamils must lose their culture, adopt Sinhalese culture and protect Buddhism, all at the same time. Sounds pretty selfish to me and I’m sure you can’t be a selfish man, since the Buddha said not to be so.
Can you explain using your superior, 4 valued Buddhist logic, how this can work fairly for all concerned?
cheers,
/SD
Correction…
“You can see who has marginalized due to their wrong views and violent acts.”
Above should be corrected as
“You can see who has been marginalized due to their wrong views and violent acts.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
["So far, we have been writing about everything else under the sun other than
a. Either write that list – Makes KRN a fact
b. Say that it is not possible to write that list – Makes KRN a faith (a euphemism for akaravathi shradda – or the other way around – so Mr. Yapa does not have a paroxysm"]
Can you please define what you mean by “Fact” in the context of this discussion. You will have to keep in mind that we are talking about includes absolute truths super mundane things in the discussion, which automatically comes forward when talking about Buddhism. Therefore please be kind enough to define and explain the “FACT” you are talking about in the context. I think then we can sort out the matter easily. When the usage of words are vague or unclear, Will never be able to touch the subject matter other than arguing the different connotations of words.We should not play hide and seek behind words. First shall we be clear about what you are demanding? Please communicate very clearly to us what you mean by “FACT” in the context of “THIS” discussion.
Further, under that definition tell us the methodology and guidelines how we should answer you. Please give us some examples of such answers, given in the context.
Then we (myself and hopefully Off the Cuff and Wijayapala) will try our best to answer the long lasting quest.
Thanks!
Thanks!
An Addition to thepost of May 16, 2010 @ 12:28 pm addressed to SomewhatDisgusted;
Really your definition should include what FACT is meant in “ABSOLUTE TRUTHS” and “SUPER MUNDANE” things.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
RE: Your post of May 16, 2010 @ 11:40 am
I know that I am like a prick in your brain muscle. That is why you are intervening to undermine me. But that won;t work, you know “he who protects Dhamma, is protected by dhamma”. So you cannot do any harm to me.
But you cannot avoid karma, it does not work the way you want. it has its own way of operation. “You know “kumbala katu kevwnun duk vindapun balalo”. Kamma follows like the wheel the hoof of the ox.
Want to know more?
1.Mano Pubbangama Dhamma,
Mano Setta Manomaya,
Manasace Passannena,
Bhasativa Karotiva,
Thato nun dukka mun vethi,
Chakkanwa Wahathopedun
Meaning:
All thoughts begins in the mind. Mind is supreme and mind make are things. If one speaks or acts with with impure mind, pain follows him loike the wheel the hoof of the ox.
2. Mano Pubbangama Dhamma,
……………………
…………………….
……………………….
Thatho nun sukhamunvwthi,
Chayawa anapayini
Meaning:
……………..
…. acts with pure mind, happiness follows him like one’s shadow that never leaves.
(Taken from Dhammapada)
If you want to take your prick out of your brain muscle “do wholesome things”, do things with pure mind, give up your wrong views. Then the shadow will follow you.
Theruwan Saranayi!
Yapa said May 16, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
“I know that I am like a prick in your brain muscle”
I thought that’s a very magnanimous admission just by reading your first eight words.
Mr Yapa,
Fact = a truth verifiable from experience or observation.
Dear Observer,
“. But for most people it would be sacrilegious. So the whole idea was to make us think about the 2 sides. Where do you draw the line?”
I understand your point and I acknowledge it. But one must question how and why a view on the origin and nature of the universe, which is purely speculative, has become sacred, don’t you think?
Would you be offended if I were to make fun of the theory of evolution? Or the big bang? What do you think has changed here? This is where indoctrination and brain-washing, something all of us humans are susceptible to, comes into play right?
“. If you try to tell me or most people not just religion anything that I deem worthy for my child to learn is not and equate that to abuse of my child”
I think we’ll both agree that you can’t teach *anything* to your child. A child is not your own property because a child survives in a society. You therefore have a contract with the society to look after your child, and it is enforced by the law.
The matter under debate would be, how ethical is it to brainwash your child in religion, teach it to them as the absolute truth (when it is speculative at best), which is what most adults invariably do?
“The curriculum I did had nothing that would amount to indoctrination. If anything learning Buddhism in a structured manner helped me identify gaps and truly question aspects I did not quite understand or refused to take it on face value.”
No one is protesting against children being taught religion! I completely agree that it should be! It’s part of our culture after all and children ought to learn it – they preferably ought to learn comparative religion, so that when they are older, they can make up their own minds.
But how many people, do you reckon, would allow this? It has become the social norm, especially in countries like ours, to automatically assume that a child, who is essentially born an agnostic, belongs to some religion. It’s precisely because it’s part of our culture that we are not sensitive to the fact that we are stuffing a little child’s head full of notions like hellfire, KRN etc. etc. as fact, so much so that even as adults, the mere suggestion that it might be a fiction, provokes an irrational response. So shouldn’t one question the ethics behind it and to what degree these things should be presented to a child as *fact*? Do you agree that there’s a problem here somewhere?
“I refuse to buy your argument completely.”
As I clarified above, it’s not about buying into it completely or banning religion or something. As I’ve said many times before, I too have found many aspects of Buddhism useful (most things other than the speculative aspects really), although I have also met people who have grown up in families completely free of religion, and they neither miss it nor are any worse off for it.
At the end of the day, I agree with your overall idea that it is a matter of degree. But we can’t realize that unless we question the status quo where people automatically and strongly put ideas as fact into children’s heads, which simply cannot all be true. (I mean, if the Buddhists are right, then the Christians are automatically wrong right?)
cheers,
/SD
Dear Mr. Yapa
All I’ve done is to ask you a simple and direct question.
“Can you explain using your superior, 4 valued Buddhist logic, how this can work fairly for all concerned?”
You have given me an answer which fits into Amaravikkhepavada – although I can’t quite decide whether it’s 1, 2 or 3.
Instead of cutting and pasting irrelevant nonsense (yes, yes, I will go to hell one day, I’m already ok with the fact), can you clearly and directly tell us, what we can do so that it will be a solution fair to all? Would you be happy to implement my own suggestion that we Sinhalese adopt Tamil culture (since your suggestion for doing it vice versa isn’t all that fair) and everyone together protects Buddhism?
You asked: “Can you please define what you mean by “Fact” in the context of this discussion.”
Yes. Of course, I have no doubts we will see yet another awkward but bizarrely captivating dance around this definition soon. (Perhaps even BalangodaMan would develop an appreciation for dance as an art-form after your performance)
Fact – Is a piece of information for which there are enough reasons, that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is true.
Oh but hang on! Why are you worried about the word fact now? Forget that word! It’s irrelevant. All we’ve been asking for, for the entirety of this thread is:
List our 10 convincing reasons (or whatever number you can manage) that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that Kamma/Rebirth/Nirvana are real. This is the required proof. Simple as that.
cheers,
/SD
Mr Yapa’s bible is here
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/rebirthscience.pdf
Mr Yapa, when you say ‘super mundane’ things…
Perhaps I might help focus on our point of difference here. If you put a banana in a freezer it will freeze. We can observe the banana before and after and see the effect. We do not need to be concerned with the process of the slowing down of vibration of the molecules that takes place at a molecular level to ascertain that the banana has frozen.
When you say ‘super mundane’ I think you mean the actual mechanism that takes place between the original state and the result. We do not need to ‘see’ that in order to verify that a ’cause’ in a human person results in an ‘effect’ in another human person living at a later time. We just need to see the effect.
But, before we even begin to prove this ’cause and effect’ we need to prove that the first human person has a common identity with the second human (or even animal in both cases, I think you mean). The absence of ‘an identifying thread’ such as an ‘ID Number’ (which Buddhism denies because of the doctrine of ‘impermanence’ and the absence of a ‘soul-like-thing’) makes this impossible – not just impossible to prove BUT impossible to happen. The doctrine says that, even when you DO have an ID Number the actual person is not the same, even in the same life.
So there is the problem.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
This is what I have stated
You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.
So you see SD, I have include EVERY method that Sujewa and BalangodaMan has Chosen to challenge Premeditated Action, Rebirth and Nirvana.
If you chose the TOOL then its Incumbent on you to prove that the TOOL is appropriate. That was my counter challenge.
You and I have both agreed that Science can’t be used because
If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know, it cannot PROVE it either. That does not seem to get through to both of your colleagues. They are either too dense or not interest in Logical Analysis.
When Science fails what other method remains to dissect Buddhism?
You see SD, empty heads can create a big noise by asking for cognitive proof (based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge) using such and such methods. But when they are challenged to name and prove that those methods are appropriate they start running around the mulberry bush.
Rebirth – How do you prove it? Can you explain Colour to a person blind from birth? Science and ALL other methods fail here.
Just because there is no known method to explain what colour is to a person blind from birth do you dismiss the existence of Colour? Only the Blind and a fool can. The Blind has to accept what those who see colour says on faith without proof. Fortunately, the physically blind are in a minority, what if the physically blind were an overwhelming majority? For the sake of argument let’s say all but one person in this world are blind. That one person would be describing a world full of colour to a world full of people who do not know what colour is. Even if that world would be ridiculing the only person who can see, the Truth, such ridicule will not alter the truth. Colour will exist despite the ridicule.
You see SD, Cognition depends on the senses. As I showed in the Blind persons case even the loss of ONE of those senses alters Cognition radically.
The current state of Science cannot explain colour to the Blind. But Science will definitely be able to do it one day when it matures to a level where it can interface to the Human brain at the Neurological level.
Now consider why Science or any other method fails to convey to the Blind from Birth, the concept of colour. Is it not because of the absence of the sense of sight that we have but the blind does not?
Do we really have only five senses? Could there not be more than five that are in a nascent undeveloped state?
Buddhism is Mind Centric and places the development of the Mind within the core of the philosophy. It emphasises that the Mind can be progressively developed by Meditation. It describes the process of development and the stages of development that can be achieved. It describes the abilities that become enhanced as the Mind continues to develop. How do you communicate what you “see” with an advanced Mind to someone who does not posses that faculty? The problem is the same as the Blind person’s case.
Looking for proof then lies with each individual.
This is what I said in my very first post in the Akon thread on April 8, 2010 @ 11:10 am
“……. Again it remains a belief until we attain a state of mind that can remember our previous birth (which can be achieved through meditation in this birth). Then it will be known to each person who posses such a state of mind as fact but to others it will still remain just a belief. Probably, as Psychological research extends our knowledge and ability to read the Foetal Mind we may discover it as fact someday in the future”
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16898
Please read the full post for more information
You would have seen the imbecile statements by Sujewa who was trying to deny that he ever insisted on the use of methods that included Science when I was challenging him to prove the Maturity of Science and then doing a turn around when I referred his comment to B’Man. The Flip Flopping left him looking like the proverbial dog unable to cover his indiscretions. Then we have BM who has a knack of going off at a tangent and also attributing his own thoughts to others. I pointed this out on at least two occasions.
Discuss and criticise Buddhism, the Buddha Himself extended that invitation. When you bring in to the discussion matters that are external to Buddhism and try to discuss it as matters internal to Buddhism you are not doing justice to that discussion as you are then not discussing the Philosophy the Buddha taught.
Dear OTC,
You said: “Rebirth – How do you prove it? Can you explain Colour to a person blind from birth? Science and ALL other methods fail here.”
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I very much doubt anyone can disagree with your arguments above. Science has long stayed away from the metaphysical, since it it is fairly clear that the metaphysical will always remain speculative. In fact, we’ve both agreed on this for a long time, from the very outset actually.
But do you agree with the following: if we are to accept KRN as a truth, we are accepting it on the same basis that a blind man accepts the concept of color as a truth – on faith. From the blind man’s point of view, he has no clear reasons to accept it as the truth. He accepts it because someone else says so. In the case of Buddhism, it is the Buddha who says so. If what that one man says is mistaken, everything collapses. So, clearly, the Buddhists believe in the omniscience and infallibility of that one man. There is little/or no other convincing reasons to believe in KRN.
Do you disagree?
cheers,
/SD
BATTLE LINES
The battle lines are drawn
And they are very clear
All you need now
Is a friendly messenger
Who will not be killed by either side
A boundary crosser
With nothing to gain
And nothing to lose
Go look for one
Unless you really want to
Kill each other!
What gives you more satisfaction
Killing the opposing point of view?
Or sympathizing with it?
Deal with this question
And perhaps
You might learn
The first thing about religiousness
It is not enough
To seek the truth with your mind only
You must seek it with your heart too…
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
I will come back to the main discussion of super mundane “FACTS”. I came across this video and many articles related to it on internet. I am not sure whether there is any racket behind this. However, the doctors involved in the research seem to positive about it. What is your opinion? If true, explainable thorough available scientific/rational knowledge?
Please watch.
Indian Yogi living without food and water for about 70 years
http://www.google.lk/search?q=indian+yogi+without+food&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGLL_enLK361LK361&prmd=v&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=bRnwS-2eEIq7rAflj-mTBw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CD0QqwQwCg
Thanks!
Please watch these videos too.
http://tv.muxlim.com/video/0Y_x9hfxeeJ/Yogi-who-lives-without-food-water/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDBz-VbMMQY
Thanks!
OTC keeps twisiting the truth & being dishonest as he is unable to demonstrate that the deeply held belief he has of karma, reincarnation, nirvana being actual/real descriptions of how the world/universe works or being actual things in this world (besides concepts in a religion).
RE: this quote from OTC:
“You would have seen the imbecile statements by Sujewa who was trying to deny that he ever insisted on the use of methods that included Science when I was challenging him to prove the Maturity of Science and then doing a turn around when I referred his comment to B’Man.”
So let’s re-vist the truth of this statment – it will be very easy to verify (just scroll to the top of this article where I picked up the following quote from what I wrote):
” prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”
(notice the …”any other verifiable method available” statement, the proof need not come only via science or math)
So, OTC’s response to that, re-posted dozens of times, is to instead of answering the question, is to ask another question. He wants us to provide a tool that can be used to prove the existence of KRN. No such tool exists because KRN are fictional/speculative religious/symbolic items.
To make it clear to everyone who is not OTC or is not blinded as deeply as OTC, what OTC is saying is similar to someone saying that no tool exists to prove that Superman does not exist for real (other than a character in entertainment). It is similar to saying that someone believes that Superman is real/an actual person/being, but when asked to prove it, the same person saying that no tool capable of proving or disproving the existence of Superman (as a real person/being, not just a character in a movie) yet exists.
So, obviously OTC is a blind believer or merely a beliver in Buddhism – he believes it even though no proof can be shown to demonstate that some of the central concepts in Buddhism are real/true. So I guess that’s why Buddhism is merely a religion, & not the absolute turth or the universal truth as some believers claim.
I am sure OTC will continue to repeat his believer nonsense over & over until the comments thread in this article gets filled up. Because he is too arrogant to admit that Buddhism is merely a religion, and thus of only great concern to the believers & not everyone else.
- S
Came back to see if anyone had read what i linked and had an opinion on it. Realised that the thread isnt really about karma anymore. Oh well!
Cheers!
LG
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
Thanks for your constructive intervention . Personally, no animosity against anyone about their beliefs. I personally think it’s very important however, to debate these issues and bring alternative points of view to the fore. We can’t simply assume that there is only one way to think about it – i.e. Only the Buddhist way, or only the atheist way or only the Christian way etc.
My personal view is – let everyone have their own beliefs and try not to impose your beliefs on others. The only fair way I can see this happening is through a secular constitution. That’s the only point I wish to make. It should be a simple, self-evident truth really.
In that regard, Sri Lanka is *not* entirely a secular country. Don’t personally have a big problem with that, as long as we all keep in mind that it is a privilege, and not a right, and as such, we are all *encumbered* with the duty of looking after the interests of others.
Continuing to jabber on endlessly about being guardians of holy truths against Judeo-Christian conspiracies and hanging onto other such narcissistic delusions of grandeur are becoming increasingly tedious (Mr. Yapa, I’m specifically talking to the likes of you). It’s high time these nonsensical conspiracy theories stopped, no one gives a rat’s rear-end about destroying your precious Buddhism! The only people who are destroying Buddhism are the politicized elements in the Sangha, who, by behaving like nut-job fundies, are probably doing more to drive people away from Buddhism today than all of the Christians combined. Now, there’s a holy truth for you to think about.
We have bigger problems to solve and it is our inability to see past these paranoid delusions that is preventing us from solving them. That is why they must be strongly opposed. Holy truths indeed!
cheers,
/SD
Hi Burning Issue,
RE: (part of one of your reply’s to Yapa):
“I for one believe that, the Sinhalese will regain their senses and marginalise people like you and re-establish Sri Lanka as a true plural nation.”
Yes, I agree with this view. Had the Sinhalese of the 40′s & 50′s taken the non-violent protests by the Tamils against their marginalization & for equal rights seriously in a positive sense, the conditions that gave rise to the LTTE & the separatist war starting in the late 70′s & 80′s probably would not have arisen in SL. Now that the war is over, & LTTE is not blowing people up, the majority of the Sinhalese will no doubt come to the conclusion that it is better to come up with a way to live in peace in a united Sri Lanka & improve the country together than follow racial/ethnic/religious supremecist (sp?) views & policies.
Also, I disagree with Yapa on the view that the Tamils need to assimilate into Sinhala culture. Rather, what the Tamils & the Sinhalese (specially) need to do is to create a common Sri Lankan identity, & make it easy for people from all backgrounds to subscribe to that. I believe agnostics & other non-believers on both sides may be of assistance in this endeavor (both in SL & in the diaspora).
Neither an ancient Buddhist kngdom nor an ancient Hindu kigdom type set up, or two such set ups, in Sri Lanka, will make it possible for people in Sri Lanka to compete with & coorporate with the modern world. The best thing to do is to make religions private matters & create a space where all individuals, irrespective of religions or ethnicity/race/whatever other nonsense that people use to separate themselves can go after their positive/constructive goals in Sri Lanka. A few years of that should see a massive improvement in the quality of life in Sri Lanka.
- S
Lucky Girl,
RE: “The link attached below is the best scientific explanation of Kamma that i have come across, and i believe it makes very good sense:
http://jokerman.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/take-four-is-a-buddhists-idea-of-kamma-vipaaka-rational/
The language is a bit flowery but i hope it helps!
Regards
LG”
Read the link, thanks for the post. The page you pointed to discusses several possible interpertations of karma as mentioned in Buddhism, & also points to how things affect other things in this universe. However, the version of karma believed by many Buddhists (or at least taught to many Buddhists) states that a person’s actions in one life has an effect on another life/a future life (though the official modern teachings are vague on excatly what kind of effect, etc.). Also, aside form the official modern postion, it is a popularly held idea among Buddhists that one’s past lives affect one’s present life. It is also taught that Gautama/Buddha had many prior rebirths where he conditioned himself into becoming the future Buddha. Interpertations & teachings such as those are not proveable as true/real, in my opinion. Some believers however claim that Buddhism is an absolute & universal truth (or that Buddhism contains such truths of significant value), thus we had to ask them to prove the validity/the real-ness of some of the core ideas (karma, reincarnation, nirvana) that Buddhism is built on. Most likely K,R,N are symbolic devices that justify the practice of Buddhism, & are not real items that exist & affect/significantly affect humans in this world.
- S
Dear LuckyGirl,
I was just about to comment on your link. The author of the article goes off on tangents and I generally had a hard time following his arguments. In short, it is perfect material for the “secular agnostics” here who are eager to suck up anything uttered by westerners like Agatha Christie and John Donne.
You’re correct that the secular agnostics’ arguments here have nothing to do with kamma, which is probably why they did not read your link. At least judging from Sujewa Ekanayake’s rantings, it seems that they have delusions about replacing Buddhism in SL with some half-baked notion of secularism. I have no doubt at all that they will blame their failure to be accepted on the ignorance and intolerance of Buddhists, as the last thing that I’ve seen from them has been introspection of any sort.
So, why are you “LuckyGirl?” Is it because you’ve meet your “LuckyGuy?”
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
I would rather use the word belief instead of faith.
Cognition depends on the senses. The loss of one or more senses alters cognition drastically as in the Blind from Birth example. The Corollary of that is also true. The acquisition of one or more senses INCREASES the Cognition drastically.
The practice of Buddhist meditation increases the sharpness of the Mind. The mind becomes acutely sensitive to things that a normal person is not. The progression of the mind to elevated states of acuity is described in Buddhism. Hence a practitioner would personally become aware of the results which he/she achieved by starting out with belief. This person would no longer have any need to believe as he / she will now be living it. The person who started out with belief ended up with realisation that what he/she initially believed is indeed the truth.
This is different to the Blind person example as the Blind person will never get to experience colour as he/she cannot acquire sight. In contrast the person who sets out to practice meditation with the belief of what the result would be, will, start to “see” with the newly acquired sense of acuity of mind and will experience the predicted result.
This is why I stated in my very first post (refer link in earlier post) that “….Possibly as we develop our minds further, our understanding of it would grow.”
If you were a person who acquired this additional “sense” you would be hard pressed to explain to someone else what you experience due to this newly acquired “sense”. The other, unable to experience what you do, will be incredulous with disbelief. Nevertheless you would know it’s the truth as you experience it.
This is why I stated that
Again it remains a belief until we attain a state of mind that can remember our previous birth (which can be achieved through meditation in this birth). Then it will be known to each person who posses such a state of mind as fact but to others it will still remain just a belief.
Hence the proof that is sought remains within oneself. It requires the acquisition of a “sense” that the person who demands proof has to acquire without which that person would be like a person Blind from Birth, unable to comprehend what is being explained.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted / BalangodaMan,
“BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.”
That’s an interesting position.
How would you teach your child to distinguish right from wrong?
Would you stop telling the child anything which can be interpreted as indoctrination and allow the child the freedom of the Ass?
What would you tell your child about,
Killing?
Lying?
Taking Alcaholic drinks?
Sexual misbehavior?
Dishonesty?
Disrespect for authority?
etc
Would you avoid the religious view on the above subjects as that may constitute religious indoctrination and hence Child Abuse?
Unable to show that his precious belief in karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana can be justified with reason, Wijayapala too succumbs to the arrogance & pride of the believers (which manifests in name calling & stating an inability to understand simple statements instead of admitting that their religion is just that, a religion, not some undisputed truth that is relevant to all):
RE Wijayapala’s statment:
“The author of the article goes off on tangents and I generally had a hard time following his arguments. In short, it is perfect material for the “secular agnostics” here who are eager to suck up anything uttered by westerners like Agatha Christie and John Donne. ”
You mean tangents like accupuncture & cutting & pasting a whole lot of stuff about quantum physics? Sure, I’ve seen plenty of that coming from the believers.
Also, looks like you have a blind hatred of the West & have bought into the idea that humans on earth can be easily divided into Western & Other & then assigned various human ideas to one camp or another. Looks like your Buddhism has not been able to teach you to look at humanity outside of political groupings.
Also, what’s a Western-hater like you doing on the internet – a thing created in the West? I guess Western innovation is alright when you can use it to push your half-baked defenses of why people should abandon reason in favor of ancient & relatively useless-to-nonbelievers religious beliefs right?
And now I am sure some pointless ranting & name calling will follow from Wijayapala – as was the case in the past. Whatever helps you deal with that fact that you’ve dedicated your life to mistaking fiction for facts dude
Also, how did you like my post where I showed sources of non-Sinhala influence in Sri Lanka in the Akon & Buddhism article’s comments section? Where pre-Sinhala-Buddhist sources of influence that appear in modern Sri Lanka were pointed out. Didn’t see you commenting on that. I guess facts that do not conform to your narrow world view are not important right?
So, in the three believers present here often (Yapa, OTC, Wijayapala), we have 3 people who are uncomfortable with reality/the world as it is & seek escapism in fantastic ancient concepts. Good thing that religions exist to give hope of some sort & keep desparate people like them from harming themselves or others.
- S
OTC,
RE:
“What would you tell your child about,
Killing?
Lying?
Taking Alcaholic drinks?
Sexual misbehavior?
Dishonesty?
Disrespect for authority?
etc
Would you avoid the religious view on the above subjects as that may constitute religious indoctrination and hence Child Abuse?”
The reasons for handling the items you mentioned in a certain way can be taught & or explained to a child without using any religions or religious beliefs.
Further, many believers of all the religons have done all of the items listed above, thus, it will be difficult to show that relying on a religious justification of not killing, etc. is effective.
Just in case the above is too abstract & cannot be grasped by a believer, I’ll go point by point & explain how to handle each item when teaching a child:
“What would you tell your child about,
Killing?”
Don’t kill. Humans & animals don’t like being killed, & there will be consequences – legal or other people will act against you if you kill people, most likely. Plus there is the personal guilt & remorse that may arise from killing which could lead to self-destructive behavior/harm to self.
“Lying?”
Generally lying is to be avoided, causes confusion & misunderstandings. Lying should be avoided fully on all large scale/relevant to many people level, such as lying (making up untruths) about an entire group of people, for example.
“Taking Alcaholic drinks?”
When you are old enough, in moderation, it may be acceptable, however, there are serious dangers to health, coming from addiction to the substance, etc. So, probably best to avoid it.
“Sexual misbehavior?”
Not healthy. Best to avoid it (& when the kids are old enough, you can explain in detail your positon – w/ details about unwanted pregnancies, deseases, and emotional trauma that may arise from sexual misconduct).
“Dishonesty?”
(i am not sure how a believer can argue against dishonesty
, since religions teach speculative items as real to kids, but anyway…)
Best to avoid it, cause damage to others & self.
“Disrespect for authority?”
Generally, if authority is just (and you can show how just authority can be recognized), it is best to (useful to society & self) to follow/work with sources of authority. However, unjust authority should be challenged & just changes should be sought.
Hope that helps with your religon & children related dilemma.
- S
OTC,
RE:
“This is why I stated that
Again it remains a belief until we attain a state of mind that can remember our previous birth (which can be achieved through meditation in this birth).”
Where is the proof for that fantastic claim? There are thousands of Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, some have been monks since childhood, &, if they are actually following the Buddhist path, they meditate, no doubt, – have any of them been able to recall their past lives? Can any of those recalled past lives be confirmed as actual past lives/details on people who actually lived?
Being able to recall past lives or the existence of past lives period seem like more religious speculation/fiction. If not, demonstrate otherwise.
- S
Re: OTC’s clever (or maybe not so clever, but definitely dishonest) attempt to re-define karma as it is taught in Buddhism (OTC started using Premediated Action as a substitue for the term karma in a post above). Here is what a Buddhist monk says about the teaching of karma in Buddhism (from BuddhaNet: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm):
“Karma is the law of moral causation. The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.
What is the cause of the inequality that exists among mankind?
Why should one person be brought up in the lap of luxury, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery?
Why should one person be a mental prodigy, and another an idiot?
Why should one person be born with saintly characteristics and another with criminal tendencies?
Why should some be linguistic, artistic, mathematically inclined, or musical from the very cradle?
Why should others be congenitally blind, deaf, or deformed?|
Why should some be blessed, and others cursed from their births?
Either this inequality of mankind has a cause, or it is purely accidental. No sensible person would think of attributing this unevenness, this inequality, and this diversity to blind chance or pure accident.
In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve. Usually, men of ordinary intellect cannot comprehend the actual reason or reasons. The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth.”
The beliefs outlined above, related to karma, are full of things that cannot be proven as true/real. Such as: “In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve”, & “The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth” – and these are beliefs that have been taught as a part of Buddhism for centuries, & are taught even now. OTC & other SL political Buddhists (people who claim to be Buddhists in order to use Buddhism for Sinhala political projects in SL) may attempt to re-define the word in order to win an argument – as OTC does above – but the Buddhist position on karma are clear – it involves past-lives & future lives.
And here’s one example of OTC’s attempt to re-define karma:
“So you see SD, I have include EVERY method that Sujewa and BalangodaMan has Chosen to challenge Premeditated Action, Rebirth and Nirvana.”
From the comment: May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
And here is my challenge to the believers, quoted from the top of this page:
“prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”
Notice, I use the terms: “karma…as described in Buddhism” and not Premeditated Action, as OTC chooses to re-interpert the term.
And, the Buddhist definition of karma, as stated by a Buddhist monk, was given from the BuddhaNet quote above. Notice how it invloves past lives. And that is a far more fantastic idea than mere premeditated action. OTC is attempting to re-define the Buddhist concept of karma in order to try to win this debate. Thus, actions of a political Buddhist, & not someone who reflects real/actual Buddhist teachings.
The fake Buddhist OTC fails again. I am sure he will nevertheless try again & again to mindlessly assert that K,R,N are something more than symbolic ideas that exist in a speculative/faith based religion.
- S
OTC,
re. Killing?
Lying? …
“Would you avoid the religious view on the above subjects as that may constitute religious indoctrination and hence Child Abuse?”
There are other lines of education other than religious ones. There is ‘ethics’, ‘morality’, and a sense of right and wrong. Religion does not have a monopoly on these things. And ethics (etc) are agnostic to which religion they belong to. All religions have views on ‘ethics’ etc. so even when ethics is taught to children (as it should) it does not mean it is an ethic that is copyright of any particular religion.
For example, let’s take an ethical principle that is in the Five Precepts as well as in the Ten Commandments and in Islam. In a Buddhist family you would say ‘do this’ or ‘don’t do that’ because the Five Precepts says so. How is the same thing somehow ‘invalid’ if followed under the Ten Commandments? Or some verse in Islam?
In short, we teach our children to be good because it is good to be good. WE MUST NOT teach our children to be good based on THE LIE that ONLY OUR RELIGION teaches one to be good. All religions have virtuous principles that are almost identical.
The brainwashing is the bit where we UNETHICALLY condition our children to think that ONLY our religion knows right from wrong.
That is wrong, OTC! (We must teach our children that that is wrong so they do not abuse their children in the same way. This vicious circle must be broken. Just think of the millions of people in future generations you will be helping. All that is standing in the way of these millions of people from having an open mind is the arrogance and error of religion to think that it is the ‘truth’)
Hey LuckyGirl, it made me laugh
Thanks for sharing.
OTC,
You said through meditation one can see the truth of past lives …
Meditation is self-hypnosis. I can tell that ‘cos I am avid fan and practitioner of the process. It is very powerful so it must be used carefully.
Under hypnosis the subject (you) is susceptible to hypnotic suggestion – indeed that is the very purpose of it. Hypnotising yourself is the same – you direct yourself. In the transcendental state you reach you can get your mind go anywhere you like, and totally believe where you go. So if you go to ‘a past live’ it seems very real. In the process your subconscious mind becomes ‘programmed’ with it. So your belief in whatever suggestion (whether you give yourself or a practitioner induces it) becomes internalised. eg. you can achieve unshakable confidence (for example by internalising the suggestion that you are a totally confident person) or if you programme yourself to think you are a bird you could fly off a tall building and (of course) die – because you are not a bird actually! Compassion meditation is one of the many positive things you can do – the result is an internalised ‘confident feeling’ that you love everyone, and that the love is reciprocated, kindness, empathy etc.
If just 10% of SL practised this we would have a really peaceful society I think. The internal programming programs our ‘conditioned responses’. That is, the way you react unconsciously can be programmed. This is how we can programme ourselves (through meditation/self-hypnosis) to respond automatically with love when someone approaches you with hate.
Meditation is NOT a religious experience – although in the 70s a lot of Eastern swamis were fleecing the west by conning them that the mantra they are given (for $$$) is something mystical!
Just get a CD/tape on relaxation and take it from there. I recommend it. (lots of scientific research on this pioneered by Milton H. Erickson).
So OTC, through meditation I can see my past life as an elephant if I want to, and it will be totally believable to me, and future lives, and also experience what it must be like to be you, OTC. But it will be purely make believe)
Yapa,
I invited Burning_Issue to this discussion because unlike the other “secular agnostics” here, he is able to keep his thoughts focused and doesn’t try to distract the discussion when the arguments stack against him. He also has a lot more substance to contribute to the discussion of Sinhala-Tamil relations than “secags” like Sujewa whose understanding of history is limited to abstract sound-bites lifted from Amnesty International.
Therefore I was rather disappointed to see you refer to him as “ignorant.” I did not find Burning_Issue’s comment as ignorant because there are many Sinhalese- not you or I- who falsely believe that they belong to a separate racial stock than the Tamils. And this is only one drop of foolish thinking in the vast sea of Sinhala ignorance regarding anything non-Sinhala! (interestingly, Sujewa is a prime example of the Cinnamon Gardens pseudo-intellectual variety of this Sinhala ignorance).
I take Burning_Issue very seriously because unlike this handful of half-brained secag peacocks strutting about pretentiously that they are way too sophisticated to be Buddhists, BI’s views and more importantly fears are reflected to a great degree in the wider Tamil population. From his writing he comes across as very humble, truly the antithesis of the self-congratulating loudmouths of the “secular” cause.
BI also has a lot of testicular matter behind his humility. Look at his comments to two fellow Tamils in this thread on May 14, 2010 @ 12:35 am talking about how Tamils must avoid racism when calling for their rights. How often do we come across ANY Sri Lankan who is able to think inwards instead of blaming everything on someone else (the secags are at least as guilty as everyone else, as much as they like to think of themselves as too advanced for chauvinism)?
Therefore I kindly ask that you avoid making negative references to Burning_Issue; we can criticize his ideas if they are misplaced. I think that he is the best thing that happened to this thread; it is unfortunate that he is too busy to share his thoughts.
Dear LuckyGirl ;
My view on your link is it is successful explaining some of the Buddhist “concepts” in the perspective of rationality, and he is somewhat successful in that endeavour. Really karma has a component that is not mundane and hence it is not easy to grasp by mundane (Lavkika) methodologies. Really we do not have words or concepts to describe super mundane things, as the words and concepts developed through usage by our senses. As super mundane things (Kouththara) have not being used by ordinary people they have not produced words or concepts in regard to these concepts, just as a uncivilized man living in a thick jungle has no words and concepts about a gigantic ship. That is the reason the Buddha used parables and stories to tell “Pruthajjanas” to explain transcendental things. But for a person who are in the “path” can experience them by himself and the ways to do and all sorts of descriptions of sequential states that can achieve are very logically explained in Dhamma. Really the way to realize them is “wisdom, not logic. Buddha clearly has described the way to see these super mundane things: Noble Eight Fold Path, it is very rational. Here the problem is they want to go to Anuradapuraya, but don’t like togo in Anuradapura road, instead they want to tale Matara toad to go to Anuradapuraya.
There are such people. Therefore, it is necessary try to tale them to Anuradapuraya via Matara. In that respect the endeavour of the writer is commendable. He was able to synthesize some of the essential components into Karma “concept”. I think such endeavours are necessary. I myself tried a bit.
Thanks, lucky girl for your enthusiasm. Keep it up. Good post.
However,
Another article (Rebirth: A Case for Buddhist Agnosticism http://www.tricycle.com/feature/rebirth-a-case-buddhist-agnosticism?page=0,1) on how Buddhist believers & teachers & promoters (monks & others, such as OTC here) re-define aspects of Buddhism (such as rebirth, an item in traditional Buddhist beliefs that is affected by karma) in order to make the religion more appealing to Westerners & others influenced by more modern thinking:
“Many contemporary forms of Buddhism in the West—especially Zen and vipassana—seem to pay little attention to the doctrine of rebirth, emphasizing instead the importance of living more fully and authentically in the present. Teachers in these traditions often use the idea of rebirth metaphorically to describe the moment-to-moment process of “dying” and being “reborn.” However appealing, psychologically astute, and didactically skillful such interpretations may be, they can give rise to the misleading impression that in traditional Zen or Theravadan cultures the doctrine of rebirth is likewise not taken literally. Not only is belief in rebirth firmly adhered to in all Buddhist countries, from Japan to Sri Lanka, but—especially in East Asia—it has become the very basis for the livelihood of the majority of monks and nuns. A typical Zen temple in Korea or Japan spends far more time offering services to assist departed parishioners on their way to a better rebirth than on instructing the living in zazen.
Institutionalized Buddhism throughout Asia not only has a doctrinal commitment to rebirth but also an economic and political one. In contrast to most Tibetan lamas, for whom the belief in the doctrine of rebirth is essential to the continuing authority of their institutions in exile, other Asian Buddhists in the West have felt freer to adapt their teachings to suit the needs of a secular and skeptical audience whose interest in the dharma is as a way of finding meaning here and now rather than after death. One will search in vain for any discussion of rebirth in the numerous writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, for example. Although he comes from a country (Vietnam) in which the belief is deeply rooted, he now seems to be moving toward a view that equates karma with some form of genetic inheritance and transmission.”
More at the article: http://www.tricycle.com/feature/rebirth-a-case-buddhist-agnosticism?page=0,1
- S
Sujewa in an extremely fleeting moment slightly before May 16, 2010 @ 5:00 am actually came somewhat close to addressing the core issue of the discussion:
the relationship between the Sinhala Buddhists and the Tamils. Unfortunately he could not sustain his concentration and his verbiage drifted towards half-witted speculations and meanderings about history (which he probably considers to be grand pronouncements- the substance-less utterings of a secular Moses leading his flock to a wondrous secular future in SL).
“Really, I do not see why, w/ 2000+ years of Buddhism on the island, why Sri Lanka is not the #1 country in the world for human rights. Instead it has been one of the top countries for violence, poverty, & evils of all kinds – the kinds of evils that destroy humans as oppose to protecting & nurturing them.”
Probably Sujewa does not see because he has no knowledge of world history or the history of the state. States are by their very nature inherently violent, as none other than the pro-LTTE activist Dharmaratnam Sivaram asserted (in his biography by Mark Whitaker). The violence in SL was propagated by the State and those fighting against the State. The 1971 insurrection was fought between a purely secular government (pre-1972 Constitution) and the secular JVP. Later, secular Tamil militants fought against a government which “protected” Buddhism. How come Sujewa was unaware of any of these facts?
Doesn’t sound good!
“My view, along with many others here & elsewhere, as to why “Western” countries were able to out perform Sri Lanka & many other “non-Western” countries for the last couple of hundred years, is that, the “Western” countries where religion & the state (& also mainstream life) are separate allows for greater flexibility for individuals to go after their postive goals (entrepenuerial, creative, etc.).”
Alas, Sujewa’s Western-philia has not pushed him to study the history of the West. The West was (and largely still is) CHRISTIAN right up to the 20th century. The Portuguese, Dutch, and British who conquered Sri Lanka were Catholics and Protestants, NOT secularists. The separation of church and state did not take place in Europe until fairly recently. In fact, one of the key arguments made by Christian fundamentalists/racists has been that the CHRISTIAN West is the most powerful and wealthiest part of the world.
The unfortunate historical truth that Sujewa has obviously missed is that the only truly “secular” countries were Communist. What does Sujewa have to say about their approach to human rights?
Doesn’t sound good!
“see the example in the US – one of the most secular countries on the planet, also the place that invented the separation of Church & State”
Sujewa has skipped over the minor details about how sucessfully the US has IMPLEMENTED secularism. Didn’t Barack Obama have to repeatedly and often declare his loyalty to the Christian faith in 2008 when the Republicans accused him of being a “secret Muslim?” Couldn’t Darwinism not even be taught in schools until the early 20th century? Seems that Sujewa’s understanding of the US is based more on his imagination, rather than fact.
Doesn’t sound good!
“In fact, what Sri Lanka can use are more independent monks in this time of great transition (ending of a 26+ year old war, etc.).”
Sounds good. Unfortunately, secags are not very well-placed to advise reforms for Buddhists. That role properly belongs to Buddhists themselves. Perhaps Sujewa unconsciously already knew this; after all his comments were directed primarily towards the handful of SL secularists and not the Buddhist population at large.
“There is MUCH in Sri Lanka that needs to be reformed & improved.”
Right- we can spend our time far more usefully than wasting it on secags like Sujewa!
“(Is there an opposing order of monks who do not agree w/ the JHU for example? If not, why not?)”
Ahem… the Mahanayakes?!?!?! Sujewa’s ignorance of Buddhists in SL once again is astounding.
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Funny you should mention this Indian Yogi who seems to live off sunlight. I stumbled onto a video about him just yesterday, purely by accident. Another spooky coincidence? Anyway, here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u6eJB9GLY
Let’s face it, this man would invalidate all known knowledge of physiology overnight so I’m sure the entire medical community would be happy to test his claims. Plus, a $1 million prize awaits!
Dear OTC,
A light-hearted video by James Randi on why he’s skeptical and why you can’t prove a negative – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI
Dear Wijayapala,
James Randi’s out-of-body experience – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwKkbd2e-c
cheers,
/SD
Dear Wijayapala,
You said: “At least judging from Sujewa Ekanayake’s rantings, it seems that they have delusions about replacing Buddhism in SL with some half-baked notion of secularism. I have no doubt at all that they will blame their failure to be accepted on the ignorance and intolerance of Buddhists, as the last thing that I’ve seen from them has been introspection of any sort.”
Thank you for another vague critique. With a bit of introspection, you might see that this comment really says nothing about why this notion of secularism is half-baked and where the failure in introspection occurs. To your credit, it does manage to get across some alarmist innuendo – “OMG the secularists are trying to “replace” the pure Theravada Buddhist guardians” class of stuff. I like that word indeed – “replace”. Just be careful you don’t give Mr. Yapa an aneurysm!
Also, talking about introspection and well-reasoned arguments, still awaiting answers to those 3 simple, pointed questions I asked here. Given all your whinging about us failing to answer questions (of which you haven’t even pointed out a single one BTW), one would assume you’d be falling over yourself to answer mine. A passing observation of course.
Also, you talked about a common Sri Lankan history. BalangodaMan and Burning Issue both published their views. What are your own views on those? I think that kind of input would be far more beneficial than general-purpose sarcasm (you realize that you would be effectively rendered speechless for a large portion of this topic should the word be purged from the dictionary?).
cheers,
/SD
Dear LuckyGirl,
I did read the article. Thanks.
Didn’t comment on it because it provides no additional proof of Karma. It just argues a case for why, if one *assumes* karma exists, then karma would be a self-consistent concept. There are many billions of things that can be rationally shown to be self-consistent but have no basis in reality. So the problem remains, how or why do we *assume* karma exists?
cheers,
/SD
Dear All,
I do highly recommend these 2 links from James Randi – if nothing else, you’ll at least get some light entertainment.
Indian Yogi – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u6eJB9GLY
Proving a negative – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI
In any case, remember that there’s a $1 million prize apart from the many others for a demonstration of any miracle. One has to wonder why no one has claimed these yet, or even invited the Randi foundation in this particular case, given the number of miraculous Yogis in India alone. Randi said it best, 63 years of waiting next to a chimney ought to make you a wee bit skeptical!
cheers,
/SD
Dear Mr. Yapa,
You said: “I will come back to the main discussion of super mundane “FACTS”.”
We are not talking about any such topic and I certainly don’t know when it got elevated to being the “main discussion”. You are talking about irrelevant things and diverting attention from the topic as usual. The question, very simply and definitively asked, is the following:
List our 10 convincing reasons (or whatever number you can manage) that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that Kamma/Rebirth/Nirvana are real. This is the required proof. Simple as that.
This is a simple question for which you should be able to provide a direct answer, or honestly admit that you can’t. Instead, you keep evading it, reason 1 off the Amaravikkepavada again?
cheers,
/SD
It was many years ago when I became a Buddhist and I was quite young, between 14 and 16, but I remember that it was first of all the two facts of rebirth and Kamma which convinced me of the truth of the Dhamma. I say “facts” because even among many non-Buddhists rebirth is now well on the way to being a proven truth, and once it is accepted the reality of Kamma must be accepted with it
In the first place, these two doctrines explain everything in life which is other wise inexplicable. They explain the seeming injustices with which life abounds, and which no earthly power can remedy. They explain, too, the apparent futility and lack of a satisfactory pattern in the individual human life which, taken as one life out of a measureless eternity is obviously quite pointless, full of unresolved problems and incomplete designs. Take, for instance, a recent and much publicised example of what appears to he a cruel freak of chance – the tragically brief life of a child, Red Skelton’s son, whom neither human science nor divine mercy could save. There are, and always have been, countless millions of such cases, besides the untold numbers of blind, deaf and dumb, deformed, mentally deficient and diseased human beings whose pitiful condition is not due to any fault of theirs in this present life, or to any remediable defect in the organisation of human society.
Materialists may say what they will, but we now know enough of the limitations of science to realise that it will never be able entirely to abolish these evils. At the same time we can no longer derive comfort from religions that science has discredited. While we know that material progress will never succeed in abolishing suffering, it is equally futile to suppose that some special compensation for unmerited misfortune awaits the victims in a future life irrespective of any moral issues that are involved.
The sense of justice, which was very strong in me, demanded a reason for these things and an intelligible purpose behind them. I could not accept the theory that there is a “divine Justice” which is different from human concepts of justice, for both the word and the idea can only mean what we take them to mean by human standards. If conditions are not just in the human sense they are not just at all: there cannot be two different meanings to the word. The ‘justice of God” is an invention of theologians, the last refuge of unreason.
But right at the beginning Buddhism gave me the justice and the purpose which I had been seeking. I found them both in the doctrine of Kamma and rebirth. Through them I was at last able to understand the otherwise senseless agglomeration of misery, futility and blind insensate cruelly which forms most of the picture human life presents to a thinking person.
Those who know something about the subject may say, “Yes, but Buddhism is not alone in teaching Kamma and rebirth; Hinduism has it also”. That is true; but Buddhism is alone in presenting rebirth as a scientific principle. When I say “scientific” I mean that it is a principle which is in accordance with other universal laws which can be understood scientifically and even investigated by scientific methods. The principle of change and serial continuity is one that runs throughout nature; all scientific principles are based on it. In Buddhism it is the principle of ”Anatta” which lifts the concept of rebirth from the level of primitive animism to one on which it becomes acceptable to the scientifically – trained mind. ”Anatta” means “non-soul”, ”non-ego” and “non-self”; it is the denial of any abiding or constant and unchanging element in the life-process. Buddhism does not point to a “soul” that transmigrates; it points to a continuum of cause and effect that is exactly analogous to the processes of physics. The personality of one life is the result of the actions of the preceding current of existences, in precisely the same way that any physical phenomenon at any given moment is the end-result of an infinite series of events of the same order that have led up to it.
When I came to understand this thoroughly, which I did by pondering the profound doctrine of Paticca-samuppada (Dependent Origination), I realised that the Buddhadhamma is a complete revelation of a dynamic cosmic order. Complete scientifically because it accounts not only for human life but for the life of all sentient beings from lowest to highest; and complete morally because it includes all these forms of life in the one moral order. Nothing is left out; nothing unaccounted for in this all-embracing system. If we should find sentient beings on other planets in the remotest of the galactic systems, we should find them subject to the same laws of being as ourselves. They might be physically quite different from any form of life on this earth, their bodies composed of different chemical combinations, and they might be far superior to ourselves or far below us, yet still they must consist of the same Five-Khandha aggregates, because these are the basic elements of all sentient existence. They must also come into being as the result of past Kamma, and pass away again just as we do. Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta are universal principles; and this being so, the four Noble Truths must also be valid wherever life exists. There is no need for a special creation or a special plan of salvation for the inhabitants of this planet or any other. Buddhism teaches a cosmic law that obtains everywhere; hence the same moral law of spiritual evolution must prevail everywhere. Cosmic law and moral order in Buddhism are related to one another as they are not in any other religious system.
Another fact which struck me forcibly right at the beginning is that Buddhism does not condemn anybody to eternal hell just because he happens not to be a Buddhist. If a being goes to the regions of torment after death it is because his bad deeds have sent him there, not because he happens to believe in the wrong set of dogmas. The idea that anyone should be eternally damned simply because he does not go to a certain church and subscribe to its particular creed is repugnant to every right-thinking person. Moral retribution is a necessity, but this vicious doctrine of damnation for not believing in a certain god and the particular myths surrounding him has nothing whatever to do with ethical principles. It is itself supremely immoral. It has probably been the cause of more harm in the world than any other single factor in history.
Furthermore, Buddhism does not postulate eternal punishment for temporal sins; that is, for misdeeds committed within the limiting framework of time. The Dhamma teaches that whatever suffering a man may bring upon himself is commensurate with the gravity of the evil action – neither more nor less. He may suffer through several lives because of some very heavy Akusala Kamma (evil action), but sometime that suffering must come to an end when the evil that has been generated has spent itself. The atrocious idea that a being may be made to suffer throughout eternity for the sins committed in one short lifetime does not exist in Buddhism. Neither does the equally unjust doctrine that he may wash out all his sins by formal acts of contrition or by faith in some one particular deity out of all the gods man has invented.
In Buddhism also, there is no personal judge who condemns, but only the working of an impersonal law that is like the law of gravitation. And this point is supremely important, because any judge in the act of judging would have to outrage either justice or mercy. He could not satisfy the demands of both at the same time. If he were inexorably just he could not be called merciful: if he were merciful to sinners he could not be absolutely just. The two qualities are utterly incompatible. Buddhism shows that the natural law is just. It is for man to be merciful, and by the cultivation of Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upekkha to make him self divine.
Lastly, the truth that rebirth and suffering are brought about by Ignorance and Craving conjointly is a conclusion that is fully sup ported by all we know concerning the life- urge as it works through human and animal psychology and in the processes of biological evolution. It supplies the missing factor which science needs to complete its picture of the evolution of living organisms. The motivating force behind the struggle for existence, for survival and development, is just this force of Craving which the Buddha found to be at the root of Samsaric rebirth. Because it is conjoined with Ignorance it is a blind, groping force, yet it is this force which has been responsible for the development of complex organisms from simple beginnings. It is also the cause of the incessant round of rebirths in which beings alternately rise and fall in the scale of spiritual evolution.
Realising the nature of this twofold bondage of Ignorance and Craving we are fully justified in the rational faith that, as the Supreme Buddha taught, our ultimate release, the attainment of the eternal, unchanging state of Nibbana, is something that we can reach, by eliminating all the factors of rebirth that are rooted in these two fundamental defects. Nibbana, which the Buddha described as Asankhata, the Unconditioned, Aiara, the Ageless, Dhuva, the Permanent and Amata, the Deathless, is the Reality that lies outside the realms of the conditioned and illusory Samsara, and it may be reached only by extinguishing the fires of Lobha, Dosa and Moha.
So we see that Saddha, or faith, in Buddhism is firmly based on reason and experience. Ignorance, is blind, but Buddhist faith has its eyes wide open and fixed upon reality. The Dhamma is “Ehipassiko” – that which invites all to come and see for themselves. The Buddha was the only religious teacher who invited reasoned, critical analysis of His Doctrine. The proof of its truth – and hence the conclusive proof of the Buddha’s Enlightenment as well – is to be found in the Doctrine itself. Like any scientific discovery it can be tested empirically. Everyone can test and verify it for himself, both by reason and by direct insight. The Buddhist is given a charter of intellectual liberty.
These are just a few of the features which appealed to me when I first started studying Buddhism in my quest for truth. There were many others which followed later; they came in due course as my own understanding and practice of the Dhamma made them manifest to me. As one investigates the Dhamma new vistas are constantly opening up before one’s vision; new aspects of the truth are continually unfolding and fresh beauties are being disclosed. When so much of moral beauty can be discerned by merely intellectual appreciation of the Dhamma, I leave it to you who are listening to imagine for yourselves the revelations that come with the practice of Vipassana or direct insight. There can be nothing in the entire range of human experience with which it may be compared.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
RE: your post of May 16, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
Don’t get excited when I ask a question. I am not going to gobble you up. Do not get scared.
I asked this question to start a new page in the unending discussion which has now become dull and useless going round the same circle over and over again. I think our motive of the discussion should be to come to reasonable conclusion(s) and not an endeavour to recap our own opinions. That is why I posed that question.
Now that you have given an answer, I think we can move forward a fresh discussion. However, I am not sure you have provided the very specific answer (definition) as I mentioned in my post. If you gave the definition without much thinking about it, I think you can think over it and give a better definition as per the description given by me, or if you feel you can provide a better one than I expected, that suits the context of the discussion please provide that definition.
Now we will consider the meaning of the word “Supermundane”
1. Being above the world; superior to the world or earthly things.
2. (Sanskrit, lokottara). Term denoting matters relating to the Noble Path (Ärya-mÄrga) and its fruits, and thus connected with, or conducive to, liberation. In other words, any activity or practice not associated with the mundane (laukika) world of unenlightened beings (pá¹›thagjana).
3.supermundane (Skt., lokottara). Term denoting matters relating to the Noble Path (Ärya-mÄrga) and its fruits, and thus connected with, or conducive to, liberation. In other words, any activity or practice not associated with the mundane (laukika) world of unenlightened beings (prÌ£thagjana).
Further I found some synonyms for the word, please see.
I think we can get a reasonable idea about the meaning of the word from the above information.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/supermundane
The other key word of ours is reality. We will try to get some idea about this through dictionaries and thesauruses.
1. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. (Wikipedia)
2.
re·al·i·ty
   /riˈælɪti/ Show Spelled[ree-al-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ties for 3, 5–7.
1.
the state or quality of being real.
2.
resemblance to what is real.
3.
a real thing or fact.
4.
real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5.
Philosophy.
a.
something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b.
something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6.
something that is real.
7.
something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
Next will try to see whether there exist something called “super mundane” and “reality” and try to see the nature of them if they exist..
See you in the next post.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
In order to answer your direct question about Buddhism, I meant to include the following in my post of May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm but had inadvertently left it out. My apologies.
“But do you agree with the following: if we are to accept KRN as a truth, we are accepting it on the same basis that a blind man accepts the concept of color as a truth – on faith. From the blind man’s point of view, he has no clear reasons to accept it as the truth.” He accepts it because someone else says so.
Looking at the question superficially that’s what it looks like. However the difference is that the Blind Person has to live with that belief till death without ever experiencing the truth of the existence of Colour unlike the believer who practices meditation.
The initial belief in Rebirth that is required to practice meditation will result in the acquisition of a further “sense” (a sharper mind) that will allow the practitioner to realise the truth of Rebirth. This can be achieved during one’s lifetime.
This belief is more like that of a prospector’s who prospects for Gold or Gems in the belief that Gold or Gems are available underground. He can realise what he seeks in his lifetime if he perseveres in his pursuit.
“In the case of Buddhism, it is the Buddha who says so. If what that one man says is mistaken, everything collapses. So, clearly, the Buddhists believe in the omniscience and infallibility of that one man. There is little/or no other convincing reasons to believe in KRN”.
Yes the Buddha says so and a Buddhist believes it. That’s just the starting point. The belief changes to realisation as progress is made unlike the Blind who will never realise what colour is. I have explained this above and in my previous posts. You could prove Rebirth for yourself by practising what the Buddha taught especially meditation. You can never hope to prove that to others given the immaturity of Science in this field at the current moment of time. But that will change and then a discussion of this nature becomes irrelevant.
The ONLY way to prove Rebirth to others is by the verified recollection of a previous birth by a living person. There have been many instances of this, some bogus and some with a ring of truth. Many of these have been investigated including that of a woman who spoke a forgotten ancient French language. There is also a second possibility of birth marks in the living that correspond to a death causing trauma, undergone by a person who had died. Continued investigations on the line of Dr. Stevenson’s might shed some light here. But till some such method is devised the ONLY way of personal verification is to do what the Prospector does in digging for Gold and Gems.
Thoughtful Action or Premeditated Action brings about a result. This needs no proof when it’s restricted to the current life. I hope you agree but if you don’t I will give examples. Where proof is needed is when the concept of a carry over to a next birth is floated and the result is delayed to a subsequent birth. Again proof depends on proof of Rebirth that I have dealt with above.
Hence the best method for you to remove any doubts you have about the core concepts of Buddhism is to practice it as the prospector does. Nothing ventured nothing gained goes the saying.
I hope I have been able to give you a straight answer to the question you raised.
Dear Wijayapala,
You said: “From his writing he comes across as very humble, truly the antithesis of the self-congratulating loudmouths of the “secular” cause.”
Looks like Wijayapala now wishes to portray himself as the down-to-earth, authentic Sri Lankan who is utterly disgusted by the pomposity of the neo-colonial, “secag” boors, whose arguments he has contemptuously blown out of the water. As much as we enjoy this “humble” portrayal of earthiness, I distinctly recall you making claims about the superiority of Buddhism to everyone else – the secags merely suggested it ain’t necessarily so.
Amusingly enough, you now wish to put the “secags” in their place, presumably under the mistaken impression that we somehow look down upon you for your unfounded beliefs. Yes. I personally think your belief is mistaken, I’ve not minced my words in that regard, but that doesn’t mean you don’t think the same of mine. So quite frankly, I couldn’t care less how you take it – an argument needs to be taken for its merit – not by the emotional value you’ve attached to it since childhood – clearly a lot. I have no intention of bothering with your personal beliefs – I said so at the outset. My only concern is, what does Buddhism do to Sri Lanka – is it sending us on a positive trajectory, or a negative one? What can be done to correct it?
You know, as well as I do, what the mainstream interpretations of Buddhism are. You know that the main-stream interpretation does exactly what I said it does – keeps dissatisfied people in their place. I don’t need to go far to show this. Just a few posts ago, Sujewa posted a link from BuddhaNet that nicely illustrates the point – here’s that gem of a quote – “In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve”.
The funny thing is, this monk doesn’t quite grasp the fact that, according to the Anatta concept as I recall, what continues to the next life is merely the last thoughts of the individual, not some soul. So how in the world could a completely brand new individual, who has *no connection to the previous individual* other than through this fleeting thought, be deserving of this fate? Would you care to explain?
You protested when I mentioned this. But I made no misinterpretation. This is indeed the popular interpretation. So would you like to clarify to me why this is not a harmful perception?
Since you talk so much about introspection – you should clearly be aware of this. On top of these kinds of perceptions, we actually have a population which is intensely paranoid about preserving Buddhism due to some imminent existential threat to it. When the “secags” pointed out that this was harmful and Buddhism needs to realign itself with its roots, you yourself were arguing that militant Buddhism was a suitable response to “preserve Buddhism”. Very well – what in the “heck” are we preserving? Later you agreed again that while most people would not be able to benefit, some would!
OIC!! I get it now. So much of the population in Sri Lanka are tools! They are tools for preserving Buddhism, so that one or two individuals can ship themselves over to Nibbana eventually (maybe in another 2500 years). The rest are expendable units that can kill, die and generally be kept satisfied with their dire circumstances, as long as these holy truths are preserved.
Thank you for that brilliant bit of logic Wijayapala. No wonder you are pissed off when someone calls you on it.
If mainstream Buddhism does not align itself with ideas and attitudes which are in line with 21st century norms – then what we have is not an asset – it’s a liability.
Secondly, if these delusions of grandeur, which had its uses in the 1800s, persist into the future, we will only see more and more insular thinking which is essentially unsuitable for a highly multi-cultural society. It automatically defeats your own professed allegiance to one, because by self-admission, the Sinhalese are guardians of holy truths and therefore automatically superior to others.
Calling me or the rest of the secags “peacocks” for pointing out this problem will not really *solve the problem* will it?
Therefore, my main argument is this – if we don’t get these paranoid delusions of holy truths under control – we can only have a repeat of the same kind of thinking that has driven us further into this mess over the last 60 years. Using your powers of introspection, why don’t you tell me what’s wrong with that argument? (And no, please don’t come up with the strawman that I only blame the Sinhalese or some such nonsense. Of course not. You have to be dense to not realize that there are many facets to this problem)
cheers,
/SD
Dear Wijayapala,
If it’s not clear enough. I do not generally play blame games – they are completely pointless and counter-productive. Most people have not done anything significant to harm another person actively, so how can anyone be held accountable? This is true of the Sinhalese and this is true of the Tamils and this is true of the Buddhists. So if you think I’m trying to vilify the Buddhists, you are very much mistaken. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that Buddhism, followed in a benign form, is probably the best religion out there. (I personally don’t believe in religion, which is another matter.)
What I do blame are the “ideas” that persist, some of which I see as extremely harmful. Care to tell me how to solve these problems without changing the ideas that drive them? Can you tell me how this can be done without directly questioning on what basis someone assumes that they are the last guardians of holy truths? More importantly, can you tell me why this would not result in an automatically insular perspective?
cheers,
/SD
Dear wijayapala
RE: Your post of May 17, 2010 @ 6:05 am
Actually the reference in my first post addressed to Burning _Issue was confined to the particular issue raised by him in his post. I have noted him as a reasonably moderate person in his views, except in a few cases. My stance on him is I think clearly mentioned in my second post, and I have no personal issue with anybody, due to his ethnicity. I respect all the ethnicity in this country and appreciate their vivid contribution to make this country a spectrum of colours. He also must accept that I am not a chauvinist as he named me in anger. People call others names in haste, but they are too early to decide so. My calling him as Ignorant may also be so. If so I regret it.
However, I should also note something: the behaviour of SomewhatDisgusted and Sujewa Skanayake wrt to my response. They tried to take the advantage of the opportunity against me interfering and writing essays against my stance, to persuade Burning_Issue to go against me. they tried to catch fish in muddy waters. This is another example that ethnicity is not the sole or the most significant decisive factor that marks the border lines of the divisions within us.
I have no issue. Burning_Issue is warmly welcome.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala,
More about why it *just doesn’t follow* that being secular has *a logical connection* to violence – as you have been trying to argue – whereas religion directly does – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJelU29jeI
Watch from 2:15 onwards if you wish to save time.
cheers,
/SD
Dear BalangodaMan,
Addressing me you state
“You said through meditation one can see the truth of past lives …
Yes, provided you reach the level of mental acuity that allows you to do so.
“Meditation is self-hypnosis. I can tell that ‘cos I am avid fan and practitioner of the process. It is very powerful so it must be used carefully. Under hypnosis the subject (you) is susceptible to hypnotic suggestion – indeed that is the very purpose of it. Hypnotising yourself is the same – you direct yourself. In the transcendental state you reach you can get your mind go anywhere you like, and totally believe where you go. So if you go to ‘a past live’ it seems very real. In the process your subconscious mind becomes ‘programmed’ with it. So your belief in whatever suggestion (whether you give yourself or a practitioner induces it) becomes internalised. eg. you can achieve unshakable confidence (for example by internalising the suggestion that you are a totally confident person) or if you programme yourself to think you are a bird you could fly off a tall building and (of course) die – because you are not a bird actually!
Strange that you have escaped being self hypnotized.
Are you sure that you are not in a self induced Hypnotic trance?
Dear Yapa,
You said: “I respect all the ethnicity in this country and appreciate their vivid contribution to make this country a spectrum of colours.”
I’m very glad to hear a clear statement of your position. Would appreciate further clarifications on the following.
1. Do you agree that all Sri Lankan citizens have equal claim to this island?
2. Do you agree that ethnicity is irrelevant in this regard? Or does one’s ethnicity automatically change this?
3. What is your position on ’56 Sinhala Only? Was it a mistake?
4. Do you believe everything in our power must be done to implement Tamil language policies properly?
5. Do you believe that we have to work side-by-side to secure necessary rights for Tamils to live as equal citizens in Sri Lanka? (and not feel they are under the patronage of the Sinhalese in anyway?) – To clarify – not talking about Eelams here. Talking about a plural society.
6. How do you propose to solve our ethnic problem? What are the responsibilities of the Tamils? and what of the Sinhalese? or any others?
7. Finally, and I asked this question earlier, what is your vision for the people of Sri Lanka, from a Sinhala-Buddhist’s perspective?
I understand these are lengthy questions but would appreciate extremely short and to-the-point answers (yes/no answers whenever possible). We can go into a detailed discussion/seek clarification later. I’ll be happy to revise my position and correct the record on any statements that you highlight as being unfair, based on your answers. (Said with all good intentions. Not an attempt at rubbery or anything)
cheers,
/SD
Here’s Wijayapala’s Guide to Logic & Argument:
1 – state something that was never discussed prior in the thread & then accuse the other side of not knowing anything about it (such as JVP attempts to overthrow gov, etc. – as he did a few posts above).
– also, had this been an issue of discussion, I would have pointed out that I myself directly saw violence aganst Tamils commited by the Sinhalese in 1983 in the South, also, prior, in the ’71 JVP rebellion – a family member was on the JVP side & I have heard direct ibservations re: what happened, also, re: the ’89 JVP rebellion – I saw with my own eyes how the gov’t death squads got the situation “uncer control” by leaving dead bodies (in some cases of people who had nothing to do with the JVP) around Kagella & elsewhere. Plus then there are the family members who have servd in the SL military, another source of direct knowledge re: the violence soaked way of life in SL. Of course none of these are convienient or comfortable possibilities for Wijayapala to entertain (as in, his Buddhist brainwashed mentality makes him think that any discussion about any aspect of Sri Lanka is automatically a conspiracy to undermine the Sinhalese & Sri Lanka, even though the questions are being asked by a member of the tribe), thus he has to paint the opposition in this argument as being ignorant & directly unconnected to matters in SL. Good tactic to divert attention from the topic at hand when Wijayapala’s side is losing – as in they still cannot show that Buddhism is anything more than a faith based religion. And, a failed one at that in Sri Lanka – 2000+ years of it on the island have turned the Sinhalese into poor & violent people who (in the case of Wijayapala at least) cannot entertain critical inquiries.
2 – When the other side does reveal that they do in fact know a lot about the so called unknown item (such as pre-Sinhala sources of influence in Sri Lanka), ignore it, don’t mention it again.
Will get back to the crooked ways of Wijayapala later, now I’ve got to go to work.
Keep up the good work agnostics.
- S
My Friends!
there is a lot more to Buddhism than what you see in Sri Lanka – I will demonstrate that shortly. Let me re-iterate once more the importance of empathy for right understanding. Buddha mentioned metta as an essential mental factor in the Kalama Sutta when engaging in discussions of this nature. There are also modern findings – that empathy creates intelligence – also see Goleman’s emotional intelligence books.
Knowledge alone is not enough – compassion is needed to transform knowledge into wisdom – whatever you feel about meditation just experience this truth in life –
the buddhists in sri lanka focus too much on WHAT the buddha said – it is also important to learn HOW HE TAUGHT – because the situations he created actually transformed suffering into happiness and ignorance into knowledge.
in the mahayana tradition there is an interesting view that anything that helps a fellow human being to develop in wisdom and compassion is buddhism – and that for this you need to have skillful means – upaya kausalya –
they say the whole teaching career of the buddha was an object lesson in skillful means – he dropped his own self – stood in the shoes of the other and helped the other take the next step forward.
if our own buddhists learned this they would preach less and help more. there is so much suffering around us – the recent rains have also increased this – that it is undeniable that 2 things the buddha taught are in fact of universal relevance. they are suffering – and compassion – these are the two things we must not fight about – because these are really calls to action – not debate.
it is not advisable to think ‘my religion is the best’ in fact this applies to secularists too – sri lanka has a unique situation so challenge yourselves to work out an acceptable model of secularism for sri lanka – look to emperor asoka – how he was able to promote religious tolerance – go for models that dont sound and look alien -
- instead we must turn our energy into the practice of helping – helping both self and others – the answer to the question how do we do it as buddhists today is supplied by the 14 precepts developed by the vietnamese master thich nhat hanh – considered only second to the dalai lama among buddhist leaders of world stature –
my wish is that this would help both sides to ‘soften’ their arguments and work hard at deep listening and loving speech
THE FOURTEEN PRECEPTS
OF ENGAGED BUDDHISM
By Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh (From the book Interbeing)
SEVEN PRECEPTS FOR THE MIND
1. The Lion’s Roar
Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
2. Truth is found in Life
Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.
3. Freedom of Thought
Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.
4. Awareness of Suffering
Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. Find ways to be with those who are suffering, including personal contact, visits, images and sounds. By such means, awaken yourself and others to the reality of suffering in the world.
5. Living Simply
Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.
6. Compassion is Understanding
Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.
7. Mindful and Joyful Living
Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.
TWO PRECEPTS FOR SPEECH
8. Harmony in the Community
Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.
9. Mindful Speech
Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively. Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.
FIVE PRECEPTS FOR THE BODY
10. Standing up to Injustice
Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.
11. Right Livelihood
Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.
12. Protecting Life
Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.
13. Social Justice
Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.
14. Three Sources of Energy
Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns:) Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.
From the book ‘Interbeing’: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism, revised edition: Oct. l993 by Thich Nhat Hanh, published by Parallax Press, Berkeley, California
Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh is a Buddhist monk, poet, peace activist, and the author of Being Peace, The Miracle of Mindfulness, and many other books. He lives in a monastic community in south-western France called Plum Village, where he teaches, writes, gardens, and works to help refugees world-wide. He conducts retreats throughout the world on the art of mindful living, and has conducted special retreats for American Vietnam War veterans, psychotherapists, artists, environmental activists and children.
please see below some info on the precepts of engaged buddhism – this is a side of modern buddhism – deep, compassionate and grounded in suffering that is often overlooked
it does not make sense to assert that ‘my religion is best’ nor does it do any good for secularists to think they have the perfect answer – the truth may be in the middle – the latter may need to find some sources for secularism from within – like emperor asoka – his model of religious tolearnce will be stronger and will not sound or look alien –
THE FOURTEEN PRECEPTS
OF ENGAGED BUDDHISM
By Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh (From the book Interbeing)
SEVEN PRECEPTS FOR THE MIND
1. The Lion’s Roar
Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
2. Truth is found in Life
Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.
3. Freedom of Thought
Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.
4. Awareness of Suffering
Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. Find ways to be with those who are suffering, including personal contact, visits, images and sounds. By such means, awaken yourself and others to the reality of suffering in the world.
5. Living Simply
Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.
6. Compassion is Understanding
Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.
7. Mindful and Joyful Living
Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.
TWO PRECEPTS FOR SPEECH
8. Harmony in the Community
Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.
9. Mindful Speech
Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively. Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.
FIVE PRECEPTS FOR THE BODY
10. Standing up to Injustice
Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.
11. Right Livelihood
Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.
12. Protecting Life
Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.
13. Social Justice
Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.
14. Three Sources of Energy
Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns:) Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.
From the book ‘Interbeing’: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism, revised edition: Oct. l993 by Thich Nhat Hanh, published by Parallax Press, Berkeley, California
Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh is a Buddhist monk, poet, peace activist, and the author of Being Peace, The Miracle of Mindfulness, and many other books. He lives in a monastic community in south-western France called Plum Village, where he teaches, writes, gardens, and works to help refugees world-wide. He conducts retreats throughout the world on the art of mindful living, and has conducted special retreats for American Vietnam War veterans, psychotherapists, artists, environmental activists and children.
Here is a list of some common arguments against rebirth that have been popular so far:
1)”There is no rebirth because after death, one either goes to heaven or to hell… for eternity.” The eternalist argument. Refuted by the Buddha.
2) “There is no rebirth because death is the end of everything”. The nihilist argument. Refuted by the Buddha.
3) “There is no rebirth because I don’t believe in it, and my culture does not allow me to believe in such a thing” (if one can call it an argument).
4) “There is no rebirth because I do not have any memory and knowledge of my past lives”. The amnesia argument. People have no memory of their birth, so does it mean they’ve never been born? What is memory anyway; can it be used as proof of anything?
5) “People invented rebirth because they’re afraid of death”. So people who do not believe in rebirth have no fear for death?. That is an opinion, not an argument.
Dear BalangodaMan / Sujewa
Everything that you have written about teaching a child to distinguish right from wrong contains religious ideas of right and wrong. Using different terminology does not change the ideas.
You have been unable to EXCLUDE religious ideas of Right and Wrong in your replies to the questions I posed in my post of May 17, 2010 @ 12:53 am to SomewhatDisgusted / BalangodaMan.
You claimed that teaching children about religion is a form of Child Abuse. Judging by your replies referred to below you are using the self same religious ideas on your own children wrapped in a different wrapping. By your own definition are you not ABUSING your own children?
What ever the wrapping you use, show us how you exclude religious ideas of Right and Wrong and yet teach children to distinguish between them
Sujewa Ekanayake May 17, 2010 @ 2:24 am
BalangodaMan said, May 17, 2010 @ 5:09 am
Ordinary Lankan & All,
RE: “it does not make sense to assert that ‘my religion is best’ nor does it do any good for secularists to think they have the perfect answer – the truth may be in the middle – the latter may need to find some sources for secularism from within – like emperor asoka – his model of religious tolearnce will be stronger and will not sound or look alien – ”
(and this is also an idea, the following, that has been hinted at by Wijayapala – that Buddhism or any other religion is something outside of rest of the human experience/part of the overall body of human knowledge – that may have been/may be the way that it is promoted via various sects since religious affiliation = political affiliation (number of people in a given religious group = a certain amount of power), but there is another way that myself & other agnostics approach what religon is & how it matters to us, and that is):
1. All human knowledge, being human knowledge, is accessible to, & is a part of, the intellectual & creative inheritance of all & every single human
2. Thus, an agnostic or a secularist is not separated by all aspects of human knowledge that is labeled Buddhism or Christianity, etc. Any useful items from those sets of ideas can be used by an agnostic as necessary.
- (also, personally, i do not see any major religion disappearing from this planet any time soon – yes, sri lanka will continue to have a majority buddhist population – however – in order to break out of the cycle of violence & poverty in sl – i feel the development of a secular government (in practice) & secular instutions & separation of Temple & State is necessary. regardless of what happens on that front, buddhism will continue to be useful to many sri lankans).
3. The difference here is on the sphere of influence assigned to the religious ideas. Many Sinhala Buddhists believe that Sri Lanka needs to be a Sinhala Buddhist country or that the government needs to have Buddhism as a significant part of it. The secularists are arguing for the separation of Temple & State, so that religion becomes a private matter & all citizens can feel equal in front of/when dealing with the government & vise versa (sp?)
::
The work week is on, will get to off topic items such as several of Wijayapala’s anti-sujewa rants
above before the end of the coming weekend.
::
Re: the topic directly addresses by the article, looks like there is a general consensus (sp?) that K,R,N cannot be proven as real to non-believers, and are faith based item in Buddhism (a relgion with speculative items, not an absolute or universal truth).
::
- S
Dear Sujewa,
What is Karma?
The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase “thought, word and deed”. Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent.
The Buddha says:
“I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition is Karma. Having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought.” (Anguttara Nikaya)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
the Buddha interprets kamma as volitional activities. That means, whatever good and bad deeds we commit ourselves without any purposeful intention, are not strong enough to be carried forward to our next life. However, ignorance of the nature of the good and bad effect of the kamma is not an excuse to justify or avoid the karmic results if they were committed intentionally. A small child or an ignorant man may commit many evil deeds. Since they commit such deeds with intention to harm or injure, it is difficult to say that they are free from the karmic results.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/87.htm
the essence of kamma, as is given in the Buddha’s words, Cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami: Monks! Intention, I say, is kamma. Having willed, we create kamma, through body, speech and mind
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm
I hope you understand what volitional means
All three extracts are from buddhanet.
The first extract is from the very same web page Sujewa linked to.
An imbecile thinks that he can understand Buddhism by taking a superficial glance at a web site on Buddhism. At least I have instigated him to read about Buddhism. All this while Sujewa you were PONTIFICATING without even knowing what Kamma is. However you BRAG about belonging to a Highly Pious Buddhist family. Apparently you have not learnt ANYTHING about Buddhism from them.
Please note
Kamma is a Pali word.
Kamma in Pali = Action in English
Kamma in Buddhism = Action + Volition (both elements are required)
Volition
1 : an act of making a choice or decision;
2 : the power of choosing or determining
Note that the thought precedes the action. This is premeditation.
In other words the Buddhist meaning of Karma is Premeditated Action.
I used it to prevent you and others like you from corrupting the Real Meaning.
Sujewa, why do you insist on acting like the Dog that has defecated on a Stone and is struggling to cover it up? The Dog succeeded in only getting covered with the stuff. That’s exactly what you have done too. Very clever indeed!!!
(Re your post of May 17, 2010 @ 2:54 am)
Dear OTC,
“How would you teach your child to distinguish right from wrong?”
Why would we need to have a celestial bogeyman to teach morals to our children? We can teach them how to reason about what’s right and what’s wrong instead. Do you not already have reasons for *why you are doing what you are doing*? Your parents would have given you such reasons also? Buddhism itself gives reasons? (Buddhism gives you logical reasons independent of its religious aspects) So why do we need a religion to teach them something that’s clearly independent of religion? For example, prior to the invention of religion X, could most people not distinguish right from wrong?
Most of the core things most human beings consider right and wrong are near universal (We have an innate moral sense as science shows and tries to explain). We tend to only differ on trivial things which are of no real consequence in the final analysis right?
One thing I would agree on, is that religion provides convenience! It provides its morals in a neatly packaged form that other children of the same religion can easily relate to. Sadly, we don’t seem to have a universal substitute for this. I therefore think using religion is an easy way out but unfortunately, it does come with extra “baggage” apart from just the morals.
“Would you avoid the religious view on the above subjects as that may constitute religious indoctrination and hence Child Abuse?”
There’s a difference between teaching a subject and hammering a point home till the child’s entire existence revolves around concepts which have not even been demonstrated to be true in this world. What’s also wrong is to make a child terrified of concepts that we are not sure exists (i.e. Kamma, Hellfire, Goni Billa whatever) without ever giving the child a chance to make up his/her own mind. By the time they are older, many are too indoctrinated to be able to think outside of that imposed framework. They never had the option of rationally *choosing* it. Shouldn’t a child have an option of *choosing* what their views on the origin and nature of the universe are, instead it it being indoctrinated from birth?
I see few problems with teaching good morals off a religion – as I outlined earlier. However, I dare say it’s better to be able to reason about what’s right and wrong instead of slavish adherence to doctrine. Isn’t this what prevents a Muslim from realizing why it’s wrong to kill an “infidel”?
If you to think I’m suggesting that religion should not be taught. Indeed no. I would teach it myself. But we should be aware of what it is we are teaching and how we are teaching it. We should be cognizant of the fact that we may be filling a child’s head with speculative things as indisputable truths.
I should say that I find Buddhism to be exceptional in this regard. Actually, the only thing my father taught me about Buddhism was the Kaalama sutta. Sadly, it didn’t work out too well with me as you can see
Still, I’ve always said I’ve benefited from the ethical aspects in Buddhism, even if I’ve chosen to reject the speculative aspects. Some others may choose to embrace it. But the question is, are we making sure we give that choice – i..e Make sure it’s mentioned that these are speculative? That is the main idea that is being conveyed.
“What ever the wrapping you use, show us how you exclude religious ideas of Right and Wrong and yet teach children to distinguish between them”
Not sure I understand what you are trying to convey here. Are you saying that, in the absence of religion, we would be unable to decide what’s right and wrong? Are you saying you wouldn’t have been able to decide on any of these things logically had the Buddha not told you? Does that mean that some other human being in a tribe in sub-saharan Africa have no concept of right and wrong? Need some clarification before this issue can be addressed.
cheers,
/SD
Dear OTC/Yapa and other believers:
To touch upon a rather new point. What is the direction of rebirth, in the context of time? If we assume that rebirth is possible, then what is the justification for forwards rebirth only? Why is it that someone cannot be reborn into a past life and experience again what was experienced in that past life ? Or are you assuming that every event which takes place in a person’s life occurs exactly once and/or is subject to a finite number of repetitions?
To All,
Here we have two Agnostics responding to my post of May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm. One of them responds intellectually the other goes on an Ego trip.
SomewhatDisgusted said on May 16, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I very much doubt anyone can disagree with your arguments above. Science has long stayed away from the metaphysical, since it is fairly clear that the metaphysical will always remain speculative. In fact, we’ve both agreed on this for a long time, from the very outset actually.
His reply is intellectually written and was responded to by my post of May 17, 2010 @ 12:14 am
Sujewa Ekanayake said on May 16, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
OTC keeps twisiting the truth & being dishonest as he is unable to demonstrate that the deeply held belief he has of karma, reincarnation, nirvana being actual/real descriptions of how the world/universe works or being actual things in this world
I have repeated my challenge to the Agnostics even on May 16, 2010 @ 12:14 am
Quote
As I stated before If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either. If you want such Verifiable proof you have to FIRST PROVE to the Religious that the methods you are asking to be used has the Capacity or the Authority or the Maturity to dissect the Subject that you have chosen. You cannot measure the Depth of the Ocean with a Foot Ruler, can you?
Unquote
Does anybody see me requesting a “TOOL” from the Agnostics?
But we have Sujewa stating that
So, OTC’s response to that, re-posted dozens of times, is to instead of answering the question, is to ask another question. He wants us to provide a tool that can be used to prove the existence of KRN. No such tool exists because KRN are fictional/speculative religious/symbolic items.
An Imbecile struggling with his English and blaming others for his failings.
Besides being an Imbecile it appears that he is Dishonest to the core too.
Sujewa you are a LIAR and a most despicable one at that.
Here’s OTC’s brand of Buddhism on display:
FROM:
May 17, 2010 @ 10:34 pm:
“An imbecile thinks that he can understand Buddhism by taking a superficial glance at a web site on Buddhism.”
So I guess it takes a person of massive intelligence to argue for a month & a half against the fact that Buddhism is a religion right? Good job OTC
& RE:
“why do you insist on acting like the Dog that has defecated on a Stone and is struggling to cover it up?”
Likening those who do not agree with him to imbeciles & dogs – excellent way to go OTC, I am sure you are gaing much merit through your actions & thoughts.
And keep trying to re-define karma from the way it was defined & used by Buddhism for hundreds of years – with one example given in the BuddhaNet article that I linked to.
And then there is some stuff about belonging to a highly pious family??? Do feel free to point out when I said that. I do however belong to a large SL Buddhist family – fortunately they are not fundie nutjobs like OTC, thus, I am able to think & speak freely.
Keep living in your escapist religious fantasy land. And let us know when you have something relevant to the topic being addressed by the article.
Also, haven’t you already said that K,R,N cannot be proven by science, etc. So why are you still hanging around at this article? Don’t you have some rituals to perform or something, to smooth your way to nirvana?
OTC appears to be a hate & ignorance filled political Buddhist (someone who uses Buddhism for political gains, but is not an actual practitioner).
- S
OTC,
RE:
“Everything that you have written about teaching a child to distinguish right from wrong contains religious ideas of right and wrong. Using different terminology does not change the ideas.”
Wrong. Re-read my post referred to above by you & feel free to point out ideas that are exclusive to religions & are not devised via simple observation of life.
, fact is – stuff like not killing people & benefit of such a rule/way of being to self & others can easily be understood by observing life, a god type figure does not need to say it to people). Many of the positive/useful things that exist in religions can be created (put together as ideas) w/ out the help of religions.
Also religions don’t own general human ideas (even though they may attach an unsual name to them). Human ideas precede religons (at least the major religions around at the moment, certainly Buddhism, which is believed to be only 2500 some years old, whereas modern humans are thought to be around 200,000 years old – gee, I wonder how humanity survived for all those years w/ out Buddhism
- S
Ordinary Lankan,
RE:
“there is a lot more to Buddhism than what you see in Sri Lanka – I will demonstrate that shortly….” post & the related one that followed;
Good posts. Though somewhat off topic (a common practice here so no big deal really
, the posts do highlight some of the positive & practical uses that can be interperted/developed from Buddhist teachings & are relevant to the modern world. As the agnostics have always said during these discussions, there are positive items w/ in Buddhism, not just the speculative items re: nature of death, afterlife, etc. The political Buddhists that we are arguing with are afraid to acknowledge these facts since they fear that any kind of a close look at Buddhism by non-believers will weaken Sinhala-Buddhist power in SL.
But anyway, good posts. I was just reading a book by Hahn (name sp?) this morning before heading out to work.
- S
Dear Yapa,
I have nothing personal against you. It seems; you position is that, the Sinhala Buddhist are the true owners of Sri Lanka and all the rest must assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way of life including the language, Sinhala. I also think that, you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka; your notion that if the Tamils had had assimilated into the Sinhala way, everything would have been fine; but you fail to see from Tamil perspective. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that in inherently Sri Lankan. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions; both Tamils and Sinhala fought on either side; intermarried; worshiped at Buddhist and Hindu shrines.
There is no doubt that since the independence, the Sri Lankan polity has been fully influenced by Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. One can understand that the majority community wanted grater share of the nation. The irony is that, the 1948 constitution that facilitated Westminster style electoral system had in fact rested the political control over to the Sinhaha majority. Unlike in India where there was a lot of blood spilt over independence, in Sri Lanka, the power was handed over to the majority with a secular constitution. The majority community, instead of building a nation of Sri Lankans, it embarked on a series of discriminatory programmes asserting its prominence while jettisoning moral principles of democracy and the very Buddhism that you valiantly trying to safeguard. Until 1974, the Tamils stuck to the principles of democracy and Gandhian Ahimsa. I still feel that, it was very uncharacteristic of the Tamils to rise up violently like they did; I must say that, Amirthalingham was a fiery character; his persona did in fact touched the young. Anyway, I wished that we battled on democratically that would have bore fruits eventually. However, one cannot turn the clock back; we need to deal with the issues as they stand now.
I do not want to point my finger at a particular community in terms of who started this mess first, but the reality is that, there is a deep divide along ethnic lines that needs fixing. The question is how to go about it.
I list below the 7 questions that SomewhatDisgusted addressed to you on May 17, 2010 @ 5:40 pm; I endorse every word of those 7 questions; please answer honestly; then we can assess as to where we stand:
“1. Do you agree that all Sri Lankan citizens have equal claim to this island?
2. Do you agree that ethnicity is irrelevant in this regard? Or does one’s ethnicity automatically change this?
3. What is your position on ‘56 Sinhala Only? Was it a mistake?
4. Do you believe everything in our power must be done to implement Tamil language policies properly?
5. Do you believe that we have to work side-by-side to secure necessary rights for Tamils to live as equal citizens in Sri Lanka? (and not feel they are under the patronage of the Sinhalese in anyway?) – To clarify – not talking about Eelams here. Talking about a plural society.
6. How do you propose to solve our ethnic problem? What are the responsibilities of the Tamils? and what of the Sinhalese? or any others?
7. Finally, and I asked this question earlier, what is your vision for the people of Sri Lanka, from a Sinhala-Buddhist’s perspective?”
Dear Wijayapala,
I thank you for your comments. I totally agree with you that, we need to comment on peoples’ ideas and not on personalities. I do not expect people to agree with my point of views; we can share ideas, bridge gaps, and work towards regaining Sri Lanka for all citizens.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted, Sujeewa, Wijayapala, and OTC,
Thanks for your comments; I am really pleased that I debate with such a rich pool of talents; it is heartbreaking that, despite such depth of academic repertoire that Sri Lanka possesses, we end up with politicians with no comparison!
I am an atheist; my father and brothers are just like myself; we never bothered about religion. This does not mean that we do not participate in traditional matters involving Hindu customs and practices; that we do. These customs and practices bind people and communities together and they are very important.
I would like to make one point and would like you to tell me whether I am right or wrong. A Secular Constitution means that, it is free from any religious constraints; a state is elevated above any form of religious beliefs; this is particularly suitable for a multi-ethnic nation such as India and Sri Lanka. India is a secular country despite it holds numerically more Muslims than what is recorded in Pakistan, but Sri Lanka is not where 70% is made up of Sinhala speaking population!
My question is what constitutes a Secularist? Naturally I am a secularist as I am an atheist; Agnostics are also considered as Secularists; this forums stands as a testament to that. However, a true democrat; one could be a believer, a non-believer, an agnostic, and an atheist, but still can be a staunch democrat.
1. Does this mean that, if one is a true democrat, within a multi-ethnic country, one has to side with secularism?
2. If so, Secularism cuts across all sections of the divides regardless of one is a believer or not
3. If this is the case, we should focus on whether a form of Secularism is right or wrong for Sri Lanka instead of religious beliefs, which is a private matter.
Before commencing his ministry, the Buddha thought to himself that
the ‘dhamma goes against the stream.’ One implication of that is that by normal thinking, one couldn’t “get” it, because it doesn’t conform to normal thinking.
It is true that the Buddha invited his hearers to “come and see”, meaning that they should verify what he taught rather than taking anything blindly. But to verify what he taught doesn’t mean simply to deduce everything rationally, according to one’s normal thinking, because that thinking is deluded, precisely.
There is that element of Buddhism that may not conform to normal, rational thinking. The Buddha discovered his state of peace (santi), which he calls blowing-out (nibbana), not by a priori deduction, but by a posteriori discovery, and after he taught it, it falls on us to verify it, by following what he taught, but not everything he taught needs to conform to our rational expectations.
He perforce used language and thought to teach what he taught, but what he taught refers beyond language and thought, to a state that he defined as the calming of all compositions (the fourth aggregate). What he taught from within language and thought is founded beyond language and thought, on the state of the quiescence of all compositions, and language and thought belong to the compositions (the fourth aggregate). That’s why he said that after what he taught — the Law — has been verified, it should be abandoned, and it should be abandoned when one reaches its end, otherwise it couldn’t be reached.
There is then a discontinuity between what he taught, which was taught from within language and thought, on one side and what it points at, on the other. The latter is to be experienced, not deduced, not rationalised.
Let us review his struggle. He spent quite a few years in a period of Jaina self-starvation and self-mortification, which is revolt in pure form. He attempted to beat down his nature — what he was — by denying it whatever gratification we humans give ourselves in our daily life and on the contrary piling pain upon pain on himself, physical and mental. He imposed himself on his nature, beat it down, sought to vanish it by sheer will.
Then he realised that it had all been a massive error. It was his first awakening –to stop inflicting suffering on himself, and in his case, it had been for nought(this awakening corresponds to the Third Noble Truth, the realisation of the cessationof suffering). He relented, ate again, regained strength, entered meditation, quiesced the compositions (the fourth aggregate), and awoke a second time, this time to the quiet and quiescent mind which does not attempt to impose itself at all on whatever it receives.
Ironically, it is in this state of the calming of all mental functions except pure consciousness of raw, uninterpreted sensation that the fullness of life blooms forth unimpeded.
His first awakening is pretty understandable, from within language and thought, it makes sense to us, but his second awakening may offend our sensibilities, because all our lives we think, never stop thinking, and so a state where thinking stops (whilst one is fully aware of oneself and the world) may violate our expectations. But that is where he invited us to “come and see”, for it is not easily intelligible to us a priori. It has to be experienced a posteriori.
That is where our rational expectations may fail us. If we follow our normal thinking, we may reject it even before giving it any chance. Remember, the Law goes against the stream.
Dear SomwwhatDisgusted;
My answers to your questions of the post t of May 17, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
1. Not always.
2. Not always.
3. Not a mistake, it was something with multifaceted causes.
4. I have no clear idea about what Tamil language policies means, however, I accept the right of Tamils with regard to their language.
5. There is no problem until Tamils too hold the same notion. Once they mean business, automatically these things change.
6. This is a very broad and deep question, answer to which should not come as an opinion. We all have to explore the possibilities, however, confidence among all the players is a precondition.
7. I will give my vision in time, it is being gradually prepared in the discussion. However, you will have to keep in mind that it is my opinion. You should not bash it interpreting into something else, the way you are used to do in this discussion.
I think you will not do the same thing to my answers above.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
RE: Your post of May 17, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
Your participation in the discussion is warmly welcome. I think it will help to break this monotony.
I will give my opinion soon, on the new idea you raised in the post.
Thanks
Unable to accept that his deep belief in Buddhism is just that – an unverifiable (sp?) belief in a set of ancient ideas – religious ideas, and not actual things that exist in this world but symbols only, OTC continues to have a melt down when having to deal with a non-believer who is not impressed by his fairy tale views on the world & life. Here are OTC’s words:
“An Imbecile struggling with his English and blaming others for his failings.
Besides being an Imbecile it appears that he is Dishonest to the core too.
Sujewa you are a LIAR and a most despicable one at that.”
OTC has officially dropped his fake Buddhist facade & is admitting that he has no strong rational arguments for his belief in karma, reincarnation, nirvana & that he just prefers to insult people, since it makes him feel better. And since he lacks anything worthwhile to post, now he will spend his time insulting me – the person who showed him the folly of his blind believer ways.
It’s interesting that OTC uses the phrase “blaming others for his failings” in the quote above. Thought it is directed at me, I see no evidence that I was blaming anyone for any failings of mine during this debate (feel free to use direct quotes OTC, unless of course those words are also referring to non-existent items like K,R, N
. So, apparently OTC is accidentally displaying his repressed awareness that he failed to explain why non-believers should take speculative items K,R,N seriously or a religion that is built on K,R,N as anything more than just another ancient way to control people & also attempt to make people feel better.
Also, feel free to show proof of any lying or dishonest behavior of mine OTC. Both you & another angry believer who shall remain nameless for the moment are quick to paint others as liars & dishonest people – is that the believer strategy for further hiding the fact that one of their/your main preoccupations in life is built on, basically, a set of lies (or, as we sugar coat it by saying speculative items such as K,R,N)? Probably.
- S
“keeping cool under the pointless rage of misguided believers since 2010″
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Thank you for the pointed answers.
Hoping for some further clarification.
1. Since you said – “not always”, on what occasions do Sri Lankan citizens not have equal claim to this island?
2. Again – please clarify. Also, how or why does one’s ethnicity change this?
3. I see. So you do not consider it a majoritarian policy? Also, do you disagree the Tamils were unfairly affected?
4. I meant that Tamils are not satisfied with how their language is being treated at a national level. It’s there in the constitution yes, but it is not being implemented up to required expectations. Yes, there may be extenuating circumstances. But as an overall policy, are we doing enough?
5. I agree that the terrorist movement was way overboard. Someone else might counter-argue that it would not have gone overboard if not for atrocities against innocent Tamils. Still, I quite agree that it had to be stopped. Unreservedly glad about the LTTE’s demise personally. However, now it’s time for all parties to correct any mistakes of the past yes?
6. Quite agree. Undoubtedly.
7. I won’t bash it unless it’s silly.
Hoping for more precise answers like the above.
cheers,
/SD
RR (May 17, 2010 @ 11:05 am)
Looks like you know your Buddhism and your conviction is strong. Therefore the best person to answer my questions.
You said,
“The proof of its truth (karma, rebirth, nirvana) – and hence the conclusive proof of the Buddha’s Enlightenment as well – is to be found in the Doctrine itself. Like any scientific discovery it can be tested empirically.”
You see, that’s where we have a problem – the very purpose of Sujewa’s (this) article.
Neither Buddha’s omniscience (which in Buddhism is called enlightenment) nor karma, rebirth, nirvana can be tested empirically.
Yes, we can observe that some people do bad things.
Yes, we can observe that some people suffer disadvantage in birth and during life.
But we cannot test empirically the connection between the doer of bad things and the sufferer of consequences in another life, let alone test its fairness.
More, because the doctrine tells us that there is no ‘cosmic identity’ (called soul in Christianity) there cannot be a connection between the doer and the sufferer. Say, a child is born with no legs. According to the doctrine of karma this is caused by someone who lived in the past having done something really bad. How is this child responsible for the actions of the person who lived in the past?
(OTC, no judicial system – your favourite – punishes someone for another’s misdeeds)
Try telling a child of 6 that he is deformed because some unidentified and unidentifiable person who lived a hundred years ago was a bad man. Even if you had his name, address, when he lived, and full account of his misdeeds how can this child accept responsibility for that? I know how upset I was at that age if accused of something I had nothing to do with.
Ok, it is unfair. But is karma then ‘not supposed to be fair’? One may say ‘the doctrine of karma’ is a revelation of ‘how it is’ (like gravity) – the Buddha did not design it or create it.
So, a simple question to RR,
What, in Buddhism, is the connection between the doer that lived in the past with the sufferer who is living now?
::
To all those who say ‘karma and rebirth’ are real because it is almost universally believed – but so is (the concept of) god, perhaps even more universally believed. Does that mean that god is real?
Mr Yapa should read this. I think it is a good basis for a Buddhist Reformation.
ordinary lankan said, May 17, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
To summarise where I am coming from …
1. Religion should not be in politics. And if religion is politicised it is imperative that it is discussed in public.
2. Past lives: Meditation is self-hypnosis. The mind can be programmed to work in powerful ways, by ourselves. It is not mystical. Awareness of past lives when in a meditative trance is delusional. Prayer can have, and often most likely has, an element of self-hypnosis. The mechanism at work here is well understood by scientists and is repeatable (its effectiveness is easily seen in stage hypnotism).
3. All religions say they are the ‘truth’ and say they are different from others (hence others are ‘not true’).
4. The differences between religions are (1) because they were introduced differently in different regions in the world at different times (2) to be divisive.
5. It is necessary to constantly challenge long-held ‘truths’ in any field. It is the duty of those with analytical minds to serve those that are not so disposed.
6. All religions have essentially the same ideas but called different words, and introduced with different stories.
7. Much of the arguments on religion are about differences of definition. Essentially the differences revolve around the definition of ‘god’, and his relationship to man.
8. There appears to be inherently a universally accepted common belief system among all humans. Some call it Humanism.
9. Every child is born agnostic, with full potential to think with an open mind. Religion restricts that. That is a form of child abuse.
10. We can’t use ancient methods to live a modern life – anymore than expect people in 2,500 years time to use Windows 7, or dance to Michael Jackson.
11. There is a major flaw in interpretation of Buddhism ‘in the material world’ (a big subject for another discussion).
Dear RR;
Thanks for your incisive essays. We were not able say what we wanted ,properly. I think you are doing it in a magnificent way.
Thanks again!
BalangodaMan’s post of May 18, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Please read BalangodaMan’s 10+1 commandments.
Thanks!
“What, in Buddhism, is the connection between the doer that lived in the past with the sufferer who is living now?”
=======================================
Three positions of human destiny after death:
There are three possible positions that can be taken on human destiny after death. One position, the outlook of materialism. It simply denies that there is an afterlife. It holds that the human being consists of organic matter. It regards mind as a byproduct of organic matter, and after death, with the break up of the physical body, all consciousness comes to an end and the life process is completely extinguished.
The second alternative is the view held in Western theistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam in their orthodox forms. They believe in an eternal afterlife. According to these religions, we live a single life on earth and after death we live eternally in some state of existence determined by our present beliefs and conduct.
Then there is a third view, a view which prevails in the religions of the East, Hinduism and Buddhism. This is the idea of rebirth. According to this, the present life is only a simple link in a chain of lives that extends back into the past and forward into the future. This chain of lives is called samsara.
BUDDHISM AND HINDUISM COMPARED
The word “Samsara” means literally “continuing on”, “wandering on”. It signifies the repetitive cycle of birth, ageing, death and rebirth.
Now though Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of rebirth, the Buddhist concept differs in details from the Hindu doctrine. The doctrine of rebirth as understood in Hinduism involves a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another. The soul inhabits a given body and at death, the soul casts that body off and goes on to assume another body. The famous Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gita, compares this to a man who might take off one suit of clothing and put on another. The man remains the same but the suits of clothing are different. In the same way the soul remains the same but the psycho-physical organism it takes up differs from life to life.
The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is “punabbhava” which means “again existence”. Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.
REBIRTH WITHOUT A TRANSMIGRATING SOUL
The concept of rebirth without a transmigrating soul commonly raises the question: How can we speak of ourselves as having lived past lives if there is no soul, no single life going through these many lives? To answer this we have to understand the nature of individual identity in a single lifetime.
The Buddha explains that what we really are is a functionally unified combination of five aggregates. The five aggregates fall into two groups. First there is a material process, which is a current of material energy. Then there is a mental process, a current of mental happenings. Both these currents consist of factors that are subject to momentary arising and passing away. The mind is a series of mental acts made up of feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousnes. These mental acts are called in Pali “cittas”. Each citta arises, breaks up and passes away. When it breaks up it does not leave any traces behind. It does not have any core or inner essence that remains. But as soon as the citta breaks up, immediately afterwards there arises another citta. Thus we find the mind as a succession of cittas, or series of momentary acts of consciousness.
Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone. Its perceptions, emotions and volitional force are passed on to the next citta, and thus all experiences we undergo leave their imprint on the onward flow of consciousness, on the “cittasantana”, the continuum of mind. This transmission of influence, this causal continuity, gives us our continued identity. We remain the same person through the whole lifetime because of this continuity.
WHAT CONTINUES FROM ONE LIFE TO ANOTHER
The physical organism – the body – and the mental process – the stream of cittas – occur in close interconnection. The body provides the physical basis for the stream of cittas and the mental process rests upon the body as its instrument or basis. When death comes, the body can no longer function as the physical support for consciousness. However, when the body breaks up at death, the succession of cittas does not draw to an end. In the mind of the dying person there takes place a final thought – moment called the “death consciousness”, which signals the complete end of the life. Then, following the death consciousness, there arises the first citta of the next life which springs up with the newly formed physical organism as its basis. The first citta of the new life continues the stream of consciousness which has passed out of the deceased body. The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it.
PRESERVATION OF IDENTITY ILLUSTRATED
An illustration may help us understand how this preservation of, identity can take place without the transmigration of any “self-identifiable” entity.
Suppose we have a candle burning at 8 o’clock. If we come back in an hour, at 9 o’clock, we see that the candle is still burning, and we say that it is the same candle. This statement is completely valid from the standpoint of conventional linguistic usage. But if we examine this matter close-up we’ll see that at every moment the candle is burning different particles of wax, every moment it is burning a different section of wick, different molecules of oxygen. Thus the wax, wick and the oxygen being burnt are always different from moment to moment, and yet because the moments of flame link together in a continuum, one moment of flame giving rise to the next, we still say it is the same flame. But actually the flame is different from moment to moment. The flame itself is an entirely different phenomenon. It is conditioned by wax, the wick and air, and apart from them there is nothing.
SIMILE OF THE CANDLE
We can apply this simile to the case of rebirth. The body of the candle is like the physical body of the person. The wick might be compared to the sense faculties that function as the support for the process of consciousness. The particles of oxygen are like the sense objects and the flame is like consciousness.
Consciousness always arises with the physical body as its support. It always arises through a particular sense faculty, eg. eye, ear, nose, etc. It always has an object, e.g. sight, sound, etc. The body, sense faculty and the object keep constantly changing and therefore consciousness and the mental factors are constantly changing. But because each act of mind follows in sequence and passes on the contents to the following, we speak of the body and mind compound as being the same person. When the body loses its vitality and death takes place, that is like the first candle coming to an end.
The transmission of the flame to the next candle, that is like the passing on of the current of consciousness to the next life. When the mental continuum takes up the new body, that is like the flame of the old candle passing on to the new candle.
CONCEPTION
The Buddha says there are three necessary conditions for conception. There has to be a union of the father and mother, the father to provide the sperm, the mother to provide the egg. Second, it must be the mother’s proper season. If the mother isn’t fertile, conception won’t take place. Third, there must be a stream of consciousness of the deceased person, the flow of mind that is ready and prepared to take rebirth. This third factor he calls the “gandhabba”. Unless all these conditions are met conception does not take place.
Does rebirth go on automatically and inevitably?
Is there any causal structure behind this process of rebirth? Does it go on automatically and inevitably? Or is there a set of causes that sustains it and keeps it rolling?
The Buddha explains that there is a distinct set of causes underlying the rebirth process. It has a causal structure and this structure is set out in the teaching of Dependent Arising, “paticcasamupada”.
TEACHING OF DEPENDENT ARISING WITH REFERENCE TO REBIRTH
Now we will explain the teaching of Dependent Arising with specific reference to the rebirth process.
First, in this life there is present in us the most basic root of all becoming, namely ignorance. Due to ignorance we perceive things in a distorted way. Due to these distortions or perversions things appear to us to be permanent, pleasurable, attractive and as our self. Due to these distortions there arises in us craving, craving for sense pleasures, for existence, for sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch sensations and ideas. Basically there is craving for pleasant feeling. In order to experience pleasant feeling we require agreeable objects such as agreeable sights, smells etc. In order to obtain the pleasure these objects can give, we have to make contact with these objects. To contact these objects we need sense faculties that can receive the sense objects. In other words, we need the six sense faculties, eg. the eye to receive sight, the ear to receive sound, etc. In order for the sense faculties to function we need the entire psycho-physical organism, the mind-body complex.
Thus on account of craving the mind holds on to this presently existing organism so long as it lives. But when death occurs the present organism can no longer provide the basis for obtaining pleasure through the sense faculties. However, there is still the craving for the world of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas. So due to this craving for existence, consciousness lets go of this body and grasps hold of a new body, a fertilized egg. It lodges itself in that fertilized egg, bringing a whole storage of accumulated impressions over with it into the new psycho-physical organism. Thus we say the new being is conceived.
CRAVING THE SEAMSTRESS
Hence the Buddha calls craving the “seamstress”. Just as a seamstress sews together different pieces of cloth, so does craving sew together one life to another. It ties together the succession of lives. Craving is so powerful that it can bridge the gap created by death and rebuild the whole house of sentient existence again and again.
Thro’ many a birth in Sansara wandered I,
Seeking but not finding, the builder of this house. Sorrowful is repeated birth.
O House-builder! you are seen. You shall build no house again.
All your rafters are broken, your ridge-pole is shattered.
To dissolution goes my mind.
The End of Craving have I attained.
Dhammapada (154)
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha058.htm
“Try telling a child of 6 that he is deformed because some unidentified and unidentifiable person who lived a hundred years ago was a bad man. Even if you had his name, address, when he lived, and full account of his misdeeds how can this child accept responsibility for that? I know how upset I was at that age if accused of something I had nothing to do with.”
So if you murdered someone yesterday, bumped your head and forgot about it today…that absolves you of all consequences? Of you stole from people, broke into their homes but then had a car accident and developed amnesia… that absolves you of all the consequences? You shouldn’t be held accountable for your past deeds?
Sur,
RE:
“So if you murdered someone yesterday, bumped your head and forgot about it today…that absolves you of all consequences?”
If you murdered someone yesterday then others may be able to point this fact out using evidence (someone saw it perhaps, blood stains on your cloths, you were in the neighborhood of the murder, your DNA material found at the dead body, etc.), whether you yourself remember it or not or whether your yourself admit to doing it is not a major obstacle in convicting someone of murder in many cases. However, the existence of past lives is not observable, and, individuals are not, & cannot, be held responsible for something that they themselves did not do (like an action commited in a past life, which – past lives – probably do not exist). The reincarnation theory used in Hinduism, which was refined/altered for Buddhism, probably comes out of the need in ancient Hindu society to justify the caste system, or why social mobility was absent in their society. It is a theory used for social control, as much of ancient religions were.
RE:
“Of you stole from people, broke into their homes but then had a car accident and developed amnesia… that absolves you of all the consequences? You shouldn’t be held accountable for your past deeds?”
If you stole from people then 1) there would be people with some of their things missing, & 2) you may have some of the missing things in your possession. If you had a car accident there would be evidence of it in the real world. So, whether you remember doing thoses things or those things happening or not would not absolve you of your responsibility for those events. There are no actual things (missing items that are in your possession, damage from a car accident) that we can point to & then pin the responsibility for those items on a newborn child or a young person or someone who is hundreds of years removed from a historical event.
Reincarnation/Rebirth are speculative items used by priests/monks to scare & control people. They may work on the ignorant, but will not on people who have developed healthy rational minds.
- S
Dear Burning_Issue;
You say (A): It seems; you position is that, the Sinhala Buddhist are the true owners of Sri Lanka and all the rest must assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way of life including the language, Sinhala.
Answer (B). No, I haven’t said so not meant so. What I say are not for interpretation. I have several times said if I say “cat” it is only “cat” and nothing else. You cannot interpret what I say the way you want and analyze/ criticize to find wrongs in me. I am not belong to that category.
(A). I also think that, you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka; your notion that if the Tamils had had assimilated into the Sinhala way, everything would have been fine;
(B). Don’t arbitrarily think so. It is incorrect. Please read my original writing again.
(A). but you fail to see from Tamil perspective. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that in inherently Sri Lankan. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions;
(B). I never failed to see from the Tamil perspective. Most of the others are only partially true. I do not agree with your last opinion. Almost all the battles contained “the element” of ethnicity.
(A). There is no doubt that since the independence, the Sri Lankan polity has been fully influenced by Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. One can understand that the majority community wanted grater share of the nation.
(B). This is very bias notion. During the British colonial period, the rights of the Sinhala Buddhist were subjugated and the Tamils were given special privileges. What happened after the independence was Sinhala Buddhist awakening to gain their due and fair share of rights. This is evident from the number of Sinhala Buddhist schools available in the latter part of the 19th century. Out of 1000+ government schools there were only 3 Sinhala Buddhist schools.
Really it was not the majority community that demanded for the greater share. It is evident from the 50-50 demand by a less than 15% of the population. I can remember, BalangodaMan has shown this fact in one of his recent posts.
(A).The irony is that, the 1948 constitution that facilitated Westminster style electoral system had in fact rested the political control over to the Sinhaha majority.
(B). Really the Tamil minority wanted the political control (Please see BalangodaMan’s post I referred above) but they were no able to realize it. However, there were Tamils in the that administration. It is natural to majority getting the control over minority getting it.
(A).The majority community, instead of building a nation of Sri Lankans, it embarked on a series of discriminatory programmes asserting its prominence while jettisoning moral principles of democracy and the very Buddhism that you valiantly trying to safeguard. Until 1974, the Tamils stuck to the principles of democracy and Gandhian Ahimsa.
(B). This is an emotional appeal. You point out only discriminatory programmes,
do you think they came out in a clean slate? Weren’t there any lapses from the part of Tamils? Were they really stuck to Gandhian Ahimsa till 1974? Such partial analyzes and the propaganda was one of the main reasons for the problem. Any solution that do not base on an objective and sincere assessment will not solve the problem. “All faults are yours” approach won’t work.
(A). I still feel that, it was very uncharacteristic of the Tamils to rise up violently like they did; I must say that, Amirthalingham was a fiery character; his persona did in fact touched the young.
(B). It is very unfair to send all of your sins on poor Amirthalingam alone. Do you think all others can purify by doing this ritual? One should accept reality.
(A). Anyway, I wished that we battled on democratically that would have bore fruits eventually. However, one cannot turn the clock back; we need to deal with the issues as they stand now.
(B). Others faults are discriminative, while your faults that is difficult to cover up are “cannot turn clock back” type? Very objective analysis
(A).I do not want to point my finger at a particular community in terms of who started this mess first, but the reality is that, there is a deep divide along ethnic lines that needs fixing.
(B). You have already done it. Nothing more to do.
(A).The question is how to go about it.
(B). Through a programme based on an honest and sincere analysis of the problem.
(A). I list below the 7 questions that SomewhatDisgusted addressed to you on May 17, 2010 @ 5:40 pm; I endorse every word of those 7 questions; please answer honestly; then we can assess as to where we stand:
(B). I cannot prevent you endorsing anybody’s questions. But true solution has no much bearing on their popularity or their attractiveness.
Thanks!
Sur,
REBIRTH vs REINCARNATION and practical difficulties
————————————————–
“So if you murdered someone yesterday, bumped your head and forgot about it today…that absolves you of all consequences? Of you stole from people, broke into their homes but then had a car accident and developed amnesia… that absolves you of all the consequences? You shouldn’t be held accountable for your past deeds?”
Sur, you misunderstand my question. You make it sound like all beings are convicted amnesiacs who cannot remember what crime they have been convicted of, and we are expected to believe something NO ONE can remember!
My point, however, is much more basic.
In the case of reincarnation I can understand (even though I am not convinced) that the doer and the sufferer are connected, they are the ‘same person with same cosmic ID’. Therefore I can see the ‘sell-ability’ of such a theory. If the Buddha, in his teachings, made a fundamental distinction between ‘rebirth’ (what he claims to be the truth) and ‘reincarnation’ (untruth) then he must have explained how the cause and effect works where ‘no person exists’.
It’s like saying (and you will love this, Mr Yapa) … your car has a flat tyre. so you will scrap it and a new tyre goes on someone else’s new car in some other part of town which has the same damage of your old tyre which you have scrapped. My question is, what is the point in this if you and the someone else have nothing to do with each other? This other guy will be pretty pissed off to find that his new tyre has the same damage as your old broken tyre. AND (and drumroll …….) what motivation/responsibility do YOU have to ensure that you look after YOUR TYRES so that the other guy does not have to suffer from YOU not having looked after YOUR TYRES ??????????????????
Simple question, innit?
I just want someone who is conversant with this stuff to explain it to me.
(No, not an explanation like ‘The Buddha was enlightened and he knew and he told us’ we hear so much of)
Take a similar crime and punishment belief – among some of the Native American Indians. They believe in the continuance of responsibility (much like in the doctrine of karma) but down generations … where they hold people responsible for the crimes of their fathers, grandfathers, ancestors. In this case, the idea is similar, however there is a directly identifiable link between the perpetrator and the punished (though we will surely question the fairness of it). In Hindu-style reincarnation there is a transmigration, we are told. In Buddhism there is nothing. I just don’t see the logic in the proposition – it cannot work as a serious proposition.
Pondering over that, why would the Buddha make it a point to differentiate ‘rebirth’ from the doctrine of ‘reincarnation’ that was already a basic part of existing Hindu thinking? What is the effect of that differentiation? What behaviour is it there to change? (or it is ‘I know this because it is true, and I am enlightened so I know these things, but it won’t make a jot of difference to you chaps and who cares a toss if it will surely confuse everybody – I know it will confuse everyone because I am enlightened’)
Or have we completely misunderstood what he was saying?
Mr Yapa,
As you haven’t still answered my question …
“I have asked you (Mr Yapa mainly) whether you would be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”
Perhaps it is not easy to place yourself in the shoes of a Muslim person. Ok I understand. Then … I shall ask you in a different way.
Do you think all, or a significantly large proportion, of highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people around the world (not born into a Buddhist society) accept the speculative items contained in Buddhism (karma, rebirth, nirvana) as real things in the world? And if not why not?
Empathy is essential for right understanding – the Buddha said this in the Kalama Sutta. but this is not widely known nor practiced – not even in religious discussions
So what do you FEEL when you see an opposing argument that is expressed in less than gentlemanly terms – what does your religion or secularism tell you about such situations and how you should deal with such people?
I would really like to know this …
The Zen Master Suzuki said something v important -
USUALLY WHEN SOMEONE BELIEVES IN A PARTICULAR RELIGION HIS ATTITUDE BECOMES MORE AND MORE A SHARP ANGLE POINTING AWAY FROM HIMSELF. IN OUR WAY THE POINT OF THE ANGLE IS TOWARDS OURSELVES
So in trying to answer these clever questions – and they are clever – we need to appreciate the whole point of the Buddha’s endeavour. He was always trying to get people to look inwards – speculation that did not help to get rid of suffering was really not part of the discipline he taught.
and beyond the self lies SILENCE and that is where the truth is realized – Although thdhe Buddha answered many questions – in a sense he did not answer a single one –
what he did was to get his disciples to silence the questioning mind – and experience and overcome the anxiety and restlessness that lay behind these 1001 questions –
The Buddha teaches more with his silence than with his words – look at any good Buddha statue –
so this is the direction that my specific responses below will take you – it may not be a direction you wish to take – but in the true spirit of secularism and also buddhism I invite you to tolerate this —- STAY ENGAGED – AND STAY FRIENDLY
KARMA
Every thought, word and deed
Has its own sphere of influence
Like every drop of rain
Makes its own circle
Little drops make little circles
Big drops make big circles
We are our thoughts, words and deeds
Is there anything more?
Oh yes there is this imagined self
Who seeks to possess
These thoughts, words and deeds
With this act of possession
We perpetuate the self
This supposed owner
Of good and bad
Until you go beyond good and bad
Until you drop this self
You hang on to this idea
And the self goes on
Like an onion
That goes on and on
With an ‘I’ in between
Very difficult
Not to take sides
Very difficult
To avoid suffering
Your karma is synonymous
With your Self
Don’t separate the two
Don’t think you are some abstract self
Discussing abstract karma
You are discussing your own self
To study Buddhism
Is to study the self
Don’t study dead letters
Study yourself
Good karma is the recurrence
Of positive thoughts
In your own head
Bad karma works the same way
There is no next life
It’s always today – and now
Learn about the present
By being present
Don’t wax eloquent
About ‘meditation’
REINCARNATION
This is easy
You sleep and wake, don’t you?
To sleep
You must die to the day
And to wake you must
Die to the night
Think of life and death
Like day and night
You’ve got it made
If you don’t let go
You have disturbed sleep
And if you don’t shake off your sleep
You are half awake
And have a bad day
This is cause and effect
It’s a complicated affair
Just know
That you don’t know
Be free and open to life
Buddha died long ago
YOU are Buddha now
Just wake up
In this present moment
Be still and relax
NIRVANA
Extinction without a remainder
Like letting go
Like falling asleep
You don’t talk about it
You just do it
A good fire
That leaves nothing
Where does the fire go?
Don’t ask me
Do one thing at a time
And be content
Nirvana is here and now
Not miles away
Have a good laugh
And end this perfect nonsense
We are all losers till we
Give up winning
Dear Sur
You said: “So if you murdered someone yesterday, bumped your head and forgot about it today…that absolves you of all consequences? Of you stole from people, broke into their homes but then had a car accident and developed amnesia… that absolves you of all the consequences? You shouldn’t be held accountable for your past deeds?”
Sur, how is this equivalent to a little child suffering on account of misdeeds done by some other individual, to whom this child has *no connection* other than through a fleeting thought at the moment of the previous individual’s death? (The Anatta concept)
Do you really think that would be justice?
I’m sorry, I’m going to be very blunt and honest about this, but I think that’s an extremely twisted and immoral concept that is being spread across mainstream Buddhism. Understand this – kamma is an elaborate rationalization to escape the responsibility of having to mentally cope with another person’s anguish (I am somewhat in disagreement with Sujewa that it might have originated for social control)
The bottom line is, no child “deserves” such a fate. Yet, so many believers here are talking about kamma as a form of “justice”. Karma does no justice to anyone – this argument has already been made before – the person suffering doesn’t even *know* what he/she is being punished for. The moment you try to connect kamma and justice together, it fails tragically. It automatically makes kamma an immoral idea, completely *devoid* of justice.
As for being held accountable for current deeds – yes, everyone would like that, but wishful thinking for divine justice won’t make it true. Why don’t you just abolish the judicial system since you believe in divine justice anyway?
Was the Buddha really referring to Kamma as any concept of justice? I never thought so! I always thought his idea was (as was the accepted world view of his time) that Kamma and Rebirth were what genuinely happened. He felt that this was a good explanation for the pathetic state of existence that individuals around him lived in. He thought that perhaps, it was our own actions that were affecting future generations – which is kamma. Kamma is *not* about justice, which is why it’s always explained as cause and effect, and not as celestial justice afaik. He felt that bad actions of the present needlessly affected others in the future. He probably did believe in rebirth, but again, he accepted the idea that bad karma just keeps going forward – I highly doubt that he would suggest that it was a form of justice – because it plainly and flatly isn’t.
Yet!!! This is main-stream Buddhist interpretation. How many people think it’s a concept of justice? Am I wrong to say it’s the majority? Do you agree that it is a grave injustice to believe in such a thing? Did the Buddha even say something like this?
This is also why I said, organized religion is one of the greatest evils of our time – especially if we don’t make sure it is interpreted in a proper way. Kamma as a form of justice automatically converts Buddhism into a form of social control – because those poor sods deserve it! – as Sujewa observed.
There’s only one good thing that would make this world a just place and emancipate all human beings. That is the utter abolishment of unquestioning servitude to organized religion. Now that, would be real justice!
cheers,
/SD
Dear SD
Recommended reading below on karma – as for organized religion- is it not amazing how every organized religion – not just buddhism becomes a preserve for social control – greed – hatred and delusion – welcome to this world …
AN EXPOSITION OF KARMA BY SHARON SALZBERG
The Buddha himself was asked why people experience such diverse conditions in this world. He replied that we are all the owners of our differing karma and its fruits. Even after death, our only true property is this force of our intentions and their results.
The Buddha said that people who take the lives of others tend to live a short time, and those who refrain from killing tend to live long. People who cause pain to others tend to experience pain, disease, and weakness, those who practice nonviolence tend to experience good health and strength. Those who are greedy and do not give much tend to experience poverty, while those who are generous have abundance. People who are interested and investigate the truth tend to be intelligent; people who do not care about looking more deeply and seeing more clearly tend to be stupid. Those who practice stealing or adultery do not have many good friends, people who are careful and virtuous in their actions are respected and loved and they have many friends.
Again, these are not rigid absolutes. They are just tendencies. And there is no judgement in any of it. In the incredible vastness of the vision of Buddha-mind, this world of birth, death, and change we call samsara had no beginning. In this inconceivably immense vision of reality, we have all wandered forever, and so we all train an endless, infinite amount of past karma. Through this timelessness we have all done everything, every one of us: we have loved, hated, feared, killed, raped, stolen, given, served, loved. We have done it all. Through beginningless and ongoing rounds of rebirth, we are all one another’s parents, children, friends, lovers, and enemies, over and over again.
There is no reason for a feeling of separation from anything or anyone, because we have been it all and done it all. How then can we feel self-righteous or removed from anyone or any action? There is no spot on this earth where we have not laughed, cried, been born, and died. So in some sense, every single place we go is home, Everyone we meet we know. Everything that is done we are capable of.
That is why we do not hold an understanding of karma in a narrow way. It is an extremely vast vision of life. If at a given moment we experience the fruits of a past action, whether wholesome, or experience happening outside ourselves, we understand that this also is our experience, as in a dream when every character is some reflection of our own mind.
If you do not feel any resonance with this teaching about many lifetimes, you can still understand this radical non-separation from all who are and all that happens by looking within. Whether or not you believe in rebirth, you can see that all states exist within you. You do not need to feel separate when they arise within you; you do not need to be afraid. And you do not need to feel separate when you see them outside of yourself, either, all of it is just reflecting the mind with all of its possibilities. No matter what happens, inside or outside, no matter whom you meet, all of it is just another way of seeing yourself.
Many years ago I was a nursing student, and in one of the hospital training periods an abused child was brought in, with her abusive mother. There were about thirty nursing students present, plus hospital staff. The students and staff predominantly related to the mother with coldness and aloofness, as though to say “Oh you beast way, way over there in the distance, how could you have done a thing like that? Later that day, as the nursing students were gathered, someone made a comment to that effect. I responded by saying, “Well, I could understand doing something like that. I’ve seen impulses of rage and fear and frustration arise in my mind that could motivate such an awful act. I’m confident I would not do it, because of gifts, such as awareness, that I can bring to bear on that moment, but I don’t feel so absolutely, unutterably separate from that mother.” Once I had said that, thirty pairs of eyes turned to me and there was complete silence. I sat there wondering. “Did I just say the wrong thing?” But it was clear that although it may have upset the group, it was nonetheless the truth.
To add something to SomewhatDisgusted’s comment of karma & justice …
When we were kids we thought it is not good to give money to the beggars. This was for two reasons. (1) that they were bad people in past lives and (2) by giving them money we will be depriving them from truly suffering and that will prolong the period in which they have to suffer.
This was however in direct conflict with our diametrically opposite desire to give the poor beggar something for purely selfish reasons – well, who would pass-by a plum opportunity to gain some ‘ping’ (karmic merit) by relieving suffering? So invariably this consideration No 3 took over … only for us kids to be confronted with another conflict … consideration No. 4 – ie, which of us four kids was going to give the money, and we fought over it. (clearly I lost, or I would not be still stuck in this thread!)
So, OTC did the Buddha say karma is ‘just’?
Or didn’t you say the way karma works is the very epitome of justice?
Dear Yapa,
Thanks for your post. First of all, I do not want to interfere with SomewhatDisgusted’s questions; however, I will eagerly follow the progress of this! This means that, I will delay my responses to some of your comments to me as they are directly connected to those 7 questions.
If I had given you an impression that I am bias in criticisms, that is incorrect. I am as much critical about Tamil nationalism as about the Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. I tell you this; the Tamils will have to live with the brutal realities of Suicide bombings; the Muslims will be a constant reminder to Tamils of their barbaric removal from the North. Moreover, the Tamils in the North in particular have lost their sense of community and general order; this will take years to regain.
You said:
“ No, I haven’t said so not meant so. What I say are not for interpretation. I have several times said if I say “cat” it is only “cat” and nothing else. You cannot interpret what I say the way you want and analyze/ criticize to find wrongs in me. I am not belong to that category.”
If I have interpreted you wrongly, I will be in a haste to admit that; please give me some time on this.
I said:
I also think that, you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka; your notion that if the Tamils had had assimilated into the Sinhala way, everything would have been fine;
You said:
“ Don’t arbitrarily think so. It is incorrect. Please read my original writing again.”
Which point is incorrect; is it the Tamil assimilated into the Sinhala way or you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka? The Assimilation point is clear; you clearly said that in one of your earlier posts; so, it’s about Tamil history, right? Again, I will wait until further development on those 7 questions.
I said:
but you fail to see from Tamil perspective. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that in inherently Sri Lankan. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions;
You said:
“ I never failed to see from the Tamil perspective. Most of the others are only partially true. I do not agree with your last opinion. Almost all the battles contained “the element” of ethnicity.”
Which of the following are true, partially true, and not true:
1. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that is inherently Sri Lankan
2. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history.
3. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions
On the third point, I disagree with you; please show with evidence that, there were ethnic elements in battles.
I said:
There is no doubt that since the independence, the Sri Lankan polity has been fully influenced by Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. One can understand that the majority community wanted grater share of the nation.
You said:
“ This is very bias notion. During the British colonial period, the rights of the Sinhala Buddhist were subjugated and the Tamils were given special privileges. What happened after the independence was Sinhala Buddhist awakening to gain their due and fair share of rights. This is evident from the number of Sinhala Buddhist schools available in the latter part of the 19th century. Out of 1000+ government schools there were only 3 Sinhala Buddhist schools.”
The fact was that there were elite communities in both communities and they did very well under the colonial periods. However, the fundamental deference between the Sinhala and Tamil communities was that, the Tamils took advantage of the Christian schools and put a lot of emphasis on education. This is not to say that there weren’t any objections to Christian dominance in terms of schools. The Hindu organisations countered this with establishment of Hindu school; e.g. Jaffna Hindu College and Manipay Hindu College. However, the end result was that proportion of the educated Tamils increased. I have no knowledge of how the communities measured in terms educational achievements on those days. It might have been that British adopted the divide and rule policy and purposely and excluded the Sinhala masses; I do not know. But one thing is clear that, it was not the Tamils who excluded the Sinhala; it was the British!
So, in order to counter the Sinhala Subjugation by the British, the Sinhala needed to subjugate the minorities; is this your position? If Nelson Mandela had adopted this logic, what would have happened to the Whites in South Africa; one wonders!
You said:
“Really it was not the majority community that demanded for the greater share. It is evident from the 50-50 demand by a less than 15% of the population. I can remember, BalangodaMan has shown this fact in one of his recent posts.”
The 50-50 demand was nonsense from G.G Ponnampalam though it was 50% for Sinhala and 50% for all the minorities. However, it was demanded during independence debate; subsequently, all parties settled on the 1948 constitution as a basis for taking the country forward. D.S. Senanayake along with other Sinhala leaders assured the Tamil leaders that the minorities would come to no harm! In fact the opposite happened; do you agree?
I said:
The irony is that, the 1948 constitution that facilitated Westminster style electoral system had in fact rested the political control over to the Sinhaha majority.
You said
“ Really the Tamil minority wanted the political control (Please see BalangodaMan’s post I referred above) but they were no able to realize it. However, there were Tamils in the that administration. It is natural to majority getting the control over minority getting it.”
Come On Mr. Yapa; this is pathetic; the electoral system rested power with the majority; the minority communities were at the mercy of the majority community; we all know what happened since! Yes, there were Tamils in that administration; what is your point?
I said:
The majority community, instead of building a nation of Sri Lankans, it embarked on a series of discriminatory programmes asserting its prominence while jettisoning moral principles of democracy and the very Buddhism that you valiantly trying to safeguard. Until 1974, the Tamils stuck to the principles of democracy and Gandhian Ahimsa.
You said:
“This is an emotional appeal. You point out only discriminatory programmes,
do you think they came out in a clean slate? Weren’t there any lapses from the part of Tamils? Were they really stuck to Gandhian Ahimsa till 1974? Such partial analyzes and the propaganda was one of the main reasons for the problem. Any solution that do not base on an objective and sincere assessment will not solve the problem. “All faults are yours” approach won’t work.”
Please correct my partial analysis; please outline the events that constitute violence on the part of the Tamils before 1974.
Also, since independence, what lapses that the Tamils responsible for? Was it that they failed to assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way? Please outline!
Ordinary Lankan,
Sharon Salzberg
—————–
The piece from Sharon Salzberg is a typical new-age inspirational piece. Though she mentions karma in the title (karma is a fashionable word in the West) and in the body she is really writing about the ‘one-ness of all beings in the universe’ type of thing. I introduced this early on in the Akon thread when I suggested an alternative way of thinking about the ‘meaning of life’ – (we, as a drop of water from the ocean that goes back into the ocean and another drop when created from the same ocean is another being. we all are part of one. I speak metaphorically, not suggesting that we are all wet or taste salty, or that people who live near us crap on us!).
When you introduce ‘karma’ into that one has to ask – so why is there such a thing as karma in the universe? How did it all start? (you can already feel the parallel with ‘original sin’ in Christianity, can’t you?)
But the Buddha’s field of study was … what was going on in HIS mind. Not about bonding with other humans in a new-age kind of brotherhood, in a kind of group-huggy sort of way. Most (if not all) of the teachings is totally consistent AND RELEVANT in the context of quiet personal contemplation of whose who have, or desire to, escape from society’s stresses and responsibilities. Where we have a problem is when people try to fit the ‘musings of an ascetic’ to society, and MODERN society at that.
(The only reason why I feel people like Mr Yapa feel they have to is because ‘Buddhism’ IS their validation – instead of your validity being what you are as an individual. We do not have the concept of ‘individuality’ in SL, so is hard to understand by SLs. You are defined by your family, where you live – the old ‘ge’ name system – by your religion. You are expected to hold the same opinions as your parents/elders. All external to who YOU actually are)
Using ‘personal musings of an ascetic’ as ‘how the universe works’ or ‘how society should be run’ is like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail. In a small number of cases it will work. But it is not the right tool for the job – even if it is the BEST SCREWDRIVER in all of history. There are hammers to drive nails in with. So, to run society with Buddhist philosophy will always give rise to absurdities (many listed before), though Buddhism has been turned into a religion for devotional workship and control of the masses. A religion that actually was designed for ruling society with is Islam, but even then it is not appropriate for the 21st century.
Also, to say good people live long rather contradicts the idea that life’s a bitch, but I’m sure that’s just a slip.
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
Thanks for the article on Kamma as well as your previous article. I have no problem with an introspective belief system. I have strong problems with a belief system which claims to guard holy truths. I subscribe to your brand of Buddhism and would *never* oppose a personal quest for meaning, but I will have no stock with the latter brand, which to me, is a one way path to an insular, delusory and bigoted belief system.
Unfortunately, I have been informed, by devout practitioners on this forum, that I subscribe to a dilute form of Buddhism repackaged for western consumption. That may very well be true and I’m willing to accept that.
Therefore, can someone very kindly tell me, what the Buddha really said in some sutta or the other, about Kamma? Is it a concept of justice? I’m not interested in repackaged western stuff.
No one needs to care what others choose to believe in their personal lives. But we are all duty-bound to correct any perverted ideas that are spreading across our society. In that regard I strongly object to
1. Custodianship of holy truths – pure, unadulterated BS which leads to an insular, paranoid society
2. Twisted interpretations of Kamma etc. which are essentially unjust with regard to the suffering of individuals
3. Uncritical acceptance of omniscient authorities and especially their earthly representatives, the sangha
Make sure ideas like these are expunged from the mainstream and I think Buddhist ethics would certainly have an improving effect on our society. Would you agree with me Ordinary Lankan?
cheers,
/SD
Sujewa says
“And then there is some stuff about belonging to a highly pious family??? Do feel free to point out when I said that”
When people LIE they forget their past utterances, easily
But then you are a SUPERIOR being, an Agnostic, so how can you be LYING and with that super memory how can you forget?
Probably Sujewa was not LYING when he said that His Mother’s Father Built Buddhist Temples
Probably Sujewa was not LYING when he said that His Father’s Father Built Buddhist Temples
Probably Sujewa was not LYING when he said that He and his Father Built Buddhist Temples
Probably Sujewa was NOT writing a SCRIPT to impress the GV Readership.
What is the TRUTH Sujewa, did THREE generations of your Family ACTUALLY Build Buddhist Temples? That’s unbelievable, how can THREE GENERATIONS of ONE FAMILY be involved in building Temples, Buddhist Temples at that?
Sujewa implies with his question above, that His Family cannot be described as PIOUS. In that case his family must have been building Buddhist Temples as a Business, to make money. The Business must have been very lucrative for them to continue building Buddhist Temples for THREE generations.
If that is REALLY REALLY the TRUTH why did all of you do it Sujewa?
Were they FUNDIE NUT JOBS?
I think ONLY ONE of them is a FUNDIE NUT JOB.
But then that’s just my personal opinion so have no objection if you want to call ALL of them Fundie Nut Jobs (I have no idea what it means though, that’s Sujewa’s expression).
I doubt you have the balls to deny what I wrote above about “Temple Building” and your family
You have a problem with the TRUTH as you seem to be a Chronic LIAR.
You have a problem with LANGUAGE as you cannot comprehend the language that you write.
You have a problem with MEMORY as you cannot even remember what you wrote less than THREE Months back.
Logic of course is not Sujewa’s Forte so his irrational Pontificating should not be questioned
You say
So I guess it takes a person of massive intelligence to argue for a month & a half against the fact that Buddhism is a religion right?
There is a saying “It’s possible to argue with a hundred wise men but not possible to argue with ONE fool”
Buddhism is a Philosophy no one has argued against that fact. But you are deluded due to your inability to understand English and to remember what your opponents write. But again it’s unfair to expect it as he has trouble remembering his own. Is Shillboot the culprit? Please reread my very first post on the Akon thread April 8, 2010 @ 11:10 am. Hope you can understand it.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16898
Now here is a Challenge to you again, prove your statement “argue for a month & a half against the fact that Buddhism is a religion” referring to quotes and links from me.
You say
“Likening those who do not agree with him to imbeciles & dogs”
Again a problem with your English.
I did not liken you to an Imbecile I called you one.
I did not liken you to a Dog, I likened what you DID to what the proverbial Dog did, by defecated on a stone to find that he could not cover it up.
Learn your English Sujewa
You say
And keep trying to re-define karma from the way it was defined & used by Buddhism for hundreds of years – with one example given in the BuddhaNet article that I linked to”
I don’t have to try Sujewa, that’s what Kamma means. It is “Thoughtful Action” or “Premeditated Action” as I showed you. You tried to prove me wrong and said I was dishonest by linking to a web site quoting a Monk. You failed in your foolish endeavour because you never read the whole article just copied and pasted without ANY UNDERSTANDING. You failed miserably because I quoted the BUDDHA from the SAME WEB page. The page that you did not care to read before the copy and paste. I have no objection to a copy and paste as long as it’s done intelligently with understanding.
I proved how SHALLOW and SUPERFICIAL your thinking is. If you had the intellect you would not have challenged me again but then a Fool rushes in where Angels fear to tread.
BTW I gave you three examples not one. Can give you hundreds, as even more than that is available on the web, even without considering the books.
You say
“Keep living in your escapist religious fantasy land. And let us know when you have something relevant to the topic being addressed by the article.”
Sujewa, you know nothing about Buddhism to judge it. But you insist on doing it. You cannot prove the concepts of Buddhism either way. Reread the following posts
My post of May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
SomewhatDisgusted’s post of May 16, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
My post of May 17, 2010 @ 12:14 am
You selectively questioned my post of May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm but have avoided the answers I have given to your frivolous statement about a “TOOL” that I am supposed to have requested from you.
That is your character. You ask a question very authoritatively with a lot of aplomb and flair but when the Answer is not palatable you slither quietly away.
Don’t throw IDLE challenges Sujewa
I suppose you have a Divine Knowledge to identify what you call a Political Buddhist. Is it similar to a Political Agnostic?
Dear BalangodaMan,
You say
“When we were kids we thought it is not good to give money to the beggars. This was for two reasons. (1) that they were bad people in past lives and (2) by giving them money we will be depriving them from truly suffering and that will prolong the period in which they have to suffer.”
Who taught you that BS?
No wonder you are so mixed up about Buddhism
The rest of your post based on BS is also BS
BTW BM, If you want to address a question to me address your post to me.
Don’t hide your question in the body of an innocuous looking post addressed to one of your buddies.
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
Good post. Especially the last paragraph.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“the person suffering doesn’t even *know* what he/she is being punished for”
Pertinent question and I believe your answer is also pertinent.
I believe that Kamma (Premeditated or Thoughtful Action) and Vipaka (result) is a cause and effect. I do not think the concept has anything to do with “Justice” in an afterlife though it can be seen as such in the current life.
A person falling down and hurting himself is not a punishment meted out by Gravity. Its just the order of things. I believe that Kamma is similar.
Dear BalangodaMan,
” (OTC, no judicial system – your favourite – punishes someone for another’s misdeeds)
Who said so?
You have got your knickers in a twist. Premeditated Action (Kamma) and Vipaka (Result) is not a Judicial System meting out Punishment.
Don’t you read whats being written?
OTC,
“Who taught you that BS?”
Glad you asked. You see, we were only maybe 6-10 years old. But we were able to deduce this …
“When we were kids we thought it is not good to give money to the beggars. This was for two reasons. (1) that they were bad people in past lives and (2) by giving them money we will be depriving them from truly suffering and that will prolong the period in which they have to suffer.” (my statement)
… from the principles of karma that we were taught – essentially the same as what you chaps are promoting (in order to hasten our salvation I acknowledge and say thanks). I’m sure you are a grown up adult. How come you reach a different conclusion? How come the kids can figure out logic and you can’t? (or won’t?)
Let’s examine: No (1) we have established in this thread. So no argument. No (2) is the logical consequence any 10 year old can work out.
Are you sure you are actually promoting this correctly, and not just writing illogical, inconsistent stuff to confuse everybody? Next you could be accused of being a Western plot to unsettle the Wonder of Asia.
I still do not know how the doer ( the person committing bad karma) is connected with the sufferer (the person born at another time) under Buddhism. I have searched the net for this – no joy.
It sounds like ‘Fall Guys ‘R’ US’. You can do all sorts of crimes and someone far away in another land, another time, even another religion (preferably!) takes the rap for it. Did no one ask the Buddha to explain? Or are we the first to ask?
The practical problem is (asked before. no answer from anyone) if karma is promoted for its value as a deterrent will this brand of explanation actual deter anyone from doing bad things? That is, if the vipaka is suffered by some other dude we will never meet, why would we care? (already asked this in the Hitler example)
(Or vice versa – it’s like if your credit card gets cloned. Someone in Moscow buys things with it and you get lumbered with the bill! At least in that case there is a common thread in the credit card number/account. But not in karma > rebirth, apparently)
Is it random? That is, the doctrine says every (thoughtful) action will have a result, though not necessarily involving the person who had the thoughtful action. That is, the law of karma is happy as long as SOMEONE (anyone) pays for it. (jolly !) Like if the crime rate says there have been 80 murders the karmic police just need to ensure that 80 people (of any generation) are on death row, any 80 people.
Hi Burning_Issue,
“India is a secular country despite it holds numerically more Muslims than what is recorded in Pakistan, but Sri Lanka is not where 70% is made up of Sinhala speaking population!”
The Congress party of India intentionally adopted secularism to avoid antagonising the Muslim minority during the independence struggle. This did not prevent Pakistan from splitting away from India in 1947.
The Secular Constitution of India also did not stop about 3,000 Sikhs from being murdered in communal riots in 1984, nor the subsequent Punjab insurgency that lasted for almost a decade.
Nor has India’s Secular Constitution prevented the rise of a Christian fundamentalist insurgency in Nagaland.
“On the third point, I disagree with you; please show with evidence that, there were ethnic elements in battles.”
I agree that the conflicts back then were primarily between kings and not ethnic groups, but this does not mean that there weren’t any ethnic elements in these wars.
The Mahavamsa has often been labeled as an ethno-centric Sinhala Buddhist text for its negative portrayal of Tamils. My understanding of the text- and others here are free to correct me if I’m wrong- is that the negative language of Tamils comes up only in the parts where Sri Lanka is invaded from S. India. Unfortunately this language in the Mahavamsa led many Sinhalese to believe that MODERN Tamils were invaders, which was a falsehood. Prabakaran contributed to this perception by adopting the Chola Tiger, and not a Sri Lankan Tamil icon like Jaffna Nandi or Batticaloa fish, as his symbol.
“But one thing is clear that, it was not the Tamils who excluded the Sinhala; it was the British!”
I agree with this; I have come across no evidence of a “Tamil conspiracy” to lock out the Sinhalese from opportunities during colonial times or post-independence, and I have disagreed with OTC on this topic.
“all parties settled on the 1948 constitution as a basis for taking the country forward. D.S. Senanayake along with other Sinhala leaders assured the Tamil leaders that the minorities would come to no harm! In fact the opposite happened; do you agree?”
The problem with the first UNP governments is that they never implemented Sinhala or Tamil as government languages. These elite continued to use English to exclude 90% of the population (not unlike the elitist secularists here who fantasize about imposing there .0001% minority opinion on the rest of the population). Because of these kinds of elitists, a communalist like SWRD could exploit the exclusion of the majority to come to power.
If you think that the Soulbury Constitution was wrong for Sri Lanka, as well as GG Ponnambalam’s 50-50 idea, then what sort of system should have been implemented instead?
OTC,
“When people LIE they forget their past utterances, easily”
Wow this is rather heavy language to use against such an intellectual heavyweight like Sujewa. I feel that these harsh words that you used on him deserve a response that reflects the depth and nuanced sophistication that we’ve come to expect from Sujewa:
“I doubt you have the balls to deny what I wrote above about “Temple Building” and your family”
Sounds good.
“You have a problem with the TRUTH as you seem to be a Chronic LIAR.”
Sounds good.
“You have a problem with LANGUAGE as you cannot comprehend the language that you write.”
Sounds good. What did I write?
“You have a problem with MEMORY as you cannot even remember what you wrote less than THREE Months back.”
Sounds good. Wait, what was that I just said?
“There is a saying “It’s possible to argue with a hundred wise men but not possible to argue with ONE fool”
Sounds good. But how would you deal with the Dhammapada variety of fool: the fool who believes himself to be wise?
“That is your character. You ask a question very authoritatively with a lot of aplomb and flair but when the Answer is not palatable you slither quietly away.”
Sounds good. (this is my cue to slither away)
Big Sur,
“BUDDHISM AND HINDUISM COMPARED”
I hope that after Professor SomewhatDisgusted reads that, he’ll stop claiming that the Buddha stole samsara from Hinduism. But wait, we’re not allowed to question secular agnostics because they’re supposed to know everything.
Ordinary Lankan,
“Well, I could understand doing something like that. I’ve seen impulses of rage and fear and frustration arise in my mind that could motivate such an awful act.”
Aww what a touching story. However, secular agnostics claim that the mind is an illusion, case closed. Therefore, your moment of empathy was entirely fraudulent. Sorry!
There is quite a good discussion of how the Buddha addressed the question of rebirth in the first half of chapter 8 of K.N. Jayatilleke’s “Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge.” The chapter is entitled “Authority and reason within Buddhism”. In the first seven chapters of his book, Jayatilleke contrasts Buddhism with other early Indian religions that believed in grace, revelation and mystical intuition.
Early Buddhism, Jayatilleke claims, was built on a foundation of direct experience. common sense and reason, and no claim of the Buddha’s was ever expected to be accepted on the basis of blind faith in the Buddha as an authority figure. One of the most obvious challenges to this claim is that it appears as though the Buddha was pretty authoritarian about rebirth. This lead many Western scholars (Keith, La Vallee Poussin, Rhys Davids et al) and has lead psuedo agnostics like Sujewa Ekanayake and Balangoda Man to conclude that rebirth is for Buddhists an item of blind faith and that Buddhists are expected to believe in rebirth just because the Buddha talked in those terms.
This impression of these folks, Jayatilleke claims, is a false one. To show that it is false, he cites numerous suttas in which rebirth is spoken about in hypothetical terms. This seems especially to be the case when the question of morality comes up. What this suggests is that the Buddha did not wish for people to make their willingness to be moral dependent upon their belief in rebirth, for the obvious reason that if people were skeptical about rebirth, they would then see no reason to be moral.
I think this move to distinguish morality from belief in an afterlife was very wise on the Buddha’s part. He anticipated Freud’s principal concern about the limits of religious dogma as stated in “Future of an Illusion.” There Freud argued that if people make morality dependent upon a belief in God and an afterlife, then when people discover that there is not sufficient reason to believe in God and the afterlife, they might also become skeptical about morality. And if that happens, we could end up with a disaster. (The 20th century bears witness to Freud’s concerns in this respect.)
So a truly wise approach to teaching morality, said Freud, is to divorce it from metaphysical doctrines. Kant, of course, had argued along much the same lines 100 years earlier, and both of them were anticipated by the Buddha by more than two thousand years.
A superficial understanding of kamma can lead to blaming the unfortunate for their own misfortunes, similar to the modern thinking that takes satisfaction in one’s position and blaming the unsuccessful for their own distresses. (And adding to their burdens as a righteous act.). Whereas the Buddhist perspective is of course that they deserve nothing less than complete freedom from suffering.
Dear Wijayapala,
A severe melt down. Pretty sad. No answers to the questions, just strawman arguments and personal attacks. Seriously, thought you had a bit more intellectual integrity than this. Guess religious brainwashing takes that away! Ironically enough – kind of drive home the point of this whole debate.
You said: “However, secular agnostics claim that the mind is an illusion, case closed”
Complete misrepresentation. Here’s where I explained my position. I said it in upper case bold – i have no conclusive idea – unlike you – who already claims to know the answers. (That’s what all religions do – claim to know answers)
You said: “not unlike the elitist secularists here who fantasize about imposing there .0001% minority opinion on the rest of the population”
Another brilliant piece of majoritarian logic from Wijayapala. A minority language being imposed on a majority is unjust. A religion being imposed on others is also unjust. None of this has anything to do with the size of the population.
You have consistently evaded my key question: Is it fair to impose a speculative belief on others whereas secularism takes none of that away but gives everyone the same rights? That is elitist and unjust? Friend, don’t get elitism, justice and prejudice all mixed up, bad cocktail! Religion is what’s causing it, ain’t it?
Still waiting for answers to my 3 questions.
Still waiting for you to point out the issues you claim we have not addressed.
Still waiting for you to address the issues on common Sri Lankan history raised by BalangodMan and BurningIssue.
Getting lots of vitriol and personal insults instead.
Quite amusing for the moment.
But try not to drive home the point that religiosity = unreasoned, fanatical devotion to concepts which cannot be defended and eventually result in rage and violence against those who disagree.
At least make an attempt to show that this is not the case!
cheers,
/SD
Dear Wijayapala,
You said: “I hope that after Professor SomewhatDisgusted reads that, he’ll stop claiming that the Buddha stole samsara from Hinduism.”
I don’t claim that. BuddhaNet does. To quote: “The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. “ – http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
We’ve already discussed this, although you now seem to suffer from amnesia about it and you know there are enough reputed sources which make the same claim. So it appears that it is Professor Wijayapala who claims that this is a unique invention by the Buddha. Do you plan on buttressing your argument?
If you are going to harp on the specific word Hinduism. Don’t really care whether it’s Hinduism or Shramana’s or whatever. The point is, it predated Buddhism. If you wish to argue otherwise, state your case.
cheers,
/SD
RR,
RE:
“Early Buddhism, Jayatilleke claims, was built on a foundation of direct experience. common sense and reason, and no claim of the Buddha’s was ever expected to be accepted on the basis of blind faith in the Buddha as an authority figure. One of the most obvious challenges to this claim is that it appears as though the Buddha was pretty authoritarian about rebirth. This lead many Western scholars (Keith, La Vallee Poussin, Rhys Davids et al) and has lead psuedo agnostics like Sujewa Ekanayake and Balangoda Man to conclude that rebirth is for Buddhists an item of blind faith and that Buddhists are expected to believe in rebirth just because the Buddha talked in those terms.”
A contemporary person cannot confirm the following:
1. That the Buddha actually existed.
2. That the Buddha existed in the way that he is described in Buddhism.
3. That the Buddha in fact discovered a way out of suffering – in the Buddhist view all of existence is suffering – so, a way out of existence – & since Buiddhists believe in rebirth – a way out of being reborn.
4. This is another way of saying #3 – but it may be clearer – that Buddha discovered or experienced nirvana & that nirvana is in fact a real thing that exists/that actual humans can experience. Also karma cannot be verified to be real, an item related to nirvana (& we already mentiond rebirth, another related item).
5. That following the Eight Fold Path & rest of Buddhism leads to nirvana. Since no one other then the Buddha, some 2500 years ago, reportedly, claimed to have reached or achieved nirvana (outside of religous stories), certainly no one w/ in the last 100 years that I’ve heard of.
Those are some of the issue regarding Buddhism on paper. And then there are a whole lot of issues that come into question when Buddhism comes into contact with the rest of the world. Such as:
1. Over 2000 years of Buddhism left Sri Lanka a mess, out of which it is barely stating to recover after the 26+ year civil war that was caused in part by Buddhists refusing to recognize equal rights of the Tamil minority.
(well, that item above is pretty big, so I’ll stop there for now
So, what does all this mean:
- Buddhism is just another of the many ways that humans have created to attempt to deal with the uncertainties, injustice, & mystery of life. It does not seem any more effective or factual than the other major religions.
- Many people who are raised in Buddhism develop a strong attachment to it – as can be seen by the comments in this thread – and are unable to look outside of it.
- For all its concerns about the suffering of others, etc. – Buddhism is a blood & soil faith – used by the Sinhalese for hundreds of years to maintain territorial control & control over fellow members of the tribe. In this sense, it is no less violent than any of the other religions in this world.
However, the believers’ commitment to Buddhism is so deep that they will either overlook or refuse to recognize the flaws that exist in it & the flawed ways in which Buddhists have behaved in this world. So, then the work falls on the non-believers, specially in the Sri Lankan context, to take action to solve the problems that have been plaguing the island for decades – primarily poverty, corruption, racism, excessive use of violence, ultra & unhealthy conservatism, etc. Buddhism & the believers have not been able to solve those problems well. Thus, a new underground is getting organized as we speak in SL & the diaspora, the secularists will try to do the positive things in SL & diaspora that the narrow minded Buddhist escapists have not been able to do (now that the civil war is over, thanks to all who sacrified to make that happen).
Good luck, however, with your faith (Buddhism in SL is very much a faith based religon, though you are unable to recognize it, & the best that the believers can do is call agnostics names & point to statements made by other believers to support their statements).
This argument most likely will never end. As long as humans are alive, they will make up heroic figures such as the Buddha & fictional concepts such as karma, rebirth, nirvana to try to both make sense of the world & to motivate themselves & others to do what they feel is the right thing. And also to control countries, land, keep the undesirables away, etc. However, all that unnecessary drama aside, important & useful work needs to get done in order to improve this world (not the next world or the next rebirth), &, it is a good thing that agnostics/non-believers/atheists/secularists/& also sensible believers exist to get that work done.
Also, don’t let the fact that I personally can’t, after analysis & study, find much of great value in Buddhism (perhaps it is an interesting historical footnote – maybe the cutting edge in religious thought or human intellectual development 2500 or so years ago, but not something very relevant to the modern world). And, after debating for the last month and a half with believers (& having seen how they conduct themselves, how their desire for the irrational & fantastic has warped their souls – sense of truth, justice, compassion, etc.) I find Buddhism even less appealing than before. However, many millions of people worship the Buddha out of choice or are trapped in Buddhism, so, due to the sheer numbers of people involved, it is still a great religion (of significance to many). And who knows, Buddhism might even reform itself, specially in Sri Lanka, & become something useful to the modern world, & something just in practice – we will have to see.
- S
OTC,
I see the believer rage continues. I guess that’s the defalult mode for politcial/fake Buddhists to go to when they cannot show why they think K,R.N are real. Though your meltdown is amusing & entertaining, I will clarify the following, though it makes no difference to me as to whether you or anyone else believes it or not:
“What is the TRUTH Sujewa, did THREE generations of your Family ACTUALLY Build Buddhist Temples? That’s unbelievable, how can THREE GENERATIONS of ONE FAMILY be involved in building Temples, Buddhist Temples at that?”
If you want to do some reading, you can pick up my grand uncle Bhante Gunaratana’s autobiography, & in it, he talks about how his poor but deeply faithful father (one of my great grandfathers) built the first temple in their village (now that’s the term used by the monk, don’t ask me about the dimensions of the temple, or what it’s called in pali, etc. – it is probably a small place, as it was built by poor farmers using means available to them, & not kings or whatever), anywhere, here’s the book link:
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Mindfulness-Autobiography-Bhante-G/dp/0861713478
Just look for the paragraph with my last name in it, that’s what I am referencing above. It is early on in the book.
So that’s one temple.
Then, in the early 1980′s, my dad helped with building a Buddhist meditation center in Virginia, & I helped (not much, was young, but I did help, got pictures to prove it – hammering nails & such) So that’s 3 generations of the same family helping with temple building. (i am sure at least dozens more members in the fam have had roles in creating or sustaining temples is SL & US – the fam is VAST in numbers by modern US standards, but maybe just above average by SL standards)
Anyway, it makes no difference to me whether narrow minded political/fake Buddhists believe in what I’ve said about my relationships to Buddhism & the family’s relationship to Buddhism. And, by the way, many temples in Sri Lanka were built with donated labor – something called shramadana – that a fake/political Buddhist like you probably does not know much about – thus, having family members who built temples or helped to build temples is not a massive deal or not something highly unusual in some parts of Sri Lanka. But, since one of your diversionary tactics is to change the subject to side matters when you cannot deal with the issue at hand, I thought I’d resolve the diversionary issue & get back to KRN & other speculative items in Buddhism – oh wait, the believers, for the most part, gave up on that, well I guess then we don’t have much to discuss. But when you forget that Buddhism is a speculative/faith based religion I’ll jump back in to remind you how K,R.,N cannot be proven as real to a non-believer. Maybe it will help to keep your believer arrogance & hate in check (or maybe not, but i guess all a non-believer like me can do is try
Sounds good doesn’t it
[& this post goes out to your fake/angry/political Buddhist buddy Wijayapala too]
- S
”
“STILL keeping cool while dealing with raging, irrational, fake/political believers (since 2010
More OTC ficiton (jut like K,R.N in Buddhism),
“That is your character. You ask a question very authoritatively with a lot of aplomb and flair but when the Answer is not palatable you slither quietly away.”
And by “slithering quietly away” you must mean pointing out to fools FOR ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF ON A NEARLY DAILY BASIS their foolishness in claiming that Buddhism is a universal truth.
And, aside from being a fake expert in Buddhism, OTC now wants to be a fake expert in English. What’s next OTC – are you going to start lecturing about eating a balanced meal or not littering? Dude, this is a debate on an internet comments section- I am not publishing a research paper (like the one that Yapa was going to create for us re: K, R, N), so misspelled words occur, & other writing/fast typing mistakes occur. Only a fool who is losing an argument re: a religious matter would try to score points by criticizing ‘net comments writing mistakes of others.
This is what happens to arrogant, hate spewing, political/fake believers OTC. Somewhere along the line someone is going to challenge you to back up your misguided claims for your version of Buddhism’s greatness & as we see it now, ya can’t produce the goods. So you cry & whine like a child & call people names. Congradulations, you make the case for Buddhism’s inability to produce mature people (in many cases) better than I ever could.
- S
“1. That the Buddha actually existed.
2. That the Buddha existed in the way that he is described in Buddhism.”
Does it really matter if the Buddha existed or not? Unlike in Christianity, with the resurrection of Jesus Christ being a central belief. Suppose the Buddha never existed — how does that invalidate Buddhist teachings? The Buddha himself said that he was only a teacher who showed the way to freedom from suffering, it is up to us as individuals to follow that path if we want to. Whether a Buddha exists or not, the path to freedom is available.
“3. That the Buddha in fact discovered a way out of suffering – in the Buddhist view all of existence is suffering – so, a way out of existence – & since Buiddhists believe in rebirth – a way out of being reborn.”
It can be confirmed by experience. For example, I can confirm personally that meditation has made me a calmer person. I suffer less as a result.
Also, all of existence is not suffering. This is not a Buddhist view. You are mistaken. Even in the higher meditative states such as Jhana there is bliss. What Buddhism does teach, however, is change and impermanence which is unsatisfactory. Perhaps you need to read more on Buddhism before making sweeping claims that have no basis in fact.
“It does not seem any more effective or factual than the other major religions.”
Do other religions teaching anything like the following:
———-
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor ,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another’s seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.”
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
– The Buddha, Kalama Sutta
Thus, the Buddha provides ten specific sources which should not be used to accept a specific teaching as true, without further verification:
- Oral history
- Traditional
- News sources
- Scriptures or other official texts
- Suppositional reasoning
- Philosophical reasoning
- Common sense
- One’s own opinions
- Authorities or experts
- One’s own teacher
Instead, he says, only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it.
- wiki
———-
Also, all other major religions place a Supreme Creator God at the centre of the religion. Buddhism places the Four Noble Truths at the centre… which your fellow agnostic ‘somewhat disgusted’ has already admitted is intuitive… ie verifiable and able to be understood and experienced in the here and now.
“4. This is another way of saying #3 – but it may be clearer – that Buddha discovered or experienced nirvana & that nirvana is in fact a real thing that exists/that actual humans can experience. Also karma cannot be verified to be real, an item related to nirvana (& we already mentiond rebirth, another related item).”
But the claim of Buddhism is that it can be experienced, not necessarily in a future life but here and now. Karma has explained in various other posts, does make sense. It is directly observable in the physical world.
“5. That following the Eight Fold Path & rest of Buddhism leads to nirvana. Since no one other then the Buddha, some 2500 years ago, reportedly, claimed to have reached or achieved nirvana (outside of religous stories), certainly no one w/ in the last 100 years that I’ve heard of.”
But according to Buddhist teaching, those who have realised Nirvana do not claim to have realised nirvana (the Buddha excepted). They do not claim to be enlightened even if they are. The Buddha himself said that there is no difference between a Buddha and an Arahant (someone who has realised nirvana) except that the Buddha shows the path ‘for the first time.’
“1. Over 2000 years of Buddhism left Sri Lanka a mess, out of which it is barely stating to recover after the 26+ year civil war that was caused in part by Buddhists refusing to recognize equal rights of the Tamil minority.”
Buddhism gave Sri Lanka its Golden Age. It’s pretty reductionist to blame whatever mess there is on Buddhism.
“Buddhism is just another of the many ways that humans have created to attempt to deal with the uncertainties, injustice, & mystery of life. It does not seem any more effective or factual than the other major religions.”
This is just your opinion, it is not intuitive. I think the Four Noble Truths are more factual than a Supreme Creater God living in the heavens, for example.
“- Many people who are raised in Buddhism develop a strong attachment to it – as can be seen by the comments in this thread – and are unable to look outside of it.”
Applicable to you and your beliefs as well….
“- For all its concerns about the suffering of others, etc. – Buddhism is a blood & soil faith – used by the Sinhalese for hundreds of years to maintain territorial control & control over fellow members of the tribe. In this sense, it is no less violent than any of the other religions in this world.”
Actually, the history of Buddhism is far less violent than the history of either Christianity or Islam.
“they will make up heroic figures such as the Buddha & fictional concepts such as karma, rebirth, nirvana ”
You call yourself an agnostic? Righteo. I thought you call yourself an agnostic because you ‘don’t know’ whether something exists or not or is real or not. You seem to have already made up your mind. Guess you missed agnosticism101
Dear Sur,
I asked you a direct question in my last post: You seem to have avoided answering those.
Q1: is it moral and just to think that a newborn baby is “deserving” of his/her kamma?
In addition, based on your current one:
Q2: On what basis, other than belief in the Buddha’s omniscience, do you think this so called “path” will bring you enlightenment? (Don’t tell me meditation. Meditation hasn’t revealed Kamma, Rebirth and Nirvana yet to you have they?)
Q3: On what basis, would you reject the far more plausible explanation, that meditation gives rise to hallucination and therefore some of this stuff could have been entirely imagined? That meditation gives rise to hallucination is clearly established scientific fact, as pointed out by BalangodaMan previously. That human beings achieve omniscience is a hitherto unknown and undemonstrated phenomenon. Nothing in the Buddha’s notions point to any omniscience either – i.e. Say writing down e=mc^2 in 600 BC might have been pretty darn impressive.
“Buddhism places the Four Noble Truths at the centre… which your fellow agnostic ‘somewhat disgusted’ has already admitted is intuitive… ie verifiable and able to be understood and experienced in the here and now.”
Allow me to clarify what it is I find intuitive and my own interpretation, so we don’t cross wires like in the case of Kamma – given that I am increasingly aware that my interpretations are clearly “repackaged western stuff”.
1. Dukha – Yes. We look around and there’s dukha. Pretty mundane observation.
2. Reasons for Dukha – Desire or rather *emotion*. (Is emotion my own interpretation? Because only when I assume desire=emotion does it makes sense to me) Devoid of emotion, there can be no concept called “Dukha”. Again, quite correct.
3. That Dukha can be abolished – Yes. Abolish emotion, and the whole concept ceases to exist. Quite correct.
4. There’s a path to abolish this Dukha – Yes. Perhaps by meditating etc., you can eliminate emotion. Sounds plausible. The noble 8 fold path to eliminate emotion? No, I don’t think that makes sense at all.
Or have I got my entire interpretation bass-ackwards? (Because I do know I tend to read in more than I should into some of this stuff. Give it more credit than in deserves etc.)
Q4: So far, pretty ordinary stuff. Now tell me, how you go from here to Karma, Rebirth and Nirvana?
And that’s the whole point isn’t it? Take some mundane, innocuous, self-evident truths and have fantastic concepts piggybacking on them. This is the exact same technique used in *any* religion. It’s a bit like giving someone medicine isn’t it? Mix it in with a sweet drink and before you know it, you’ve ended up swallowing the whole shebang. Marketing 101 should cure the problem
cheers,
/SD
Reply to Post by Balangoda Man
But the Buddha’s field of study was … what was going on in HIS mind. Not about bonding with other humans in a new-age kind of brotherhood, in a kind of group-huggy sort of way. Most (if not all) of the teachings is totally consistent AND RELEVANT in the context of quiet personal contemplation of whose who have, or desire to, escape from society’s stresses and responsibilities. Where we have a problem is when people try to fit the ‘musings of an ascetic’ to society, and MODERN society at that.
There are 3 views expressed here and I would like to offer my own suggestions on them – based on my own experience as a Buddhist practitioner. We are drinking in the same tavern and you look at my drink and say – good for you but not for me… I walk up to you and sit down and sell you a story and then offer a sip – take a sip man – just try it and see …
wont kill you
1. That Buddha’s contemplation was confined to HIS mind – it is significant that you use capital HIS
2. That he was not advocating universal brotherhood as such
3. That his approach was an escape from society’s stresses and responsibilities
My suggestions
1. Buddha was initially motivated to seek the truth by witnessing the suffering of others – and these were old age and death. He knew that these things would also visit him and wanted to discover how this suffering could be overcome. He realized that every life that was born would experience these things – that old age and death was conditioned by birth. Thus physically there was no way we could avoid these things. But he realized that there was in addition to physical suffering – mental suffering. When probing this he found that the reason for mental suffering was our refusal to accept reality and wanting things to be different. When we fall sick we feel we have ‘lost’ our health because we thought that we ‘had’ and ‘possessed’ good health. When we are robbed of something we suffer thinking – earlier we had this – now we have lost it. This sense of loss is a very basic cause for human suffering. Buddha asked – is there really an owner – of these thoughts and feelings; of these body parts – of these bodily sensations?
He could not find an owner. In Buddhism we do not deny the individuality of the process we know as a human being. We simply deny that there is an individual within the process. Every onion is different but no onion has a core. And he found that the reason for our mental suffering was that we were attached to something we did not in fact own. It was based on a mistaken notion of ownership. When he stopped clinging and let go and threw everything back to nature he was free. No effort was really needed. He needed to stop struggling and stop striving. In his supreme calmness – Samadhi – he saw things as they were – without the blinkers of likes and dislikes and he saw that samsara was a state of delusion. The moment delusion was seen through and discarded samsara became nirvana.
He discovered that there was matter – and he also discovered emptiness – sheer space. And within this space, thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations would appear and disappear. What you and I call a body is just a bundle of sensations to the meditator. What you and I call mind – YOUR mind – MY mind – is just a silent emptiness which registers a variety of thoughts and feelings.
[I see your challenge on emotions – cannot cover it in this post – may be later]
The negative thoughts and feelings he boxed into three main categories – Likes, Dislikes and what he was Indifferent to. By learning these things about ‘his’ mind he also learned by analogy that other human beings were also experiencing the same 3 baskets of defilements or pollutants. Modern psychology accepts wholeheartedly that all human beings learn about others by learning about yourself. The deeper you relate to yourself and your thoughts and feelings the deeper insight you can have as to how others think and feel. Conversely if you don’t access your feelings and have no words to identify and describe them you also don’t relate to the feelings of others. In a sense there was nothing extra-ordinary about his method. He just went a great distance in this direction.
So his contemplation – or scientific observation was confined to his mind – but one of his conclusions was that this mind itself had no owner as such. It was inherently free. Through endless wanderings in samsara it had confined itself to narrow patterns by seeking to own the different physical bodies he had acquired. He obtained freedom by letting go of both body and mind. In other words he dropped the attachment he had for HIS body and HIS mind. Through his exploration he sought the reasons for the suffering minds of all human being and laid out the reasons for suffering. This is why he said – of two things only do I teach – suffering and how to end it.
It is true that he put an end to his own suffering by attaining enlightenment. But this enabled his 45 years teaching and helping mission. He was effective in dealing with the suffering of others – because he had learnt to deal with his own suffering. So this is a lesson for all modern day teachers and helpers. Master yourself before you seek to master others. Help yourself before you seek to help others. Free yourself before you seek to free others. Buddha took no prisoners. He freed people. Does that seem a common sensical and practical way to set about things or does it seem selfish to you?
In today’s context there is no Buddha but his message is clear. And those who commit themselves to the path can teach by example and precept. The solution is always personal. Buddha addressed individuals and sought to help them – whether they were kings or beggars. It is when you turn this way of life into a collective solution – as happened in SL that people become lazy and sit on their bums preaching a whole lot of dhamma without practising a word. So agnostics – my point is this. Mankind has relied on many ideologies – collective solutions which appear to have failed. My suggestion is that no ideology can be effective without the personal commitment – and this cannot be forced or imposed. It has to come voluntarily from within. And there is no need to label a good deed. It is simply a good deed. Same goes for truth. The most important thing is not to be a good Buddhist or Christian or Muslim or Agnostic or what have you. It is to be a good human being. Every good man of religion uses a professional approach to become a good human being. That is it.
2. Buddha walked his talk – he walked hundreds and thousands of miles in Northern India – he worked tirelessly through 45 years to help those who could be helped. He knew that people were at different levels of intelligence so he worked at different ways of teaching. It is compassion that makes one a good communicator or teacher. His whole ministry was a monumental act of compassion. The sangha itself was the brotherhood he founded – the company of good and wise friends who would support each other in their search for truth. The meaning of sangha is not confined to the ordained but interpreted broadly includes all committed seekers of truth.
Once two Brahmin youth came to him and asked how they could get close to their God the Brahma. Now Buddha wanted to help them and he taught them the four divine abodes – metta, karuna, muditha and upekkha the sublime states of the heart that must be cultivated to be a friend to both one self and the rest of the world. Please note the fact that Buddha thought it not necessary to wean these two youth away from Brahmanism but showed them a way to get closer to ‘their God’. He was not interested in promoting Buddhism as such. He was a pragmatic helper as well.
3. Being a friend to yourself – having a relationship with yourself – being comfortable in your own company without seeking distractions – How many people can do this in a world full of ‘body killing weapons and mind killing distractions?’ this is the foundation for a good heart – being truly happy and content with your own company. This is an important part of our basic training. In fact this is how some people benefit from long stays in the prison – they emerge stronger than before. (PS – don’t tell this to the powers that be because they will devise other methods of punishment.) The basic advise on meditation given at Nillambe is as follows –
“A deep listening, with kindness and sensitivity, to our body, heart and mind. This attitude is then extended naturally to those around us. When awareness flows freely between self and others, unobstructed by artificial distinctions, we will not discriminate between ‘our hunger’ and ‘your hunger’ and ‘our feelings’ and ‘your feelings.’
This is the way we escape – and we escape to reality – not to a world constructed on neurotic thoughts and ideas but to what we see as the actual world sans certain ideas and concepts which only serve to increase our dissatisfaction – for example ‘justice’. What crimes have been committed in the long history of mankind in the name of justice? Who brought this concept and for what purpose? Was it the kings or their priests who taught people to see them as the founts of justice? And then finally the Europeans after killing each other in frenzied blood baths in 2 world wars discovered ‘human rights’ and now they go around the third world and tell us how to respect human rights. Buddhism gave no rights and it did not speak of justice – only of causes and consequences and the need for us to observe this without the aid of ideas foisted on us by rulers. Buddhism gave concrete ideas to people on how they should go to the source – the mind – and how they should tame the mind and then train it – with love and acceptance and not with self hatred. Now this escape that you speak of is therefore a search for sanity leaving the insanity of the neurotic mind behind.
I see the discussion between agnostics and believers as useful. It is a clash between the agnostics head and the hearts of believers – a necessary clash to deepen our faith in what is right and true. Although Buddha advocated freedom we must understand that people are at different evolutionary stages spiritually. Buddhists in Sri Lanka are not all trying to set up a Sinhala Buddhist state. How many votes did the JHU get?
There is no point trying to run Buddhism down to run down political Buddhists – make your target narrow and then take aim. Recreate tradition and re-interpret it – don’t reject it.
Good one SD on piggy backing on ordinary things and turning them into concepts – well in religion a concept is a tool – you use it and put it aside – Buddha himself said – use the raft (dhamma) to cross the river – but don’t carry the raft around after crossing – got to let go of everything – even attachment to Buddhist concepts – that is freedom – and a lot of people fear that kind of freedom – the fact that Buddha was not killed by some fanatic should by itself show his level of smartness and that he knew how to move in what you call the real world … and Dalai lama and Thich Nhat hanh are showing this today. I would definitely add Gandhi – non violence – old wine in new bottles – so this is the potential – and that is what we must embrace together….
Sujeewa reminds me so much of Ivan in Brothers Karamazov – I like the following propositions he set out
1. All human knowledge, being human knowledge, is accessible to, & is a part of, the intellectual & creative inheritance of all & every single human
2. Thus, an agnostic or a secularist is not separated by all aspects of human knowledge that is labeled Buddhism or Christianity, etc. Any useful items from those sets of ideas can be used by an agnostic as necessary.
Keep challenging Sinhala Buddhists but do it out of compassion – and take your challenge up one more level by challenging the Buddhists to get closer to real Buddhism – perhaps that is where you want them to go?
Dear Sujewa,
This is my statement (May 17, 2010 @ 10:34 pm)
However you BRAG about belonging to a Highly Pious Buddhist family. Apparently you have not learnt ANYTHING about Buddhism from them.
This is your reaction (May 18, 2010 @ 12:01 am)
“And then there is some stuff about belonging to a highly pious family??? Do feel free to point out when I said that. ”
What was your INTENT in asking that question so BOLDLY?
Your question and the subsequent challenge “asking me to to quote you” was intended to expose what you thought was dishonesty on my part.
As it turned out, you were the Dishonest Guy
Well I took up your challenge and wrote about the Temple Construction (Contracts?) and what did you do?
Just as I assumed, you did not have the BALLS to say that I was wrong.
The cockiness with which you asked me to quote you just died when you saw that I REALY Knew what I was writing about. It did not sound good huh?
The Roaring Lion became a Squeaking Mouse.
Well well Big Mouth, this is the “when and where” you bragged about your Pious Family. Have a good look and next time THINK before you leap.
March 8, 2010 @ 1:33 am
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/27/living-secular-in-the-%E2%80%98sinhala-buddhist-republic%E2%80%99-of-sri-lanka/#comment-15370
The people on this thread or for that matter ANY thread on GV, cannot be Scripted and Directed by half baked nit wits.
Your Dishonesty is compounded by a Bad Memory, poor Language Comprehension and a suspect logic. Hence In future Keep your Dishonest Challenges to YOURSELF. It sure DOESN’T SOUND GOOD when you cant follow through with them.
Dear BalangodaMan;
Have you heard of “Brahmadand”? I have imposed that on you.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa,
“so misspelled words occur, & other writing/fast typing mistakes occur. Only a fool who is losing an argument re: a religious matter would try to score points by criticizing ‘net comments writing mistakes of others”
Trying to water down your Intellectual Dishonesty?
I am not talking of “bad spelling or grammar” all those things are excusable and are ignored. What is not excusable is INTENTIONALLY confusing a chair for a table just because both have four legs.
No mater how you try to mitigate your current NUDITY it will not happen as your Dishonesty has been laid bare for all to see. The more you try to cover up the more you wallow in it.
That is the type of thing that is akin to the proverbial Dog and what it did on the stone.
Let us see what shallow explanation that you come up with this time, as I have now met your challenge by showing you the post where you Bragged about your Pious family.
That’s when you tried to show the GV readership that you never bragged and that I made it up. Unfortunately for you, your own post is showing the middle finger to you.
Did you wonder why your colleagues have not come to your rescue this time as they did earlier?
OTC is still demonstrating his foolishness after I pointed out the temple building facts that he wanted me to point out.
OTC, since you want it spelled out simply & cannot gather the information for yourself, you are WRONG when you said I was lying about my family’s involvement in temple building, see my original reply comment above for the details: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/#comment-19090
On top of that, you are a fake/political Buddhist, who refuses to see what is plain – that Buddhism is a religion, with speculative items, and not some universal/undisputed truth of any great relevance to non-believers.
On top of that, since you like to call people’s bravery & cowardice into question, I’ll point out (once again) that you are a coward who hides behind a fake name during this discussion & insults people – easy to do when you cannot be held accountabel, isn’t it Fake Buddhist Coward?
Debating/discussing anything with you is a waste of time, however, to keep your paranoia & lying (promoting something that is speculative as truth) in check, I am glad to point out your false commitment to Buddhism and your inability to grasp facts – over, & over, & over – as long as necessary.
::
A basic & common strategy used by the believers (specially OTC, Yapa, Wijayapala) is to claim their opponent is dishonest, lying, etc. – since they know that K,R,N cannot be proven as real items & they fear that clearly admitting so will weaken the personal power (or the feel of it) they gain by claiming to be supporters/protectors/whatever of SL Buddhism.
These are desparate strategies of political/fake Buddhists who are trying to hold on to a vision of self-importance by laying claim to universal human ideas as their sole property (by attaching some pali words to it), & who claim speculative items are real – in order to fool people who are not as inquisitive as the agnostics here & gather power & other earthly good from those that they (the fake believers) are able to trick. Also, they use their so called “protection of Buddhism” argument to minimize the horrendous crimes commited against the Tamils by the Sinhalese (this of course is in no way an excuse for the horrendous (sp?) crimes commited by the LTTE against everyone else).
All the more reason why fair minded agnostics & other non-believers (& maybe even fair minded believers) need to take a close look at SL Buddhism in all its many manifestations (some good, some obviously evil – by juding from the writings of OTC, etc.). It’s reform time baby
::
And now, expect another rage filled diversionary comment from The Foolish Coward OTC – or TFCOTC, as he is now known.
::
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
“I won’t bash it unless it’s silly.”
Very rarely.
Thanks!
Hey Foolish Coward OTC (FCOTC)/Fake Buddhist #2,
All of the following that you pointed to, from an earlier post of mine, is true:
“I do know a lot of Sri Lankans who are Buddhist (my entire family pretty much – in the US, SL, & elsewhere – 100s of people). Was one myself – from birth (in SL, I moved out of the country at 12) to until about 16 – 18 or so – and I still read a lot & discuss Buddhism & am still in touch with temples & monks (though I am no longer a believer/practitioner – not down with bowing down to statues & monks & thinking only along the lines prescribed by Buddhism -, I appreciate the positive elements/the positve roles Buddhism & monks have played in the lives of Sri Lankans & specifically family members over the past several hundred years). So, as an aspect of both my & general human cultural heritage & history – I appreciate Buddhism (and, since we are breaking out Buddhism cred here, let me say that both of my grandfathers built & supported Buddhist temples in SL, & my dad & I helped build one here in the US – though that was mostly my dad, I was just a teenager helping out a little, and at present I indirectly support Buddhist institutions in the SL – a tiny bit – via $s sent to family members who use some of it to support temples, etc., & sometimes direcly here in the US via donations). However (here goes) there are some problems with SL Buddhism (here’s a brief list):”
Now that that diversionary tactic is dealth with, let’s ask a few questions:
- didn’t you already admit that you could not prove that karma, reincarnation, nirvana is real? So, I guess that’s your answer – you don’t like being asked uncomfortable questions, ones that expose the fake Buddhist/political Buddhist character of your life & commitment. You are opposed to any questions about Buddhism because it will personally weaken (in your opinion) your power & claims for greatness in this world.
Anyway, get used to lots more people asking the same questions that I am asking. Seeing the depth of your hatred & commitment to evil (lying, attempting to portray questions as something destructive, etc.) I am encouraged to re-double my efforts to get more & more people to question the grand claims made by SL Buddhism.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Sure does to me. As fake SL Buddhists are unable to reconcile the speculative nature of Buddhism with the 100% belief that fake Buddhists like you require of others in order to control them slowly withers away, I am sure we will see more & more of your true face – the evil, twisted, corrupted mind that wants a free ride in life (w/ out achieving anything on your own) by hiding behind an old religion.
- S
Dear Wijayapala,
“The Congress party of India intentionally adopted secularism to avoid antagonising the Muslim minority during the independence struggle. This did not prevent Pakistan from splitting away from India in 1947.”
I like the word “antagonising”; so, secularism means that it should be acceptable to all! A secular constitution is fundamental to diverse and multi-faith countries like India and Sri Lanka. After the partition, India could have moved towards a Hindu based nation thus driving out rest of the Muslim across the border; they didn’t; India stood firm even when BJP enjoyed popular support among the Hindus grassroots.
“The Secular Constitution of India also did not stop about 3,000 Sikhs from being murdered in communal riots in 1984, nor the subsequent Punjab insurgency that lasted for almost a decade.”
I take your point; it is very clear that a Secular Constitution alone cannot suffice; it should be the basis of evolution towards a modern dynamic institution that galvanises all under a common identity. The killing of 3000 Sikhs is more to do with the 3rd world mob mentality. 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 in UK did not bring about such mop behaviours. I for one believe that we can correct this in Sri Lanka far quicker than in India.
“Nor has India’s Secular Constitution prevented the rise of a Christian fundamentalist insurgency in Nagaland.”
Again, India is keep improving their governance; I learn from my Indian colleagues; all minority grievances are referred to panels of retired judges; all recommendations are implemented; their democracy is getting stronger and stronger; one has to recognise that! On the other hand, if India had chosen to promote a Hindu theme, India would have erupted in turmoil long while back!
“I agree that the conflicts back then were primarily between kings and not ethnic groups, but this does not mean that there weren’t any ethnic elements in these wars.”
Well; my point is that, ethnic disharmony did not cause these battles; Tamils fought on the Sinhala side and likewise Sinhalese fought on the other side.
“The Mahavamsa has often been labeled as an ethno-centric Sinhala Buddhist text for its negative portrayal of Tamils. My understanding of the text- and others here are free to correct me if I’m wrong- is that the negative language of Tamils comes up only in the parts where Sri Lanka is invaded from S. India. Unfortunately this language in the Mahavamsa led many Sinhalese to believe that MODERN Tamils were invaders, which was a falsehood. Prabakaran contributed to this perception by adopting the Chola Tiger, and not a Sri Lankan Tamil icon like Jaffna Nandi or Batticaloa fish, as his symbol.”
The Mahavamsa was written not by one person but by many at different times; this is my understanding. I have never read Mahavamsa in full; I have read bits and pieces; I am not in any position to comment on it. However, one cannot take this as absolute truth as the document reflects the Monks views and not necessarily the general views/perceptions existed at that time. I agree with you about the Tiger flag and Prabhakara; his intention was to separate the Tamils from the Sinhala and create Eelam; The Sinhalese must not view the Tamil population on this basis.
“The problem with the first UNP governments is that they never implemented Sinhala or Tamil as government languages. These elite continued to use English to exclude 90% of the population”
So, do you agree that, “90%” includes all communities?
“If you think that the Soulbury Constitution was wrong for Sri Lanka, as well as GG Ponnambalam’s 50-50 idea, then what sort of system should have been implemented instead?”
I never said that the Soulbury Constitution was wrong for Sri Lanka; I was merely pointing out that, the Sinhala did not have to go over board as the power was with the majority. The Constitution was a good starting point; it should have improved upon including the marginalised while strengthening the democracy like the Indians are doing.
Dear Wijeyapala,
Great Humour.
I could not help laughing
re your post at
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/comment-page-9/#comment-19067
Dear Readers:
A simple question: how does the Universe operate according to the principle of karma? One cannot speak of karma except by way of passing some kind of value-judgment . On the other hand, value-judgments are 100% human constructs. . You can hit a tree 100 times with your fist, but the tree will never respond. In simple terms, the Universe does not operate according to any value-judgment – the Universe does not have any sense of right or wrong. In fact, the conclusion of science is that the Universe only tends towards disorder.
Now, what about rebirth? Mr. Yapa has described how rebirth is made possible via a stream of consciousness… a dying person passes his thoughts on to the embryo of another living object, at the moment of death. But Mr. Yapa has neglected a crucial point: that higher or lower forms of rebirth are possible. On the other hand, the form of rebirth is based on the amount of karma that one has acquired…. which would imply that the Universe is passing a value-judgment, in choosing which form to pick. Which would imply, in short, that the Universe has a sense of right and wrong – which it does not!
P.S: Please note how the refutation of the karma argument also refutes rebirth. You knock over one, the others fall like dominoes. : )
Dear BalangodaMan,
“I still do not know how the doer ( the person committing bad karma) is connected with the sufferer (the person born at another time) under Buddhism. I have searched the net for this – no joy”
Pertinent question
I would like to refer you to my post May 19, 2010 @ 1:33 am addressed to SomewhatDisgusted in response to the same question by him.
“… if karma is promoted for its value as a deterrent will this brand of explanation actual deter anyone from doing bad things? ”
Karma is not a “Judicial System” to mete out punishment.
No one sits in Judgement.
No one metes out Punishment
“Glad you asked. You see, we were only maybe 6-10 years old. But we were able to deduce this …”
Some students add 1+1 and arrive at 2
Others add 1+1 and arrive at 3 or something other than 2
That’s also the order of things
Let’s clean this show up a bit, for a general audience.
OTC & the other believers are probably not fake believers, perhaps merely misguided in my opinion. Anyway, neither agnosticism/freethought/positive activism or Buddhism or SL is served by turning this thread into an insult war.
So, from this point on, I will address any quetion or comment related to the core subjects of the article & related subjects (nature of Buddhism, speculative items in Buddhism, any reforms necessary in SL/related to Buddhism, etc.)
I’ve seen some recent – & well thought out comments above from some of the new posters – will address them soon, now that I am done with trading insults with angry believers.
Anyway, things have not gone well in SL since 1948, all significant elements of SL life needs to be carefully re-examined & improved/changed (and Buddhism plays a major role in the life of SL) for the better whrere necessary. As long as this is done starting at this general point in time (while the peace holds), we may be able to avoid another 60 some years of poverty, underdevelopment, war, unrest, & man-made misery of all kinds (most of our troubles are made by us, in my opinion, since i do not recognize karma as a real thing). So, as long as that stuff is happening, I am not too worried about being called names by anonymous people on the web, etc.
Alright, on with the new positivity – negative & irrelevant comments will be ignored.
Be back soon.
- S
Dear Burning_Issue,
“But one thing is clear that, it was not the Tamils who excluded the Sinhala; it was the British! “
Absolutely True.
It is also true that the Tamils were the instrument that the British used to carry out that exclusion. The Generals directed the soldiers and the soldiers executed the directions. The soldiers were Tamil. Who would you think the victims would start to hate more?
Pre Independence Government Bureaucracy had a Tamil majority.
Post independence was a continuation of that.
Retiring age of a public servant was 55 years. Hence this imbalance did continue after independence. It would continue for decades though the Government was democratically elected.
The following Government Departments had a majority of Tamil officers
Inland Revenue
Post and Telecom
Immigration
Customs
Electrical Dept
Justice
Railways
(that are some that I can remember there may be others. please correct me if I am wrong)
The Majority employer was the Govt. and a Govt job was sought after. A Govt job ensured a successful marriage as even a govt clerk was sought after by parents of prospective brides.
There were some Dept Heads that actively favoured Tamils during recruitment. The deprivation of govt jobs did not help the Tamil community as the Sinhalese who were victimised during British rule continued to receive similar treatment after independence.
Ignoring these while enhancing the reaction to it won’t help in creating a singular Sri Lankan Identity. I beleive that this is something that Yapa tries to emphasize.
Tamils are Sri Lankans. They should have equal rights as any other citizen. This includes the upcountry Tamils. Not only Tamils but all other communities should have equal rights.
The Sinhalese are the majority in SL. It is a fact of life and the Sinhalese can’t be blamed for it. The Buddhist form the majority amongst the Sinhalese, that is also a fact of life and the Buddhists can’t be blamed for it either.
Dear BalangodaMan,
“Do you think all, or a significantly large proportion, of highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people around the world (not born into a Buddhist society) accept the speculative items contained in Buddhism (karma, rebirth, nirvana) as real things in the world? And if not why not?’
There are a large number of intellectuals in the Christian West. There are as many in the Moslem world. Both these communities overwhelmingly believe in a Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and loving Creator God. Such beliefs has an overwhelming number of absurdities within yet these highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people still prefer to believe in those Religions.
So what is the point that you are trying to make?
Dear Readers:
To add further to my last remarks:
Karma, if it were true, would imply there was a sense of order in the Universe, albeit an order based on pre-determined pre-defined notions of morality . In other words, karma can only work if you define “good” and “bad” in advance, before the “act” to which you apply a karma judgment actually occurs. Objectively speaking, I would ask the following questions: how many laws of the Universe, how much of the behavior of nature, can we say falls under the domain of morality? The answer is zero. Morality is entirely a human construct. Humans have not existed during most of the age of the Universe. So clearly the Universe does not need morality to sustain itself. But without morality, as I pointed out in the last post, karma does not make sense.
OTC,
The subject we’re exploring is whether things that were said by religious leaders 2,000+ years ago is believable and applicable in the 21st century.
You are questioning the validity of what someone (ie. Sujewa – who is not even claiming to be super human) said last week!
Ironic, innit?
We can’t believe what the news media says in today’s papers. How can we believe what people wrote 100s of years after what people said many 1,000s of years ago?
RR,
“Whereas the Buddhist perspective is of course that they deserve nothing less than complete freedom from suffering.”
Would you say the same to convicted prisoners serving sentences for horrendous crimes? How are you differentiating between a human born into misfortune and this prisoner on death row perhaps?
Is it the degree of crime?
Is it because the crime (sin) was perpetrated in some other time, in some other place, by some other person?
Is it because there is no transparency in this justice system?
Is it because we are assuming that (how?) this person has already been punished in the criminal justice system in the previous birth?
How? Why?
Or is this also one those questions we are told not to ask?
OTC, Mr Yapa.
Clairvoyants and Mediums
————————–
Just as rebirth is a popular belief, so is a belief in the ‘spirit world’. Many people around the world seek Mediums to contact their dear departed relatives. The Mediums appear to make contact and pass messages.
Some of these cases have detail and authenticity as STRONG as the cases the Believes have raised in their study of research into reincarnation.
Now, the Buddha you say differentiated ‘rebirth’ from ‘reincarnation’ as a sort of ‘transmigration without a cosmic ID’ – I understand that to mean, there is no person (nothing) between someone dying and him being reborn. Right?
If that is the case then how come these Mediums contact the spirits of dead people, on live TV to boot, with live audiences?
Another curious thought. How come these Mediums do not contact a living person on the basis that he is the reborn of the dead relative?
(I’m not endorsing the practices of Clairvoyants and Mediums, but it IS as popular around the world as God, reincarnation etc. And, from this evidence, one cannot dismiss the spirit world and at the same time say that reincarnation evidence is conclusive)
Ordinary Lankan,
RE: this comment & the entire post that it came from:
“Keep challenging Sinhala Buddhists but do it out of compassion – and take your challenge up one more level by challenging the Buddhists to get closer to real Buddhism – perhaps that is where you want them to go?”
A lot of good ideas in that post.
Yes, if the positive aspects of Buddhism were actually practiced by a significant number of Sri Lankans prior to ’48 & then ’48 on the State may have been able to (or could have been made to) sympathize with the Tamils & thus develop a just solution to the needs (then) of both the Sinhalese and the Tamils. It is primarily this failure – the failure of the Sinhalese to translate positive ideas that are contained in Buddhism; such as (according to the Buddhism i was taught) anti-race/anti-racist stance, the amazing potential of each individual, etc. – that made me realize that Buddhism is just another set of human ideas – people can be born into it, can be surrounded by it all day, but if they (the ideas) are not properly interperted & applied – then the results may be a long civil war, poverty, etc. So, obviously the way Buddhism is practiced by a majority of the Sinhalese, or even if it is practiced properly (in a useful to all way), that alone is not enough for successfully tackling the problems of a post-colonial, economically under developed, non-industrial/industrializing country. Thus, a positive agnostic approach to all systems & bodies of knowledge – as in – take a close look at all grand claims & see if they are true before adopting them to a given situation – is necessary, in my opinion. Buddhism is obviously not the only path for personal & national happiness & success in this world. There are many other paths – such as the basic one of identifying problems that need to be solved, taking a look at all possible best ways for solving the problems, & then finally trying a few out & using the best method (regardless of where – Western, Eastern, etc. & from whom – Tamils, Japanese, the British, etc. – the idea came from) – that could lead to an improved quality of life in SL & the diaspora. One of the obstacles to such a utilitarian apporach is the notion expressed by some hard core believers of Buddhism in SL: that the Buddhist path is the best path for SL, & to try any other would be treasonous, etc. type argument. Any fair reader of world history can see that the Sinhala Buddhists have not been great at turning Sri Lanka into a nice place to live for all who are born there or all who want to live there. So, what’s the solution – perhaps a secular government in practice & building up of secular institutions so that non-Sinhala Buddhists can contribute easily to SL & also feel like first class citizens, & such institutions can develop a common Sri Lankan identity outside of the left-over Sinhala or Tamil tribal identities. There is one area of life where this agnosticism towards methods/not immediately commiting to one path because it is familiar, etc., is readily accept (acknowledged or not, it is accepted in practice) – & that’s in the militaries. If you look around, all militaries – whether they are the SL military or the Chinese or the Iranian or the US – want the best weapons & the best – proven in practice methods – for their soldiers – since war is a life or death thing. There is no “these weapons are western thus we can’t or we shouldn’t use them” attitude in the modern militaries. So, people are able to grasp the concept of “useful ideas regardless of where they originate from” in some instances – this is the kind of approach I want to promote for all other areas of life where problems need to be solved. So, approaching the development of Sri Lanka w/ a Buddhism first attitude, in my opinion, is not wise. Primiarily because SL Buddhism is not the repository of all useful human knowledge – there is no one body of knowledge that has that. However, SL Buddhism – the positive interpertation of it – can produce ethically aware & open, intellectually fearless, individuals who can tell the difference between a good thing and an evil thing, regardless of the packaging (nationalistic or pleasing to a sense of historical identity or a sense of tribal or racial loyalty, etc.) that the thing comes in. The best thing that religions can do, in my opinion, is to universalize individuals – meaning – that the individual is taught to identify as much with the common humanity that he shares with all humans past, present, & future just as he or she natually identifies with the local identity that they are given (individual name, immediate family or community membership, etc.). So, yeah, there are lots of good ideas in Buddhism, but when Buddhism is used as a tool of national organization, those ideas get lost – thus – a secular approach to national organization & keeping religions separate as a powerful aid for individuals to live meaningful & useful lives (for those who need religions). At the core of my own evolving Positive Human (that’s my term for my personal brand of agnosticism, which some here think is not agnosticism at all
world view are the positive aspects of SL Buddhism and the ways in which they differ from the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in SL – which was one of the first things that I learned about the giganctic gap between theory (Buddhism) & practice (how the Sinhalese majority could not create a peaceful, inclusive, fast developing country that supports each individual regardless of group identity after independence in SL).
- S
Sur,
“It can be confirmed by experience. For example, I can confirm personally that meditation has made me a calmer person. I suffer less as a result.”
Hey man, I can confirm that too, in my own experience. But unlike you and the Buddha, and thanks to the huge amount of scientific research into the phenomenon, we now know how and why it works. (BTW I recommend it to all).
I have a challenge for you but unfortunately it will not work!
The challenge is, next time you self-hypnotise (meditation is self-hypnosis – now tell me that’s not true!) when you are in deep trance, spend 10 mins on the idea that Buddhism is total fabrication, total lies. Do that regularly for a week or two. And Lo! your subconscious mind will now be re-programmed into that ‘truth’. I say ‘truth’ because NOW you have installed a new belief, having replaced the old one. (there are specific techniques to replace useless limiting beliefs with new empowering ones, while you are in the hypnotic/meditative trance. You can find these on the net).
Now, here is why it will not work. Your strong conviction in Buddhism will not allow yourself to go into hypnotic trance if it is to dismantle an ‘unfounded believe in Buddhism’. (though you will if it is to enhance your conviction).
When in a hypnotic trance – or indeed any time we are in an intensely emotional state – our subconscious mind is open to installing all kinds of new stuff, altering old stuff. This is why intense religious experiences take devotees further into their conviction/beliefs.
Sur, if you want to test this I’m sure you now how to install something that has nothing to do with Buddhism. See if it works. You said it makes you calmer. Absolutely – that’s an example of it working. That’s because you install calmness when in trance. If you install turmoil, despair, fear, stress while in trance that will be the result, and you will need lots of professional hypnosis to reverse that. So self-hypnosis can be dangerous if this is not properly understood.
This is why (and I feel horrified that this must be happening among meditating Buddhists) it is not a good idea at all to harbour the notion that ‘life is a bitch’ and all that First Noble Truth stuff when meditating! You will sink deeper and deeper into depression. Ask any practitioner in hypnotism.
Meditation was practised before Buddha’s time. Practitioners knew the powerful effect of it. If you see stage hypnotism today you see how incredibly powerful it is! Just imagine it used 2,500 years ago???? Even now in the 21st century people who know this stuff use it in everyday business life to influence people subliminally who are unaware of it. But now we know how it works – whereas in ancient times it was thought to be some mystical thing.
So, as I said before, it is not safe to accept that past life regression is genuine recollection of a past life, or future life as the case may be. The subject (including the Buddha) WANTS TO experience a past life which is why he is going into the process of hypnosis/meditation in the first place. BTW no one can be hypnotised without their co-operation, a strong desire to belief in the outcome helps.
Other such ancient mysteries now solved
—————————–
Just like meditation/hypnosis – we now know why it works (Milton Ericson) …
The star of Bethlehem. Now thought to be either (1) Halley’s Comet or (2) a rare occurrence of some of the larger planets being close together in the sky at that time.
The Turin Shroud – revered for centuries. Now carbon dating shows it as a 14th century fake.
Dambulla water flowing upstream – what is the explanation for this? Anybody?
For all of human history we thought the different races (white people, chinese people, aboriginies, Sinhala, Tamil) evolved independently. Only in the past 25 years we know every kind of human came out of Africa just 80,000 years ago in two groups near Somalia across the Red Sea – as the same people, black.
(And I see in the news today that the present torrential rain in Colombo is attributed to the gods’ disappointment at the war that ended a year ago, or the subsequent treatment of Mr Fonseka or something like that)
So, in conclusion – (Sur) I know meditation is great for introspective exploration. But should anyone else believe what you find within your mind? With your personal experience how much reliance would you place on the Buddha’s (or anybody’s) claim on omniscience following meditation?
(I saw on live TV a famous politician say under hypnosis that he is a duck and he quacked to prove it too. He took part for a charitable cause BTW).
Dear Off the Cuff;
You say;
[Let us see what shallow explanation that you come up with this time, as I have now met your challenge by showing you the post where you Bragged about your Pious family.]
Can you remember I was telling, this forum is a “market place” for him? He has many cheap things to sell here. His blogs, movies, his identity, his image, his family……..and what not. May be these people think that they get knowledge and intelligence power and authority though the merits their parents have done or said to have done. Or they think they come in inheritance, to comment and criticize anything and everything without any hesitation. It is a fortunate that these self loving swollen headed babies are out of our country, Soon, SomewhatDisgusted will wake up with “ticks” all over his body.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
“this forum is a “market place” for him? He has many cheap things to sell here. His blogs, movies, his identity, his image, his family……..and what not.”
You have hit the nail right on the Head
I did notice it.
He is using GV to drive traffic to his own blogs and advertise his merchandise.
Hi Burning_Issue,
Ugghh, did you see Sujewa E’s last post?? It was like one long neverending stream of diarrhea mess being dumped all over poor Ordinary Lankan! Was Sujewa so busy unloading that he forgot to divide his thoughts into paragraphs???
“After the partition, India could have moved towards a Hindu based nation thus driving out rest of the Muslim across the border; they didn’t; India stood firm even when BJP enjoyed popular support among the Hindus grassroots.”
Perhaps at the national level. But what about the state level where Hindu-Muslim strife continued (Babri Mosque etc)?
“The killing of 3000 Sikhs is more to do with the 3rd world mob mentality.”
I disagree; the anti-Tamil riots in SL and anti-Sikh riots in India had one key thing in common: neither of them were spontaneous episodes of violence. Both were orchestrated by the governments in power (UNP and Congress respectively). It is not a “mob mentality” that is so pernicious but rather the relative power that politicians wield in these societies. They intentionally keep countries backward so that the people will be dependent on them.
“So, do you agree that, “90%” includes all communities?”
Well, obviously not the English-speakers!
“I never said that the Soulbury Constitution was wrong for Sri Lanka; I was merely pointing out that, the Sinhala did not have to go over board as the power was with the majority.”
Sounds good, but my point was that the Sinhalese did not have such a wonderful alternative. The choice literally was between 1) English-speaking UNP elitists utterly disconnected with the country and 2) English-speaking elitist but communalist SWRD who at least gave lip service to the language issue. If you were an average Sinhala, which one would you have voted for?
Today interestingly enough the Sinhala voter can choose only between 1) Don Juan Ranil utterly disconnected with the country and 2) King Mahinda VII (#6 had lived in the year 1187 CE). I forgot to mention ex-Field Marshal-turned-deck swab Sarath Fonseka who got the Tamil vote even though he said Sri Lanka is a Sinhala country. Is it any wonder that the last election turnout was so low?
Yapa,
“Can you remember I was telling, this forum is a “market place” for him?”
More like a “latrine!” Didn’t you see Sujewa’s last “steam-of-consciousness” post above???
Ordinary Lankan must have accumulated some really bad kamma in a previous life to have all that strewn all over him, but contrary to what SD thinks I feel very terrible for OL and wish that I could alleviate his suffering from having to sift through all that stinking mess.
Dear BalangodaMan,
You say “The challenge is, next time you self-hypnotise (meditation is self-hypnosis – now tell me that’s not true!) “
I have already conveyed that three days ago (my post of May 17, 2010 @ 4:59 pm)
You claimed you are a practitioner.
I asked you how you escaped from getting “Self Hypnotized”
No answer yet
But Three days later you keep repeating it. Why?
Dear Burning_Issue
You say (A). If I had given you an impression that I am bias in criticisms, that is incorrect. I am as much critical about Tamil nationalism as about the Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. I tell you this; the Tamils will have to live with the brutal realities of Suicide bombings; the Muslims will be a constant reminder to Tamils of their barbaric removal from the North. Moreover, the Tamils in the North in particular have lost their sense of community and general order; this will take years to regain.
(B). I don’t say your bias is in your criticisms. It is the common bias “lived/live comfortably in most of the Tamil” with the help of unfair world order that helps the popular notions. That bias is advantageous to Tamils and they cling in to that notion, for advantages in the expense of the other communities of this country. However, this popular and false sympathy appealing notion has been defeated by the people of this country after a long and costly battle.
(A). I also think that, you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka; your notion that if the Tamils had had assimilated into the Sinhala way, everything would have been fine;
(B). I recognize the real Tamil history, not the false and fabricated history of this country by the greedy educated Tamils of This country, not the sort that the original inhabitants are Tamils and Sinhalese robbed it from the ..etc.. etc… which were propagated all over the world by Tamils through all available channels. I believe, Tamils came to Sri Lanka, several centuries after the Sinhalese built the civilization here. I pointed out this truth in another forum citing the research of a Tamil academic, Karthikesu Indrapala and others.
I have never invited Tamils to assimilate into Sinhalese, what I said was though they do so in other countries, there behaviour in Sri Lanka is different. It is a fact. That fact does not belong to me to interpret it the way you want and to bash me. I really value the unique colour that could be added to the rainbow colours of Sri Lanka, but many times the colour is used to discolour the other colours. That is sad and pathetic.
(A). Which point is incorrect; is it the Tamil assimilated into the Sinhala way or you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka? The Assimilation point is clear; you clearly said that in one of your earlier posts; so, it’s about Tamil history, right? Again, I will wait until further development on those 7 questions.
(B). Tamil history the way presented by most of the Tamils is bias.
(A). Which of the following are true, partially true, and not true:
1. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that is inherently Sri Lankan
2. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history.
3. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions
(B). (1). is not very true, Tamils have always connections and undue support from Tamilnadu than other communities in Sri Lanka, They never wanted to be Sri Lankan and only Sri Lankan.
With the unethical and unwarranted powers of the population of over 60 million Tamils of Taminnadu Sri Lankan Tamils have been pressurizing Sri Lanka from the very inception. Considering the support from Tamilnadu and the Imperialists, if we consider the true parameters of ‘majority”, its the Tamils Tamils holding the “majority position” in Sri Lanka. They have the more bargaining/pressurizing power especially in a global scenario. As a player Tamils had/still have more power in Sri Lanka than Sinhahalese. False educated like Somewhat Disgusted identify majority only by the numbers and the words (terms to name them). They have not grasped or never will be able to grasp the true nature of this due to their gobbled nuts of western theories, they used to worship in great faith.
(2). Not always. I think I should not supply with you examples.
(3). Reality you know very well. Just tap your heart and see.
(A).On the third point, I disagree with you; please show with evidence that, there were ethnic elements in battles.
(B). I cannot convince you this by evidence, as I said earlier, please tap your heart and ask form your heart when it is in a point of unbias. It will tell you the true story.
(A).The fact was that there were elite communities in both communities and they did very well under the colonial periods. However, the fundamental deference between the Sinhala and Tamil communities was that, the Tamils took advantage of the Christian schools and put a lot of emphasis on education.
This is not to say that there weren’t any objections to Christian dominance in terms of schools. The Hindu organisations countered this with establishment of Hindu school; e.g. Jaffna Hindu College and Manipay Hindu College. However, the end result was that proportion of the educated Tamils increased. I have no knowledge of how the communities measured in terms educational achievements on those days. It might have been that British adopted the divide and rule policy and purposely and excluded the Sinhala masses; I do not know. But one thing is clear that, it was not the Tamils who excluded the Sinhala; it was the British!
(B).Elite community answer, you brought here is to justify the unjustifiable advantages received by Tamils from British Imperialists. Sinhalese elite who got undue advantages compared to Tamil elite, were negligible. There were boot lickers and still there are in all the communities. They betrayed and betray the country for leftovers. Fundamental difference is not what you say. Fundamental difference is Sinhalese were deprived of education and the Tamils were turned them to be loyal servants of Imperialist providing them with privileges, which were barred to Sinhalese, who refused to become paid servants of their own land. That made the Tamils more educated than Sinhalese and subsequently, Tamils demand even the right for rule the country, after the colonials leave. The behavior and the Politics of the Tamils were that much corrupted in this country, but many who are afraid of western political theories, that would brand them as “chauvinists” or some other humiliating name calling praised the Tamil politics uttering the slogans found in the western political theories. These Sri Lankan nitwits still have not realized we had and have a very profound philosophy that could provide every guide lines to this country. They utter the words learnt from western masters as parrots. As I have been frequently telling these people are not even parrots, just lifeless tape recorders that play the tunes of their western masters when their buttons are pushed. They know nothing about his country, but know everything about the toilet of the scavenger of the City of New York in the Great USA.
You are talking about building up of Hindu college etc… In Jaffna to counter the unjust. Then why didn’t you fight against the biggest injustice done to Sinhalese. Yours is a cunning attempt to interpret another selfish venture of yours (Building Hindu colleges) to your advantages. If you were genuine you could have build Sinhala Buddhist schools instead.
Saying your ignorance about the measurement of education and bla, bla.. you are even betraying now who provided you all the privilege.” Vehera gilla yakata aggalavath kajjakda”? We even don’t have to think about Sinhalese. As a community Tamils proved this in Sri Lanka.
Ignorance is a good excuse too.
(A). So, in order to counter the Sinhala Subjugation by the British, the Sinhala needed to subjugate the minorities; is this your position? If Nelson Mandela had adopted this logic, what would have happened to the Whites in South Africa; one wonders!
(B). The result of the subjugation of British was the polarization of the country into privileged Tamil minority and subjugated Sinhalese majority. Tell me the way to equality and equity, without touching the Tamil privileges, are you telling to make a cake keeping the egg in the refrigerator?
(A). The 50-50 demand was nonsense from G.G Ponnampalam though it was 50% for Sinhala and 50% for all the minorities. However, it was demanded during independence debate; subsequently, all parties settled on the 1948 constitution as a basis for taking the country forward. D.S. Senanayake along with other Sinhala leaders assured the Tamil leaders that the minorities would come to no harm! In fact the opposite happened; do you agree?
(B). It really was not a nonsense. It was a carefully crafted strategy along with the requirements and interests of the imperialists. Imperialists captured the countries all over the world murdered, tortured the natives of those countries and forcibly captured everything belongs to the “Native Men” of those countries. You really know the pathetic situation of the Natives in America, Canada and Australia.. Now they are slaves in their own countries. What could “Modern, Profound political theories like “Democracy, Liberalism, Neo- Liberalism could to towards these “merciful right losers-Natives? They preach “God created all the men with equal rights” and all the natives in those countries as ours as well utter the same thing and hail long live her majesty queen. Broom should be taken to thrash these educated idiots.
Same tragedy that has happened to Canadian, American and Australian Natives would have happened to Sinhalese if we didn’t fight back at the right rime. In this long battle to regain our rights, Sinhala Only Act and Standardization of A/L marks are too progressive steps for justice in my opinion.
(A). Come On Mr. Yapa; this is pathetic; the electoral system rested power with the majority; the minority communities were at the mercy of the majority community; we all know what happened since! Yes, there were Tamils in that administration; what is your point?
(B). Point? Point to say that Tamils got due or more than due share in that administration too.
(A). Please correct my partial analysis; please outline the events that constitute violence on the part of the Tamils before 1974.
(B). This is laughing stock! Except physical violence, they meant a lot of other tactical violence to the majority. Those things everybody knows.
Also, since independence, what lapses that the Tamils responsible for? Was it that they failed to assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way? Please outline!
Thanks!
Addition……
(A). Also, since independence, what lapses that the Tamils responsible for? Was it that they failed to assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way? Please outline!
(B). Not at all. I think the answer is included in my previous answers.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“You really know the pathetic situation of the Natives in America, Canada and Australia.. Now they are slaves in their own countries. What could “Modern, Profound political theories like “Democracy, Liberalism, Neo- Liberalism could to towards these “merciful right losers-Natives? They preach “God created all the men with equal rights” and all the natives in those countries as ours as well utter the same thing and hail long live her majesty queen. Broom should be taken to thrash these educated idiots.”
(Mr Yapa. You know, they use blinkers on horses in horse racing.)
In SL we have natives too. Are their rights any different? How many Veddas in parliament? in entertainment? Would you let your daughter marry one? My observation is that the western culture in the Americas (both North and South) and Australia project the indigenous natives of those countries with much more respect and inclusion than we do of the Veddas in SL. Come on, what about Tonto? He is the Lone Ranger’s good friend. What about the great Central American heritage that is preserved and displayed for the world to admire? There are many well known Australians of aboriginal descent or mixture (Evonne Goolagong Cawley and others). Where have we Sinhalese given prominence to the Indigenous Native Sri Lankans? Have we protected worship of their gods? Have we protected and do we celebrate their language? Their customs? How many Buddhist national holidays are their compared with those originating from the Vedda heritage?
As BalangodaMan I have a particular interest in this!
I remember Mr Yapa an exchange with Sujewa where you claimed that nothing important happens in the island of Lanka before the arrival of the (mythical) modern Sri Lankans.
Did you know that, the island of SL sits in a great historically significant position on the planet as far as humans are concerned? When homo sapiens first left Africa 80,000 years ago (no humans lived anywhere else in the world before that) a strand of them – by some amazing streak of adventure (which included crossing 175 km of shark infested ocean to Oz) – reached Australia within some 5,000 years. The route they took was along the coastline, which is from Somalia, along the Middle Eastern southern coastline to India, down to where SL is and up to Bangaladesh. They settled right along this route, so in all probability some would have settle in Lanka also. That was 75,000 years ago. (in fact, the Native Americans of North America did not get there until after the last Ice Age about 17,500 years ago and Central America shortly afterwards).
So, Mr Yapa, our Native Lankans are even more important in the Story of Humans on Earth than the Native Americans – but can you name even one for celebration? Even a fictional character?
Blinkers are great, but let’s confine them to horses, shall we?
OTC,
“There are a large number of intellectuals in the Christian West. There are as many in the Moslem world. Both these communities overwhelmingly believe in a Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and loving Creator God. Such beliefs has an overwhelming number of absurdities within yet these highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people still prefer to believe in those Religions.
So what is the point that you are trying to make?”
The point is easy.
(First, these intelligent people are not all Chirstians and Muslims. It is the insular SL mentality that if someone is not Buddhist he must be Christian or Muslim or Hindu. But that is irrelevent to the argument)
If intelligent people exist (surely they do) then they would also conclude, as you do, that on the available evidence Buddhism is the absolute truth (as you do). But they do not.
This has only these alternative reasons.
(1) they are not convinced (based on the available evidence)
or (2) they are wrapped up in their own religious brainwashing to consider an alternative view (as you point out)
or (3) there are no intelligent people on Earth other than the Buddhists.
My commentary:
if (1) that concurs with the Agnostics
if (2) that is the same scenario as the Buddhist Believers
if (3) oh well!
Hope that’s clearer. Happy to join the dots for you.
MEDITATION
————-
Oh gosh! If you do not understand meditation then we are in real trouble – because the whole of Buddha’s significance in history and knowledge stems from a result of meditation.
As I said, I recommend it to all. But we need to be clear about what it is.
In answer to your comment, meditation (self-hypnosis) is something you do for say 20 mins. During that experience you ‘install’ positive conditioning (eg. confidence, stop-smoking etc). When you ‘awake’ those things you install in your subconscious mind drive your ‘conditioned responses’ in everyday activities. For example, compassion meditation is where you install the conditioning that your enemies are actually your friends. That changes your attitude and behaviour towards people who normally you would react to as enemies, with your own hostility. (you can of course just go into a self-hypnosis trance and enjoy the calmness for itself. That is good also. Clears your mind).
So, in answer to your question, you do not ‘escape from being self-hypnotised’. You just wake up (by counting down) and you carry on but much envigorated mentally, calmer, alert, happy, amiable.
Your desire to dismiss this as fluff shows that you do not really take Buddhism seriously at all
Pity.
Dear Sujewa, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan and others,
I said (May 17, 2010 @ 10:34 pm)
“However you BRAG about belonging to a Highly Pious Buddhist family. Apparently you have not learnt ANYTHING about Buddhism from them.”
Sujewa said (May 18, 2010 @ 12:01 am)
“And then there is some stuff about belonging to a highly pious family??? Do feel free to point out when I said that. ”
If you can understand what you wrote yourself Sujewa the above means that YOU are asking ME to show where YOU bragged about your PIOUS family.
I provided unimpeachable proof with YOU as the WITNESS in my post of May 19, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
Sujewa says (May 19, 2010 @ 11:17 pm)
“OTC is still demonstrating his foolishness after I pointed out the temple building facts that he wanted me to point out.”
This guy has gone absolutely MAD. He cant even remember that he asked the question. SomewhatDisgusted and BalangodaMan please help him before he goes beyond help.
You have seen a LIVE demonstration of the principle of Kamma (Premeditated Action) and Vipaka (Result).
Sujewa I did not ask you to point out ANYTHING about your family I stated it. You asked me to prove what I stated. I did that and now you have gone off your rocker completely and is getting muddied all over. You are undressing in full view of the GV readership
From 18 May to 19 May within a space of less than 24 hours Sujewa has lost ALL memory of his Challenge to me.
Within 48 hours he tries to Dishonestly accuse me of asking him a question that he himself asked me
Within 48 Hours he has demonstrated to the GV readership that He cannot understand what he himself writes in English
Within 24 hours he has lost his self extolled COOL temperament and has started throwing smoke and flames. The Flame throwing Dragon within Sujewa has finally come out, permanently destroying his false Rationalist / Agnostic façade.
Sujewa, you have done an excellent job of proving my assessment of your character beyond the SLIGHTEST doubt. I rest my case.
Please seek help from your Pious Family.
Dear BalangodaMan,
I have been following the posts on this thread (and the previous Akon Thread) for some time now. I noted that on a number of occasions you have described meditation as ‘self-hypnosis’, and was wondering where in the Buddha’s teachings on meditation you came to this view. You give the example of Loving-Kindness meditation (Compassion meditation) as a form of self-hypnosis, but this is just a tool the Buddha provided for people to overcome fear and aversion. The Buddha never taught that Loving-kindness meditation alone is the path to enlightenment.
My understanding is that meditation in the Theravada Buddhist tradition is for developing awareness (Sati) so that one can sees the characteristics of worldly phenomena – i.e. that they are impermanent and therefore cannot be depended upon (anicca) and because they cannot be depended on, they are unsatisfactory (dukkha) and finally that the entity we identify with as ‘I’/'myself’ is ultimately entirely composed of these impermanent and unsatisfactory phenomena, and the identification with self is an illusion (anatta). By developing one’s mental acuity such that these properties of anicca, dukkha and anatta are seen in wordly things, desire for these things is eliminated and contentment becomes the abiding state of being.
So, could you please clarify your reasons for describing Buddhist meditation as a form of self-hypnosis?
Thank you.
OTC,
You have a problem that you sadly cannot see for yourself. But we can.
Let me explain.
Sujewa described his background. That’s good. It helps to understand where a contributor to a debate is coming from.
(It is a good thing that both Sujewa, SomewhatDisgusted and I come from a Buddhist background, otherwise this debate will have degenerated into a right royal holy war by now).
Your comment does not sound like … ‘ok Sujewa, I acknowledge you are from a Buddhist family background and so I am happy to get into a discussion with you because I can see that you are free from a ‘Buddhist-bashing-Christian’ agenda’.
That would be a healthy (and Buddhist) attitude.
Instead your words are spiked with venom! (Much like Mr Yapa at times) The use of the word ‘pious’ reads to me like sarcasm. It’s almost as if you feel aggrieved and annoyed that Sujewa’s family made any contribution to Buddhist heritage. WTF?
(I can tell you that my family’s contribution to Buddhist things is limited to feeding the monks on the mistaken belief that that action is guaranteed to benefit some dead relative – a dubious sales message propagated by the monks themselves)
Your failure to acknowledge the work of Sujewa’s family runs close to your choice to ignore the contribution the British rulers made to our cherished Buddhist heritage by cleaning up our cultural treasures in Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa when we the Sinhalese (Buddhists?) could not give a flying-f hoot about it – for 800 years and a further 70 years or so after their discovery in the jungles. Instead you mock them. (OTC, let me ask, is that premeditated or accidental mocking? will it count as bad karma?)
After spending more than a month on this thread (and its prequel, the Akon thread) I can make up my own mind as to which of us have been positively helped by Buddhist ways.
(it looks like Sur is the only Buddhist practitioner here who has come anywhere close to meditation. For that I salute him)
OTC, this is a discussion about ideas. Not about the participants.
Dear Arosha Bandara,
“So, could you please clarify your reasons for describing Buddhist meditation as a form of self-hypnosis?”
Yes, sure.
Please try and see this from outside the ‘Buddhist perspective’.
REACHING THE SUBCONSCIOUS MIND
————————————
There are many mysteries over the millennia that had great impact as our ancestors saw them that were interpreted as ‘mystical’ or having some ‘religious’ significance. Thunder and lightning was one. Nowadays we have a better understanding of what causes thunder.
The workings of, even the existence of, the *subconscious mind* was not known about until the last century. Now we understand it quite well – at least well enough to use that understanding to invoke conditions in subjects at will, including ourselves. There are huge industries today that apply what we know (what scientists have discovered) about reaching the subconscious mind of people.
The self-hypnosis phenomenon explains a whole bunch of ancient mysteries – from the effectiveness of prayer (effectiveness = how the person praying is helped) to what happens when you practice meditation (to claims of being posessed by the devil, or having a spiritual awakening).
To follow this up, you can do two things. (1) Look up Milton Ericson who pioneered the study into this, and present day well known writers on Neurosciences. (2) apply it yourself and see/compare the result.
You will see that the benefit of meditation is not from it being a religious experience – instead it is from ‘programming or re-programming the subconscious mind’. However, what you actually choose to ‘fix’ when in trance may be part of your chosen agenda, and this may have a religious purpose (including a religious purpose others may have for you, unfortunately!).
Happy to share more of my experience if you like, and hear of other people’s.
OTC,
RE: May 20, 2010 @ 2:41 pm post of yours & related posts;
There are two basic methods (& multiple variations of the same) that you & Yapa & Wijayapala use to defened Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana as real aspects of this world, & to attempt to prevent close scrutiny of those aspects by non-believers:
1 – State that those items are real, & when pressed for proof, state that they cannot be proven using available means, & then continue to act under the belief that those items are real.
2 – Attempt to discredit the non-believers through unrelated accussations, & attempt to either stop the conversation entirely or derail it by insulting people & calling them dishonest, & fixating on minutia & attempting to prove an inconsistency in trivial matters posted by the commenters.
Also, the believer position is one of extreme arrogance – that you & SL Buddhism know all the great human knowledge in the world & the rest are ignorant, & that your side alone has the proper & accurate understanding of Sri Lankan & world history.
So, if we take away all the insult wars – often or probably always started by the believers, & diversionary tactics (a long drawn out conversation re: accupuncture, quantum physics, etc.), we have the following:
1. The believers are unable to demonstrate that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this world.
2. THe non-believers recognize this.
3. Related positive conversations have started; re: secularization of Sri Lanka, useful interpertations of Buddhism, analysis of meditation, etc.
So, that’s where things stand. Go ahead & spit venom & display your dissatisfaction in yourself & the fact that non-believers are discussing Buddhism. When you get done with all that, re-read the thread, you may be able to learn some valuable & useful things.
And, when insults are hurled at me, I may respond, but I hope to do so in a positive manner, as opposed to mirroring the exact ways in which I was insulted, which calls for an escalation of the insult war (as seen in my previous comment, after setting out the new positive approach to this discussion/debate, & then I had to respond to Yapa’s comment to you which contained negative words about me).
On to more important things.
Gald to see at least a couple of useful conversations being conducted by SomewhatD & others & also B-man & others.
- S
Dear Balangoda Man,
What is the basis for saying that the existence or understanding of the subconscious mind was not known until the last century? I can agree that meditation is about re-programming the mind – although, as you know, Buddhists call this training the mind rather than re-programming. If meditation was widely practiced during (and before) the Buddha’s time and the Buddha described techniques such as Metta meditation in order to overcome fear of spirits/demons (Background to the Metta Sutta), then surely there was a good understanding of the subconscious mind even back then?
Thanks for pointing me towards the reading material – I was interested to read about Milton Erickson’s use of metaphor to induce behavioural change in his subjects. Has interesting parallels with the use of metaphors and simile in Buddhist scripture.
In the context of this thread I would consider myself closer to the believers than the agnostics, in that my experiences give me more reasons to be confident about the Buddha’s teaching than be sceptical. However, at the same time I am not a supporter of the view that Sri Lanka should “give to Buddhism the foremost place” (as stated in article 9 of the constitution). Whilst commentators such as Wijayapala have argued that without such a clause Buddhism would have disappeared from Sri Lanka, I don’t buy that – history records that Buddhism virtually disappeared from Sri Lanka several times before (see Buddhism in Sri Lanka) but was re-established. On the other hand, the codification of the pre-eminence of Buddhism in Sri Lanka into the constitution has created a culture of superiority amongst Sinhalese Buddhists that has done more harm than good.
Thank you.
Dear Off the Cuff
“It is also true that the Tamils were the instrument that the British used to carry out that exclusion. The Generals directed the soldiers and the soldiers executed the directions. The soldiers were Tamil. Who would you think the victims would start to hate more?”
I accept that it would have been natural for the Sinhala to view the Tamils in that light given that the Tamils were numerous in public services. Did the British favour the Tamils as a result of their divide-and-rule policy, or there were proportionally a lot more educated Tamils available for selection? Whatever the case, the end result was that there were more Tamils in state employment, I accept.
If you were to reverse the positions of the Sinhala and Tamils, the Sinhala would have done exactly the same; do you agree? I also agree that it was correct for then governments to adopt measures rectifying such situations. However, I do not believe that Sinhala only was the answer and the way in which it was brought about. Positive discriminations, at times, are necessary in order to strike balance; however, such measures are sensitive and should have been formulated through consultations with affected parties. Clear objectives of such exercises should have been debated with boundaries and timescales. In the absence of these, do you agree that, the Tamils viewed them with great suspicions?
“There were some Dept Heads that actively favoured Tamils during recruitment. The deprivation of govt jobs did not help the Tamil community as the Sinhalese who were victimised during British rule continued to receive similar treatment after independence.”
I agree that nepotism and favouritisms are bad practices; such practices needed to be stopped; however, don’t you think that the situation has reversed now in favour of the Sinhala? Is this correct?
“Ignoring these while enhancing the reaction to it won’t help in creating a singular Sri Lankan Identity. I beleive that this is something that Yapa tries to emphasize.”
I am afraid that, Yapa claims that, the Sinhala came to Sri Lanka first thus assuming ownership; he expects others to assimilate into the Sinhala society.
“Tamils are Sri Lankans. They should have equal rights as any other citizen. This includes the upcountry Tamils. Not only Tamils but all other communities should have equal rights.”
This is not the reality one witnesses on the ground!
“The Sinhalese are the majority in SL. It is a fact of life and the Sinhalese can’t be blamed for it. The Buddhist form the majority amongst the Sinhalese, that is also a fact of life and the Buddhists can’t be blamed for it either.”
There is no question that the majority community should not be blamed for being the majority! However, the point is that, the majority should be responsible; all minorities are at the mercy of the majority, and ill-treating them would not reflect well on the part of majority and the majority religion, Buddhism. The Tamil speaking people do have genuine concerns in terms of their language, security, and governance; they should be meaningfully addressed.
Dear Wijayapala,
“Perhaps at the national level. But what about the state level where Hindu-Muslim strife continued (Babri Mosque etc)?”
I agree that in some states friction is higher than others e.g. Gujarat; however, in Hyderabad where a big Muslim community lives, there seems to be harmony. One needs to accept that the challenges that India faces is mammoth one; their foundation is strong and the democracy is improving year-by-year. A county like Sri Lanka needs to take a leaf out of their experience objectively.
“I disagree; the anti-Tamil riots in SL and anti-Sikh riots in India had one key thing in common: neither of them were spontaneous episodes of violence. Both were orchestrated by the governments in power (UNP and Congress respectively). It is not a “mob mentality” that is so pernicious but rather the relative power that politicians wield in these societies. They intentionally keep countries backward so that the people will be dependent on them.”
I agree that there were degrees of state orchestration; however, in the absence of “mob Mentality” people could not have been mobilised in such a scale. In Britain, there is BNP, they circulate inflammatory materials, organise events, and targeted protests but the society does not reciprocate despite being sympathetic to national sentiments! I agree that, the politicians could have done a lot more by way of progress in countries like India and Sri Lanka.
“Sounds good, but my point was that the Sinhalese did not have such a wonderful alternative. The choice literally was between 1) English-speaking UNP elitists utterly disconnected with the country and 2) English-speaking elitist but communalist SWRD who at least gave lip service to the language issue. If you were an average Sinhala, which one would you have voted for?”
I accept your point.
“Today interestingly enough the Sinhala voter can choose only between 1) Don Juan Ranil utterly disconnected with the country and 2) King Mahinda VII (#6 had lived in the year 1187 CE). I forgot to mention ex-Field Marshal-turned-deck swab Sarath Fonseka who got the Tamil vote even though he said Sri Lanka is a Sinhala country. Is it any wonder that the last election turnout was so low?”
Just imagine the predicament of the minorities!
Dear Arosha Bandara,
“However, at the same time I am not a supporter of the view that Sri Lanka should “give to Buddhism the foremost place” (as stated in article 9 of the constitution).”
A very good contribution; you are a close to the believers’ camp, yet you recognise the importance of separating the state from religion. This has been my point; secularism cuts across all spectrums. If one is a believer does not mean that one is anti-secularism!
Dear Yapa,
Please explain to me as to what Prof. J.B. Dissanayake meant by the following:
Prof. J. B. Dissanayake in his book ‘Understanding the Sinhalese’ at page 118 states:
“….Sinhala occupies a unique position among the languages of South Asia because of its close affinity, with two of the major linguistic families of the Indian sub continent Indo-Aryan and Dravidian…’ From this, one can conclude that Sinhala in written form could have been made by one or many, who knew both Dravidian and Aryan language. Thus early Dravidian Buddhist priests were scholars in Tamil, Pali and Sanskrit, to make Sinhala in spoken and written form possible.”
You said:
“I believe, Tamils came to Sri Lanka, several centuries after the Sinhalese built the civilization here. I pointed out this truth in another forum citing the research of a Tamil academic, Karthikesu Indrapala and others.”
So, given that the Tamil language had influenced the Sinhala language to such an extent; your statement that the Tamils arrived in Sri Lanka several years after Sinhala established their civilisation; this means that you established your civilisation with a half-baked language or some sort! It does not add up does it?
Was the civilisation established before the Buddhism arrived in Sri Lanka or after?
Please give me the source of Indrapala reference; is it his 1960s thesis, or the one he published a couple of years back?
Dear Arosha Bandara,
Yes, I have no problem with introspective exploration of oneself/mind as the Buddha taught. The problem is when some of our compatriots try to fit his useful teachings into a different context for various political and divisive reasons, quite contrary to what the Buddha was all about.
On meditation, yes of course the ancient Eastern mystics practised it thousands of years ago, even before the time of the Buddha. Whilst they knew how to use it effectively I don’t think they had the means (or the desire!) to conduct scientific experiments to test it to destruction, to ‘take it apart’ so to speak.
This I think is why Milton Ericson is considered the pioneer in this field in scientific research.
You may know the popular ‘entertainment’ today of past-life regression is invoked through the same method – hypnosis. So today we know it is common for a subject under hypnosis to have visions of past or future lives (if that is the purpose of the hypnosis session), and through our present understanding of the mechanism (ie. the power of suggestion) we are familiar with the outcome. In ancient times, however, they did not have this scientific knowledge so the people in those days had no reason to doubt that a past live was actually being seen.
In the late 1960s the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi famously introduced Transcendental Meditation to the West, as a mystical/divine phenomenon, even though understanding of hypnotic experiences was well known amongst the scientific community for decades. People in the hippie culture took to TM as a fashion – a mystical mind-altering experience that they perhaps could not separate from LSD! However it was Richard Bandler and Richard Grinder who took Ericson’s research further and turned it into an accessible and popular self-improvement process in the 1970s (NLP). I only became acquainted with meditation after studying these guys and becoming fascinated with its results.
To address your question, I don’t know whether the Buddha actually claimed to have seen past lives or whether his followers embellished his messages (as is common in any kind of worship). My point is, if the Buddha did see past lives while in a meditative trance then that is no different to the past-life regression people experience now all the time, which is explained scientifically as ‘suggestion’ while under hypnosis.
Having said that, I believe that through meditation the people in SL can replace the bad programming they have inadvertently received during the turmoil of the past 30 years with good positive programming (and the childhood brainwashing we spoke of earlier). I feel compulsory detox is in order for the entire nation! (starting with Mr Yapa, a good place to start!)
Dear Arosha ,
Sorry, a few spelling mistakes in my post.
It is Milton H. Erickson.
And John Grinder and Richard Bandler (often confused). NLP.
Hi Arosha Bandara,
“Whilst commentators such as Wijayapala have argued that without such a clause Buddhism would have disappeared from Sri Lanka, I don’t buy that – history records that Buddhism virtually disappeared from Sri Lanka several times before (see Buddhism in Sri Lanka) but was re-established.”
I don’t believe I argued that Buddhism would disappear simply for not being protected by the constitution; if I had really said that then I was mistaken. I argued that any regime that did not formally take the obligation of protecting Buddhism (i.e. having that clause in the constitution) would not be considered legitimate by most Sinhala Buddhists, or rather that it would be considered less legitimate than a regime that did take that obligation.
My liberal buddies believe that secularism and federalism will magically transform Sri Lanka into some sort of tolerant and advanced civilization, whereas I believe that it will produce an extremely fragile state that would easily be toppled by a strongman, whether a Wijeweera or a Prabakaran, if it is imposed without the people’s consent.
Again, if the majority of the population democratically votes to have a completely secular constitution with no religion “protected,” then I would concede victory to the secags. I admit that I could be entirely wrong about my assumptions of what the majority wants.
Thank you for providing the link on Buddhist history. It does not say that Buddhism disappeared but rather declined at various times- **virtually all of them associated with the breakdown of the ancient/medieval Sri Lankan state**. Sometimes these low periods were associated with S. Indian invasions, as my racist brethren like Nalin de Silva like to point out, but often there were Sinhala kings who liked to pillage temples or persecute monks. On the other hand there were S. Indian kings like Keerthi Sri Rajasinghe who helped restore Buddhism.
“On the other hand, the codification of the pre-eminence of Buddhism in Sri Lanka into the constitution has created a culture of superiority amongst Sinhalese Buddhists that has done more harm than good.”
Is this constitution the CAUSE or a SYMPTOM of this “culture of superiority?” And is it a culture of superiority or culture of insecurity?
Wijayapala,
RE:
“My liberal buddies believe that secularism and federalism will magically transform Sri Lanka into some sort of tolerant and advanced civilization, whereas I believe that it will produce an extremely fragile state that would easily be toppled by a strongman, whether a Wijeweera or a Prabakaran, if it is imposed without the people’s consent.”
Imposing anything without the people’s consent – specially any major changes – is a bad idea, I don’t see any agnostic here arguing otherwise. There are no magical transformations when it comes to changing countries. It is a long & experimental process, with progress happening in inches not miles at a time. However, there are already dozens of successful secular democracies around – where populations in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious contry can access govenment/govern themselves according to secular/non-religious concetps accepted by all parties. Also, just as Christianity was a source for the secular laws in the West, Buddhism can be a source for secular laws & practices in SL. Secularization or allowing room for non-believers or secularizing the government is not a massive change – or it does not have to be – it is a matter where religious considerations from one religion are secondary to the overall well being of the country. I am sure there are or there will be many details to work out. Secularization is neither a guarantor of evil or good, just as theocracies are neither a guarantor of evil or good (in theocracies, lately, evil seems to flourish, however). But what a secular government & accetance of non-believers will provide for SL is a basis for developing a common SL identity, a path out of the two major options – Tamil or Sinhala (two groups that have been at war with each other in SL for centuries). Also a secular gov, if functioning well, may be able to assist each indivdual go after their positive goals in SL, to move past the group based politics that are the norm there now .
In practice many Sinhalese may already be secular – or are only culturally Buddhist – do not deeply believe in the teachings, prohibitions, etc. However, when it comes to intergrating the Tamils & others into mainstream SL the government’s preference for Buddhism may be a significant stumbling block. Of course all depends on how people interpert things & proceed – it is possible to have a well intergated country even w/ an official religon – but, given the history of SL – how the Sinhalese & the Tamils have not been able to make things work in the past (largely due to the Sinhala Buddhist influence on the gov, in my opinion), having a secular government could help.
There is also another major obstacle to tackle – that is the Lankan’s belief in race theory. All humans world wide being the same type of animal, there is no significant or racial difference between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. In fact, if you took a so-called “Tamil” child at birth to a so-called “Sinhala” family & the child was raised under “Sinhala” customs, language, etc. – people will not be able to tell that the child was born to “Tamil” parents when the child grows up. Or, language & customs & religons are superficial things, under which everyone is just human. Of course race theory used the minor differences to divide & rule people. Just as religon is an ancient form of social control, so is the European concept of race that was introduced to SL during the British era. Race, just like religion, is fiction – actually, even more fictional than religon. A secular government or a secular movement in Sri Lanka could be useful in permanently dismantling race theory in SL.
As far as SL being taken over by a militant strong-man type, highly doubtful. We see how both the JVP & the LTTE failed to take over or alter the state via violent revolution. The Sri Lankans seem to prefer elected governments,& are willing to sacrifice to keep militants from coming to power – which is a very good thing.
- S
Hi Burning_Issue,
““….Sinhala occupies a unique position among the languages of South Asia because of its close affinity, with two of the major linguistic families of the Indian sub continent Indo-Aryan and Dravidian…’ From this, one can conclude that Sinhala in written form could have been made by one or many, who knew both Dravidian and Aryan language.”
Sinhala is not unique in this sense; you could say the same about Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, and even to a lesser extent Tamil itself. I read somewhere that even Sanskrit has a Dravidian substratum! So just like our genetics our language purity is non-existent (although I would still characterize Sinhala as Indo-Aryan and Tamil, Telugu etc as Dravidian).
What does Disanayake mean by “written form”- the language itself or the script? Both Sinhala and Tamil scripts ultimately derive from Brahmi the Asokan script.
“So, given that the Tamil language had influenced the Sinhala language to such an extent; your statement that the Tamils arrived in Sri Lanka several years after Sinhala established their civilisation; this means that you established your civilisation with a half-baked language or some sort!”
No- the main influence of Tamil has been loanwords. It is the same as arguing that Sinhala was half-baked before the influence of English!
On the topic of Indrapala, the title of his book was “Tamils in Sri Lanka 300 BCE to 1200 CE.” 300 BCE is roughly when “Sinhala civilization” started, based on 1) the first Sinhala inscriptions and 2) arrival of Buddhism, both influences from the Mauryan Empire. If you want to claim that Sinhala civilization was “half-baked” before these two things, I probably would agree with you although yapa and oddly enough Schizo Sujewa might disagree.
Anyway, this would show that Tamil and Sinhala history in SL began around the same time- an argument that even the Mahavamsa itself would support (although based on the Vijaya legend). However, this would be a history of an intertwined civilization, not two discrete “nations.”
This is my last point – and I truly believe – the main point.
Tiruvalluvar said:
“It is easy for anyone to talk
But hard to act thereon”
It is doubly easy to talk when there is no question of action involved. And there is a great volume of this kind of talk in our discourse.
I would suggest – with respect – that believers should think THEY are the problem and work actively at becoming better believers.
Likewise agnostics should think they are the problem and work at becoming better agnostics.
This way our discussion will bear fruit some day. If not it will simply be a wasted effort.
When we stop learning at a deep personal level – when we hold on to our current knowledge as absolute truth – then we stop growing and we stagnate.
This is the first precept of the order of interbeing of Ven Thich Nhat Hanh – the LION’S ROAR – being always positive and open and having nothing to defend. This makes a person very fearless – this knowledge that you really have no ground to defend.
The Asokan symbol of 4 lions facing the four directions is a symbol of fearlessness in this sense. When you realize the truth of selflessness and live accordingly life choices are easy and the way of non violence is natural. It’s no big deal.
Dear BalangodaMan,
“You are questioning the validity of what someone (ie. Sujewa – who is not even claiming to be super human) said last week!” your post May 20, 2010 @ 3:39 am
The validity that I question is the methods you want used for Dissecting Buddhism. If you make a statement you should be prepared to either uphold that statement if true or admit your mistakes if it is not true. In that sense ALL of us are responsible to prove the VALIDITY of our statements, especially because this forum is not a discussion in the privacy of your Parlour but a discussion on a Public Forum.
Please let us know how a discussion can be conducted without questioning the validity of what is said by those involved in the discussion? Do we allow any BS to go unchallenged? Is that what you want? I see you question “Validity” all the time.
Please refer to the exact statements where I question “Validity” as without that you cannot expect an appropriate reply.
“We can’t believe what the news media says in today’s papers. How can we believe what people wrote 100s of years after what people said many 1,000s of years ago?”
Yes we can’t believe the news media but how does that effect truth in general?
Buddhism does not ask you to believe anything not even the Buddha’s word.
Rather, you are invited to critically examine what is stated and filter what you can see as the truth and except that.
Hence does your question make any sense?
Dear Wijayapala,
Thank you for your considered response. Some further observations / comments from me are provided below:
(1) On the point of the survival of Buddhism and the link to the constitution:
I think at some point you said the “angry buddhists” (meaning Buddhists who are willing do whatever is needed, including violent action, to protect Buddhism) were a significant reason why Buddhism survived in Sri Lanka. The constitutional clause seems to legitimise this ‘angry Buddhist’ mentality since actions to ‘protect’ buddhism can be justified as being done to uphold the constitutionally stated pre-eminence of Buddhism.
Your point about legitimacy of a government being tied to this clause is well made, but is based on the assumption that the citizens of Sri Lanka (and you can’t limit this to Sinhala Buddhists) want Buddhism to be given higher status than other religions. However, a group of researchers did a study of people’s attitudes to a range of options considered by the APRC (see Sri Lanka Peace Poll) including the issue of religious equality and the status of Buddhism. The following is an excerpt from the above referenced report in relation to these two issues (from Page 14, Table 9)
Q: Constitutional reform should give equal status to all religious groups:
A: Essential or Desirable – 80%; Unacceptable – 5%
Q: Constitutional reform should give a special status to Buddhism
A: Essential or Desirable – 52%; Unacceptable – 10%
To me the above result suggests that the vast majority of people want all religions to be treated equally. I would also argue that the 52% who want Buddhism to have a special status are making such a judgement on faulty information. Specifically that they are being frightened into saying this by politicians and a section of the Buddhist clergy who have more interest in worldly power than spiritual development. In the maha-paranibbana sutta, the Buddha describes factors that will ensure the welfare of the Sangha, amongst which are that:
“The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they cultivate the seven factors of enlightenment, that is: mindfulness, investigation into phenomena, energy, bliss, tranquillity, concentration, and equanimity. So long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to welfare endure among the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline”
In other words, the protection of Buddhism depends on practicing the teachings, not through constitutional clauses.
(2) I don’t think it is correct to say that history shows that Buddhism in Sri Lanka merely declined in the past. The article I referenced earlier makes it clear that when Vijayabaahu I took the throne there weren’t even the required 5 monks to perform the ordination ceremony for new monks. To me this suggests the situation was more serious than simply a decline, rather given there were fewer than 5 people in the whole island who had detailed knowledge of the teachings and experience of its practice. The same thing happened prior to Vimala Dharmasuriya I and Kirthi Sri Rajasinghe. My point is that Buddhism in Sri Lanka should not be considered to be special – it doesn’t have an unbroken history in the country and it has been re-introduced several times from Burma and Thailand.
(3) Finally, on the point of cultures of superiority vs. insecurity: the two are closely linked, and it is probably better to say that insecurity has lead to the superiority complex. Whichever it is, I hope you will agree that the effect on Sri Lanka has been detrimental!
Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.
Thank you.
For those interested
http://www.buddhistethics.org/17-2010/JBE-Murphy.pdf
a Review of the Making of Buddhist Modernism – -
[This is another world - there is an enormous gap between our buddhism and modern buddhism as developed in several progressive centres - Thailand - India, homeless Tibetans and Vietnamese, Japanese Zen and their western collaborators - Sri Lanka is connected - but it is a small and very active underground waterway that will emerge when ready - ]
first para pasted
Meditation, compassion, tolerance; spirituality, freedom, rationality: why do these nouns characterize modern Buddhism? Why not temple worship, ancestral cult, or ritual propitiation? How do the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, or Chögyam Trungpa incorporate “strategic occiden-talism” into open-minded versions of Buddhism compatible with scien-tific rationalism, feminism, democracy, ethics, agnosticism, and liberal Christianity? How do Tibetan, Zen, and vipassana “insight” schools of practice adapt for Westernizing markets, whether in Asia, America, or Europe? McMahan mixes theory with examples to explain how both West and East interpret dharma for modern audiences—schooled in ab-stract thought, raised with consumer capitalism, and participants in glo-balizing media.
To add to Arosha’s statement to Wijayapala,
“(2) I don’t think it is correct to say that history shows that Buddhism in Sri Lanka merely declined in the past.”
Wijayapala,
The point you are making is that there wasn’t ‘total wipe-out’ of Buddhism over the centuries. Of course that is correct – in that the ruins/evidence of our ancient Buddhist culture still lay in the jungles, intact though covered in muck.
The point we are making is, as far as the people who lived in SL were concerned for many centuries Buddhism did not exist in SL in any meaningful way for them – UNTIL its revival in the 1880s.
In our generation, we were taught that the HUGE extent of Buddhism we see around us (temples, monks in cities, Buddhist flags, political Buddhism, competition with other religions particularly Christianity, pirith, Poya days, Wesak, pirith chanting and sermons on TV etc – HUGE) ‘existed’ in Sri Lanka UNBROKEN since 300 BC. While this is a natural and easy sell to people of today … it is simply not true!
This is why it is difficult to imagine (today) that there ever was a time in SL when the people (of any ethnicity including the ‘Sinhala’ if ever there was such a distinct ethnic group prior to 1880s) did not care about Buddhism at all; that Buddhism was not foremost in their thoughts as something prominent going on in society as it is today. It is even harder to imagine that this spans some 800 years of our recorded history!
The bottom line is, the notion that ‘SL is a Buddhist country’ was invented by the Protestant Buddhist movement started by the Anagarika to spearhead the invention of the Sinhala-Buddhist brand and its promotion (following on from the arrival in 1885 of Olcott and Blavatsky who were looking to unveil the ‘World Teacher’ as a Second Coming).
So, ‘SL is a Buddhist country’ is a relatively recent political idea. Are we prepared to distort our history (from which many lessons can be learned) for present-day political reasons? (what would you think if the German nation denied the Holocaust as it would be an inconvenient truth in the modern age?)
Dear BalangodaMan,
Many thanks for your extremely interesting contributions. I for one have learnt a great deal and am glad I stuck around this thread.
RE: “it is a good thing that both Sujewa, SomewhatDisgusted and I come from a Buddhist background, otherwise this debate will have degenerated into a right royal holy war by now”
For some, it already is a holy war! Why else would we be painted as elite English speaking westernized types, “out of touch” with the common folk, a la Ranil? Even if it were true (which is anyone’s guess, given that no one really knows anyone else’s backgrounds), what is the relevance of that to the debate at hand? Does that automatically disqualify one from holding an opinion or caring about the well-being of one’s country? Does being a “non-English speaking”, “non-elitist” type automatically qualify whatever unfounded opinion one holds or relieve one of responsibility for justifying them?
All that this goes to show is that SL is nothing but a holy fountainhead of prejudice and that we have NOT woken up to our own realities. Some of the “elites” still don’t realize that they are as out of touch as they were during the colonial era, and some of the “non-elites” still don’t realize that they are having the same indignant, post-colonial reaction against those they perceive as “elites” and those who espouse so called “western ideas” (whatever that means, didn’t know ideas had to be confined to one hemisphere).
In the meanwhile, the modern world is leaving us behind, wallowing in all this utter stupidity so we can all be a laughable showcase of post-colonial identity crises to the rest of the world. As long as we see the other as the enemy, we obviously cannot unite, not the elites, not the middle classes, not the poor and not the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, and get ourselves the hell out of this mess.
RE: “Dambulla water flowing upstream – what is the explanation for this? Anybody?”
I don’t know. I looked around the net for an answer. Does it have something to do with water levels during high tide and a resulting difference in potential energy?
“Happy to share more of my experience if you like, and hear of other people’s.”
No need for an invitation. Please feel free to elaborate at all times.
BTW, do you apply Erickson’s confusion technique to your writing? I think the style is quite interesting and effective (and to anyone who’s confused, I did not mean BalangodaMan’s writing is confusing. Au contraire).
cheers,
/SD
Wijayapala,
RE:
“I probably would agree with you although yapa and oddly enough Schizo Sujewa might disagree.”
So basically anyone who does not follow your half-baked “Buddhism must be protected/it’s under attack” nonsense is schizo right? You appear to be a typical arrogant & clueless Buddhist (or someone who claims to be a Buddhist) who is unable to think outside the narrow views taught to you by other arrogant & clueless types.
Fortunately for SL, there are more mentally capable Buddhists & non-beleivers around.
::
RE:
“On the topic of Indrapala, the title of his book was “Tamils in Sri Lanka 300 BCE to 1200 CE.” 300 BCE is roughly when “Sinhala civilization” started, based on 1) the first Sinhala inscriptions and 2) arrival of Buddhism, both influences from the Mauryan Empire.”
Sinhala is merely or mostly a political identity (and it appears to be younger than the Tamil identity invented in India – about 3500 years ago according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu ). The island SL has been inhabited for thousands of years prior to the invention of the Sinhala identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Early_periods). Once the Sinhala identity was invented/the first kings to use Sinha name or something similar & identify their subjects accordingly (either via a real event similar to the Vijaya invasion or the Vijaya invasion itself if it really happened) the existing people were assimilated into it (and no doubt many stayed somewhat independent or became identified in name only with the new Sinhala kingdom). I believe according to the Mahavamsa itself that the first Sinhalese were not Buddhists (must have been Hindu or some other religon), conversion to Buddhism happened after – many years later, if I recall correctly (also see stuff below re: this). Pre-British-in-SL history shows the existence of Sinhala & Tamil kingdoms & coorperation at times between the kingdoms. It appears that towards the end of British rule on the island the idea that SL being a Sinhala-Buddhist only country (or one that belonged mostly to S-Bs) was played up & then post-independent politicians ran with it to consolidate & gain power.
::
Consider the following 2 quotes from the wiki page for SL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka:
“Ancient Sri Lanka was also the world’s leading exporter of cinnamon, which was exported to Egypt as early as 1400 BCE.”
and
“Buddhism arrived from India in the 3rd century BCE, brought by Bhikkhu Mahinda, who is believed to have been the son of Mauryan emperor Ashoka.”
So, from 1400 BCE to 300 BCE we are talking about 1100 years. So, 1100 years before the coming of Buddhism to SL there was (at least according to any facts that support the quotes above) a functional civilization in SL that was capable of participating in international trade.
Thus, possibly more proof for the idea that the Sinhala identity, & then the Sinhala-Buddhist identity, are recent inventions in the very long history of people who lived in SL.
- S
Dear Arosha,
Good to have you joining the conversation and thanks for your thoughtful and well-argued posts.
And those poll results were exactly what I was looking for! Do you know of other similar studies which might corroborate these numbers? Those numbers are interesting and worth discussing indeed.
Dear BalangodaMan,
““Happy to share more of my experience if you like, and hear of other people’s.”
No need for an invitation. Please feel free to elaborate at all times.”
I’d missed a sentence
Feel free to elaborate at all times. At least one person (me) is benefiting!
cheers,
/SD
Deat OTC,
You said: “Such beliefs has an overwhelming number of absurdities within yet these highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people still prefer to believe in those Religions.”
Actually, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a god. There’s a lot of literature on the relationship between belief in god and average intelligence. Try wiki.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Burning_Issue,
“I accept that it would have been natural for the Sinhala to view the Tamils in that light given that the Tamils were numerous in public services. Did the British favour the Tamils as a result of their divide-and-rule policy, or there were proportionally a lot more educated Tamils available for selection? Whatever the case, the end result was that there were more Tamils in state employment, I accept.” (all your statements are in italics)
The British did favour the Tamils due to the divide and Rule policy.
Education depended on Missionary schools and the British had more such schools in the North per capita than in the South. Entry to these schools was only for the converts. You had to be Baptised before gaining entry. Both Tamils and Sinhalese resisted conversion but more Tamils converted than Sinhalese.
The British started their rule in 1798. Many educational institutions were established during this period. English language was taught to the locals. At this time American missionaries and Anglican missionaries were in close competition with Catholic missionaries and establishing churches and schools in every nook and corner. Several high schools and western education became the hallmark of Jaffna. Jaffna Tamils became the willing subjects of the ever-expanding British Imperialism and took the middle-level positions in public service throughout South East Asian countries of the British Raj (Burma, Malaya, and Singapore). The present Civil War has the seeds in the favoritism shown by the English to the Tamils. The Sinhalese hated the dominant positions and rule by the English speaking Tamils and introduced the ‘Sinhalese Only law’ to replace the English. That lead to the Tamils feeling sidelined as the Sinhalese only law also restricted Tamil language. http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/British_Ceylon
“If you were to reverse the positions of the Sinhala and Tamils, the Sinhala would have done exactly the same; do you agree?”
Human frailties being what it is I would not rule it out but it won’t be as aggravating as a minority ruling a majority. But before colonisation the Sinhalese invited Dravidian kings to rule over them. Hence the chances are that they would have been more magnanimous with the Tamils.
“However, I do not believe that Sinhala only was the answer and the way in which it was brought about.”
Neither do I.
“Positive discriminations, at times, are necessary in order to strike balance; however, such measures are sensitive and should have been formulated through consultations with affected parties. Clear objectives of such exercises should have been debated with boundaries and timescales. In the absence of these, do you agree that, the Tamils viewed them with great suspicions?”
Of course they would be suspicious. I fully agree that the process should have been as you describe instead of a Bull in the China shop like process as was implemented. At the same time I believe that there was no Tamil representation that really represented the peasantry instead of the ruling Tamils, who obviously had a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo.
“I agree that nepotism and favouritisms are bad practices; such practices needed to be stopped; however, don’t you think that the situation has reversed now in favour of the Sinhala? Is this correct?”
Yes the situation has changed. But I am not sure that it favours the Sinhalese. Leaving political nepotism aside I think that ethnicity does not play a part in securing a job today. I may be wrong here but that’s what I believe. I and many Sinhalese respected Lakshman Kadirgamar who would have probably been the first Tamil PM of SL. John Fernadopulle was elected by the Sinhalese vote. These are but two examples of Tamils held in esteem by the Sinhalese.
“I am afraid that, Yapa claims that, the Sinhala came to Sri Lanka first thus assuming ownership; he expects others to assimilate into the Sinhala society.”
If the Sinhalese came first then that is just a statement of fact. If the Tamils came first then that too is a statement of fact neither implies any ownership as such. However the closest land mass to SL is India’s Tamil Nadu and the Tamils of SL are distributed closer to Tamil Nadu while the Sinhalese are much more interior. If the Tamils did come first they would have populated the environmentally friendlier and more fertile interior and the South rather than the Arid North. As it is, the ethnic distribution indicates that the Sinhalese have been pushed further interior by the Tamils. I think Yapa is misunderstood and misquoted If I remember correctly Yapa’s original query long ago was why the Tamils cannot do what they are doing in the West, in Lanka.
“This is not the reality one witnesses on the ground!” (referring to my comment on equal rights)
There are many Sinhalese who believe that it should be so. There were many Sinhalese who risked the lives of their own families and their properties to save many Tamils from the black July violence. Do not judge the Sinhalese by the behaviour of a few thugs with a mob mentality. Harmony requires mutual respect. The events of the past will take time to be erased from the minds of all three major communities.
Equal rights in the USA the most secular Country was not won overnight. It required fearless African Americans who were willing to risk even their lives, to force what was then guaranteed by the American Constitution. They put the Federal Government to the Test. This was at a point of time when the American White Police of mostly Southern States repressed the Civil Right Movement brutally. I have seen documentaries where the police used batons on fallen female activists’ genitalia. Constitutionally SL guarantees equal rights to all. This was a Very big achievement. Hence it will be difficult for any govt to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity if we have Tamils who are prepared to take the Govt the full distance to the Supreme Court.
“There is no question that the majority community should not be blamed for being the majority! However, the point is that, the majority should be responsible;”
Of course the Majority should be responsible
“all minorities are at the mercy of the majority,”
Not anymore. Constitutionally they are not, as everyone has equal rights. A Govt is required to protect them. I am not writing about a thug in govt using thugs to intimidate the minorities as it happened in the shameful Black July.
“and ill-treating them would not reflect well on the part of majority and the majority religion, Buddhism”
There is no “ill treatment of the minorities” by the majority. A casual walk along Wellawatte will prove that. Such accusations will only serve to polarize communities on religious grounds next time around.
“The Tamil speaking people do have genuine concerns in terms of their language, security, and governance; they should be meaningfully addressed.”
I do agree that the Minorities have language problems in the South (the same as what a Sinhalese would experience in the North) not because of ill treatment but because of the absence of officers in the Govt in sufficient numbers that would allow a person who wants to do business with the Govt in Tamil to do so. Again that is unconstitutional and if taken to court will force the govt to act faster in addressing the problem. An example is a Fundamental Rights case that was won recently that forced all institutions (private and govt) dealing with the public to construct wheel chair access for the disabled.
“The Tamil speaking people do have genuine concerns in terms of their language, security, and governance; they should be meaningfully addressed.”
Of course it should be addressed. Language is already addressed. Security will improve as the LTTE suicide attacks are no more. Governance (meaningful powers to the Provincial Councils) remains to be addressed and I hope that will become a reality sooner than later.
Dear BalangodaMan
“Protestant Buddhist movement started by the Anagarika to spearhead the invention of the Sinhala-Buddhist brand and its promotion following on from the arrival in 1885 of Olcott and Blavatsky”
The British started their rule in 1798
The Kandyan Convention of March 2, 1815 resulted in the signing of a Treaty.
The Kandyan Treaty has the following clause
5. The religion of the Buddha is declared inviolable and its rights to be maintained and protected.
The dates 1798, 1815, 1885 and clause 5 of the Kandyan Treaty don’t add up to BalangodaMan’s claims as 1885 comes 70 years AFTER the treaty.
Another instance of 1+1 not adding up to 2
Since the Kandyan Kingdom existed till the Kandyan Convention and predates even the Portuguese presence in SL in 1505. And since the Tooth Relic was considered the emblem of State Power I wonder who the inhabitants of the Kandyan Kingdom were, Sinhalese or ?
Is there something wrong with History that it refuses to fall in line with the Agnostic thinking of BalangodaMan?
As SomewhatDisgusted asked earlier, probably in a diametrically opposite context, do you apply Erickson’s confusion technique to your writing?
(response to your post of May 21, 2010 @ 5:25 pm)
Dear Sujewa,
“Ancient Sri Lanka was also the world’s leading exporter of cinnamon, which was exported to Egypt as early as 1400 BCE.”
Congratulations. Good point
Proves that SL was inhabited by Civilised people even at that age. Since they were obviously not Sinhalese, wonder who they were. Wiki does not give any indication.
This however is also from the same article in Wiki
The earliest-known inhabitants of the island now known as Sri Lanka were probably the ancestors of the Wanniyala-Aetto people, also known as Veddahs and numbering roughly 3,000. Linguistic analysis has found a correlation of the Sinhalese language with the languages of the Sindh and Gujarat, although most historians believe that the Sinhala community emerged well after the assimilation of various ethnic groups.
From the ancient period date some remarkable archaeological sites including the ruins of Sigiriya, the so-called “Fortress in the Sky”, and huge public works. Among the latter are large “tanks” or reservoirs, important for conserving water in a climate that alternates rainy seasons with dry times, and elaborate aqueducts, some with a slope as finely calibrated as one inch to the mile. Ancient Sri Lanka was also the first in the world to have established a dedicated hospital in Mihintale in the 4th century BCE. Ancient Sri Lanka was also the world’s leading exporter of cinnamon, which was exported to Egypt as early as 1400 BCE. Sri Lanka was also the first Asian nation to have a female ruler in Queen Anula (47–42 BC).
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
Re: Do you know of other similar studies which might corroborate these numbers? Those numbers are interesting and worth discussing indeed.
You will be able to find all the data from the poll I mentioned @ http://www.peacepolls.org/cgi-bin/documents. However, I have not come across any similar studies and since the APRC is now defunct, I doubt anything similar will be undertaken in the near future.
– Arosha
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
(Relevant to BalangodaMan too)
“Actually, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a god. There’s a lot of literature on the relationship between belief in god and average intelligence. Try wiki.”
I am puzzled by the fact that in SL there is a very large number of Engineers, Doctors, Accountants, University Professors, Educators, Mathematicians, Professionals of every description, High Caliber Businessmen, Intellectuals, Supreme Court Judges, Civil Servants, Lawyers, Post Graduates, Graduates, Inventors etc that belong to Christian, Hindu and Moslems Faiths.
The Christian Missionary Schools have been contributing educated youth who believe in God since there establishment of those schools in Colonial times. That is a very large number indeed. Quite a few of them has successfully gone through Tertiary education.
All of them believe in God.
I am hard pressed to classify them as unintelligent.
Is Sri Lanka a Unique country in this respect?
What explanation would an Agnostic have for this discrepancy?
(a bit Off Topic)
SomewhatDisgusted,
Erickson’s ‘confusion technique’. My first intro to this was from Tony Robbins, which he stole off Grinder & Bandler – he calls it ‘interrupt pattern’. No kidding, but this will work wonders for eliminating prejudice in SL, phobias, any conditioned behaviour that needs radical overhaul. There’s a myriad of variations, even invent your own if you understand why it works. I use the ‘clown’ technique for people I am/was stressed about, and there’ a great variation to cure stage fright (LOL!). I use it on ‘Mr Yapa’, and he should learn it too and I guarantee he will stop being abusive for good.
Actually this is a good example of how something powerful that the Buddha practiced and recommended 2,500 years ago has been brought into powerful modern day use, admitedly by a non-religious non-Buddhist source (I suppose Mr Yapa would say therefore it doesn’t count? Or Buddhism owns its copyright).
(Your question, do I use it in my writing? perhaps unconsciouly maybe. Thanks, if you say it’s effective. I thought I was just being mischievous! Shucks!
)
Amazing how Akon has turned into NLP. Apologies for the digression folks.
Aaaah OTC!
You have caught me out! Clean bowled as well as being Leg Before Breakfast, and ‘stumped in thought’ at the same time as being Run Out through the back door!
(I said) “Protestant Buddhist movement started by the Anagarika to spearhead the invention of the Sinhala-Buddhist brand and its promotion following on from the arrival in 1885 of Olcott and Blavatsky”
You have cunningly reavealed that …
“The dates 1798, 1815, 1885 and clause 5 of the Kandyan Treaty don’t add up to BalangodaMan’s claims as 1885 comes 70 years AFTER the treaty.”
I concede defeat on the basis that these numbers actually add up to 5,573.
::
Let’s try again, shall we?
Working backwards …
Olcott and Blavatsky did their Ceylon thing from 1885 onwards. (you may need to look up who they were as they are not mentioned in the Tripitaka, the source of 99.9% of all the world’s knowledge. This is one they missed)
The 70 years comes from another of my posts, about the many years between the ‘discovery’ (actually re-discovery) of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa by the British explorer (who you haven’t heard of and not looked up?) around 1822, which is also around when our glorious and cherished Mahawansa was discovered, also by the said British. (This 70 years has nothing to do with Olcott and Blavtasy, except they both either lived beyond that age or died before. Is my logic right?)
The Kandyan Convention and the start of British rule are ‘le herring rouges’ (as they say in France) – unless you are saying that it is a little amiss of the British to wait a couple of decades from their arrival until they got round to discovering the ruins and the Mahawansa for us. Come on, what’s wrong with sitting down to a cup of tea first? In any case, us Lankans had let the ruins go to *absolute* ruin for 800 years already, so what’s the hurry? A few more weeds don’t hurt ….
Now, that leaves us with the crux of the matter … what does the BalangodaMan mean by ‘the Sinhala-Buddhist brand’?
Well, there is a theory (only a theory, mind? so no need to get all upset about) that the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ ethnic concept we hear about so much today was only invented following the revival started by the aforementioned Olcott and Blavatsky. Now I am assuming that you have Googled these chaps already. If you haven’t, take a good look at the side of the big building at Ananda College near the entrance facing the main road (this building is much bigger than Google). It says on the side in big letters, albeit in white-on-white so not easy to see on a sunny day (but now it’s raining so this is the time to go take a look), it says ‘Colonel Henry Steel Olcott Building’. It’s on the way to the car park. You may have seen that sign already and may have wondered what connection Ananda College has with the American Civil War, or maybe not.
Blavatsky was a Russian lady. Massive. Some 250kg. No building was named after her to my knowledge. No building would have been big enough for that! She is featured in Google also – her photo alone is spread over several pages (no, kidding!). She claimed she was in telepathic contact with a 175 year old Tibetan monk who was omniscient also (Coot Humi). One of her books was one of Hitler’s favourite books and apparently he always had it by his bedside (you think I’m making this stuff up, right? LOL!).
Anyway, the Sinhala-Buddhist brand followed this re-invention of Buddhism, as a devotional region, much in the model of Christianity – something of a *if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em* strategy adopted by the Anagarika Dharmapala (who was also Christian). Devotional meaning … where you put your hands together and pray to something ‘big’, the ‘big fella’, whoever. Wherever. Which is meaningless in Buddhism, I think you will agree. This part of our history is well discussed in the work by Obeysekera (I often wonder about the origin of that name. Is it that their ancestors were truly subserviant to their masters – as in ‘obey’?). This was not exactly in 1885, which is only when Olcott and Blavatsky got off the ship from New York, but in the decade or so following.
The Mahawansa was translated by the German, Wilhelm Geiger, in 1912, which also was a major piece that was promoted to establish the direct association of this new ethnicity with the religion of Buddhism. Until 1912 I don’t know how much the Vijayan legend was common knowledge, or known about at all. (anyone?)
So, dear OTC, the numbers do add up – if you add up the right numbers and in the right order.
Glad to have been of help.
OTC,
Addendum ..
before you reach out for your calculator, again.
“unless you are saying that it is a little amiss of the British to wait a couple of decades from their arrival until they got round to discovering the ruins and the Mahawansa for us”
Of course 1798 to 1822 is not a ‘couple of decades’, It’s 124 years!!!!!! B***** hell! They took a B***** long tea break, no?
OTC,
“If the Sinhalese came first then that is just a statement of fact. If the Tamils came first then that too is a statement of fact neither implies any ownership as such.”
What if the ‘Sinhala’ and the ‘Tamil’ are merely social constructs that created ethnic groups within a fairly homogeneous mainly Dravidian population from Southern India? This is what they say the DNA points to. Then the ‘who came first’ question becomes meaningless, no?
OTC,
To clarify to avoid a merry-go-round with you, much as I enjoy it immensely!
When I said … “What if the ‘Sinhala’ and the ‘Tamil’ are merely social constructs that created ethnic groups within a fairly homogeneous mainly Dravidian population from Southern India? This is what they say the DNA points to. Then the ‘who came first’ question becomes meaningless, no?”
In simple language, supposing before the political polarising of society into ‘Sinhala’ and ‘Tamil’ occurred the population was mainly homogeneous (as shown by our DNA now) then there is no case of ‘who came first’ as the society was already fairly homogeneous throughout our history, no?
It’s like, imagine a class at school where the whole class is made up of the same kind of boys (brown ones). If they decide to have a cricket match at play time they will form two teams. The teams are created for a purpose, so that cricket can be played. Regardless of who wins the match (!) ‘who came first’ is a stupid question, no? All the boys were there! The teams were arbitrarily picked for the purpose of the game. On the next match they may decide to keep to the same teams – why? because a form of competitive rivalry would have already been established, there will be bonding, and of course there is the urge to even the score! One team may always win (say), or gain more support as time goes on. All fine. But … the stupidity of a question like ‘who came first’ in this class of brown boys is unaltered, I think. Don’t you see that?
So, nobody came first. We all came all of the time.
Dear Burning_Issue and All;
(Q). Please explain to me as to what Prof. J.B. Dissanayake meant by the following:
Prof. J. B. Dissanayake in his book ‘Understanding the Sinhalese’ at page 118 states:
“….Sinhala occupies a unique position among the languages of South Asia because of its close affinity, with two of the major linguistic families of the Indian sub continent Indo-Aryan and Dravidian…’ From this, one can conclude that Sinhala in written form could have been made by one or many, who knew both Dravidian and Aryan language. Thus early Dravidian Buddhist priests were scholars in Tamil, Pali and Sanskrit, to make Sinhala in spoken and written form possible.”
(A). I have not read Prof. J. B. Dissanayake’s essay, and do not know in what context he wrote this. Further, being a linguist, it seems he has put more weight on linguistic factors to analyze a historical event leaving other factors aside. However, I am not sure about the authenticity of idea. Has he given the sources of his writing? I don’t believe and it is the first time I heard that spoken Sinhala was a product of Dravidian Buddhist. I don’t think there was so much influence from Dravidian Buddhists to Sri Lankan civilization.
(Q). So, given that the Tamil language had influenced the Sinhala language to such an extent; your statement that the Tamils arrived in Sri Lanka several years after Sinhala established their civilisation; this means that you established your civilisation with a half-baked language or some sort! It does not add up does it?
Was the civilisation established before the Buddhism arrived in Sri Lanka or after?
(A). The two factors you mention should not necessarily have to be a sequence. Portuguese, dutch and English languages too have an immense influence on Sinhala though they came to Sri Lanka much later.
Really Sinhala Civilisation established after Buddhism arrived here. Sinhala nation was formed by accepting Buddhism as the common religion by all the groups that had been there as different tribal entities. Buddhism provided a common foundation for their unity and the Sinhalese nation was the single composition of the divided tribes such as Yaksa, Naga natives and the Aryan migrants from India. Some sections of the natives who didn’t accept common religion due to whatever reasons must have formed “Vedda community” according to my opinion. However, According to Pros. Karthigesu Indrapala, there was no Tamil influence felt until 10th century and Tamil settlements started here after 13th century. But they they were the most privileged community in Sri Lanka during the colonial period and after that they claimed the rule here after the colonials wanted to leave. After so many undue attempts their claim ultimately came down to 1/3 rd of the land are and 2/3rd of the coastal belt that would really comprises over 80% of the sea area belong to Sri Lanka. Keep in mind that was their last and the smallest ever claim. Still Sinhalese are the sole oppressor of this country. Historians and educated lot of Sri Lanka who lived during the last couple of centuries should be brought to the Galle Face green and shot for their wretched irresponsibility. They didn’t have brains as much even as an average soldier had. Those western educated nitwits were not more than imitators who uttered nonsense. They played their harps while the country was going to hell. They were educated idiots.
(Q). Please give me the source of Indrapala reference; is it his 1960s thesis, or the one he published a couple of years back?
(A). Here is one. You can find many more sources by surfing internet.
http://www.spur.asn.au/extra/drav.htm
Thanks!
Dear Arosha,
Thank you very much for the informative statistics. 1% of Sinhalese believed it was “tolerable” for the LTTE to recruit child soldiers to achieve its objectives, while none of the Tamils thought so! How would you explain that?
“The constitutional clause seems to legitimise this ‘angry Buddhist’ mentality since actions to ‘protect’ buddhism can be justified as being done to uphold the constitutionally stated pre-eminence of Buddhism.”
This argument is as weak as claiming that Buddhism would disappear overnight if that clause were to be removed. The clause did not create the angry Buddhists; it is the angry Buddhists who created the clause (or at least assisted).
“I would also argue that the 52% who want Buddhism to have a special status are making such a judgement on faulty information.”
I have a very different interpretation based on looking at ALL the numbers, including the ones that aren’t there:
1. The most obvious revelation from your poll is that the vast majority of the Buddhists see no contradiction between giving equal status to all religions while giving a special status to Buddhism. In other words, a special status for Buddhism would not hurt the other religions.
2. Only 50% of the non-upcountry Tamils and Muslims believed it was unacceptable to have a special status for Buddhism! My jaw dropped when I saw this. Does that mean half of the Tamil and Muslim populations are also operating under “faulty information?” Or does it suggest that the majority of Buddhists from 1. above are NOT operating from faulty information?
“In the maha-paranibbana sutta, the Buddha describes factors that will ensure the welfare of the Sangha, amongst which are that:”
Thank you for the citation, but to keep this a “secular agnostic” discussion I would rather go by history rather than the Buddha’s last words.
“My point is that Buddhism in Sri Lanka should not be considered to be special – it doesn’t have an unbroken history in the country and it has been re-introduced several times from Burma and Thailand.”
If Buddhism had really disappeared in SL at any point, it would have been replaced by something else. Nature abhors a vacuum. The fact that there were lay Buddhists like Vijayabahu who cared enough to struggle to reestablish the faith instead of going with something else is sufficient to debunk your and Balangoda’s argument that people didn’t care.
If anything, your argument only underscores how vulnerable Buddhism has been throughout the centuries and why it needs “special” consideration to survive and thrive. Earlier I argued that your link proved that the survival of Buddhism rested on its association with the state and with the relative status of the state. When the state collapsed- like after the Chola invasion or the decline that set in after Kalinga Magha’s invasion- Buddhism ebbed and required support from lands which themselves received Buddhism from SL (disproving the notion that the doctrine today is different from the doctrine in ancient times because it came from alien sources).
Sorry Arosha, I missed your last point:
“(3) Finally, on the point of cultures of superiority vs. insecurity: the two are closely linked, and it is probably better to say that insecurity has lead to the superiority complex. Whichever it is, I hope you will agree that the effect on Sri Lanka has been detrimental! ”
Whichever it is- superiority or insecurity complex- it is this mentality that allowed Buddhism to survive the worst times. If this mentality did not exist- and it may not have existed for the Buddhists who had flourished in India and Central Asia, but today are no more- then Buddhism would have disappeared.
Whatever the shortcomings of angry Buddhists, they have not suppressed the practice of other faiths and that explains the apparent but not actual contradiction in your poll. If Sri Lanka had the same history as the glorious Western Civilization that the secags like Schizo Sujewa worship, where Christians massacred other Christians because their particular method of worshipping Jesus was not the same, then yes I would support secularism in SL to overcome such a legacy.
Be that as it may, SL did not have that history and that is why secularism, or rather the above ex-Buddhists’ half-cocked notion of secularism, is inappropriate and will not magically transform the island into the land-locked Switzerland that they want it to be.
Dear OTC,
Regarding your post of May 21, 2010 @ 8:56 pm.
Nicely written and well argued.
I would like someone to correct me, but I was under the impression that the British preferentially established missionaries in Tamil areas, in line with their divide-and-conquer policy, not to mention the already existing Christian influence from previous invasions, which was absent from the central parts of Sri Lanka.
Dear Wijayapala,
Welcome back! Glad to see you putting your knowledge and capability to good use again.
“My liberal buddies believe that secularism and federalism will magically transform Sri Lanka into some sort of tolerant and advanced civilization,”
Actually, this is one place where I agree with you and disagree with Sujewa. Having the country labelled “secular” means nothing if it’s not secular at heart. It’s a bit like the LTTE supporters labelling Sri Lanka a fascist state, when that simply isn’t the reality.
But I do believe that secularism is an undeniable principle. I would like to know whether anyone can build a strong case otherwise? So while the label means nothing (which is why I said that trying to remove the Buddhist clause is not the most important thing), a commitment to secular principles is essential. It is the only fair thing to do and majority opinion simply does not count. It’s a bit like saying, if the majority believes cannibalism is ok, then it’s ok!
This is also a good example of how and why democracy fails. We consistently confuse it with the rights of the majority, instead of it being the responsibility of the majority to make fair decisions by all. Isn’t it obvious that the basis of a society must be to be as fair as possible to all? And as long as that happens, it doesn’t even matter whether a country is labelled a democracy, an autocracy or a plutocracy. Can we say we exist in a civilized, ethical society if we are not fair by others and only by the majority? Does anyone really disagree with this?
This is why highlighting England’s connection to the church for example, simply doesn’t matter. England is as secular at heart as it can get. So much so that those fundie Islamic Mullahs are trying to game the system. This is where I also agree with Wijayapala. Being secular doesn’t mean giving such people a free ride either.
“I admit that I could be entirely wrong about my assumptions of what the majority wants.”
I hope I’ve made a reasonable case above that what the majority wants isn’t what our societies should be about. It is fairness to all that counts. The majority status is only used to break a deadlock when the case for both sides is equally strong. It cannot be used to impose unfair decisions on others. Do you disagree?
“Is this constitution the CAUSE or a SYMPTOM of this “culture of superiority?” And is it a culture of superiority or culture of insecurity?”
Agreed. It stems from insecurity and manifests itself in the stupid as superiority. And agreed, the constitutional clause is a symptom and not the cause. But the question is, do you think that insecurity needs to change or not? Your earlier position seemed to imply otherwise.
And about that clause. The clause makes sense to me in the following sense. If it’s about protecting our heritage, then hands down, there’s no disagreement. Does anyone here disagree for example, that the Dalada Perahara is a unique Sri Lankan icon that needs to be endorsed and preserved by the state? Would anyone here disagree that the hundreds of Buddhist monuments *must* be protected? So in that sense, Buddhism does occupy a unique place in our history and should be protected, as should the rest of our historical and cultural heritage.
However, if the clause means to protect the religion, that makes no sense. Is the govt. supposed to practice the 5 precepts on Buddhist behalf? Are we to structure our govt. around the concept that Karma is true, which lead to the fascinating absurdities that BalangodaMan highlighted?
So really, what does protecting Buddhism even mean as a constitutional clause? Can someone please clarify what the expectations are?
cheers,
/SD
Dear Burning_ Issue and All Others;
Please read followings too.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/12/going-beyond-sarath-fonseka-in-achieving-democracy-for-people/#comment-14538
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/12/going-beyond-sarath-fonseka-in-achieving-democracy-for-people/#comment-14738
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/12/going-beyond-sarath-fonseka-in-achieving-democracy-for-people/#comment-14827
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/12/going-beyond-sarath-fonseka-in-achieving-democracy-for-people/#comment-14838
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/12/going-beyond-sarath-fonseka-in-achieving-democracy-for-people/#comment-14840
Thanks!
OTC, here we go again:
“Education depended on Missionary schools and the British had more such schools in the North per capita than in the South. Entry to these schools was only for the converts. You had to be Baptised before gaining entry. Both Tamils and Sinhalese resisted conversion but more Tamils converted than Sinhalese.”
Could you show me the statistics that the Tamils have a significantly higher proportion of Christians than the Sinhalese?
What you attribute to conscious design, I call an accident. I have not come across evidence showing that the British gave the American missionaries access to Jaffna intentionally to give the Tamils a better education (in order to create the willing tools that you make them out to be). Rather, the British wanted to stick the Americans where they could not pose a threat to British rule (remember that the US and UK did not have good relations in that period, with a major war fought between the two in 1812).
In Jaffna you did not have to convert to get educated at these schools. Arumugam Navalar was not baptised.
“Jaffna Tamils became the willing subjects of the ever-expanding British Imperialism and took the middle-level positions in public service throughout South East Asian countries of the British Raj (Burma, Malaya, and Singapore). The present Civil War has the seeds in the favoritism shown by the English to the Tamils. The Sinhalese hated the dominant positions and rule by the English speaking Tamils and introduced the ‘Sinhalese Only law’ to replace the English. That lead to the Tamils feeling sidelined as the Sinhalese only law also restricted Tamil language.”
Thanks for providing the link; if you didn’t then I would have assumed that you had written this racist anti-Tamil rubbish, which ended with the lie that Sinhala-Only had restricted Tamil (Tamil was already restricted under the prevailing “English-Only” system). I hope that Burning_Issue caught this too.
I agree that the historical factors behind the war that just ended heavily involved the nature of British rule, but British rule was not the only nor in my opinion even a decisive factor. I have come across no evidence that the Sinhalese in the 1950s “hated” the Tamils because of their advantages in education or employment. The hatred was instead originally directed towards the English-speaking elite of which the Tamil elite formed only a part.
To my knowledge, Sinhala ill-feelings towards the Tamils began after the latter’s reaction to Sinhala-Only, which was perceived as being anti-Sinhala (Amirthalingam’s “Sri”-tarring campaign played a great role). GG Ponnambalam gave a very anti-Sinhala speech in 1939 that sparked some unrest, but as far as I can tell there were no long-term consequences of that particular speech.
As for the Jaffna Tamils being willing tools, the truth is that if the Sinhalese had the same educational opportunities they would have been equally willing tools of the British. The Sinhalese cannot be considered to be more patriotic simply because they lacked these opportunities! I have not come across anything from Anagarika Dharmapala’s writings where he calls out the Jaffna Tamils for dominating the civil service. Instead he had a lot of negative things to say about the commercial sector being dominated by foreigners- mostly South Indians lacking roots in the island.
“But I am not sure that it favours the Sinhalese. Leaving political nepotism aside I think that ethnicity does not play a part in securing a job today. I may be wrong here but that’s what I believe.”
No I agree with you. The key reason why the minorities are underrepresented in the public sector today is nepotism, not outright racism. However, isn’t this a reflection of the racism at the higher political levels as the leaders only network with fellow Sinhalese?
“However the closest land mass to SL is India’s Tamil Nadu and the Tamils of SL are distributed closer to Tamil Nadu while the Sinhalese are much more interior.”
Although I agree (I think) with your general point, the Tamils are not distributed in the west towards Tamil Nadu but rather toward the east away from it. The argument I heard explaining this is that as Rajarata collapsed in the early part of the previous millennium and as the remains of Sinhala civilization moved southwest, the Tamils who formerly dominated the western coast became Sinhalized and the Sinhalese in the east became Tamilized.
“Constitutionally they are not, as everyone has equal rights. A Govt is required to protect them.”
There is a difference between what is constitutional and what is real. Constitutionally the President was supposed to appoint the Constitutional Council after the JVP and TNA agreed on a common candidate. What happened?
“There is no “ill treatment of the minorities” by the majority.”
All the same there definitely has been “ill treatment of the minorities” specifically the Tamils by somebody which has been the decisive factor behind the last 30 years of violence. It is true that the Tamils today in Colombo do not live in the toxic and unsafe environment that prevailed under JR Jayawardene, but there are still injustices that can threaten the current peace if they are allowed to build up.
For example, the Jaffna Hindus are being prevented by the SLA to inter the cremated remains of departed people in the ocean near Keerimalai, because that stretch of beach is now an official tourism zone. As a Buddhist I find this utterly loathsome- how can this interference with religious practices for the sake of materialistic TOURISM be tolerated?? How come the locals do not have have any say in what they can do in their areas? How would you feel if Buddhist Gathas were prevented from being broadcast in loudspeakers in Colombo to make TOURISTS happy???
OTC,
“Linguistic analysis has found a correlation of the Sinhalese language with the languages of the Sindh and Gujarat, although most historians believe that the Sinhala community emerged well after the assimilation of various ethnic groups.”
This has been debunked by Dr. W.S. Karunatillake who has shown that the language of the earliest Sinhala inscriptions is closest to those of the Asokan inscriptions in the Mauryan heartland (Magadha, east-central India) and further away from the language in NW India. This meshes with the Mahavamsa legend that the unnamed mother of mythical King Sinhabahu was from Bengal and that Sinhabahu himself ruled somewhere around Kalinga, adjacent to both Bengal and Magadha.
I concede that the pre-Buddhist Sri Lankans were “civilized” and that some features of this civilization, like possibly the irrigation technology, carried into the subsequent civilization. However, aside from some unique phonemes and a few words in Sinhala, there is no trace of this pre-Buddhist civilization, which is why we cannot identify with it.
yapa,
“According to Pros. Karthigesu Indrapala, there was no Tamil influence felt until 10th century and Tamil settlements started here after 13th century.”
Instead of surfing the internet, it is better to go by the original sources themselves. We cannot read Indrapala’s original thesis because it is missing from the University of London. However, Indrapala published a book a few years ago which slaps both the Eelamists and the Sinhala racists who distorted his original research.
You can buy the book from Vijitha Yapa (another Yapa!):
http://www.vijithayapa.com/pdesc.php?id=22601
In the book, Indrapala does not submit new research of his own (he has been retired since 1987) but has highlighted the work of others like Dr. Sudarshan Seneviratne, who among other things has observed Tamil influence in the earliest Sinhala inscriptions. Indrapala also cites inscriptions showing the earliest Tamil settlements in SL, which interestingly were in Rajarata and therefore indicate that they were part of that civilization, not apart.
To summarize, the evidence suggests that 1) Tamils as a distinguishable community were in SL as long as the Sinhalese and 2) they were an inextricable part of the civilization (having more prominence during the Polonnaruwa period) until the fall of Rajarata. Therefore, the idea of “Sinhala” or “Tamil” nations in ancient times is baseless.
Balangoda Man,
“what does the BalangodaMan mean by ‘the Sinhala-Buddhist brand’?”
I don’t know, and I have a feeling that you don’t know either!
““Protestant Buddhist movement started by the Anagarika to spearhead the invention of the Sinhala-Buddhist brand and its promotion following on from the arrival in 1885 of Olcott and Blavatsky” ”
If the entire essence of the Balangoda Theory of the Origins of Angry Buddhism rests on 1885 as the magical date of its invention by two White People (Blavatsky and Olcott actually arrived in 1880, although Blavatsky had been to SL earlier in her life), then could you kindly tell us what prompted Migettuwatte Gunananda hamuduru to take on the Christians at Panadura **in 1862?**? Perhaps Gunananda hamuduru took a ride on the Secular Agnostic Time Machine powered by a potent mixture of Western Science and BalangodaMan’s Gas?
Wikipedia, the fount of Secular Agnostic Wisdom has this to say about the Panadura debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panadura
“It was the success of the Panadura Debate that prompted Colonel Henry Steel Olcott to come to Ceylon.”
“Until 1912 I don’t know how much the Vijayan legend was common knowledge, or known about at all. (anyone?)”
Until 1912 I don’t know how much you don’t know about SL history!
Two important pieces of SL Tamil literature- Yalpanavaipavamalai from Jaffna and Mattakkalappu Manmiyam from Batticaloa- which both give an indication of SL Tamil history in medieval times both invoke the Vijaya myth in the origins of SL history. Would it be possible for you to explain how the average Sinhala 300+ years ago was unaware of the Mahavamsa but Tamil chroniclers were aware???
“Of course 1798 to 1822 is not a ‘couple of decades’, It’s 124 years!!!!!!”
Truly I find your Secular Agnostic mathematics spellbinding. You see in my backward and outdated Buddhist arithmetic, 1822 – 1798 = 24 years, but I now stand utterly humiliated and discredited by the Secular Brain from Balangoda.
Come on BalangodaBoy, use your sophisticated Secular Rationalist thinking to teach the Angry Buddhists here our own history. Don’t let the gaping holes in your head (arising from your snoozing in math and history class dreaming of the Glorious Secular Future?) that are pushing you flat on your face to stop you!
Dear OTC,
RE: “All of them believe in God.
I am hard pressed to classify them as unintelligent.”
Here’s the problem with your argument. In the previous thread, you were arguing *against* god. Clearly then, you were directly challenging all these intelligent individuals yourself?
Did you do so because you were more intelligent than them all? You clearly did not as you say so above. Where does that leave one? That God exists? Or the intelligent people were mistaken? If so why?
So where did you get the notion that those who believe in god = stupid?
Did you read the article on Wikipedia?
The easiest way to think about this is to think about the circumstances of a God believer’s birth. Babies are not born believing in a god. What happened in the interim that did not cause *you* to believe god but that gave them an unshakeable belief that god exists, despite being far more intelligent than the average Joe?
cheers,
/SD
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: 1% of Sinhalese believed it was “tolerable” for the LTTE to recruit child soldiers to achieve its objectives, while none of the Tamils thought so! How would you explain that?
You may have intended this as a rhetorical question – but I agree that this is weird and just goes to show that people have all kinds of opinions – or perhaps they just misunderstood the question.
RE:I have a very different interpretation based on looking at ALL the numbers, including the ones that aren’t there
Thank you for your analysis of the statistics from the Peace Poll study. The website (http://www.peacepolls.org/cgi-bin/documents) actually has another report which has a more detailed breakdown. In fact, having looked at this site more carefully, I came across a more recent poll (http://www.peacepolls.org/documents/peacepolls/001174.pdf) which shows the following:
When asked the question ‘Would you support a package of constitutional reforms for Sri Lanka as outlined here?’ where the package included the clause Religious Rights – Buddhism shall have ‘pride of place’ with religious freedom for all citizens being guaranteed., the answer was
YES: Overall 83% (Sinhala 83%, Tamil 84%, Up-country Tamil 85%, Muslim 80%)
NO: Overall 9% (Sinhala 9%, Tamil 7%, Up-country Tamil 12%, Muslim 13%)
Of course, as you will see from the document linked above, the proposals included devolution of power to the provinces, equal status to languages, etc., so the above statistics are not purely about the ‘special status’ granted to Buddhism. However, it does show that for the vast majority of non-Buddhists, this clause is not a significant issue.
So, based on the above it seems that there is some objective evidence that the majority of Sri Lankans (whatever their ethnicity) do not think that giving a ‘special status’ to Buddhism is unreasonable. In the light of this, I am happy to drop my opposition to the constitutional clause regarding Buddhism in the Sri Lankan constitution.
Of course, statements made in the constitution do not always reflect the reality of the situation in the ground. The people’s acceptance of giving Buddhism a ‘special status’ depends on the government giving as much attention to the equality of all religions as to the special status of Buddhism.
So perhaps the way forward to is to stop arguing for secularism and instead campaign to make the government enact a constitution that is fair to everyone and then live up to it!
“Of course 1798 to 1822 is not a ‘couple of decades’, It’s 124 years!!!!!!”
My calculator was faulty. I sent it back for repair.
Wijayapala,
Thank you for your comments.
By ‘the Sinhala-Buddhist brand’ I do not mean ‘Sinhala’ or ‘Buddhist’ in isolation, or the ‘Angry Buddhist’ of our modern times (though I accept the term is now evidently redefined to apply to this SL variety of neo Nazi-ism). I mean the original Sinhala-Buddhist brand as successfully promoted by the Anagarika in the late 1900s to early 2000s. This was, I suppose, an understandable and necessary reaction (‘Protestant’) to the Colonial administration and widespread Christianisation of Ceylon. Wasn’t it clear in the context? Gosh!
Re. The Panadura debate was in 1862. Not sure what your point is. The order of bikkhus in Ceylon was restored long before that (from Siam as I mentioned earlier). The Buddhist clergy existed (though in much less prominence than today) before Olcott-Blavatsky but my point was, the Olcott-Blavatsky factor was the big relaunch that created the now popular (devotional) Buddhism of today. Arguably, this was a much much bigger splash to the country than the arrival of Buddhism in 300 BC even. Remember that in those days people regarded whatever white people said as genuine and authentic.
Equally Wijayapala, can you point me to any reported reportings of the Panadura Debate between 1962 and 1985? No. If Olcott and Blavatsky had not come to Ceylon with their own (somewhat dubious perhaps?) personal agenda the Panadura Debate will surely have disappeared from historic record – as other such debates have. Do you think the Panadura Debate was the only time when a Buddhist and Christian had a theological discussion in Ceylon in those days? No!
You quoted …
“It was the success of the Panadura Debate that prompted Colonel Henry Steel Olcott to come to Ceylon.”
I would rephrase that. It was the *report of the debate* which Olcott read in NY that made him decide that Ceylon was a good place to try and launch a new religion, to reveal the new ‘World Teacher’ in his Second Coming (along with Madame Blavatsky) – a new religion on a model based on the global success of Christianity (as a known highly sell-able product) and using Eastern practices which were not widely known in the West at the time. It’s a little like importing tea, cinnamon, coconuts, tobacco, sugar – ‘not known in the West. Plenty in the East/Americas etc. Introduce to the West. Get ‘em hooked. Make a killing’ type of enterprise. If not the Panadura Debate he may have been prompted by some other reason as he knew Blavtsaky who had already been here and ear-marked Ceylon as a likely candidate (though they switched to India later with Leadbeater and Besant). Though immaterial in this discussion, the word ‘success’ is subjective. It’s ‘success’ did not mean that the locals in their droves were heading towards the temples in a stampede. It is often quoted as a ‘success’ as part of the Olcott-Blavatsky-Dharmapala promo (naturally) but do you know what was discussed? Have you studied it critically, or at all? Is the Panadura Debate more relevant at that time than this one is at this time?
Mahawansa – being mentioned in the Tamil chronicals and being common knowledge in the country are (as I say) as far apart as Heather Mills and her other leg! (you are thinking, incorrectly, that those days were like these days, with news papers, magazines and tv, radio, internet) Chronicals is someone’s personal journal at one time. The fact that one set of chronicals is mentioned in another is not significant – if you write stuff you are familiar with other written stuff, particularly in the days when writing anything was a rarerity. My point is, the widespread education of the Sinhala *masses* about the content of the Mahawansa is due to the political enterprise of the Anagarika around the turn of 2000 – by that I mean, not rumour, but chapter and verse, adding substance and evidence to the legend. He worked hard at it – not really necessary if it was already common knowledge, no?
OK, look at it this way. If the Mahawansa did not glorify the supremacy of and directly link Sinhala and Buddhist, particularly where it attaches divine authority to the notion of SL being the promised land, do you think the Anagarika would have used it as marketing collateral in his endeavour? Would we be talking about it today? No!
I think you are reading what you want to hear, rather than reading this with an open mind. You know, the mind is like a parachute – doesn’t work unless it is open.
Oooops,
Not “Panadura Debate between 1962 and 1985?” but between 1862 and 1885!
My calculator is stuck again.
Dear Arosha,
You said: “So perhaps the way forward to is to stop arguing for secularism and instead campaign to make the government enact a constitution that is fair to everyone and then live up to it!”
I agree. My own position on this has hopefully been clear from the outset. I do not particularly care about the clause in the constitution. I think most will agree that its presence or absence is not our biggest concern at the moment. A pressing concern however, is when people harbour attitudes that lead to one group considering it entitled to greater rights than the other. It is this sense of entitlement that I would personally protest against.
So what would lead to a sense of greater entitelement? This is where the discussion over whether the constitutional clauses arose from insecurity or superiority is relevant. I agree with you that these two concepts are tightly coupled. The insecurity, IMO, is generated from the notion that Sri Lanka is the last bastion of pristine Theravada Buddhism, which the Sinhala-Buddhists have the holy?? duty of being guardians of. Couple this with the fact that Sri Lanka is also the only country in the world to speak Sinhalese and the reasons for the Sinhala-Buddhist’s being a “majority-with-a-minority-complex” is quite clear.
Of course, all of this directly leads to a sense of entitlement. This is the kind of thinking that would readily give people the idea that it’s ok to kick the protests of others to the kerb and insist that Buddhism be protected and Sinhala be the national language, fairness to others be damned. I believe such thinking is unethical.
The country being labelled “secular” does nothing to solve this problem but discussion on why secularism is an important principle is necessary, so that people realize that no one is “entitled” to jack shit – not unless you eschew the concept of equality and discriminate against other human beings.
My personal take on this is that, yes, it’s fair to be concerned about the Sinhala language and Buddhism. At the same time, it is more honourable that both of these things suffer than be unjust to others in the process. In that regard, we do not have a particularly dignified record.
Whether Sinhala survives or not is a matter of how well we manage to speak the language and whether Buddhism survives or not is a matter of how Buddhism is practiced. No amount of constitutional clauses can change the inevitable evolution of our culture (there’s impermanence for you Mr. Yapa). The only thing we can do is to guide it in a positive direction, using the best ideas we have right now combined with the best ideas the rest of the world has.
At the same time, I think a state must take adequate steps to protect our cultural heritage. I am also against unethical conversions etc. If justice for all is the driving principle, why should anyone demand anything extra? This should be applicable to all ethnicities.
Above all, if we do not stick to the principle of justice for all, we cannot forge a nation, as has been demonstrated amply in the last 60 years. Ok, maybe we can, but certainly not one to be proud of. But does everyone have the same commitment to the concept? Shouldn’t everyone have the same commitment to the concept? Does anyone disagree? I believe there are certain people who do, and those are the people entertaining notions of “entitlement” – or “justice for some”. This has been my personal argument from the outset.
cheers,
/SD
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
I have understood you as an ardent supporter of the western concepts of Democracy, Liberalism, Neoliberalism and the concepts found in them such as Secularism, Minority rights, etc….etc….
In an answer to Burning_Issue I said that the Natives of America, Canada and Australia are living like slaves in their own land, in which countries known as the altars of freedom. In those countries, all the rights of the natives were taken by force and some “invaders” have become the rightful owners of them. How could you explain this dilemma? How come the altars of democracy violating of the girts of the real ancestors of the countries? In that case how could we believe these theories would be proper solutions for our countries? If I say these western theories supports and nourishes the “invaders” and acts against the interests of original people, what is your idea? My view is these theories were developed in such environment to cater to the needs of the imperialists, colonials, invaders and oppressors who exploited the whole world for their benefit, disregarding even the right to live of the other people what is your idea? If I say it is a beautiful trap of the westerners to sustain their hegemony over the world what is your idea? If I say all those western theories did and do more good to west and brought and bring misery to the other countries what is your idea? Further, these concepts were developed in western countries, only a few centuries ago, and you say they are or some of them are undeniable. Didn’t the people of the world live for thousand years without such theories, and how can you say they are deniable in this scenario?
How do you come to the conclusion that these political theories are more profound than what we had here? Is it based on a research/study on the ancient political philosophy of ours?
I am sorry for asking uncommon questions, which aren’t the sort asked in a public forum. But I cannot refrain from asking these questions even though I might seen as a ignorant man of Political Science.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
You said: “In those countries, all the rights of the natives were taken by force and some “invaders” have become the rightful owners of them. How could you explain this dilemma? How come the altars of democracy violating of the girts of the real ancestors of the countries”
Not at all. It’s a reasonable question.
It is true that western imperialism has saddled us with problems for the rest of our natural lives. It is also true that in Australia for example, the natives were treated atrociously.
However, the modern world has realized these for the atrocities they were. This is why, in Australia for example, you will simply not believe the amount of resources they are allocating for native Australians. There are many affirmative action programs for their development and wellbeing. They get a separate allotment of scholarships for education. If I’m not mistaken, you are given special consideration even for employment. In many ways, they are far more privileged than the ordinary Australian.
Why? In reparation for the crimes committed against them in the past.
The situation for Native-Americans is the same.
However, it is also a truth that despite all these opportunities, the native Australians for example, continue to be under-educated and perform poorly socially. I think the reasons for that is another topic in itself. But there is no lack of effort in trying to restore their dignity.
So to say that the west is continuing to do this is simply not correct. The world has moved on from the past. We all *recognize* that these were crimes.The entire world grew up tremendously after the 1st and 2nd world wars. We sanctified human rights in the form of the Universal declaration. That was the first time the world got together and recognized these rights.
To say that another human being should be treated with dignity and should have certain inalienable rights is not western philosophy. It’s not eastern philosophy either. It’s a simple, self evident truth, recognized by any culture. Why do you think pretty much the entire world agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human rights? (except for the Islamic ones, which refused to allow religious freedom but agreed to the rest)
So there is simply *no east-west dichotomy* here. You are welcome to point it out if there is. Are you telling me that the ancient world lived with no recognition of human rights? (oh yeah, they did. That’s why the king could kill you at whim)
Secularism therefore, simply follows from these basic human rights. So do minority rights. Every human being should be treated fairly and with dignity. The Buddha himself said this, going on ahead to even speak for women’s rights and against the caste system. Why? For these same reasons. So why do you think that minority rights or secularism are western imperialist concepts? Isn’t it a self-evident truth, from the Buddha’s own teachings?
And can you explain, how treating other human beings with dignity or letting them follow their religion is a western trap to maintain their hegemony? If anything , it undermines their hegemony, because they can no longer invade us or dictate terms to us directly. Do you think that if the US wanted to, they couldn’t just invade us at anytime? What are we going to stop them with?
Hope you can answer the questions I’ve asked as well and explain how the east and west differ in this regard.
cheers,
/SD
Mr Yapa, Wijayapala et al,
There you go again with the expression ‘protecting Buddhism’ as if the term is clear cut!
Do you mean protecting the cultural heritage? We all want that!
Do you mean protecting the existence of the order of monks? I don’t think anyone objects to that. It is necessary for a religion to exist that there should be clergy.
Do you mean protecting the demography in SL by having laws to ensure that no less than 70% of the population will be Buddhist? Well, if you explain how that could be *ensured* over the next hundred years then I’m sure there will be some serious concerns, depending on your answer. (see Note 1)
Do you mean protecting the currently biased and distorted education in SL history? If protection means history will be researched and taught with a bias that ‘Buddhism will not be offended’ then that could be a problem – future genarations will be doomed for lack of balance in their education (as it is now, as you can see from your responses to history in this thread!). However, what about people surfing the internet and finding out for themselves, analysing, disseminating information? (I hear Pakistan has suspended YouTube and FaceBook today because of content offensive to Islam).
Do you mean protecting as in civil liberties can be justifiably eroded, with the backing of the law/constitution? eg. Fans of visiting artistes deprived of their rights to entertainment because of offense to Buddhism (Akon, but it could be Cliff Richard next, or god forbid … dancers!!!). How much do Poya day holidays cost the country, commerce, international trade? How is it necessary for Buddhism’s protection?
Do you mean protecting the ‘justified’ propagation of hypocrisy? eg. queues of people at liquor stores the day before Poya days! And other such well known absurdities.
If you are going to use the expression ‘protecting Buddhism’ please explain what *you* mean. The constitution does not clarify the points above and people like you make up your own interpretations and throw them about like it is ‘law’.
So what is it?
Note 1: For example, common sense tells me that with access to knowledge about alternative belief systems, and freedom of religion, you would expect a dilution of the Buddhist demographics. That is, in time the % will drop from 70% to say 15% (or whatever the current % of Buddhists in the world is). That is the natural thing to happen. This can only be stemmed by making it illegal to change one’s religion from ‘the one you are born into’ for whatever reason. Or by denying access to information about other belief systems.
These are two poems done with this discussion in mind and let me explain what they are in aid of – although at times i feel some of the points i seek to raise – as a buddhist – pl note lower case – get driven over in the course of partisan furies – but then this is SL…
the first poem is wondrous about the energy put into self expression – and perhaps the lesser amount of energy spent in self reflection and self-discovery. Buddhism does not end with self discovery (as Balangoda man sought to show – btw you have missed a long post by me above dedicated to you) – it begins with that and the spirit of self discovery remains with the seeker throughout – where he or she may venture back to the marketplace and the hurly burly world in a spirit of engagement and compassion. any way my point is to affirm this starting point – the real essence of theravada which is helping the self and treading a narrow path of discipline – also called hinayana – not in a derogatory sense by the way.
the second poem is about seeking a higher unity and perspective by uniting both reason – the strong point of the agnostics and emotions – the bond of the believers. why did secular nationalism lose out to popular nationalism is SL? what are the lessons we can learn from this failure? my simple point is that the connection between reason and emotions was not made.
we can go back a hundred years and re enact the panaduravadaya – to me that was buddhism in survival mode – we are not in that mode now – there has been some evolution and i sought to show that the buddhists of today even in SL are not as narrow as they were in the days of my ancestors and even my own parents – the times are changing and we need to grasp the opportunities for coming together
best wishes
CONSERVE ENERGY
Great indeed
Is this energy
We spend
To persuade another
Why not conserve it?
Look inward
Silence is the best teacher
Nobody else
Get to know your own mind
Childish, flippant
Full of whims and desires
Adult and respectable to the world
Something else inside
Yes we are all the same
So stop this useless talk
Never helped anybody
Except our fat egos
All this learning is for the self
Not the soul
Absolute fools
100%
That’s the place to start
The harder you fall
The higher you rise
But have you noticed?
How the ego cushions your fall
Every time
WON’T TURN AROUND
You face the land
And challenge us
To describe the ocean
We describe it
As best as we can
But can’t get you
To turn around
Still looking landward
You say
Ha!
Your description is not good enough
We win!
But sir, your victory lies
In failing to turn around
And therein lies your defeat too
When reason and emotion
Cannot accept each other
Don’t we all lose?
SomewhatDisgusted,
Democracy
—————
As you know, democracy originated in ancient Greece in the time of Socrates. (For the benefit of the readers) The idea was to devolve power to the people (a daring concept at the time). This experiment failed, as the ‘leaders’ did not like the masses deciding against the ‘leaders’. It lasted just 50 years. (saw documentary by Bettany Hughes)
As you say, ‘democracy’ where the majority are fair by the minority … will be nice, but that is expecting a lot from ordinary people. It would work if the majority are saints! It would take a long time before this could happen in SL.
Democracy, in theory, is that we elect someone to represent us in parliament to carry out our wishes for us (as we all can’t be in that building at the same time!) – the essence of this being that we the people drive the politicians. BUT in practice that does not happen as we all know. People are ‘led’ or ‘manipulated’ BY politicians who have their own agenda.
“It’s a bit like saying, if the majority believes cannibalism is ok, then it’s ok!”
Good point. But alas the modern principle of democracy, unless I have got it all wrong, does mean that cannibalism will be not only law but COMPULSORY (!) if a democratically elected government makes it law. (it does not make it right, but it is right because it becomes law by the democratic process. So we need a different process, I feel)
“We consistently confuse it with the rights of the majority, instead of it being the responsibility of the majority to make fair decisions by all.”
Yes true. But for this we need something else apart from democracy IMHO. We need (1) education and (2) freedom from being manipulated – again a function of education, and the ‘brainwashing’ we see around us is the frightening part. In short an ‘ethical society’ as you say, in defiance of the brainwashing.
The funny thing is, (and I didn’t think I’ll be saying this) we DO have a great starting point for creating an ethical and fair society in SL and that is buried in Buddhist teachings. It is wrongly interpreted I think. There are anomalies, inconsistencies and contradiction and so on – and is understandable considering the route by which it reaches us (like all religions). However, dogmatic preaching of the ‘teachings’ (nothing more than ‘it says here’ a la Mr Yapa) without trying to understand what it could be is not the way to go. How it could be useful in the 21st century, what is useful and what is clearly ‘not useful’. More and more intelligent people will be turned on/off by that in years to come.
As I said before, I think the best proponents of the Buddhas teachings, for practical purposes, are non-Buddhist thinkers/writers who have translated these ideas to the modern world, not as religious ‘rules’ but as practical instruction for self improvement. An ethical society could emerge from that effort – I say ‘could’ though not necessarily. We would need something more. UNFORTUNATELY, there is an attitude (you see it here) that anything useful from a non-Buddhist source, even if it has a Buddhist origin, is to be rejected as some Western conspiracy, or aping the West, or is corrupt.
“Is the govt. supposed to practice the 5 precepts on Buddhist behalf?”
LOL!
“So really, what does protecting Buddhism even mean as a constitutional clause? Can someone please clarify what the expectations are?”
Ooooops! I wrote my previous piece before reading your post, but you have asked this already.
Mr Yapa you asked SomewhatDisgusted (May 22, 2010 @ 6:32 pm)
“How do you come to the conclusion that these political theories are more profound than what we had here? Is it based on a research/study on the ancient political philosophy of ours?”
Simple. And I answered this already.
No country can run in the modern world limited by the mentality of people who lived thousands of years ago (Sujewa put it nicely, our Armed Forces do not choose to fight with bows and arrows either). Those ways were appropriate for that time – they were unlikely to be confronted with enormous diversity to the extent we are today – just turn on your SkyNews or BBC, CBS, YouTube, and people travel, migrate, communicate, inter-marry. One-track thinking is ok even in those days if you never left your home, never met anyone with another point of view, another skin colour, another accent.
Mr Yapa, even to think that ‘mentality of thousands of years ago’ may be appropriate for today is *itself* centuries old. We need to think a lot smarter to compete successfully in the world – and yes, ‘compete’ because we cannot live in isolation, unless you have something like the ‘iron curtain’ in mind for the people of SL.
SomewhatD,
Re: the following:
[“My liberal buddies believe that secularism and federalism will magically transform Sri Lanka into some sort of tolerant and advanced civilization,”
(wijayapala quote)
Actually, this is one place where I agree with you and disagree with Sujewa. Having the country labelled “secular” means nothing if it's not secular at heart. It's a bit like the LTTE supporters labelling Sri Lanka a fascist state, when that simply isn't the reality. (your response)]
As you can scroll through & read, I was never arguing for a simple re-labeling of Sri Lanka as a secular country. I was & am arguing for actually separating the government from religion – so that both can do what each does best w/ out being hindered by the other & so that both, being independent, can be a better source of checks & balances against the other.
Ataturk’s secularist reforms of Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_Reforms, or how India benefits from a secular government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India#Secular, may point to some of the positive benefits that SL could gain by having the government & the temple being two distinct entities.
Of course actual change in how things are done needs to happen in order for a secular government to be useful to SL in preventing the Sinhala-Tamil problems that the country has been plagued with since ’48.
Ideally, regardless of how it is labeled – as a part of secularism or as a part of an enlightened modern Buddhist government/nation – the following changes may accomplish what I mean by secularizing SL or separating gov from religion:
1. Recognize (fully, at all levels of the gov & other significant public & private institutions) that all people born on the island or are naturalized citizens are Sri Lankans. And that all Sri Lankans are equal before the law, when dealing with the government, when it comes to the value placed on lives by various institutions, etc.
2. Promote a common Sri Lankan identity. One that is more important than the Sinhala-Buddhist identity or the Tamil-Hindu identity or any other race or religion or combination of both based identities.
3. Establish means to ensure that all individuals, regardless of membership in various racial/ethnic/other groups, have access to education, searching for employment, legal representation, etc.
4. The government should establish a policy of neutrality when it comes to religious preferences of the citizens. Also, whether being a member of a religious group or not belonging to a religious group should not be a matter of great concern to the government when an individual deals with the government.
5. Instead of defining itself based on visions of ancient Buddhist kingdoms, modern/contemporary SL should focus on developing itself to the point where it can both compete with & coorporate with any well developed country in this world. (this one may require a lot of explanation, but, there it is for the time being)
I can write more items to consider, but the above should adequately point to what I mean when I say secularization of SL.
The primary problem in SL, other than poverty, which is also related heavily to the primary problem, is/was the inability of the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil minority to work together in order to develop the country after gaining independence from the British.
Setting up a secular government that is not closely aligned with Buddhism may make it possible for individuals from the Sinhala group, or Tamil group, or any other groups to feel connected to & easily deal with the SL gov’t.
Ultimately, at the core of this call for separating gov & temple is a call for fairness. Fairness or dealing justly with each individual (regardless of what group they belong to) may be easier for the gov to do (and for those outside the gov to help the gov do) if the gov is secular, and not heavily responsible for maintaining Buddhism above all other religions.
Aside from that, there can be a cultural preservation/history preservation type departments w/ in the government – & also divisions that manage religious activity & non-religious ethical & self help type activity & orgs – that helps Lankans preserve historically valuable aspects of Buddhism & other religions because they are a part of the greater Sri Lankan cultural heritage, & also helps various people & groups assist their fellow citizens/other Lankans.
Of course, even w/ in the current set up, enlightened politicians & law makers can build & promote a fair society. However, secularism/separation of gov & religious life codified into law & nature of gov can ensure (or help ensure) that useful approaches survive beyond a given administration.
Let me know if you need further clarification, I can collect & re-post some of the itmes already posted re: this matter (what secularism is or should be in the SL gov context).
- S
Ordinary Lankan,
RE: “the second poem is about seeking a higher unity and perspective by uniting both reason – the strong point of the agnostics and emotions – the bond of the believers.”
The agnostics – or at least I – consider the entire human being – not just the intellectual aspects, but also emotional aspects – when it comes to figuring out what is good, useful, & just for us/humans.
The bond of the believers is tradition, not emotions – or, emotions attached to traditon.
Emotions are not banned or are not considered evil or whatever from an agnostic viewpoint. Actually, a strict agnostic viewpoint is only concerned about unverifyable grand claims made by religions. What you see in this forum is humanists/humanitarian activists who also endorse the agnostic approach to dealing with things such as “the aboslute truth”, “the holy turth” promoted by various religions.
In this context – the context of the debate on this forum – the agnostic side is in favor of a just multi-ethnic, multi-religious SL (something that may be easier to achieve, in my opinion, by separating government from religion) & the believer side is primarily concerned with preserving Buddhism in Sri Lanka or maintaining the cultural & political dominance of the Sinhala-Buddhists in Sri Lanka, and keeping gov & the temple closely linked. However, as we see from time to time, there are overlapping areas – areas where both the agnostics & the believers agree as to what course of action may be best – such as protecting minorities/minority rights, supporting the end of the LTTE vs GOSL war, etc.
- S
Dear Off the Cuff,
I have read Wijayapala’s post to you pertinent to many points that you addressed to me. I agree with everything what he outlined. I am an old boy of St. John’s College of Jaffna; I hailed from a village just about 2 miles south of the college; I tell you that, we have such rich tradition of affinity with the college going back to its inception. To my knowledge, 99% of the inhabitants my village always have been Hindus. There is no doubt that, people of Jaffna put a lot of emphasis on education; best schools were the target regardless of their religious connections. I know my father was telling me stories about some of the people from my village also attended St. Patricks, a Catholic school, where strict religious order was adhered to!
There might have been combination of divide and rule and vast amount of English educated Tamils available for selection. Nevertheless, we agreed that, there was imbalance that required rectification; the methods adopted were politicised and executed abhorrently.
However, I did notice there were thinly veiled messages in your post to elevate the Sinhala over the Tamils. Please see below:
“Human frailties being what it is I would not rule it out but it won’t be as aggravating as a minority ruling a majority. But before colonisation the Sinhalese invited Dravidian kings to rule over them. Hence the chances are that they would have been more magnanimous with the Tamils.”
The modern Sinhala do not live up to the magnanimity that you have referred to; the Tamil polity did try to reason with the Sinhala polity with several resultant abrogated pacts/agreements!
“If the Sinhalese came first then that is just a statement of fact. If the Tamils came first then that too is a statement of fact neither implies any ownership as such.”
The Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists base their arguments on the basis that, they arrived in Sri Lanka First; Buddha had entrusted the Sinhalese to safeguard the Island. On this basis the Tamils are regarded as aliens and they cannot be Sri Lankans on equal par with the Sinhala Buddhists. Yapa holds this view though obscures it to some extent, but it sticks out like a sore thumb!
“However the closest land mass to SL is India’s Tamil Nadu and the Tamils of SL are distributed closer to Tamil Nadu while the Sinhalese are much more interior. If the Tamils did come first they would have populated the environmentally friendlier and more fertile interior and the South rather than the Arid North. As it is, the ethnic distribution indicates that the Sinhalese have been pushed further interior by the Tamils.”
I think that, you cannot go by the present ethnic distribution; Indrapala states in his latest publication that, both communities established themselves as separate ethnic identity only after the 10th century AD. I have read this publication; I am away from home now and will remain likewise for a few months more; thus unable to use actual references. I reiterate; the Tamils presence in the Island was as early as Sinhala presence; this fact cannot be disputed. I am not a Tamil nationalist, but it is important that the Islanders know their true history.
“I do agree that the Minorities have language problems in the South (the same as what a Sinhalese would experience in the North)”
I am sorry that the Tamils have language problem throughout the country; especially in Jaffna where the troops and police are Sinhala; basically, you do not want to be a Tamil!
Dear Wijayapala,
“Sinhala is not unique in this sense; you could say the same about Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, and even to a lesser extent Tamil itself. I read somewhere that even Sanskrit has a Dravidian substratum! So just like our genetics our language purity is non-existent (although I would still characterize Sinhala as Indo-Aryan and Tamil, Telugu etc as Dravidian).”
I would put it this way; Telugu and Kannada have more Sanskrit influence than Malayalam. The Tamils language resisted because, it was a mature language around 3rd century BCE; the Sangham period was flourishing well around at that time. Hence, all the above-mentioned languages are regarded as derivation but influenced by Sanskrit in varying degrees. On the other hand, the Sinhala is regarded as Indo-Aryan at its base but very much influenced by the Dravidian languages; especially Tamil; thus it is unique.
“No- the main influence of Tamil has been loanwords. It is the same as arguing that Sinhala was half-baked before the influence of English!”
Wijaypala, I am away from home and it is difficult to debate on these topics without referencing relevant publications; I have reason to believe that, the Tamil language played bigger part in the Sinhala language development than merely loaning words; I will write on this topic in the future.
“On the topic of Indrapala, the title of his book was “Tamils in Sri Lanka 300 BCE to 1200 CE.” 300 BCE is roughly when “Sinhala civilization” started, based on 1) the first Sinhala inscriptions and 2) arrival of Buddhism, both influences from the Mauryan Empire. If you want to claim that Sinhala civilization was “half-baked” before these two things, I probably would agree with you although yapa and oddly enough Schizo Sujewa might disagree.”
Thanks; I have read Indrapala’s recent publication. I am sorry about the term “half-baked”; I used it to illustrate Yapa’s shallow claims!
“Anyway, this would show that Tamil and Sinhala history in SL began around the same time- an argument that even the Mahavamsa itself would support (although based on the Vijaya legend). However, this would be a history of an intertwined civilization, not two discrete “nations.””
The problem is that, there were different nations within the island due to territorial aggressions; however, I agree that, if the history is properly told, there will be no basis for a nation within a nation. This does not mean that, there should not be meaningful political power devolution on province basis!
Dear Yapa,
I have read Indrapala’s latest publication; please do read it as Wijayapala suggested, then we will have a discussion on the Sinhala and Tamil presence in the Island and how everything was intertwined! He also quoted many archeological evidences that came to light since his 1960s thesis!
The transcript from a recent BBC history programme on Emperor Ashoka’s pillars might be of interest to those following this thread.
Some points that I found particularly relevant are as follows:
* Ashoka’s edicts were not written in Sanskrit, but ” in local dialect – depending where they’re placed – and in everyday speech as spoken by the people”
* “While [Asoka] was inspired by the teachings of Buddha – and his son was in fact the first Buddhist missionary to Sri Lanka – he didn’t impose Buddhism on his empire. Ashoka’s state was in a very particular sense a secular one.”
* And finally a quote from the coronation address of the present (5th) King of Bhutan – “..’Throughout my reign I will never rule you as a king. I will protect you as a parent, care for you as a brother and serve you as a son. As the king of a Buddhist nation, my duty is not only to ensure your happiness today, but to create the fertile ground from which you may gain the fruits of spiritual pursuit and attain good karma.’”
Dear Sujewa,
RE: “As you can scroll through & read, I was never arguing for a simple re-labeling of Sri Lanka as a secular country.”
Apologies if it came out that way. I know that was not what you meant. If it’s not clear what I meant – secularism is an obviously undeniable concept (is anyone disagreeing about this?) on nothing but the concept of fairness. In that regard, I agree with you that the separation is essential, sooner or later.
But at the same time, I don’t think separating religion from state is useful as it stands now. The associated change in mindset has not taken place and that’s what I agree with Wijayapala on. Therefore, we are nowhere near a stage for such a thing to happen. What must be campaigned for is not a secular government, but a secular mindset. I hope that clarifies where we might potentially disagree.
As for secular mindsets – Sri Lanka is not doing too badly – I don’t see anyone oppressing people of any other religion. However, the concept that religious beliefs need to be kept private, and that the Sinhalese are not automatically entitled to extra privileges based on language/religion has not taken root. (i.e. Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese concept – is it dead yet?). This I think, is the most pressing problem.
So will campaigning for secularism help? I’m not sure. It would probably not be the place to start. Rather, I would think that campaigning for a common Sri Lankan identity as you’ve highlighted, is the main thing. Living in a society which recognizes others as equal human beings and is just to all. Secularity will automatically follow from the concept. But a common identity is unlikely to follow from Secularism. That’s my current take on it, but would be glad to be convinced otherwise.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Burning_Issue,
This is just a quick reply to your post of May 23, 2010 @ 5:44 am
Wijayapala has a lot of knowledge about SL History and I have come to acknowledge and respect it. However the following is a story that I know of first hand.
An old friend of my grand father was an old boy of Trinity College Kandy. His parents had to agree to baptise him before Trinity admitted him to school. He was a nominal Christian at Trinity where he had to learn about Christianity. He passed the London Exams (they were held by London then) with flying colours. After leaving school, he reverted to Buddhism. This person married and a baby boy was born. When it was time for the boy to start schooling he approached his old school Trinity, but was told that if he reverts back to Christianity and allow the boy to be baptised not only would they admit his child but would offer a teaching position to him at Trinity. This person rejected both offers and decided that he would have nothing to do with Trinity in the future and admitted the child to a Govt Sinhala School nearby that had only primitive educational facilities. Even today the Missionary schools will admit a Buddhist child without the demand for exorbitant “donations” if the parents agree to baptise the child. This I know first hand as it happened to my children as well.
Due to the above knowledge which is not hearsay and seem to be working on the principle of Education only for converts, I find it very difficult to believe that the Missionaries did not use schools to enforce conversion when their powers were more or less unbridled.
I would of course engage you and Wijayapala in more detail later.
Sujewa (May 23, 2010 @ 12:10 am)
“I was & am arguing for actually separating the government from religion – so that both can do what each does best w/ out being hindered by the other & so that both, being independent, can be a better source of checks & balances against the other.”
on this subject …
Secular Education
———————
Problem I see is when secular ideals conflict with ‘freedom to practice one’s religion’. An issue that needs addressing in even the most developed countries, however Australia I hear are doing something about it. There, I think the immigration laws require prospective immigrants to formally declare that they would conform to the law of the land in priority to any other law or custom (in direct confrontation with Islam which rules the opposite).
The reason I see this as a factor is because all religions have divisive elements to them, or the followers imagine there are and behave in compliance of them (like burning down churches to protect religion, flying planes into buildings). These divisive issues remains in the West too, however, the general public are ‘educated/aware/sensible’ enough to adjust accordingly and ignore the scriptures where they feel necessary.
Good examples are, where each religions effectively says followers of other religions are eternally doomed. Or are bad people, infidels. Or people who have done bad things in a previous life (Note OTC!). In the West people adjust, when they say ‘so help me god’ in the US they know they are not making a point in order to distinguish between those who believe in god and those who don’t, and nobody takes offence. Or the cultural and historic significance of the Church of England in Britain is understood for its correct significance, like pomp and ceremony (as opposed to a mandate to bash Catholics or other religions).
The problem of attitudes like ‘the disadvantaged are people who have done bad things in past lives’ comes from such a fundamental belief of Buddhist people I don’t know what or what extent of secular education can correct it. I have heard even educated SL harbour that sentiment as a true fact! (Mr Yapa, Wijayapla, OTC, you are educated aren’t you?)
In a secular country there needs to be education processes in place that help children grow up with the capacity to differenciate between the Kandy Perahera (ceremony of historic and cultural significance) and bad attitudes against fellow Sri Lankans as stated above.
At the moment all these (ie. philosophy, myth, legend, reality, politics, custom, science, law) are all lumped into one – in a society that cannot tell one from the other (as can be seen from contributions to this thread).
Dear SomewhatDisgusted / BalangodaMan,
Here is BM’s Question and the ensuing discussion
BM May 18, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
“Do you think all, or a significantly large proportion, of highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people around the world (not born into a Buddhist society) accept the speculative items contained in Buddhism (karma, rebirth, nirvana) as real things in the world? And if not why not?”
———————
Me May 20, 2010 @ 2:34 am
There are a large number of intellectuals in the Christian West. There are as many in the Moslem world. Both these communities overwhelmingly believe in a Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and loving Creator God. Such beliefs has an overwhelming number of absurdities within yet these highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people still prefer to believe in those Religions.
So what is the point that you are trying to make?
———————-
BM May 20, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
“The point is easy.
( First, these intelligent people are not all Chirstians and Muslims. It is the insular SL mentality that if someone is not Buddhist he must be Christian or Muslim or Hindu. But that is irrelevent to the argument)
If intelligent people exist (surely they do) then they would also conclude, as you do, that on the available evidence Buddhism is the absolute truth (as you do). But they do not.”
———————–
SD says May 21, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
“Actually, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a god. There’s a lot of literature on the relationship between belief in god and average intelligence. Try wiki.”
————————–
Me May 22, 2010 @ 12:24 am
I am puzzled by the fact that in SL there is a very large number of Engineers, Doctors, Accountants, University Professors, Educators, Mathematicians, Professionals of every description, High Caliber Businessmen, Intellectuals, Supreme Court Judges, Civil Servants, Lawyers, Post Graduates, Graduates, Inventors etc that belong to Christian, Hindu and Moslems Faiths.
The Christian Missionary Schools have been contributing educated youth who believe in God since there establishment of those schools in Colonial times. That is a very large number indeed. Quite a few of them has successfully gone through Tertiary education.
All of them believe in God.
I am hard pressed to classify them as unintelligent.
——————————–
SD May 22, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
“Here’s the problem with your argument. In the previous thread, you were arguing *against* god. Clearly then, you were directly challenging all these intelligent individuals yourself?
Did you do so because you were more intelligent than them all? You clearly did not as you say so above. Where does that leave one? That God exists? Or the intelligent people were mistaken? If so why?
So where did you get the notion that those who believe in god = stupid?
Did you read the article on Wikipedia?
The easiest way to think about this is to think about the circumstances of a God believer’s birth. Babies are not born believing in a god. What happened in the interim that did not cause *you* to believe god but that gave them an unshakeable belief that god exists, despite being far more intelligent than the average Joe?”
—————————
B’Man’s Question
Do you think all, or a significantly large proportion, of highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people around the world accept the speculative items contained in Buddhism (karma, rebirth, nirvana) as real things in the world? And if not why not?
Note that the words “analytical and intelligent” are not clarified and are used loosely.
If analytical and intelligent means educated then the qualifier used “all, or a significantly large proportion” becomes a fallacy as the overwhelming majority of such educated persons Believe in God which itself is speculative. This is what I pointed out in my reply of May 20, 2010 @ 2:34 am
BM’s response to that shows a change from the “all, or a significantly large proportion,” that he started with to “If intelligent people exist” and an attempt to exclude the God believing but intelligent (educated) majority world population which is different to the earlier assertion.
He goes on thus “then they would also conclude, as you do, that on the available evidence Buddhism is the absolute truth (as you do)”. Here BM conveniently forgets that I have, from the inception (remember my answer to you in the transformation thread?), stated that I “believe” in rebirth and the CARRY OVER of the affects of thoughtful or premeditated action to a future birth. I have reiterated this many times. The reason why BM ignores what I have reiterated but keep continuing assigning a contrary position is either to confuse the reader or plain Dishonesty. His post of May 20, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
Then you come in with your point about the National Academy of Sciences to which I responded with the ground situation in SL where an overwhelmingly large population who are educated and Intelligent have a belief in God a speculative item in itself.
My argument against God was not based on whether those who believed in them were intelligent or not hence you charge is misplaced. My argument was based on the inconsistencies of the teaching which do not support an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Loving Creator, some of which are: the need for Incest to propagate, the need to go through Him in order to reach Heaven, The statement that if he is rejected His wrath will visit 4 generations. How DNA could have so much variation if it did start with one man. The visible disorder that’s present. The reason for creating germs, viruses etc that causes disease and many more.
I never based my argument on the intellect of the followers. So where did you get the notion that I thought God believers were stupid? Intellect and belief are two different things. Belief does not equate to stupid.
I agree with your statement that “Babies are not born believing in a god.”
They are not born having shame about their bodies either.
There are many things that they are not born with but acquire through life. I was fortunate not to be born into a God believing family. You are too. I believe that my fortune is due to the Premeditated or thoughtful actions of my previous births.
If you were born in to such a family it would have been very hard for you to cultivate an Agnostic thinking even as an adult. Don’t you agree that your Buddhist upbringing which encouraged you to question Buddhism, even as a child, made your free thinking outlook easier to achieve?
BM on many occasions attributes his own thinking or fabrications to others, dishonestly. The following statement is just one of many
“If intelligent people exist (surely they do) then they would also conclude, as you do, that on the available evidence Buddhism is the absolute truth (as you do). But they do not.”
The fact is I do not conclude what BM says I do. My position reiterated in several posts has been consistent. I believe but don’t conclude.
So what makes BM to refuse Recognising that?
Dishonesty or Amnesia?
Dear OTC,
RE: “I was fortunate not to be born into a God believing family. You are too. I believe that my fortune is due to the Premeditated or thoughtful actions of my previous births.”
While I’m certainly glad that I do not believe in any God, your words imply that those who do believe in God were sinners and also that people born into misfortune today were sinners. This is not so different from Christians who believe that people *not* born Christian are sinners or Muslims believing that people not born Islamic are infidels. There is an obvious pattern here. These patterns are an important part of why religions are the way they are and we ignore these patterns at our own peril.
“Don’t you agree that your Buddhist upbringing which encouraged you to question Buddhism, even as a child, made your free thinking outlook easier to achieve?”
I must honestly say that I’m rethinking my views on this and welcome the opinion of others.
Just to think out loud, the reason I became a skeptic is because my parents/grand-parents were highly skeptical people. They had all shed belief in KRN, and the importance of being skeptical had been acquired by my own parents, and subsequently I, based on the scientific world view which advocates skepticism. So as much as I’d like to, I cannot claim to have had any inherent ability to “not believe” myself, other than through exposure to such thinking. No other world view makes sense to me, given that us humans have a natural propensity to “believe” – we are pattern seeking mammals – that’s a *fact*.
The scientific world view did not arise within Sri Lanka. It is a “western outlook”, as Mr. Yapa would say (not to be confused with the scientific method, which is a derivative). Given the number of Buddhists who have no such skepticism and given the massive number who continue to hang on to absurd superstitious beliefs, everything from astrology to palmistry to asvaha katahava etc. etc. I’m not a 100% certain that Buddhists are inherently more skeptical than others.
I do however, think that Buddhists are more tolerant of those who do not share their belief (possibly by following the same logic process you’ve given above – that others are just unlucky due to their karma), and will not proseletyze to them. Buddhists will not resort to crusades either. So while I think the Buddhist world view is inherently more tolerant, this militant Buddhist stuff seems to be having the opposite effect – therefore, am not sure what the social outcome of challenging Buddhism in public would be. Mr. Yapa’s reaction was quite revealing I must say. Therefore, we are once again put into a position where we must distinguish between what the Buddha said, and what is practised today.
Also, I’m wondering whether the Buddhists are subtlely fed the illusion of skepticism, a la Kaalama. Let’s not forget that at the end of the sutta, the folk in Kaalaama shaved their heads and became “believers”. They did not remain skeptics. Wijayapala made the point quite well – the Buddha never really intended it to be believed “half-way”.
Nevertheless, yes, I would agree that Buddhism does not coerce you into anything, which is certainly not a compliment that can be paid to the other mainstream religions. I do not see Buddhism attempting to actively suppress your thinking either, although some have called Buddhism – a prison without walls.
So you may be right. I certainly hope so, because part of my respect for Buddhism is based on the notion that Buddhism might indeed encourage free thinking. But then, as I find out increasingly, I’m no Buddhist! So others are welcome to share their own opinions as to how skeptical a society we are in this regard and also how “open” we are to criticism and/or promote free thinking.
RE: “This I know first hand as it happened to my children as well.”
Could you please elaborate on this? Trinity directly asked you to baptize your children before being enrolled? Or agreed to waive the “donation”? Also, at what period in time did that other issue happen to your grand-father’s friend? You are convinced of the veracity of this?
cheers,
/SD
Had a long face to face meeting (after some e-mail exchanges over the past few weeks) with another secularist this morning/early afternoon (dude grew up in SL, finishing his studies in the US, plans on going back to SL to settle down, teach, work, etc.) & the believers may be glad to know that he also volunteers at a Buddhist temple here in US & also supports Buddhist temples in SL (in his village/town, also another temple that is mentioned in SL history – or at least the Mahavamsa (sp?), etc.). Anyway, SL agnosticism & secularism grows out of, or can grow out of, SL Buddhism; my friend told me that he became a secularist because he saw the hypocrisy that exists in SL culture (the difference between Buddhist theory/advice & life lived in SL by many) in general & SL political & religious life in particular – and that he feels separating the Temple from the State would be both useful to the Temple/SL Buddhism & also Sri Lankan people/SL because it may make it difficult for politicians & other leaders to use Buddhism to manipulate people into doing things that they want done even though, at the core, the actions may not have anything to do with Buddhism or are counter to Buddhism. And he said (i think/if i recall/heard correctly) that he follows either 5 percepts or some part out of the Eight Fold Path (so, technically, he can still be considered a Buddhist, in my opinion). Anyway, I know a lot of details are vague – I made it so to protect the identity of the friend, his family, & his future in SL – but, as was evident from my meeting, there are some already, & perhaps more in the future, who will come to an agnostic & seclurarist view/relationship with Buddhism in SL in a sense naturally, w/ out the aid of a “Western Conspiracy”, etc. – because the post-war development needs of the country, plus the history of underdevelopment & conflict & the use of Buddhism for un-Buddhistic purposes (ethnic separatism, promoting superstitious (sp?) beliefs, etc. – also resigning to one’s fate out of a belief in karma) will make intelligent & thinking people re-evaluate the beliefs & views are that are past down through the ages & how they manifest in the real world. In time, Buddhist agnosticism (where the verifiable aspects of the religion are followed & the speculative aspects are de-emphasized or ignored) & Buddhist secularists (Buddhists or Buddhism friendly people who also support secularism or the existence of a secular government & institutions & movements) may become as common as full on 100% Buddhist believers in SL.
And also, we concluded that it is possible to be a SL patriot & also an agnostic/secularist at the same time – though, I am sure, some hard core right wing believers in SL & the diaspora might disagree.
- S
Hey SomewhatD,
RE: “But at the same time, I don’t think separating religion from state is useful as it stands now. The associated change in mindset has not taken place and that’s what I agree with Wijayapala on. Therefore, we are nowhere near a stage for such a thing to happen. What must be campaigned for is not a secular government, but a secular mindset.”
Well, there are 109 people who are fans of the Secular Sri Lanka Facebook page (mostly or all Sri Lankans) at the moment, so, there is at least a tiny bit of interest in further developing the secular identity in SL
I don’t think work towards secularizing the government and work towards secularizing or expanding the populatiry of the secular concept in SL need to follow a certain order (as in society first, then gov) – both are being done at the same time at the moment and both may benefit by the work being done at the same time.
I think whatever happens first will influence the other & cause it to happen also; a secular SL gov could help increase the appreciation of secular concepts among the general population/society & also a greater support for secularism in the general society may assist the gov separate itself from religion.
A good way to safeguard the idea of justice when it comes to dealing with religious & ethnic/racial pluralism (any individual being treated fairly despite of his/her religious background or ethnic background or of not having a religion or not subscribing to an ethnic identity) would be for such ideas to find a permanent home among the population (actually, these ideas already exist among some Sinhalese, and have existed for decades – and also, no doubt, among some Tamils) so that the country is not at the whim of a given administration/president/political party re: this matter.
Positively oriented agnostics & non-believers who are related to SL/part of SL (either in the country or in the diaspora) such as we can assist w/ developing or popularizing this new outlook; and a secular gov/secularism in the society/a common Sri Lankan identity are all closely related and inter-dependent I think.
Also, as mentioned at an earlier post, another big thing for positive agnostics to focus on is economic development in SL. All of the problems that the country faces or has faced in the past may be easier to deal with when there is plenty of money & work around/available for people. I have been pushing this idea somewhat in the SL secular underground, will do more of it. Also, let’s work on how (the post that we started at my blog) the Western diaspora & SL can/may be able to work together to ensure that more $s flow to SL as investments, donations, grants, loans, etc.
Also, I am 100% certain that in time SL will become not only a just society/nation, but also a very productive & wealthy one (and this is a faith based observation, not based on facts – well, based on some facts such as the ending of the war, the positive qualities & the drive that exists among Lankans, etc., & then projecting/imagning/slightly creating the future
. Of course I would like to see this happen sooner rather than later, to minimize unnecessary suffering in SL.
- S
::
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“While I’m certainly glad that I do not believe in any God, your words imply that those who do believe in God were sinners and also that people born into misfortune today were sinners. “
That’s your own construct. I hope you can remember what we discussed about the last thought at death’s door. It’s possible for you to have been doing meritorious acts through out life but remembering an indiscretion as the last thought that results in the result of that indiscretion taking precedence first. So no all those born into misfortune are not necessarily sinners but would have had a sinful thought as the last thought just before death.
“This is not so different from Christians who believe that people *not* born Christian are sinners or Muslims believing that people not born Islamic are infidels.”
That does not tie up with a loving God concept if indeed all humans are children of God. The Buddhist concept has self at the centre. You and only you are responsible for the action and the result (I am keeping in mind the question you raised about continuity and giving it a lot of thought). Hence superficially you may see patterns which cease to exist when you look at the principle.
“Just to think out loud, the reason I became a skeptic is because my parents/grand-parents were highly skeptical people.”
Sure that is true. However down the line where scepticism took root with your ancestors, the original sceptic would have found it easier to be a sceptic because Buddhism encouraged looking inwards and questioning Buddhism itself.
“given that us humans have a natural propensity to “believe” – we are pattern seeking mammals – that’s a *fact*.”
I don’t quite agree with you here as I think rather than belief inquisitiveness is the ingrained character.
“The scientific world view did not arise within Sri Lanka. It is a “western outlook”, as Mr. Yapa would say”
Pardon me for stating this. I do not think you are being fair to Yapa. Why is it that you guys can’t discuss something without dragging in Yapa to it? Reminds me of the saying “Stones are thrown at a bearing tree and not at a barren one”. Yapa has immense knowledge. It’s more fruitful for the discussion to milk his knowledge rather than attack him at the slightest unjustified opportunity. At least he is Honest and does not attribute to others what is not written by them, unlike some who write fiction here.
“So while I think the Buddhist world view is inherently more tolerant, this militant Buddhist stuff seems to be having the opposite effect”
Different people have different emotions and different reactions to those emotions. That is a fact of life. Being Buddhist nominally will not stop them having unBuddhisttic reactions. It will be the same whether you are Christian, Moslem, Hindu or other or Agnostic or Rationalist or Free thinker. You can hardly blame Buddhism or any other religion for that. That’s why I consider it foolish to critique a religion based on the behaviour of errant practitioners rather than the Religion itself.
“I do not see Buddhism attempting to actively suppress your thinking either,
No it does not suppress independent thinking as Buddha himself invited criticism about what he taught. He specifically requested Not to accept anything just because he taught them. I cannot think of ANY other Philosopher who was bold enough to state that.
“although some have called Buddhism – a prison without walls.”
Anyone who controls their basic instincts and urges can be classified as such. That’s why we don’t do what dogs do on the streets. It’s your own conscience acting to filter what is right from wrong that can be described as the restraint on actions. In this case the walls are your consciousness of what is right and what is wrong. That is the “prison without walls”. All those who are living outside that prison are not imprisoned. What would any sane society chose? The answer is very clear, is it not?
Re the story I related in my post to Burning_Issue, it is the absolute truth. It was my grand fathers’ friend who had to be Baptised in order to gain entry to Trinity. It was his son who was requested to be baptised before admission which he flatly refused and even threw the job offer down the drain. My children attended missionary schools in Colombo not Trinity. The “Donation” request is naturally a discrete one and depends on your faith. This is the practice even today. Try admitting a non Christian child to a Missionary school (even govt assisted), you can experience it first hand.
I notice that you have deftly sidestepped the main thrust of my post. This was a rebuttal of your unjust charge addressed to me in your post of May 22, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
OTC,
SomewhatDisgusted has answered your question.
However, the question itself is unnecessary, as you see below. (and I am not going to cut and paste).
The 2nd question about ‘any intelligent and analytical person’ is a re-wording because Mr Yapa would not answer the first, more basic, wording. it goes like this.
“If you were born in Riyadh to a Muslim family, instead of in SL to a Buddhist family, would your belief in Buddhism be as strong as it is now?”.
Can you answer that?
OTC,
RE. this question of mine …
“If you were born in Riyadh to a Muslim family, instead of in SL to a Buddhist family, would your belief in Buddhism be as strong as it is now?”
Here it is in a more graphic way.
Think of your earliest recollection in this life. Say your earliest memory was at age 3. You looked around you and you discovered that (1) you are a boy and then (2) that you have parents, brothers and sisters perhaps. And (3) that you all live in a place called Sri Lanka. Good.
You then learned that (4) you are a Buddhist. In your childhood you may remember being taken to the temple. As you grew older you were taught Buddhism at school. As an adult you hold yourself as a Buddhist.
Ok.
Now, my question (originally to Mr Yapa) is a hypothetical one.
Imagine the time of your earliest recollection? Imagine (as before) you looked around and you discovered that (1) you are a boy and then (2) that you have parents, brothers and sisters. And (3) that you all live in a place called Saudi Arabia.
You then learn that (4) you are a Muslim. In your childhood you remember being taken to the the mosque, praying five times a day and being taught Islam. As an adult you hold yourself as a Muslim.
Remember in this hypothetical case you are still YOU, the individual OTC, with the same thinking faculties.
So my question is, in this hypothetical case, as OTC – an individual capable of unbiased and objective thinking untainted by external influences – would you still be as convinced of the karma, rebirth, nirvana theory as an absolute truth?
If so, please say yes.
If not, please say no.
In either case please can you explain why?
OTC,
Having read your previous post in detail I think you will not understand the question.
In an obtuse way you have already answered it (here May 23, 2010 @ 4:48 pm) when you said …
“I was fortunate not to be born into a God believing family. You are too. I believe that my fortune is due to the Premeditated or thoughtful actions of my previous births.”
Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I get it.
So, all those people in the rest of the world were sinners in their previous births not to have been born in SL to a Buddhist family?
WTF?
Dear BalangodaMan,
“Having read your previous post in detail I think you will not understand the question. “
You have done three posts after mine. You admitted in the third that you did two of them without Reading mine properly. No wonder you run after your own tail.
“In an obtuse way you have already answered it (here May 23, 2010 @ 4:48 pm) when you said …
“I was fortunate not to be born into a God believing family. You are too. I believe that my fortune is due to the Premeditated or thoughtful actions of my previous births.”
Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I get it.
Unfortunately you don’t seem to get it.
Mostly due to your rudimentary knowledge of Buddhism but your preoccupation with Yonis and WTF may have something to do with it too.
“So, all those people in the rest of the world were sinners in their previous births not to have been born in SL to a Buddhist family? WTF? “
Though you claim to have read my posts in detail the above statement by you is proof that you have not done so.
Please go back and reread the answer I gave to SomewhatDisgusted regarding a similar question in the same post. But before you do that please meditate and put yourself in to a Self Hypnotic trance to cure yourself of your preoccupation with Yonis and WTF.
I also note that you have no answer to your Dishonest practice of writing Fiction, a charge that I have leveled at you with proof, in several posts not just the one above.
“So, all those people in the rest of the world were sinners in their previous births not to have been born in SL to a Buddhist family? ”
Good work, Balangoda Man. You have shown what a comical process so-called rebirth is. The other thing is that thought is the most random of human processes. How could it possibly be that the final thought is what decides what one will be in the next life. What about those people in comas, hooked up to life-support machines, who are alive only because the family did not want to deal with plugging the plug… one can only imagine what their “thoughts” must be! Or will they simply be reborn as a life support machine in the next life?
Dear OTC,
RE: “That’s your own construct.”
You think so? BalangodaMan came to the same conclusion. It’s a direct implication of your statement. You were “lucky” to be born a Buddhist, and that luck was a direct result of actions in your past-life. Christian thinking is the same. So the pattern is that the religion leads the believer to think they are lucky to be born into that religion. If you weren’t born a Buddhist, you will not have access to the path to salvation – you are therefore lucky by implication. You don’t agree?
RE: “Hence superficially you may see patterns which cease to exist when you look at the principle.”
Hope I’ve clarified above what I saw as the pattern.
RE: “However down the line where scepticism took root with your ancestors, the original sceptic would have found it easier to be a sceptic because Buddhism encouraged looking inwards and questioning Buddhism itself.”
Yes. Perhaps. But do keep in mind that there are plenty of Christians who started becoming skeptics. The ethos of the time could have contributed to a lack of belief.
RE: “I don’t quite agree with you here as I think rather than belief inquisitiveness is the ingrained character.”
I agree and I think it’s my statement that might not have been clear. I did not mean that belief was the “cause” but that belief is most often a “result” of us commonly seeing patterns where there are none.
RE: “Pardon me for stating this. I do not think you are being fair to Yapa. Why is it that you guys can’t discuss something without dragging in Yapa to it?”
I admit to taking a few jabs at him here and there, mostly in good fun, but occasionally not. (You will probably agree that he has on many occasions done nothing but launch ad-hominems so I would point out that my reaction is relatively mild
). I do not think I’m being particularly unfair in this instance. He has repeatedly informed me that I have “western thinking” – again a strange notion to say the least – and that secularism, democracy etc. are all western constructs. I was merely highlighting the fact that, so is science. So I was making a point here. I do not feel I have misrepresented him but he is welcome to correct the record if I have.
RE: “That’s why I consider it foolish to critique a religion based on the behaviour of errant practitioners rather than the Religion itself.”
I agree with you in principle but disagree in practice. At the very outset, the agnostics were arguing that religion should be kept private. In fact, we suggested that this was the logical thing to do – given that what was being practiced and what the Buddha seemed to have little relationship. The believers argued in favour of govt. sanctioned practice, including militancy if necessary. Therefore, to point out the effect on popular culture is not unfair. How do you propose to separate the two?
RE: “That is the “prison without walls”. All those who are living outside that prison are not imprisoned. What would any sane society chose? The answer is very clear, is it not?
Of course. I quite agree. But that was not the context it was meant in. I unfortunately do not have the book at hand to recall what exactly it was, but I remember that it made some sense. It would certainly not be sensible to mean it in the other sense you’ve highlighted. Anyway, will try to recall and pen it down later.
RE: “The “Donation” request is naturally a discrete one and depends on your faith. This is the practice even today.”
Ok. Quite possible. In Trinity itself, the Buddhists outnumber the Christians by quite a bit. However, whether there are hidden “discounts” for Christians, I am trying to find out. I am aware that, as is typical of most?? things, having “contacts” and having money are easy shortcuts.
“I notice that you have deftly sidestepped the main thrust of my post”
I did not really make a charge. I was asking where you got this notion that anyone was implying that stupid = god, because that was the issue you were addressing, when no such issue existed. I believe BalangodaMan has clarified the context of his question.
I hope I’ve clarified my own position with regard to this. Please read the wikipedia article. The correlation between IQ and belief probably stems from the fact that some people need more certainty in their lives, and religion provides that certainty. Remaining skeptical requires a departure from that norm of belief in god, hence a correlation with IQ to enable that free thinking. However, that in *no way* implies that highly intelligent people do not believe in God or that non-believers are intelligent by default. I leave it to your to ascertain what might cause such a highly intelligent person to continue believing in God, despite all evidence to the contrary.
“I am keeping in mind the question you raised about continuity and giving it a lot of thought”
Actually, what should really burn your noodle is not this question I feel.
It’s the question that BalangodaMan asked: “In this hypothetical case, as OTC – an individual capable of unbiased and objective thinking untainted by external influences – would you still be as convinced of the karma, rebirth, nirvana theory as an absolute truth?”
I will add a qualifier to aid this: as an unbiased and objective thinker, on what grounds would you dismiss the very likely possibility that meditation gives rise to hallucination, making KRN imaginary constructs, and instead, choose to believe that KRN is very real?
cheers,
/SD
Dear BalangodaMan
RE: “Yes true. But for this we need something else apart from democracy IMHO. We need (1) education and (2) freedom from being manipulated – again a
function of education, and the ‘brainwashing’ we see around us is the frightening part. In short an ‘ethical society’ as you say, in defiance of the brainwashing.”
I quite agree. The starting point of an ethical society is healthy debate on various issues and a willingness to confront out dearly held beliefs. Even with regard to popular notions of “democracy” – it is clearly obvious that such democracy results in an utterly nonsensical form of governance.
Isn’t Sri Lanka an excellent example? The Tamils want to be a majority in their own right so they do not need to be bullied into dancing to the tune of the Sinhalese. The answer? Be a majority in an Eelam and make others dance to your own tune instead. The Sinhalese meanwhile, can continue to do whatever they choose and steamroll others as they’ve done in the past, until another dissatisfied group starts a revolt and/or want yet another Eelam to play their own tune. Those in the new Eelam will want a smaller Eelam and so on ad infinitum. A democracy *will always fail* with such thinking from any party.
Therefore, living in a democracy requires that we understand its weaknesses and compensate for them. Simply “going with the majority” is a comical idea for anyone to seriously entertain, creating an utterly unethical and unjust society. “Wanting to be a majority yourself” is also a comical idea because it’s just the same problem being postponed. All parties need a commitment to a just and fair society with a greater responsibility of the majority towards minorities. (Again, obviously)
That of course, is all about attitude and a sense of fairness and responsibility to your fellow man. I too cannot imagine how to fix a problem there other than through awareness raising and stopping the brainwashing as you’ve pointed out. Would be glad to hear various points of view.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Heshan,
“Good work, Balangoda Man. You have shown what a comical process so-called rebirth is.”
Sorry to restate this Heshan as I do not want to go over the same material that was discussed in the Transformation of Buddhism thread and hurt the susceptibilities of believers of another religion but your post does not leave an alternative.
Rebirth is far more believable than a Creator who is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Loving but who creates ONE man from the dust of the earth, then creates ONE woman with a rib from that man and expects that couple and the children to fornicate amongst themselves and create the several billion strong population of the world.
Now how can they do that without Incest? Eve would have had a super human task. Even if she produced a child every nine months till her death. And if she lived a Hundred Adult years she would have had only about 50 years of reproductive life (allowing for an unusual period before menopause). She could have produced only 66 children in her lifetime. Actually this would not be the case as the chance of her conceiving again is more than the 9 months. She becomes a lactating mother when the baby is born. Even if her eldest child was a girl she could have borne a child only after she started producing an ovum. That would have been around the age of 12. Who could have impregnated her at that age? Adam the Father? Assuming her 9 month younger sibling was a boy did she fornicate with the 11 year old brother? Brilliant plan of an Omniscient Creator don’t you think?
How do you explain the infinite disparity between the people of today who long ago descended from the same stock?
How do you explain the almost infinite gene pool the DNA and the Chromosomes if that had just 48 Chromosomes from Adam to begin with?
So where was the Creator’s Omniscience?
I can go on pointing out absurdities of Creation Theory but I think the above would suffice.
“The other thing is that thought is the most random of human processes.”
Yes agreed. That’s why Buddhism is mind centric and is all about controlling thought. Thought is the fount for all good and evil is it not? So where should the control begin? At the source or elsewhere?
“What about those people in comas, hooked up to life-support machines, who are alive only because the family did not want to deal with plugging the plug… one can only imagine what their “thoughts” must be! Or will they simply be reborn as a life support machine in the next life?”
You need to study Buddhism before you try to ridicule it.
In the absence of the last thought there are other things that come into play. Please read it up on the web. There are many good sources of information.
SomewhatDisgusted,
“That of course, is all about attitude and a sense of fairness and responsibility to your fellow man.”
Whilst I agree, I see this as harder to achieve in SL than it might appear.
I live in a Western country. Driving in a Western country is a joy, an opportunity to show consideration to your fellow man, acknowledge the consideration of others. People stop at red lights even if no other car is crossing. Cars stop at pedestrian crossing to allow people to cross. We stop and let the other car pass where appropriate. We acknowledge the kindness of other motorists by giving a wave, a salute, a smile, or flashing the lights. We make room for crossing cars to pass if we are waiting in a queue. We acknowledge a mistake by holding up a hand to indicate it was my mistake.
The general character of ‘selfishness’ in SL comes home to you with a bang on a visit to SL, on the Colombo roads! We drive with one hand on the horn. We don’t stop for pedestrians (its a waste of paint!). No road rules are observed – everyone is first. We don’t make room for other motorists if waiting in a queue. Roundabouts have cars coming in in random fashion. It is as if no one else matters. This is not a tiny minority – this is everyone!
I think whatever is causing this behaviour will be the big stumbling block to creating a ‘fairer’ society. Anyone care to comment on why this behaviour exists?
It is ironic. SL has a great reputation among people who visit as a land of happy smiling faces. A great reputation for hospitality and nice things like that.
OTC,
in your post to Heshan ..
“Rebirth is far more believable than a Creator who is claimed to be Omniscient, … etc”
Geeeeeeeeez! I do not believe this trrrrrash!
I come across this time and time again!!! WHAT IS THIS THING we have in SL where some people think/claim, and are adamant (!), that Buddhism is ‘right’ because ‘Christianity’ is wrong???? WTF? (again!)
It is as if we are born with just 2 cells in our brains – it is one or the other when it comes to religion. Like, there is a box in the form in which a word has to be written – it can only be Buddhism or Christianity. It cannot be left blank! I guess the thinking is that you have a religion even before you are born???!!!
OTC, get this PLEASE!
YOU CANNOT ARGUE FOR THE TRUTH OF ONE RELIGION (whichever) ON THE BASIS OF THE ABSURDITIES AND ANOMALIES STATED IN ANOTHER RELIGION, or even absurdities in ALL OTHER RELIGIONS!
Have you not kept up with this thread?
TRUTH
——–
We are trying to show that ALL religions have aspects to them (equally) that make them ALL highly unsuitable for the purpose of determining what is TRUTH!
BIAS
——–
We are trying to show that the reason YOU are a Buddhist is because of your Buddhist surrounding in your upbringing, not because of your critical analysis and fair choice. (by being born in SL not Saudi Arabia). Equally trying to show that a Muslim is similarly convinced of his religious beliefs because of his surroundings and resultant brainwashing. So?
Advice: step out of the well. Take a look around. See? there are other frogs. Other animals. Rabbits, flies, birds. Plants, trees. The sky is much bigger than it looks from inside the well. There is a thing called wind that may not be apparent from inside the well. There are things called ‘people’. An intelligent frog colleague may have pondered about a possibility that the well was made by someone other than a frog. May have been one of these ‘people’ things. But who knows? Frogs can’t know this – frogs can only speculate though that may be an interesting activity. But there are things a frog can enjoy, appreciate, get involved in outside of the well.
Step out of the well. You won’t regret it!
Dear Heshan,
I intended to include the following in my previous post.
Christians believe in Heaven, Purgatory and Hell.
Since at Death they leave behind their physical body here on Earth what goes to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell? If it is what you call the Soul what is it? How does the Soul travel? Have you seen it? Has the Soul got anything to do with the Mind? But then since thought is the most random of human processes it must be a mindless something right?
After all, you seem to believe in a comical afterlife as well.
However, I don’t think the idea of an afterlife is comical, though you do.
SomewhatDisgusted to OTC,
“I will add a qualifier to aid this: as an unbiased and objective thinker, on what grounds would you dismiss the very likely possibility that meditation gives rise to hallucination, making KRN imaginary constructs, and instead, choose to believe that KRN is very real?”
Ooooooh! SD you are naughty! naughty! naughty!
OTC, you need only watch a performance of a stage hypnotist to answer that one. Is past life regression a commonly available service/scam in SL? I expect so, along with astrology, palmistry and such. It is well known that these are delusions suggested by oneself (because they want to believe it) or are suggested by the hypnotist. Repeatable in controlled experiments.
Just a thought: what consumer protection research is there in SL? Is there an organisation, or even govt department, whos job is to check that these claims (eg. astrologers, palmists, past-life regression practitioners) are authentic?
If not, shouldn’t there be one?
AND did anyone go to the Rationalists Association of SL bash at Borella on the 18th?
OTC,
“Since at Death they leave behind their physical body here on Earth what goes to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell?” and also “karma, rebirth, nirvana”
You are taking these religious metaphors literally.
The ideas of an ‘afterlife’, being with God, nirvana are all metaphors for the same esseantial thing. The ‘Good Place’. As humans, we have no damn way of knowing the detail, or if any afterlife exists at all. However, the religious leaders of ancient times (and we do this today also. attend any class that teaches anything – they use metaphors) used these metaphors to get their messages across to the people of that time – the message that it is good to be good, and bad to be bad.
The problem with you is, after thousands of years you are reading this (the detail) as some ‘truth’. Try and see the meaning AND PURPOSE rather than what’s written on the surface.
You are not supposed to read into religious dogma LITERALLY.
(I can see what will happen if the world ends and human life vanished, survived by just a few human suvivors. Imagine all written and recorded knowledge is lost – except for a little scrap of paper on which I wrote my shopping list. Hundreds of generations later the surviving humans – now living in primitive conditions – find it. You can imagine the rest. There will be monuments built for the god of shampoo, John Keels Food City will be the new heaven, and guess who they will think is ‘God’?)
B-Man,
RE: “AND did anyone go to the Rationalists Association of SL bash at Borella on the 18th?”
2 or 3 of my fellow members of Secular Sri Lanka http://www.secularsrilanka.com/ attended. They said event went well (if I see a more detailed write up on web, will post link), w/ around 50 people in attendance. New friendships & collaborations – agnosticism & secularism related – are coming out of that event.
- S
OUR RELIGION IS DECIDED EVEN BEFORE WE ARE BORN, apparently!
———————————————————–
I said this to OTC
“I guess the thinking is that you have a religion even before you are born???!!!”
(my rhetorical statement)
I’ve only just realised the profundity of what I wrote (without thinking)
I think this is exactly what you mean by …
(OTC said) “I was fortunate not to be born into a God believing family. You are too. I believe that my fortune is due to the Premeditated or thoughtful actions of my previous births.”
Horror of horrors!
Are you ACTUALLY saying that our religion is DECIDED even before we are BORN?
And you want to feed this stuff to our children, and our children’s children? Hey, try getting this passed at the next UN council as an undisputed world truth!
my GOD OTC! This is absolutely outrageous, even hilarious! (another WTF?!)
If our religion is decided before we are born (OTC) we shouldn’t be concerned about ‘conversions’, ethical or not. The converts were probably sinners and meant to be Christian in this birth anyway. (its a bit like sex change to correct gender identity)
All that means is, (according to OTC) sinners will be re-born to those converted families. Future Buddhists (= people who are not sinners) will be born to the remaining Buddhist families, though an ever decreasing number of families. If more people in the world follow Buddhism and are consequently born as Buddhists in the next birth there will be very very very large families IMO.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted
Let’s look at BM’s May 18, 2010 @ 9:11 pm post in detail
“I have asked you (Mr Yapa mainly) whether you would be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person ?”
The question itself is faulty as firstly it assumes that Yapa’s Religion would be Buddhism while calling him a Muslim person. Quite contradictory in itself
Secondly. assumes that Yapa would have developed the same analytical capacity under a Restrictive religion such as Islam, that he developed while growing up under the influence of a liberal Religion that encourages Investigative Scrutiny even of itself such as Buddhism.
Then BM rephrases it
“Do you think all, or a significantly large proportion, of highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people around the world (not born into a Buddhist society) accept the speculative items contained in Buddhism (karma, rebirth, nirvana) as real things in the world? And if not why not?”
BM attempts to base his argument on the rejection of Karma, Rebirth and Nibbana as speculation, by a MAJORITY of intelligent people around the world who belong to other faiths.
I removed an OVERWHELMING majority from His assumed majority by showing that the Moslem and Christian world already believes in speculative items of their own religion though they are intelligent. This left him with just a small number of people that do not believe in speculative items probably just the Agnostics.
Hope you see the logic behind the argument.
There are certain things that need to come together to be able to practice Buddhism. The following are some of them
1. Be born a Human
2. Be born during a time where the Buddha’s Damma is practised
3. Be born with access to the Damma
Hope the answer to your question about why it’s fortunate to be born a Buddhist is clearer to you now.
Heshan observes that “…. thing is that thought is the most random of human processes.” I agree with him. Disciplining this undisciplined process is a corner stone of Buddhism. The way to discipline the mind was shown by the Buddha and meditation teaches you to stop your mind from wandering and develop single pointedness. BM says it is self Hypnosis which he practices. You say its hallucination. May be may be not. But now you are wandering into an area of science that is still in its infancy. Hope you can remember what I said about explaining the concept of colour to those Blind from Birth.
If one follows BM’s ideas to its logical conclusion the best answer to the ills of the world would be an army of professional Hypnotists a la BM
Dear BalangodaMan,
Trust you to run after your own tail.
My posts to Heshan of May 24, 2010 @ 2:17 pm & 3:22 pm contains no proof.
It was meant to drive home the fact that his gleeful appreciation of your comment ridiculing rebirth was myopic and short lived.
Let’s wait and see what his response to my comments is
BTW I note that you still have no answer to your Dishonest practice of writing Fiction, a charge that I have levelled at you with proof, in several posts not just the one above.
Deep bow
just more poems …
Agnostics and believers
Two sides of the same coin
Fervent believers both
Of their own superiority
Keep each other going
Until cows come home
And beyond
Ask for proof
But keep out of the laboratory
Of your own mind
Avoid at all costs
The glare of your own awareness
Stay busy looking for specks
In the other man’s eyes
When will we Sri Lankans ever learn?
When that day dawns
Mark my words
When true realization hits you
One word will be too much
here’s one from Rumi
Every venture one’s life may replete
Mathnavi’s purpose is the Great Defeat.
Set afire, burning with cleansing heat,
On the anvil, egos ply and beat.
This book, if you open, read, entreat
Your life, a mendicant’s, in the street.
whatever Rumi meant – that book is your mind – start reading it folks
B-Man,
Here are 7 video clips, of various lengths, from the Rationalist Day 2010 event. More videos are coming soon.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=197140D82F477278
- S
Dear BalangodaMan,
You have made a profound discovery “OUR RELIGION IS DECIDED EVEN BEFORE WE ARE BORN”
Is that the ONLY thing you observe?
There are more permanent things than religion that are decided for you before you are even born. You can always change your religion but you can’t change your Ethnicity, Skin Colour, your mental faculties, your physical faculties, your parents, your siblings, your sex (male female or transvestite), short or long, tall or short, wealthy or poor, legitimate or illegitimate, sickly or healthy etc
In fact, is there ANYTHING that you can decide for your self before birth? You are rudderless and powerless to decide which of the billions of female wombs you will come out of.
Those have a more profound effect on your life than a religion that you can discard at will.
OTC,
You are still on the wrong track (let’s hope I can pull you out of it before the 9:25 from Panadura comes charging down!).
We are NOT taking about the *practice* of Buddhism. We ARE talking about the absolute conviction about the speculative items within Buddhism (not of Islam, not of Christianity).
You have answered it in a way. If Mr Yapa was born in Riyadh as a Muslim he would not be convinced of the speculative items of Buddhism – viz. karma, rebirth, nirvana – because he will be conditioned to embrace the speculative items in Islam instead, in just the same way.
The point is, there are (believe me) a large proportion of Muslim believers in Muslim countries and there are (as you know) a large proportion of believers in the speculative items in Buddhism (not talking about the other common sense items, just the things that only the believers are convinced about) in Buddhist countries like SL.
The question was leading into the next question – Do you think there is a correlation between the two ?
In other words, do you think this large proportion is convinced of these respective speculative items (in Islam and Buddhism respectively) because these large numbers of people have made an *informed, objective, unbiased decision* OR because their parents and elders and everyone around them are Islam or Buddhist as the case may be (and in most cases, do not know any different from that religion)?
Hope that makes it clear.
(phew!)
It’s like this. I think my Mum is the greatest Mum in the world. Hey, the funny thing is, my friend thinks ‘his’ Mum is the greatest Mum in the world. I disagree, obviously! Now, I think for the sake of honour I should give him a good thrashing! But hey, my neighbour across the road thinks ‘his’ Mum is the greatest. What???? So, the question is, is my Mum *really* the greatest Mum in the world, or is it because it is natural for one (anyone) to regard *their* Mum as the greatest Mum in the world. To borrow a phrase from SomewhatDisgusted, do you think there is a pattern here?
So, if you see the existence of a pattern, don’t you see that your conviction is NOT because of your religious belief being a ‘truth’ but because you are so conditioned to belief that it *is* the ‘truth’ – like it is for Mr Yapa to belief in Islam being the ‘truth’ if he were conditioned to being a Muslim instead.
Thank you for agreeing with that.
OTC,
re: the following (quoted material is in [brackets]):
“Dear SomewhatDisgusted
Let’s look at BM’s May 18, 2010 @ 9:11 pm post in detail
[“I have asked you (Mr Yapa mainly) whether you would be just as convinced of the ‘truth' of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person ?”]
The question itself is faulty as firstly it assumes that Yapa’s Religion would be Buddhism while calling him a Muslim person. Quite contradictory in itself”
No, I think you are misunderstanding the question (or are pretending to do so) or there is some major confusion, here is what the question is asking/the situation stated within the Q:
1 – a person is born in Riyad, is taught Islam
2 – person becomes a deep believer in Islam
The question is asked, I believe, to show that each religion produces deep believers who are convinced that their religion is the one true religion. I am sure B-Man can clarify.
RE:
“Secondly. assumes that Yapa would have developed the same analytical capacity under a Restrictive religion such as Islam, that he developed while growing up under the influence of a liberal Religion that encourages Investigative Scrutiny even of itself such as Buddhism.”
Islam in its entirety is not restrictive (or, there have been historical situations where Islam contributed to the development of science, philosophy (outside of Islamic thinking), & logic). Even at present there are many thinkers & scientists & humanitarian activists & artists who come from an Islamic background. Also, it is inaccurate to characterize Buddhism as a liberal religion. Some Buddhists are very conservative, as we see here, & take concepts that are found in Buddhist teachings & history as the literal truth. Both Islam & Buddhism have conservative & liberal wings.
Buddhism by itself does not always lead to any special analytical capabilities or, one does not need to be a Buddhist to be able to analyze & think critically about the world or events, objects, knowledge that is to be found in the world. That kind of activity has been going on for a long time, before Buddhism, & also outside the regions of Buddhist influence since the invention of Buddhism.
- S
Dear Balangoda Man,
“As I said before, I think the best proponents of the Buddhas teachings, for practical purposes, are non-Buddhist thinkers/writers who have translated these ideas to the modern world, not as religious ‘rules’ but as practical instruction for self improvement. An ethical society could emerge from that effort – I say ‘could’ though not necessarily.”
I’m not convinced. After all, many of this self-exalted “non-thinkers” (your words not mine) apparently do not even know basic arithmetic!
“I live in a Western country. Driving in a Western country is a joy, an opportunity to show consideration to your fellow man, acknowledge the consideration of others.”
I have an even greater example of the “consideration” you can find in advanced Western countries- how the elderly are treated. Unlike primitive Buddhist Sri Lanka where the children are brainwashed into caring for their parents, the West developed nursing homes for sophisticated rationalists to dump and forget them. You can go to these homes in the US on Thanksgiving Day and tell the residents that you’re a son or daughter come to take them for dinner, and they’ll believe you even though they can easily see that your skin color is a couple of shades too black!
You will never find this level of brilliant secular humanism in Sri Lanka. I heard that during the war, one major reason why soldiers deserted was because a parent fell ill and they had some superstitious obligation to go care for them; this only ended recently when Gotabhaya wasted valuable resources on the “Seva Vanitha” moneypit- truly a Buddhist abomination which would never arise in a secular society. If Sri Lankans had a rationalistic secular and Western-like mindset as you and Schizo Sujewa envision, the soldiers would have left their parents to die and the war would have been won so much sooner. Alas.
“By ‘the Sinhala-Buddhist brand’ I do not mean ‘Sinhala’ or ‘Buddhist’ in isolation, or the ‘Angry Buddhist’ of our modern times (though I accept the term is now evidently redefined to apply to this SL variety of neo Nazi-ism). I mean the original Sinhala-Buddhist brand as successfully promoted by the Anagarika in the late 1900s to early 2000s. Wasn’t it clear in the context?”
No, but that’s probably because you lack the historical knowledge and consistency of thought to establish a coherent context. Could you please make up your mind whether it was Anagarika Dharmapala or Olcott-Blavatsky who established “the original Sinhala-Buddhist brand?” (perhaps it wouldn’t make a difference, as you’d be wrong either way)
“my point was, the Olcott-Blavatsky factor was the big relaunch that created the now popular (devotional) Buddhism of today.”
And my point was that the big relaunch was prompted by Christian attacks against Buddhism much earlier. The appeal of Buddhism to the masses was evident as far back as the Uva-Wellassa uprising which collapsed only after the British captured the Tooth Relic. Olcott & Friends contributed a great deal to the phenomenon, but they were not primarily responsible for the cause or its original momentum.
The response against Christian aggression began in the 1840s with sporadic efforts against the missionaries in the low country, although one can argue that Buddhism already had a sufficiently strong hold over the population that the missionaries had to go to lengths to overcome it, such as launching a propaganda campaign through pamphlets in the 1830s and pressuring the colonial government to retract clause 5 of the Kandyan Convention on protecting Buddhism (you never answered OTC’s question why the British agreed to that clause to begin with if the people were not devout Buddhists).
I already mentioned Gunananda Thero and the Panadura debate which drew 10,000 spectators and motivated Olcott to come to SL (which is odd, given that there weren’t any motivated defenders of Buddhism before Olcott according to Balangoda Secular Logic). I must confess that I erred, the debate was in 1873 not 1862. In 1862, Gunananda Thero established the Sarvagna Sasanabhivrddhidayaka Dharma Samagama, the first Buddhist association in modern times established to promote Buddhism.
Then there was Hikkaduwe Sumangala Thero who established a printing press called Lankopakara to counter the missionaries’ pamphlet campaign. In 1885, he and Gunananda hamuduru designed the Buddhist flag. Also the ex-monk Batuwantudawe who wrote “Kristiani Prajnapti Khandanaya” (you can translate the meaning) and helped launch the first Buddhist newspaper in 1862.
The above quite amply demonstrates that the monks were able to mobilize the people on behalf of Buddhism before the White Friends came to the scene.
“Arguably, this was a much much bigger splash to the country than the arrival of Buddhism in 300 BC even.”
Right.. the arrival of Buddhism which spawned a 2300-year tradition of historical chronicles and the building of countless dagabas and Buddha statues was a mere ripple compared to Olcott and Blavatsky. Truly the sophistication of secular rationalism boggles the mind.
“Remember that in those days people regarded whatever white people said as genuine and authentic.”
And in these days, we have secular agnostics to play that role. God bless them!
“Equally Wijayapala, can you point me to any reported reportings of the Panadura Debate between 1962 and 1985?”
No- probably because the Christians didn’t dare risk another humiliation in the open until 1899 (when they were slapped around again by Janananda Thero the student of Gunananda). However, the pamphlet war continued.
“If not the Panadura Debate he may have been prompted by some other reason as he knew Blavtsaky who had already been here and ear-marked Ceylon as a likely candidate”
Please don’t waste my or your time with speculative thinking. The “some other reason” would have been another Buddhist-Christian confrontation which the secags of that day were eagerly sucking up.
“My point is, the widespread education of the Sinhala *masses* about the content of the Mahawansa is due to the political enterprise of the Anagarika around the turn of 2000 – by that I mean, not rumour, but chapter and verse, adding substance and evidence to the legend. He worked hard at it – not really necessary if it was already common knowledge, no?”
He had to work hard probably because many people back then could not even read or write. The question is not how literate the people were, but to what extent Buddhism mattered to the average person, and again OTC’s citation of clause 5 of the Kandyan Convention- the precedent for Chapter 2 of the 1978 Constitution- remains relevant.
OTC,
RE:
[“Ancient Sri Lanka was also the world's leading exporter of cinnamon, which was exported to Egypt as early as 1400 BCE.”
Congratulations. Good point
Proves that SL was inhabited by Civilised people even at that age. Since they were obviously not Sinhalese, wonder who they were. Wiki does not give any indication.]
I’ll jut call them the “pre-Sinhala/Tamil Sri Lankans/people of the island” for now. But, perhaps future research will reveal more about the people who may or may not have had an “advanced” civilization (by ancient standards) in Sri Lanka before the Sinhala & Tamil political identities got stablished there during the past 2500+ years or so.
Perhaps the pre-Sinhala/Tamil people in SL were related to the Harrapan civilization.
Or perhaps from the middle east or Africa (Egypt?).
Or another group from India.
Maybe the mythological king Ravana & others before him (mentioned in same or similar myths) were these people/part of those people (pre-Sinhala/Tamil Lankans).
I don’t think the Veddah’s had the capability to become the world’s leading exporter of cinnamon 3500 or so years ago (if what the wiki page says is true). But who knows, we will have to see what future research reveals.
Now that the war is over perhaps more accurate information about Sri Lankan history will be discovered & released, not worrying too much about who came first – Sinhalese or the Tamils.
::
I also have another theory, not based on many facts but working off of myth – it is possible that the development of civilization that we have seen over the last 5,000 – 10,000 years (from early Egypt to US & everything in between) has happened before on Earth. Or, since the modern humans are over 200,000 years ago (so say the experts) great/advanced civilizations could have risen, fallen, & many more following could also have risen & fallen.
::
- S
Dear Off the Cuff:
Most Bible scholars (academics who study the Bible in the original languages) accept that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. In fact, that is why it is often called a creation “myth.” One can find similar creation stories in every civilization. Most Bible scholars do not consider every word of the Bible to be literally true. The Bible is a historical document that has been influenced by many civilizations. In any event, the purpose of the Adam and Eve story is to demonstrate the existence of original sin. Whether Adam and Eve existed is irrelevant. What is important, from the point of view of the Bible, is that the first human committed a sin, and since all humans are descended from the first human, all humans are now guilty of sin.
Furthermore, the Bible is not what makes one a Christian. It is the acceptance of Jesus… therefore, one can be a Christian without ever reading the Bible.
So, your argument that rebirth must be true because of the Adam and Eve story is an argument does not have any merit.
Dear BalangodaMan;
I have imposed ‘Brahmadanda’ on you. I was of the stance that I would not answer your questions which are very irresponsible and not up to the standard. However,as you are repeatedly insisting to answer a question that had already been answered and informed to you so, and now forwarding to Off the Cuff for answer, I would like to show where I have answered your “Quest”. This is another instance of your irresponsibility and prejudice. Please open your blind eyes and read.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16926
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted and All;
You are questioning the political methodologies prevailed in Sri Lanka on the basis of the Modern western political theories like Democracy, Liberalism, NeoLiberalism etc… etc… Some of the thins in them you name as “Self Evident” and on the basis of such theories, you demand our political theories should be altered, for example, Buddhism should be separated from state, and many things should be replaced by “self evident” theories of west. Shall we a bit discuss about these political theories of yours which are being submitted as panacea for all social illnesses.
1). I think the foundation of the Political theories were laid by Thomas Hobbes (16th and 17th century) on his theory of “State of Nature” and the Social Contract Theory”, developed based on it by Hobbes himself and by some other political thinkers later on. If one of the above two concepts are challenged I think whole lot of political theories of the west will collapse.
2). In addition to the above, western political theories heavily rely on
(i). French Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)
(ii). Declaration of Independence of USA. (1776)
(iii). Various documents of the league of Nations (1920 onwards )
(iii). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
I think it is a good way to check the justifiability and the fairness of the above to see the justifiability and the fairness of the modern western political theories.
3). As somewhatDisgusted used to say practicality is a good way to measure something. We can investigate how these political theories affected the world and what it has endowed to the world.
In addition I should mention that a thorough and justifiable study on the political theories prevailed in Sri Lanka and the region should be done before some one rejects them, otherwise it would become arbitrary, authoritative and unacceptable.
I think on the basis of (1) – (3) above modern political theories were failed to convince their authenticity, truthfulness and the usefulness to the whole world. Instead they acted in bias and brought mass scale misery to the majority of the world population and to the whole world. My opinion is at the present pace of “development”, based on such political theories, the world cannot sustain for another 100 years. My opinion is for the future of the whole planet these horrible, greedy political theories should be separate4d from the world.
In my next post I will touch upon what I have mentioned above.
Thanks!
Dear Off the Cuff:
Regarding your comments on the idea of a soul and Creator God – the idea of a soul only in conjunction with the existence of a Creator God would actually make rebirth more logically sound. Consider the following argument:
(1) Energy has always existed
(2) God has always existed in the form of energy
(3) The soul is merely the God-energy
(4) Rebirth is merely the transformation of energy from one form to
another
The above argument is very close to what Hindus believe. Of course, it cannot be proved. One is forced to take the existence of God as an unproved axiom. On the other hand, if one accepts this axiom, then the rest follows easily.
But this presents a paradox – Hindu rebirth makes sense from the point of view of a God-believer, while Buddhist rebirth does not. In my opinion, the difference is that the Buddhist definition is incomplete. . One cannot separate rebirth from the creation of the Universe, and one cannot separate the creation of the Universe from the existence of a omniscient, omnipotent God. If one attempts to do so, there will be a gap (question mark: ?) in the system. That is why this paradox arises.
Friend Wijayapala:
Unlike primitive Buddhist Sri Lanka where the children are brainwashed into caring for their parents, the West developed nursing homes for sophisticated rationalists to dump and forget them.
But when 300,000 Tamils are locked up in barbed wire camps, and the proud Buddhists are busy waving Lion Flags and lighting firecrackers, it is the Western hand and Western money that ends up feeding the Tamils. It is the Western hand that does the de-mining work, it is the Western hand that loans money for refugee camps. Have you forgotten already that after the tsunami, the USA donated more money to S. Lanka than any other country…
The funny thing is that even Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka know that Westerners are more honest than the *vast* majority of Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka. That is why, as soon as a Westerner departs from BIA, crowds of Sri Lankans will surround him, in the hope of getting money. You don’t beg money from a crooked man, now do you? I wonder how many Sri Lankans are holding their hands open to those Chinese engaged in development work in the North?
P.S: What happened to all the tsunami money, btw?
Dear Heshan,
I have to agree with OTC on this one. Can you use logic to debunk OTCs claims when you have arguably made a similar or perhaps a greater leap of faith in believing in your religion? IMO, no believer can effectively challenge any other believer, since they have all made leaps of faith. A small case can be made for greater plausibility (and my personal opinion is that this favours Buddhism), but since higher plausibility does not justify any such “leap”, one is treading on thin ice anyway.
I personally think that Buddhism can be made entirely self-consistent in the absence of literal interpretations of Kamma and Rebirth. How Kamma can be made self-consistent is argued quite well in the link that “LuckyGirl” posted. Rebirth too can be rationalized quite well if it’s a metaphorical concept + given that some think the Anatta concept negates literal rebirth (an issue that none of the believers have addressed). In comparison, and I think you would agree, very little can be done to rationalize an invisible sky fairy who listens to our prayers, and/or has an inexplicable interest in our sex lives.
There is also the matter that the ethical system in Buddhism, and Buddhism in general as an introspective system of living, can be very meaningful sans certain grotesque concepts that seem to have taken a hold of mainstream Buddhism – such as Kamma as a concept of justice. To me personally, other than for KRN, the rest of Buddhism makes reasonable sense with slight objections here and there. I hope I have been always clear about this and I’ve generally taken care to specifically criticize KRN and not the rest.
Unfortunately, I have been led to question why it is necessary to rationalize either Kamma or Rebirth. Wijayapala has made a strong case that the Buddha did indeed mean it literally and not metaphorically, whereas I’d always assumed that the Buddha’s words might have been ravaged across the passage of time + there are others who espouse this rationalized concept of KRN – because of the Anatta concept (the moment literal rebirth is abolished, I believe Buddhism immediately becomes self-consistent).
But given the argument of Wijayapala, I tend to agree – I have no basis whatsoever to assume that anything else other than a literal interpretation was meant – therefore, it makes no sense to force meaning on it that does not exist. In that context, I find KRN to be highly unlikely (for all the reasons outlined so far – incompatibilities with evolution, better explanations from psychology, imposition of human morality on the physical world etc. etc.). Therefore, beliving in KRN “literally” requires a massive leap of logic, one that I see no reason to make.
There is one final point I would like to make – just because one concept in Buddhism is plausible, doesn’t make another plausible. I feel the believers simply do not acknowledge this point. It’s a bit like believing that since Newton was right about his 3 laws, then he was right about his belief in alchemy too.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Heshan,
My post to you about Christianity was just to open your eyes to the absurdities that are evident in it as you chose to applaud BalangodaMan about ridiculing Rebirth and contributed yourself by adding the following “Good work, Balangoda Man. You have shown what a comical process so-called rebirth is” It was that insensitive comment of yours that made me respond to you. I have no problem with criticism but it should be just.
My post was intended to drive home the fact that ridiculing rebirth was myopic. No where in my post have I tried to prove Rebirth quoting the Adam and Eve story.
Proof of Rebirth cannot be made using Cognitive Science or Logic. Anyone who tries to do so is faced with the identical problem that will be faced by a person who tries to prove to the “Blind from Birth”, what the Concept of Colour is.
If I ask the Agnostics to use any method in science or logic to prove to the “Blind from Birth” that Colour is real, they will fail to do so. But to all of us with sight, the reality of colour is beyond question. This is why I challenged the Agnostics to prove that the methods that are being asked to be used in dissecting Buddhism are in fact mature enough to be used to prove or disprove Rebirth.
There is no such method available to Cognitive Science or Logic because Science is not Mature enough to deal with the subject of Rebirth. That does not prove that Rebirth is not real. It does not prove that rebirth is real either. The best answer cognitive Science or logic can give is do not know. That would be the identical reply from the “Blind from Birth” to the concept of colour, UNLESS s/he chose to believe what others say. That belief does not make the reality of colour speculation. But to the “Blind from Birth” it is speculation.
Now let’s look at the concept of an after life
In Buddhism it is rebirth.
In Christianity it is an afterlife either in Heaven or Hell (Purgatory being a temporary abode). When a Christian dies the physical body is left here on Earth. Then the question that arises is, what goes where?
If it’s the Soul what is the Soul? Can its existence be proved by Cognitive Science?
Hence Heshan a Christian believes in at least two afterlives.
You call it afterlife we call it Rebirth.
The only difference is in your case the rebirth is limited to a maximum of two instances and in Buddhism there is no such limit. Rebirth ends when the cause ends.
Original Sin
“What is important, from the point of view of the Bible, is that the first human committed a sin, and since all humans are descended from the first human, all humans are now guilty of sin.”
Heshan there are THREE things that I identify from your above statement
1. Originally there was only ONE human
2. That all Humans are His descendants
3. That the whole Human race is punished for the indiscretion of the first human
Heshan please remember that I am presenting what follows ONLY for argument. I have absolutely no intent of ridiculing your belief system because in your post of May 25, 2010 @ 6:11 am you have dispensed with ridicule.
The Creator God is described as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Loving.
The adjective Loving is not compatible with item 3. It is also not compatible with the statement that his wrath will visit four generations.
The world population is now several billions. How long would it have taken to reach that figure starting from just ONE couple?
If it was just one couple how can they reproduce and still avoid incest?
Won’t this put the Omniscience claim into question?
Starting from ONE person and 48 Chromosomes how do you account for the Diversity of the Human Race?
“Furthermore, the Bible is not what makes one a Christian. It is the acceptance of Jesus… therefore, one can be a Christian without ever reading the Bible.”
Divinity of Jesus cannot be proved. He is thought to have gone to Heaven taking His physical earthly body with Him. There is no proof of that either. Not a Single Saint was able to duplicate it. No one else could repeat that feat with acceptable proof.
I accept and respect your right to maintain your belief system. However it would be unwise to ridicule the concept of rebirth when your own belief system depends on an Afterlife to go to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.
Dear wijayapala / Arosha Bandara and All;
[(1) On the point of the survival of Buddhism and the link to the constitution:
I think at some point you said the “angry buddhists” (meaning Buddhists who are willing do whatever is needed, including violent action, to protect Buddhism) were a significant reason why Buddhism survived in Sri Lanka. The constitutional clause seems to legitimise this ‘angry Buddhist' mentality since actions to ‘protect' buddhism can be justified as being done to uphold the constitutionally stated pre-eminence of Buddhism. ]
Your notion, dear wijayapala that “angry Buddhists were a significant reason why Buddhism survived in Sri Lanka.”, is correct one which I wanted to comment long time ago. Just as the pious Buddhists contribute immensely to the survival of Buddhism, the angry Buddhists’ contribution cannot be considered insignificant. This debate itself is an example for that. If you do not make conscious efforts, anything will be ultimately vanished amidst the fierce oppression. I think nothing is self protective against opposition. Timely, proactive interventions of “angry Buddhists” saved Buddhism many times.
1. Dutugemunu (king) was a angry Buddhist who did not tolerate the devastation done by then Tamils to the Buddhism. His angry reaction saved Buddhism here and made the country flourish in a unique civilization.
2. If not for the king Walagamba’s untiring effort even sacred Tooth Relic and the “Pathra Dathuwa” (begging bowl of lord Buddha) would have become some ornaments used by some Hindu Brahmanas.
3. King Vijayabahu of Polonnaruwa did the same thing, without which we would have seen the Buddhism in Sri Lanka similar to it is in India.
4. If not for the angry efforts during the more recent periods of Ven. Migettuwaththe Gunananda, Anagarika Dharmapala and proactive action of Col. Olcott, Blavatsky etc. etc… we would have seen the demise of Buddhism.
5. Just as king Asoka gave up his anger and gave up the responsibility of protecting Buddhism by decreasing his army, we know what has happened to Buddhism and the to his kingdom as well.
Buddha didn’t teach everything. He himself said so. He taught us to think properly according to the the situation (Sthanochitha pragna- situational wisdom). We always don’t have to quote phrases from Thripitaka before every action. In need the Buddhist know how to respond. It is our duty.
Thanks!
Just an observation
When violence replaces civil speech as the medium of conflict resolution, speech also follows suit by adopting a new confrontationist style. Within this paradigm ‘power’ is narrowly defined as the total annihilation of one’s opponent or an opposing point of view. Violence therefore is all encompassing. It has captured our thought, words and actions within a black and white war like mentality. This is the destruction of your individuality – your soul.
What does not fit within this paradigm is simply ignored. It has no existence. Thus more and more people who are intent on self promotion and self defence are drawn into the conflict paradigm. This is a vicious cycle that is only broken when you adopt a completely different tone – without compromising on the substance.
When did we lose our collective capacity for self reflection?
Was the drift to the south west a drift from a higher order of consciousness to a lower?
Was it a drift from spirituality to materialism?
Is this how we ceased to be Buddhist?
The problem with our civilization is that
We communicate with everyone
Except with ourselves
In this lop sided communication
The written word takes a special place
We need to question its value
So that we don’t over estimate its potential
Any real change must begin with the self if there are to be new possibilities and new hope.
Once this process of change has begun, whether and to what extent and how it will be carried out to a broader social and even political arena will be an individual choice. Not all of us are Gandhis and not all of us are muni’s or silent sages meditating in the Himalayas. Between these two ends the individual truth seeker must find the right balance for his or her life.
There are no rules about social engagement or disengagement. Having embarked on the path of silence and understanding the individual is capable of wise decision making on when to engage and when to disengage. We can only comment on how far a particular individual may or should go; and like all comment it is somewhat superfluous.
RE: Yapa’s above comment featuring the following:
“Your notion, dear wijayapala that “angry Buddhists were a significant reason why Buddhism survived in Sri Lanka.”, is correct one which I wanted to comment long time ago.”
Angry Buddhism also gives rise to Angry Hinduism, Angry Christianity, Angry Secularism, and Buddhists Who Hate Angry Buddhists – resulting in the termoil of the past several decades in Sri Lanka. So, basically, what you mean by Angry Buddhism is Militant Buddhism – similar to Militant Islam & militant versions of all other ideologies – including the JVP (militant version) & the LTTE. So, Angry Buddhism or Militant Buddhism is not Buddhism, it is a political/militant device/method that uses Buddhists or is made up of Buddhists in order to achieve political & military objectives (not helping the rural poor, not granting equal rights to the Tamils, suppressing religious freedom & freedom from religion, destablaizing rule by non-Buddhist rulers in the case of Dutugemunu).
So, to me, Angry Buddhists sound like bad news for SL. Hopefully they will be kept in check by other Angry types so that they cannot do much damage (again) to SL.
Another idea for you hardcore/Angry Buddhist types to consider;
- Are Sri Lankans prisoners of Buddhism? Are individual Sri Lankans free to stop worshipping the Buddha & the speculative religion if they feel that it is useless to do so? If Buddhism is a prison, and it suppresses or works against freedom of religion & freedom from religon, it is in the way of development & progress in SL – or – the result of such activity by Buddhism (organized Buddhism in SL) may be much of the same in the future as it was in the past – political unrest, under development, war, etc.
Ultimately, the well being of SL, & the Sri Lankans, is more important than the well being of Buddhism. If Buddhism can help with peace & development, great, if it cannot – if it is a major obstacle to peace & development, people should look at putting it aside. As we have shown here, Buddhism is only a set of old ideas, and there are better & more useful ideas around if Buddhism has outlived its positive uses for SL. Specially if the only significant contribution to SL being made by Buddhism is the creation of Angry Buddhists, it should definitely be put aside.
- S
Yapa,
RE: the post with the following:
“I think it is a good way to check the justifiability and the fairness of the above to see the justifiability and the fairness of the modern western political theories.”
RE: modern Western political realities vs. ancient Eastern ones;
Do you prefer to live in a Buddhist Kingdom as opposed to in a secular democracy? Though Sri Lanka is not a well developed Secular Democracy yet, it is also far from a theocratic ancient kingdom. If you do perefer to live in a Buddhist Kingdom, then there is not much anyone here can say that will change your mind. However, a very significant number of people on this planet have chosen modern democracies over ancient kingdoms, thus, we see democracies becoming the preferred method for organizing nations for the past 100 – 200 years on this planet.
Also, the modern democracies have performed better than the ancient kingdoms. As fas as overall ability to provide happiness & well-being to its citizens. In the ancient kingdoms, most people were poor & lived at the whim of the rulers. In the modern well developed democracies most people are middle class or close to it, & the people themselves rule & not hereditary monarchs or a small group of religious leaders – a much better set up.
Also, you do not have a basis for real comparison when it comes to Sri Lanka & a Western democracy such as the US – since both SL & US are democracies. One (SL) is a young (60+ years) & developing one & the other (US) is an older (close to 300 years) & well developed one.
Also, the success of US has helped the developing SL – World Bank & IMF (organizations created & sustained by US) loans & direct loans from US to SL makes it possible to further develop SL so that at some point in the future SL may become a financially self-sufficient country.
However, if you solution to current problems in SL is to turn it into.try to turn it inot a, ancient Buddhist Kingdom, I do not think you will get much support from rest of Lankans.
- S
Sujeewa
we tried the western model – the people dont seem to be up to it and have slid back to something that they seem more comfortable with
water finds its own level
you have a much tougher brief than the relative merits – rationally people can agree with you – but you know that all decisions are not taken rationally here
there are other considerations – my suggestion is that the secular model you are promoting has to work with and through Buddhism
the more you try to by pass it the more of an obstacle you create – be a moderate and take the best on offer –
dont praise the west too much – not sure we should emulate them in every respect or that it is possible – this is a country with a rural majority – so what will you tell them – more importantly how will you relate to them?
Not sure how the last para from my comment above got so mangled, let’s fix it:
“However, if your solution to current problems in SL is to try to turn it into an ancient Buddhist kingdom, I do not think you will get much support from the rest of the Lankans.”
There.
- S
Re: speculative items in other religions (aside from Buddhism) – such as heavens, hells, gods, God, etc. – none of these can be said to be any more real than karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana concepts in Buddhism (as they have been taught & practiced for hundreds of years). None of the major religions – when it comes to their speculative/metaphysical underpinnings – are any more real than another (here i am referring to the following: Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism), in my opinion.
- S
Dear Sujewa,
Regarding your post on May 25, 2010 @ 8:31 pm. Beautifully argued. Without weighing in the cost of this angry Buddhist mentality and those who are unable to judiciously reason when to apply this so called “angry Buddhism”, it is dangerous to argue for such a mentality. This is precisely what has given rise to the “Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese” mentality, since the angry Buddhists are now holy guardians of ancient truths. How do the angry Buddhists propose to restrain those who think this way?
All I can say is, this mentality leads to most Buddhists in Sri Lanka being turned into mere tools. Automatons who simply exist to “protect Buddhism”, not to follow it. I wish you all the best with your Buddhist republic, the rest of us Sri Lankans, who have *every* right to this country but are at the mercy of these “angry Buddhists” who wish to claim the island for themselves through brute force and run it according to their self-serving convictions, are unlikely to have either rights or justice in such an environment.
cheers,
/SD
Dear ordinary lankan and Sujeewa,
“there are other considerations – my suggestion is that the secular model you are promoting has to work with and through Buddhism”
I think that; there is no doubt that a secular constitution is necessary in order to revamp the lost Sri Lankan Identity. The problem is how to convince the Sinhala Buddhist masses to this effect; they are engulfed in deep sense of insecurity; they will endeavour to maintain the status-quo come what may! The arguments that they submit is that, a just and fair country still can be created with Buddhism at its base; they are not against the Tamil Language provision is implemented nation-wide; they are for all citizens to be treated equally but not at the expense of eschewing Buddhism from the Constitution. It may not be the case that they are worried about Buddhism as a religion or faith; it is an inherent fear that, if Buddhism is declaimed, devalued, or shunt a side, it will be the beginning of the end of the Sinhala identity. It is this fear that drives the people of the calibre of Wijayapala and OTC relentlessly debate in favour of retaining Buddhism in the constitution.
One does not need to worry about the likes of Wijayapala and OTC (Yapa I am not convinced yet) as they are good humans with values and mean no harm; they expect the true Buddhist values to prevail throughout Sri Lanka. However, the worry I have is about giving or arming the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists who see the non-Buddhists as distant other; assuming legitimacy on the strength of the constitution; they let loose havoc in ethnically sensitive areas.
I think that, we the secularists in Sri Lanka must address the Sinhala Buddhist insecurity in conjunction with promoting secularism. Democratically even, we need to allay the majority of the Sinhala Buddhists that, they should fear nothing about secularism.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“such as Kamma as a concept of justice”
Kamma is not a concept of Justice. There is no one administering it. In Buddhism Kamma means “Thoughtful or Premeditated Action”. Vipaka that goes along with Kamma means “Result”. Hence an unconscious action is not Buddhist Kamma. An accident is not Buddhist Kamma. The element of intent is missing in both of them.
Ordinary Lankan,
RE:
“Sujeewa
we tried the western model – the people dont seem to be up to it and have slid back to something that they seem more comfortable with”
I am not sure that there is one western model. SL is working on – now that the war is over, on cleaning up, re-building, & economic development & development in other areas, plus trying to ensure that the country does not slide back into war. There is no conclusion to the development work until it is done – whether it is called a western moderl or a non-western model.
“water finds its own level”
Sure, but not relevant to this discussion.
“you have a much tougher brief than the relative merits – rationally people can agree with you – but you know that all decisions are not taken rationally here”
Nor are they in many places. Many things come into play when making decisions.
“there are other considerations – my suggestion is that the secular model you are promoting has to work with and through Buddhism”
Secularism is not opposed to Buddhism or any other religion. Besides, myslef & other people who see that secularism works can only point it out, ultimately it will be up to many Lankans to decide if it is a good idea. It does seem to work pretty well for India.
“the more you try to by pass it the more of an obstacle you create – be a moderate and take the best on offer – ”
I am not sure what you are talking about here. Existence of Buddhism in SL is acknowledged, also I see Buddhism being the main religion in SL for centuries to come, so, developemnt/reform is not anti-Buddhism.
“dont praise the west too much – not sure we should emulate them in every respect or that it is possible – this is a country with a rural majority – so what will you tell them – more importantly how will you relate to them?”
There are positive & negative aspects of the West. Never argued for emulating the west in every respect (whatever that means). Also, this strict separation that you seem to believe in between West & SL does not exist in the real world. As pointed out, SL survives due to much aid from the West (& other countries, plus own money generated via work inside the country). Anyway – some aspects of the west are useful to SL – namely creating multi-ethnic, multi-religious, highly productive countries that afford individual freedoms.
Once again – all ideas are human ideas – neither Eastern or Western, etc. SL should feel free to use whatever works best to achieve a given goal – in this case maintain peace, development, well being of people, etc.
- S
Mr Yapa,
Re. ‘Brahmadanda’. I looked at your linkhttp://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16926
I bears no connection whatsoever to the question I asked (Muslim in Riyadh).
I have expanded and explained the question since so perhaps you might give it another try?
BTW : OTC says, in his case, his religion in this life was a result of his good karma in previous births. You too? Or do you accept that *your* choice of religion is due to the environment in which you grew up? Just as the Muslim guy in Riyadh is Muslim because of his environment, or is it because of his past bad karma as OTC says?
How do you think SL can sell this to the UN? Should we seek a Council Resolution on this?
Dear BalangodaMan and Sujewa,
Sujewa’s post
“Buddhism by itself does not always lead to any special analytical capabilities”
What you have written above is that there are exceptions to the rule
“one does not need to be a Buddhist to be able to analyze & think critically about the world or events, objects, knowledge that is to be found in the world”
Agreed.
No one says so.
“it is inaccurate to characterize Buddhism as a liberal religion”
Can you state any other religion that invites criticism of it’s own teachings?
“Islam in its entirety is not restrictive”
Can you prove this assertion?
Both Christianity and Islam are restrictive.
Islam severely restricts the freedom of females for starters. That is half of the Muslim population.
Catholicism which forms the majority within Christianity had a list of books that was prohibited to be read by Catholics
Contrast the above with Buddhism. Can you point out a single instance that parallels them?
“Some Buddhists are very conservative,…..”
You are referring to the practitioner not to the Religion itself.
The behaviour of a practitioner has no relevance to the actual teachings of a Religion. The mistake you do is to construct and interpret the behaviour of errant practitioners as actual teachings of a religion. If a nominal Buddhist gets involved in crime you can hardly fault Buddhism for it.
That is irrational.
BM’s Post
“We are NOT taking about the *practice* of Buddhism. We ARE talking about the absolute conviction about the speculative items within Buddhism (not of Islam, not of Christianity).”
Firstly I don’t agree that the absence of Cognitive proof can justify the classification of Kamma (Thoughtful or Premeditated Action). Rebirth and Nibbana as Speculative. It is similar to the problem of you trying to convince the “Congenitally Blind” that there is something called colour in the world.
I have brought up many examples to prove that the inability to provide cognitive proof cannot be automatically used to dismiss them as speculation. One of them was the inability of cognitive science to prove paternity till Science matured in this field in 1985. It ONLY means that Cognitive Science is still immature to either Prove or Disprove it. If and when Cognitive Science matures and is able to DISPROVE these aspects of Buddhism then I will accept them as speculative not otherwise.
Hence your absolute conviction that Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana are speculative is similarly irrational.
As Yapa stated in his answer to your question a long way back, Kamma and Rebirth is a Damma. Please remember that the word “Damma” embraces even Gravity.
Can you clearly establish the causes for diversity in the universe?
The fallacy of your argument by placing Yapa within Islam is the assumption that he would have developed with the same analytical capacity he has now which he developed under the influence of Buddhism. Remember that Buddhism encouraged him to question Buddhism itself from his young days something that Islam or any other religion would not allow.
I have from the very inception stated that I believe in Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana from what I observe in this life. A fact that you kept ignoring and Dishonestly attributing your own views to me.
Like me, many others see the plausibility of the above and chose to believe in it. Kamma provides a plausible explanation to the diversity that can be observed.
Your original question included Intelligent people of ALL faiths other than Buddhism
““Do you think all, or a significantly large proportion, of highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people around the world (not born into a Buddhist society)”
You are now changing your stance to a different one. This time you have excluded all but Islam and Buddhism.
“In other words, do you think this large proportion is convinced of these respective speculative items (in Islam and Buddhism respectively) “
Islam due to its dogmatism and inculcated fear of God, will have a minutely small number of people who will dare to think outside of their religion.
Buddhism due to its freedom for investigative inquiry even of itself at the invitation of the Buddha himself will contain an overwhelming number of people who have no fear in thinking outside Buddhism.
Dear OTC:
There is no such method available to Cognitive Science or Logic because Science is not Mature enough to deal with the subject of Rebirth. That does not prove that Rebirth is not real. It does not prove that rebirth is real either. The best answer cognitive Science or logic can give is do not know.
I agree that science can neither prove nor disprove the idea of Buddhist rebirth beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, it can say that the probability of said phenomenon is extremely unlikely. The only thing that is constant in the Universe, the only absolute, so to speak, is energy . The Buddha did not explain the source of this energy. In fact, when some Brahmins asked him to do so (10 famous questions), he refused to give an answer. Nevertheless, not even science can deny the existence of this source of this energy -while science does not call it “God”, it refers to it as the “singularity.”
Singular
The big bang is a model of everything that imagines a singular point in time when the universe began.
Distant
It suggests that at some point in the extremely distant past, all the matter and energy in what we now know as the universe was once concentrated into an unimaginably dense state.
Original
This original state is usually described as a singularity.
Contract
According to this model, at some relative time in the future the universe will eventually contract back into the dense nothingness from which it came.
Off the Cuff, you poke fun at the Bible, but the very first line is “in the beginning there was nothing.” The next line is, “there was only darkness.” That is also correct – energy was not being transformed from one state to another, at time t = 0.
The Jewish people did not conceive of God as energy, but the ancient Hindus did so from the very beginning:
“Shakti is the eternal and supreme power, variously described as manifest energy, the substance of everything and all pervading. The Vedic meaning of Shakti is “energy.” In Hinduism Shakti is a term for the manifestation of the creative principle.”
Here is another definition:
“Shakti (Devanagari: शकà¥à¤¤à¤¿) from Sanskrit shak – “to be able,” meaning sacred force or empowerment, is the primordial cosmic energy and represents the dynamic forces that move through the entire universe.[1] ”
Off the Cuff, if you want to deny the existence of God, you will have to prove the source of the original cosmic energy, which is mentioned indirectly on the first page of the Bible, and mentioned directly in Hinduism (Vedas), and whose existence is taken for granted in the Big Bang Theory of science.
The links for the relevant extracts I gave can be found here:
http://www.protheory.com/index.html (this is the simplest explanation of the Big Bang that I could find and it is accurate, if you disagree, please point out the discrepancies).
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/s/shakti.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti
Hey Idiotic Wijayapala (since you are fond of calling me Schizo, let’s try attaching a lable to your own name – a fake one at that, so perhaps Idiotic & Cowardly
,
Anyway, re: this latest nonsense of yours below:
“I have an even greater example of the “consideration” you can find in advanced Western countries- how the elderly are treated. Unlike primitive Buddhist Sri Lanka where the children are brainwashed into caring for their parents, the West developed nursing homes for sophisticated rationalists to dump and forget them. You can go to these homes in the US on Thanksgiving Day and tell the residents that you’re a son or daughter come to take them for dinner, and they’ll believe you even though they can easily see that your skin color is a couple of shades too black!”
First of all, non of the other believers or the agnostics have called Sri Lanka primitive – that’s just some of your own low self esteem coming out.
Nor did anyone state that caring for ones parents or the elderly was a negative thing.
Oh, I get it now – why you hold on to the “Schizo Sujewa” mentality – you are afraid that your own inability to properly understand reality will be revealed. Iditiotic Wijayapla is busy fighting non-existent demons & hiding his own disabilities by projecting them on to others.
Anyway, back to your nursing home comment – it is just part of the broiler plate argument that people who hate the West (even though it is Western/US loans & donations that helps to keep SL running – I guess your brand of Angry Buddhism does not teach you to be kind to people who are helping you, not surprised). If you want to drag in totally unrelated matters to this conversation in order to show how one country/civilization may be better than others, we can do that;
Let’s take a look at suicide rates – Sri Lanka is #9 (9th highest suicide rate in the word, out of over 100 countries, according to the WHO chart on this page:
http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm):
“Table B
Suicide Rates (per 100,000) — Various Countries
Source World Health Organization
(as of November 1999; see the most-recent WHO data from the year 2008)
Country
Males
Females
Lithuania 73.7 13.7
Russian Federation 72.9 13.7
Estonia 64.3 14.1
Latvia 59.5 11.8
Kazakhstan 51.9 9.5
Hungary 49.2 15.6
Belarus 48.7 9.6
Slovenia 48.0 13.9
Sri Lanka 44.7 16.6
Finland 38.7 10.7
Ukraine 38.2 9.2
Croatia 34.2 11.3
Republic of Moldova 30.9 6.2″
And the above quoted material is re: the 1998 data. If we take a look at the WHO data for 1998 (which shows SL data from ’91 for some reason), I wonder what we’ll see: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/
- oh, guess what, suicide rate for SL is pretty much the same:
SRI LANKA 91 44.6 16.8
So, I wonder why so many people can’t wait to check themselves out of Sri Lanka EVEN BEFORE they get old & have to “suffer” (in your opinion) in a home for the elderly. Perhaps the suffering obsessed Buddhism is not so great at making people feel good about living in the Buddhist holy land (according to the believers) SL.
Now let’s take a look at the actual facts re: elder care in the US (not your SL Buddhists-who-hate-the-rest-of-the-world propaganda):
From a USA today article:
“But a shift away from institutionalized care is growing. The percentage of people over 75 in nursing homes fell from 9.6% in 1985 to 6.4% in 2004, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/eldercare/2007-06-24-elder-care-costs_N.htm
So Idiotic Wijayapala is arguing that probably around 7% of the elderly living in care facitilites in US is some kind of a gigantic moral failure of the US.
Keep dreaming hate-filled Idiotic Wijayapala, while much of life/existence in SL is underwritten/paid for by donations from the US/IMF/World Bank.
From an ’09 article: http://www.undispatch.com/node/8166:
“Reuters is reporting that the Obama administration is seeking to delay a $1.9 billion loan to Sri Lanka from the International Monetary Fund.”
(not the best quote, but it illustrates the connection between IMF money to SL & the US)
I guess barrowing $s or getting donations (for the tsunami recovery, etc.) from the US & the West is alright, but using the methods that made development possible is the West (separationg of state & religion, religious freedon, etc.) is what scares misguided “Buddhists” like you.
Luckily most of SL is not full of people like you (or they are not looking to be forever receipients of donations/they are looking forward to & working towards financial independence). So, there is definitely hope. I guess if the collaborations between SL & the West/US bears greater successes you can always move to a far more backward & underdeveloped place like Burma or N. Korea, if SL gets too “western”/successful for your taste.
- S
Dear Off the Cuff, Yapa, and other believers:
I kindly request that you comment on the 10 famous questions which Buddha refused to answer. Why then he did not answer the questions? There seem to be three possibilities (the website I am quoting from is given at the end of this post):
# First, it has been said that the Buddha was silent because he was interested only in practical matters. The speculative metaphysics were, simply, less important than living the proper life, and thus were set aside.
# Second, another interpretation is that the Buddha frankly did not know the answers, and was preeminently an agnostic. This was the initial suspicion of the monk in the above parable.
# Third, an opposite interpretation of agnosticism is that the Buddha did know the answers, but was incapable of explaining them. This interpretation is partially supported by the number of times the Buddha emphasized the subtlety and abstruseness of the doctrine. Following his enlightenment he seriously considered not even attempting to teach his new- found truths, only because he despaired of anyone understanding.
I would like to add a fourth possibility . If Buddha answered these questions, he would have to acknowledge the existence of God and of a soul.
Now let us look at the questions themselves:
Avyaakata, the ‘indeterminate questions’ are given as ten in number:
1. Whether the world is eternal
2. or not eternal
3. Whether the world is finite
4. or infinite
5. Whether the soul and body are identical
6. or different
7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,
8. or does not exist after death,
9. or both exists and does not exist after death,
10. or neither exists nor does not exist after death
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html
Dear Yapa, Off the Cuff, and other believers, as well as non-believers:
Apologies! It seems as if the fourth possibility (which I gave) is similar to the second already mentioned one. So now the real question is: was Buddha an agnostic or an atheist? In particular, how does one answer this question in the context of the Avyakaata (unanswered questions)?
Heshan,
Good post.
Re:
“So now the real question is: was Buddha an agnostic or an atheist? In particular, how does one answer this question in the context of the Avyakaata (unanswered questions)?”
It is impossible for us to know with 100% certainty whether the Buddha/Gautama existed or whether he existed as described by various Buddhist chronicles & histories. However, regarding your question:
1. If the Buddha believed in karma, reincarnation/rebirth, and nirvana, he would have been a Believer in speculative/metaphysical things. Unless he was able to prove to himself that those items were true/real aspects of the universe. The present day believers believe that he was able to confirm those items as real. However, there is no proof that anyone else can confirm those aspects of the religion as real – that they represent actual descriptions of actual things that exist in this world/universe. So, option 1 is either he was a Believer or that he was able to confirm K,R,N to be real items. (perhaps these should be two items – OK – Option 1 – he was able to confirm K, R, N as real, Option 2 – he was a Believer – in certain aspects of Hinduism I guess)
3 (see end of 1 to see 2) – If the Buddha did not want to speak about the after life, etc. – he may have been an agnostic. He may have felt that the afterlife was not as important as life here on earth & he also may not have been certain about the nature of afterlife or that if any such thing existed.
4 – if he used speculative items K, R, N as metaphors, then he may have been an atheist- he did not believe in the speculative items but used them to teach his world view to others who, at the time, did believe in those items or were at least familiar with those items from Hinduism.
Even with the speculative/metaphisical items removed or de-emphasized/written off as unconfirmable ancient historical artifacts – Buddhism – or an agnostic or an atheist Buddhism that is not concerned with the following – all of existence being suffering, nirvana, karma, reincarnation/rebirth would still be useful to a practitioner/follower in leading a responsible/ethical life – in my opinion. Specially given the anti-racist/anti-caste, caring for the less fortunate, believing in the human potential for greatness aspects of the religion (now those may have been later modifications/additions, nevertheless, those exist w/ in Buddhism in the present day), plus focus on meditation, certain items from the Eight Fold Path, & focus on peace/non-harming/non-killing (which makes it unsuitable for use for modern government purposes – since all or most modern governments need to be ready for war, but, as a personal ethical system, agnostic or atheist Buddhism can work well).
- S
OTC,
I’ll get to replying in detail to your post above re: liberal religions/Buddhism tomorrow, but in the meantime, here are some relevant links:
Liberal Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam
Liberal Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
Related, & the most liberal religion of all, far more so than Buddhism – Unitarian Universalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
It is related to Christianity (maybe distantly, but still related). Some UU details:
(from wiki link above)
“Unitarian Universalists place emphasis on spiritual growth and development. Unitarian Universalism is a creedless religion. The Unitarian Universalist Association affirms seven principles:[30]
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
The official statement of Unitarian Universalist principles describes the “sources” upon which current practice is based:[30]
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.”
So, as I mentioned earlier, the modern liberal versions of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity may be as liberal or more liberal than liberal Buddhism.
Plus, there may be newer religions such as neo-pagan ones that are more liberal, will have to see.
- S
Dear Heshan,
RE: “One is forced to take the existence of God as an unproved axiom. On the other hand, if one accepts this axiom, then the rest follows easily.”
Once you take God as an axiom, *anything* follows easily, even a giant ice-cream sundae orbiting Neptune. God is the mother of all cop outs, which relieves you of responsibility for all further explanation – why does X happen? Oh, that’s easy, God did it.
RE: “…one cannot separate the creation of the Universe from the existence of a omniscient, omnipotent God. If one attempts to do so, there will be a gap (question mark: ?) in the system.”
Just because we have a question mark in the system, doesn’t mean we can fill it in with some arbitrary, pointless assumption. I don’t see how a gigantic celestial cop-out does anything to improve our lack of knowledge. This is the God of the Gaps argument Heshan, and you should know better than to use it.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Heshan;
You say (Q): [I agree that science can neither prove nor disprove the idea of Buddhist rebirth beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, it can say that the probability of said phenomenon is extremely unlikely.]
(A): In terms of probability, rebirth is has a very significant value. I think I have pointed out this in an earlier discussion.
When a being is dead there can be two possibilities that can happen to him.
1. will be born again
2. will not be born again
Each possibility has a probability of 0.5 (1/2)
Now under 1. above, there are three possibilities again as the person (being) born as
i. the same person
ii. a different person
iii. not the same person and not an entirely different person
If we speak in strictly mathematical form each of the above has a probability of 0. 3333… (1/3).
According to the Principles of Probability, in this case “a person reborn as not the same person and not an entirely different person” has the mathematical probability of 1/2x 1/3 = 1/6
That is, in terms of probability Buddhist “Rebirth” has a very significant probability of 1/6.
(Q): The only thing that is constant in the Universe, the only absolute, so to speak, is energy. The Buddha did not explain the source of this energy. In fact, when some Brahmins asked him to do so (10 famous questions), he refused to give an answer. Nevertheless, not even science can deny the existence of this source of this energy -while science does not call it “God”, it refers to it as the “singularity.”
(A): I think you have got confused many things by trying to prove the existence of disproved things. When something is clearly disproved we should not hesitate to accept it because it has some akin to me or my relative or a friend. We must assess things unbiased to see the reality. When we attach a string to something with our liking to it we normally do not like to calamities to befall upon that something. But regardless of our liking calamities could happen to them and just denying when it happened won’t make any compensation.
The god concept with creative ability has clearly been disproved without any doubt. You will never be able to give life to that carcass. Repeated effort on that would only be a waste of our energies. As a man of Science you must know this much better than many.
Really the god concept in religions is not something passive like energy, which cannot do anything by its own but act according to the Laws of Nature. Really energy has no “consciousness”. But the god concept in religion is something that can do things on its own will. That is the God in religions is a God with consciousness, who consciously created the world and the beings. Such god has clearly been disproved. There is no any room for a “Creator God” in Religions. If you want you can create a god like “energy” outside the religion and there is no restriction from us for you to pay your personal homage to it. But keep in mind, you can pray to him for favours, because it is a passive God.
Further, really it is irrelevant for asking Buddhist to comment on “Avyakatha Questions” such as the beginning of the universe etc. etc.. , as Buddha himself did not answer them because they do not help in anybody’s liberation, but would counteract the objective. I don’t think any Buddhist is supposed to answer the questions, even Buddha mentioned as unthinkable by average humans. They are really Avyakatha for Buddhists.
On the other hand the questions you posed to Off the Cuff are Scientific in nature that non scientific person cannot argue in par with you though they are true or not. It is like giving a Physics question paper to a student of History in an examination. Further, still there is no consensus among the scientific community whether Big Bang Theory is true. Big Bang theory gives a “starting point” to the universe. On the basis of our rough sensual experiences and popular beliefs, we have formed the popular opinion that everything should have a beginning. Bible too says so. But we very well know that circle or loop of any shape has no beginning or an end. Why should anybody think everything has a beginning or an end? Do you know the end of “space”? Can you imagine of it?
So the statements posed to Off the Cuff like
“Off the Cuff, you poke fun at the Bible, but the very first line is “in the beginning there was nothing.” The next line is, “there was only darkness.” That is also correct – energy was not being transformed from one state to another, at time t = 0. “
do not make sense.
Further, when energy is taken as Shakty it does not make any difference. But when you try to transform Shakthy to a Creator God who can perform at his will, then comes the problem. Then it is really disprovable.
There is no safe place for the Creator God!
Thanks!
Correction ….
“But keep in mind, you can pray to him for favours, because it is a passive God.”
IT SHOULD BE
But keep in mind, you can not pray to him for favours, because it is a passive God.
thanks!
Dear OTC,
RE: “If and when Cognitive Science matures and is able to DISPROVE these aspects of Buddhism then I will accept them as speculative not otherwise.”
That post contained some of the most amazing feats of mental gymnastics I’ve seen in a long time. The argument above has been debunked so many times, it is highly disappointing that you keep on raising it. The burden of proof lies with those making claims (believing), not others. It is *absurd* to suggest otherwise and makes one wonder whether you’ve been following this argument at all.
As long as you can present *no convincing reasons* to support your claim, then it is fair to call it speculative. As real as it may be to you, you are believing it in the absence of sufficiently convincing reason. You should know this without a shadow of doubt by now, since you know that convincing reasons could not be presented. Therefore, it is a leap of faith, simple as that.
In fact, you agreed to this earlier. You wanted to call it a “belief” instead of a “faith”, but that makes no real difference. Having an aversion to words like “faith” and “speculation” just because of a fear of being associated with something like Christianity, does not make the concept any different. The most intellectually sound position to take would be to agree, flat out, that it’s a faith – something that Wijayapala did at the very outset and thereby removed the need for unnecessary, nauseating argumentation.
My point is, believe whatever you want to, you have every right to. Just don’t confuse that belief as something that others ought to elevate above speculation.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Heshan and All;
Above post of mine is in response to Heshan’e posts of Heshan said,
May 26, 2010 @ 5:31 am, May 26, 2010 @ 5:38 am and May 26, 2010 @ 5:49 am
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
RE: Your question of May 26, 2010 @ 5:59 am,
I don’t’ really get your question as at now, because if I try to understand “who an agnostics is?” on the basis of the behaviour of the so called agnostics in this forum, your question means to me nothing more than “Was Buddha an insane or an atheist?, which I think is not you meant. Therefore give me a bit time to learn about agnostics. By the time if I get insane don’t ask me the question.
However, you again say;
In particular, how does one answer this question in the context of the Avyakaata (unanswered questions)?
Really, Avyakatha questions are out of the domain of the Buddhist Doctrine and hence the Buddhists. I think it is a duty of Scientists or Philosophers to answer them.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
RE: Your post of May 26, 2010 @ 10:06 am;
YOU say(A):[ RE: “If and when Cognitive Science matures and is able to DISPROVE these aspects of Buddhism then I will accept them as speculative not otherwise.”
That post contained some of the most amazing feats of mental gymnastics I've seen in a long time. The argument above has been debunked so many times, it is highly disappointing that you keep on raising it. The burden of proof lies with those making claims (believing), not others. It is *absurd* to suggest otherwise and makes one wonder whether you've been following this argument at all.]
……………..
Answer(B): Your answer was correct when there was a belief that “the only correct knowledge system is Scientific knowledge System”. This was the belief before the modern scientific out look came into existence.Thrown away deterministic Newtonian Scientific view was in the belief that if something cannot be proved by its methodology it was wrong (or debunked as you say) and put the burden of proof with the claimants. Further, they emphasized it ti be proved within the set of methodologies used by their Science. This era of authoritative attitude of Science has been outdated long ago. But in ignorance you are clinging into this popular obsolete myth. You did the same injustice to karma, rebirth and nirvana along with two absolutely ignorant guys, just because you don’t have a knowledge about the development of the Modern Science. You don’t like to accept them when said because you think that it would damage your image. But the reality is that Science is not with you any more. It was with you about 200 years back. You have the advantage of the unawareness of the people of these subjects. If talked in a modern forum you will be recognized as another “Rip Van Winkle”. When people come to know the reality sure they will call you at least as a “Grand Father Rip Van Winkle” even after 100 years.
You deny your methodologies are outdated even with so much evidence was provided, due to your love of ego and of the fear of loosing your dignity. Otherwise all these theories you are yelling are traces of the Winkle is looking for.
(A). As long as you can present *no convincing reasons* to support your claim, then it is fair to call it speculative. As real as it may be to you, you are believing it in the absence of sufficiently convincing reason. You should know this without a shadow of doubt by now, since you know that convincing reasons could not be presented. Therefore, it is a leap of faith, simple as that.
In fact, you agreed to this earlier. You wanted to call it a “belief” instead of a “faith”, but that makes no real difference. Having an aversion to words like “faith” and “speculation” just because of a fear of being associated with something like Christianity, does not make the concept any different. The most intellectually sound position to take would be to agree, flat out, that it’s a faith – something that Wijayapala did at the very outset and thereby removed the need for unnecessary, nauseating argumentation.
My point is, believe whatever you want to, you have every right to. Just don’t confuse that belief as something that others ought to elevate above speculation.
(B): These are non convincing to your knowledge system. We have clearly shown that there are things outside your knowledge system. You are adamant not to see them through an appropriate knowledge system and blaming others insisting to prove them in your system saying they are “non convincing reasons”. This way you can defend anything of yours for ever. This the best methodology you and your two foolish accomplices using for their self defence. Other than that you have nothing contributed or cannot contribute until you throw away your Hanamitiya”.
You are still trying to show that there is no significance in using the word “faith” used in the God based religions and the related concept in Buddhism.
The “faith” in God based religion is the sole foundation of such religions. When the foundation is collapsed there is no room for whole religion. They have to believe everything said to them, without any question. If any doubt is created whole belief, religion itself breaks down. Once the Creator God is disproved, the whole religion is disproved and collapsed. So is the state of the “faith” in those religions.
Is it same in Buddhism? Can you disprove something in Buddhism and say say whole Buddhism is collapsed. Really none and nothing was able to disprove anything in Buddhism. But even if that belief is broken in Buddhism, will it make a such devastation to Buddhism.
So do you think it is reasonable to equate Buddhist belief to the creator God belief? They are entirely different though you and your foolish accomplices brand both of them with the same name as faith. I very well showed this before, but you prefer to keep them aside for your arguments’ sake.
I should say, You are clinging into debunked arguments, while make allegations against others.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
RE: “1. will be born again
2. will not be born again
Each possibility has a probability of 0.5 (1/2)”
Your lesson in statistics and probability fails before you’ve even started. Let me put it in a simple way you can understand.
You jump up. The options are
1. You fall down
2. You don’t fall down
According to you, each of these events has a probability of 0.5 (1/2).
I rest my case.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Let me help you make this probability calculation on rebirth from a Christian perspective. My recall of statistics and probability are extremely poor, so apologies in advance for any errors, but let’s at least try to arrive at a ballpark figure.
According to the Christians, there has been one undeniable case of resurrection – Jesus. Good. We have a known starting point. Now. How many people have lived since then? For ease, let’s say around 100 billion, which isn’t too far from the truth.
So what are the known odds of someone being reborn?
100 billion to 1.
Now, the bible does say that other dead people walked on the day of Jesus’s resurrection and everyone knows the bible is the inerrant word of god. Let’s pull a figure out of thin air (I know the Buddhists won’t mind since they pull the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth, Nirvana out of thin air) and peg it down at around 980.
Just to be generous, let’s add Stevenson’s 20 cases, and make it a nice round figure of 1000.
That bumps up the probability to a whopping
100 billion to 1000
or about
100 million to 1.
That, Mr. Yapa, is a ballpark figure for the probability of rebirth from known biblical data.
Since you seem convinced by odds like the above, I’m guessing you are an avid fan of the lottery too?
Oops. My mistake, make that 979. We don’t want to leave out poor Jesus!
Dear Heshan,
Just a Short & quick reply.
“I agree that science can neither prove nor disprove the idea of Buddhist rebirth beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, it can say that the probability of said phenomenon is extremely unlikely”
If a six sided dice with numbers from 1 to 6 marked on each side is thrown an infinite number of times, what would the probability of 6 coming up on the top face be? (written for the benefit of others, I know you are conversant)
The answer is 1 in 6
The probability calculation depends on KNOWING that there are 6 sides and that each side has a unique number from 1 to 6 marked on it. If the numbers were not unique and we did not know on how many faces the 6 was marked there is no way that the probability could be calculated.
If all six sides were marked with a 6, each throw would bring up a six.
Once it is admitted that Cognitive Science does not know all aspects of Rebirth, it has no way to calculate any probability one way or the other.
“Off the Cuff, you poke fun at the Bible,”
No Heshan I don’t poke fun at any religious belief. But I won’t hesitate to defend, if someone pokes fun at Buddhism or make a comparison to another system. That defence would necessarily require me to show the false hypothesis of my detractors’ belief system.
(too many posts to read. Some comments. Apologies to dump into one post. Hopefully adequately referenced. Shall read the rest later)
Mr Yapa
May 25, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Re: the Western Political Theories that you reject.
The important point is, what’s appropriate for today are decisions arrived at through open debate of people of today – instead of some ‘black box’ of attitudes prevailing 2,500 years ago.
=============================================
Heshan
May 25, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
“and one cannot separate the creation of the Universe from the existence of a omniscient, omnipotent God”
Correct. Though an agnostic, I have listed possible definitions of *god* in a previous post. If one accepts that the universe exists (or something exists even just in your mind) then if the definition of god is whatever made that happen then ‘god exists’. And whatever made it happen is omniscient and omnipotent – at least *omni* relative to us humans (though whatever may have his own limitations relative to whatever made whatever happen! ie. god’s god).
But, the division is not about his existence but what is the ‘nature’ of god. What is it? What’s his job description? And who does he report to?
=============================================
Heshan said,
May 25, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Western Philanthropy
——————–
Right on!
We in SL are a most ungrateful bunch.
=============================================
Off the Cuff said,
May 25, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
“BalangodaMan about ridiculing Rebirth”
Actually, OTC you will be surprised to learn that I do have an understanding of how ‘rebirth’ can work, but it is not derived from a literal reading of the Buddhist scriptures. It is a ‘possible scenario’ of my own invention that does not limit a rebirth to be one that results in any form of ‘life as we know it, human or not in this universe or this dimension’. So I suppose that’s a typical agnostic conjucture of rebirth.
What I comment on as ‘ridiculous and absurd’ are the popular interpretations that simply do not fit in with everything else we understand to be true in everyday life today as humans.
OTC
“Blind from Birth” that Colour is real, they will fail to do so. But to all of us with sight, the reality of colour is beyond question”.
Of course you make a valid point. BUT the problem is (unlike colour) no one has seen karma, rebirth, nirvana to come and show us that it is real. If I tell you there is a halo round my head that no one can see will you believe me?
“If it’s the Soul what is the Soul? Can its existence be proved by Cognitive Science?”
No! But Christians ackowledge that it is a faith (“the Christian faith”, they call it). The problem in this debate is you refuse to accept that KRN are elements of faith, but rather you claim it to be real. So why waste time comparing?
=============================================
yapa said,
May 25, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
Your “Justification of ‘Angry Buddhism’”
Mr Yapa, you are confusing Buddhist teachings with survival of tribe. What evidence is there to differentiate between (1) people in history fighting so that their tribe survives vs (2) fighting to preserve an ideology?
Consider this. If Dutugemunu had ‘preservation of ideology’ in mind he would not have fought the invaders. He would have extended warmth and goodwill and hospitality towards them (I am serious) even though he would have known that there is a possibility that this strategy would result in him being killed and his people subjugated. His decision to fight shows that the survival of his tribe (at the expense of his ideology) was important to him than the ideology. He sold out – and what’s more … you are gloryfying it! (just as you are glorifying the modern day proponents of Angry Buddhism)
You already show this from your item 5.
“5. Just as king Asoka gave up his anger and gave up the responsibility of protecting Buddhism by decreasing his army, we know what has happened to Buddhism and the to his kingdom as well.”
The old slogan that goes like “support pacifism or I’ll kill you!”
If we preach pacifism we must be prepared to stand up for it. The word ‘hypocritical’ comes to mind.
=============================================
OTC
May 25, 2010 @ 11:54 pm to SomewhatDisgusted
[
“such as Kamma as a concept of justice”
Kamma is not a concept of Justice. There is no one administering it. In Buddhism Kamma means “Thoughtful or Premeditated Action”. Vipaka that goes along with Kamma means “Result”. Hence an unconscious action is not Buddhist Kamma. An accident is not Buddhist Kamma. The element of intent is missing in both of them.
]
But OTC ….. the whole ideas of karma (as understood by most people who know this word) is that it is a concept of celestial justice. Every usage of that word in ANY context (apart from your usage) is consistent with ‘karma being some kind of celestial justice’ (regardless of the original meaning of the word). In any case, in this thread we are discussing the kind of ‘karma’ that results in rebirth and/or nirvana as a just consequence (as opposed to unjust or accident).
So there! (borrowed from Sujewa)
=============================================
Off the Cuff said,
May 26, 2010 @ 2:33 am
Sujewa’s
“it is inaccurate to characterize Buddhism as a liberal religion”
And OTC said …
Can you state any other religion that invites criticism of it’s own teachings?
Oh dear! This thread alone shows the extent of opposition there is to the ‘invitation of criticism to it’s own teachings’. That is the characteristic that gave rise to this discussion and keeps it going!
Again, you are not trying to follow the meaning, but rather rebutting Sujewa in a jingoistic fashion.
Sujewa’s
“Islam in its entirety is not restrictive”
OTC, let me translate this for you. “Islam is restrictive in many respects but it is not restrictive in its entirety”
You response of detailing aspects of Islam that are well kown to be restrictive, though accurate, is irrelevant. I think you missed the few words ‘in its entirety’ – ie. about 50% of the sentence.
Sujewa’s
“Some Buddhists are very conservative,…..”
You deny that. So … Let me translate this also. Very conservative means not prepared to rethink, revise, re-evaluate, and of course change in consequence of that. Read it in that meaning and I think you will agree with Sujewa’s statement. Otherwise why you would not be banging on about the truth of 2,500 year old knowledge being relevant to today’s world without revision.
“If and when Cognitive Science matures and is able to DISPROVE these aspects of Buddhism then I will accept them as speculative not otherwise.”
Ok. But we disagree. Most people would regard these as speculative until proved at some future time.
You said
“Hence your absolute conviction that Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana are speculative is similarly irrational.”
Aaaaaaaaaaaah! You miss the point still.
Whether *WE* are irrational is neither here nor there.
The problem I have detailed (over many posts) is that the whole notion leads (through common sense reasoning) to some total absurdities in society – IF EVERYONE BELIEVES THESE TO BE TRUE AND THEREFORE ACTED ACCORDINGLY. I have in recent posts referred to the example of your ‘I am born Buddhist because I have done premeditated intentional and non-accidental good deeds in past lives’. Somehow, I cannot see the SL constitution adopting this as a truth, putting it forward for the International Community to accept as ‘a suggestion put forward by the SL people to be accepted as a world truth’. Why? BECAUSE it is absurd. Why is it absurd? BECAUSE it inherently means that anyone else NOT BORN BUDDHIST is a sinner in past lives. Don’t you get it?
How is President Rajapakse going to relate to his wife on this basis? (I understand she is Catholic, or born Catholic. I may be wrong though)
OTC, you asked
“Can you clearly establish the causes for diversity in the universe?”
Can you define ‘agnosticism’? (hallelujah!)
OTC, you still do not seem to understand the Riyadh question. But it does not matter. I’m sure other readers have. (Please refer to the ‘My Mum is the best Mum in the world’ analogy.)
=================================
OTC and Heshan discussing the relative autority of the Bible/Tripitaka
Hey guys. The universe is real and definitely NOT man made. The religious books ARE definitely man made. And so are Nostradamus’s Prophecies. Period.
(to be continued …)
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Before answering your posts of May 26, 2010 @ 12:18 pm and May 26, 2010 @ 12:53 pm, let me remind you of three old poems.
There was a young lady of Kent,
Who always said just what she meant;
People said, “She’s a dear,
So unique, so sincere,”
But they shunned her by common consent.**
There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They came back from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger
A rocket explorer named Wright
Once traveled much faster than light.
He set out one day
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.**
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Re: your comment of May 26, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
When separated from the given context you can interpret many things even to say the quite opposite of what really meant.(Just as most of the time you do).
You have done it to my probability lesson.
When I do the same thing to your probability lesson please see what will happen.
Here you go;
You jump up. The options are
1. You fall down
2. You don’t fall down
each of these events has a probability of 0.5 (1/2).
I rest my case.
Here I go;
If the experiment was done in the outer space, what is your probability result?
According to you, will you get the same result as you expected above?
Did you see the moon, stars………?
Don’t do tricks with tigers!
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa,
“So, as I mentioned earlier, the modern liberal versions of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity may be as liberal or more liberal than liberal Buddhism.”
Putting up links without a comparative analysis does not prove your case.
Awaiting your detailed analysis
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Re: your comment of May 26, 2010 @ 12:53 pm,
I will tell you a counter story.
Once I saw a dream. You were in a lecture. I was a student in your class. You posed a question to the class. I have three bothers and two sisters. My youngest brother’s name is LittlebitDisgusted. His eldest sister was five years younger to me. I have done my tertiary education here itself. Then the Vice Chancellor’s name was TotallyDisgusted. Can you tell my age now?
None raised hands. Just as now being an idiot I raised my hand. You ordered me to stand up and answer.
I said “Sir! it is 44″.
“Oh! marvelous man! My brilliant student, you will keep my name one day. Tell this forum how you arrived at that perfect answer”.
” Sir! I have a brother who is 22 years of age. He is half insane. So I multiplied his age by two and got your good age”.
Can I sit Sir!
Thanks!
OTC,
Re: the following [...]:
[Dear Sujewa,
“So, as I mentioned earlier, the modern liberal versions of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity may be as liberal or more liberal than liberal Buddhism.”
Putting up links without a comparative analysis does not prove your case.
Awaiting your detailed analysis]
Define what you mean by a detailed analysis (because the believers & the agnostics seem to have two different definitions for many things it appears – driving Yapa & Wijayapala & sometimes you to label thinking that does not conform to your/believer way of thinking as insane, schizo, etc. – or that’s just a dishonest method of argument that some believers like to use since they cannot win or clearly make their case by using facts) – perhaps a list of instances, how liberal versions of other religions have positively or negatively affected the world, etc?
Otherwise we are going to go back & forth for a long time I think. A list can be created showing how in practice Buddhism is more conservative than the liberal versions of other religions.
The more or less liberal determination – as far as impact on the world – can be determined by using the number of believers who exist in the world, and actual work accomplished by the liberal believers or those societies significantly affected by liberal believers.
Or suggest some other means that is acceptable & most importantly comprehensible to you (i think one of the biggest problems in this debate is that the believers are unable to understand new views that have been discovered since the invention of SL Buddhism or Sinhala Buddhism (a different thing than Therevada Buddhism – Sinhala Buddhism is a tribal political device, does not have much to do with the religion – Therevada Buddhism – at its core) – concepts such as the non-existence of an East-West division when it comes to ideas, finance, & many other important aspects of life – I can see how such a condition can arise – mental inflexibility – in a group of people who believe that the most important human ideas were expressed 2500+ years ago by an Indian monk – reportedly)
In this context my use of the term liberal means open to new interpertations, away from the orthodox, classical, traditional ways of a given religion.
- S
A few innocent victims of western bulldozer Development
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/default.stm
Thanks!
One more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earthexplorers/
Thanks!
RE: post of May 26, 2010 @ 4:15 pm,
A copy cat of Sujewa E.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“You wanted to call it a “belief” instead of a “faith”, but that makes no real difference”
Sorry SD, although you may not be aware, there is a difference.
That’s why I am careful with the usage.
Faith and Belief may be synonyms but they are not interchangeable all the time. Especially when you are talking about Religion.
Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer
e.g. my belief that I had caught all the errors.
Faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof
e.g. I have an unshakable faith in God.
(Merriam Webster’s Dictionary)
Now that the word confusion is dealt with let’s take a look at Speculation.
Here is a case where the Word Speculation is used to describe a Non speculative item.
We have three groups of people chatting to each other.
The first group is Congenitally Deaf
The Second is Congenitally Blind
The Third has all faculties.
The third group is describing what Music is. The Blind understands what is being discussed but the deaf does not. To the Deaf NOTHING called Music exists. To them Music is just SPECULATION
The third group now describes Light and Colour. The Deaf understands what Light and colour is but the Blind does not. To the Blind Light and Colour is SPECULATION.
The ONLY group that understands Light Sound and colour as TRUE phenomena is the Third group that has unimpaired Faculties.
Light and colour is SPECULATION to the Blind
Sound is SPECULATION to the Deaf
How do you prove otherwise?
One group calls Light and Colour an idiotic concept. Speculation in fact. The other says the same thing about Sound.
As Agnostics can you prove that they are wrong?
Since you can’t prove it to them, what would you label it as?
That Light, Colour and Sound are speculative phenomena?
What if an overwhelming majority of the world was BLIND, Congenitally, like white ants?
How do you propose to prove what the overwhelming majority calls “Idiotic Speculation” and prove to them that it is not?
So you see SD just because the Agnostics behave like the Congenitally Blind and label everything that cannot be proved Cognitively, due to the unavailability at the current point in time of a suitable COGNITIVE method, as Speculation, the fault may be with the Agnostics who may be impaired just like the Blind and Deaf.
BTW SD, how did you interpret my statement about MYSELF below as a statement about others?
If and when Cognitive Science matures and is able to DISPROVE these aspects of Buddhism then I will accept them as speculative not otherwise.
You say
“Just don’t confuse that belief as something that OTHERS ought to elevate above speculation.”
It is disappointing to see you misinterpret my personal belief as an argument for Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana. I believe your statement is completely ill placed
Yapa’s up to cheap tricks again;
RE: “A few innocent victims of western bulldozer Development
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/default.stm
Thanks!”
- pointing to something that may have many unique reasons for being so & blaming it on an entire civilization.
While you are at it, check out the list of extinct animals in Asia Yapa, many appeared to have disappeared long before “Western” ways became even partially popular in Asia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Asia
So who should we blame for that? Eastern civilization?
And OTC seems to think you developed noteworthy analytical abilities through Buddhism
Funny.
::
Yapa is STILL unable to understand that the division of East and West is no longer a 100% relevant idea (it may have been during the early days of European colonization of Asia) – since many government methods, commerce/finance approaches, ideas, practices, etc. that exist on both sides of the so-called divide are attempting to achieve the same things (democratic & productive societies, etc.).
- Sujewa
Dear Sujewa,
Putting up links without a comparative analysis does not prove your case.
You know what a COMPARATIVE analysis is don’t you?
You say
“Define what you mean by a detailed analysis” (May 26, 2010 @ 7:54 pm)
Sujewa, I was referring to your own statement of (May 26, 2010 @ 9:30 am)
“OTC, I’ll get to replying in detail to your post above ”
So I don’t know what you meant by “detailed” waiting to see what you meant.
“since the invention of SL Buddhism or Sinhala Buddhism”
I write ONLY about what the Buddha Preached.
So don’t confuse what I write with your inventions.
I do not recognise ANY of those perverted concoctions.
RE: Post of May 26, 2010 @ 7:54 pm;
Again Pissuwa thada wela. When the full moon day is arriving that happens to this type of poor people. How much this man’s parents spent sending him abroad for education. Poor fellow couldn’t afford such burden on his psych and ultimately he got this. Must be because of a past karma. Otherwise a fine fellow. We are also helpless before the operation of karma. However, when we go to the temple tomorrow on the Vesak Full Moon Day, we will give some merit to him for his good mental health.
May you (and all beings) be safe and protected.
May you (and all beings) be peaceful and happy.
May you (and all beings) be healthy and strong.
May you (and all beings) have ease of well being. (and accept all the conditions of the world)
Peaceful Vesak to all !!!
Dear Yapa:
That is, in terms of probability Buddhist “Rebirth” has a very significant probability of 1/6.
Please convert your fraction to a percentage. You will see that it is
16.6667%, which is not significant. If the population of the world is 6 billion, and only 16.6667% had a chance of experiencing rebirth, then 100200000 individuals have undergone rebirth,, which is not even 1/4th of the entire population.
(A): I think you have got confused many things by trying to prove the existence of disproved things. When something is clearly disproved we should not hesitate to accept it because it has some akin to me or my relative or a friend. We must assess things unbiased to see the reality. When we attach a string to something with our liking to it we normally do not like to calamities to befall upon that something. But regardless of our liking calamities could happen to them and just denying when it happened won’t make any compensation.
The god concept with creative ability has clearly been disproved without any doubt. You will never be able to give life to that carcass. Repeated effort on that would only be a waste of our energies. As a man of Science you must know this much better than many.
According to science (not religion), the Universe was created from a ball of energy. This energy was concentrated at one point . And then, according to science, the energy transformed itself into what we perceive as the Universe. So science does not deny that this energy has always existed. What it does not do is tell us the source of the singular energy. Until that question is answered, one cannot deny the existence of God. Remember also that science says new energy cannot be created – therefore science is forced to take the position that this energy has always existed.
Dear BalangodaMan,
If I ask the Agnostics to use any method in science or logic to prove to the “Blind from Birth” that Colour is real, they will fail to do so. But to all of us with sight, the reality of colour is beyond question.
“Of course you make a valid point. BUT the problem is (unlike colour) no one has seen karma, rebirth, nirvana to come and show us that it is real. “
You have failed to grasp the point I make. Let me make it simpler.
If you were the only person with Sight in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince the Blind that there is something called Light and Colour?
Would the failure on your part to convince the Blind, which you will CERTAINLY fail to do, mean that Light and Colour is mere speculation?
OTC,
RE:
“So I don’t know what you meant by “detailed” waiting to see what you meant.”
You quotes several sentences from my post & replied to them. By detailed I mean responses to each of your responses. Will get to them later today, when there is time.
Re: comparative analysis, etc. The fact that religions more liberal than Buddhism exists has been pointed out via quotes & links provided. That does not seem enough for you/or you are unable to understand/interpert the info, so, define how you want the information (comparing Buddhism to other liberal religions) presented. Otherwise this is going to be a yet another long & pointless excercise.
Re: what you believe the Buddha taught, etc. Fine. But when we discuss Buddhism there are many different kinds of Buddhism, as B-Man pointed out – as in how Buddhism gets interperted & used in various time periods & in various countries. Since you claim to be unfamiliar with Sinhala Buddhism, here’s a link for you to study:
http://www.buddhistethics.org/4/deeg1.html
“Scholars identify the TheravÄda form of Buddhism that grew in Sri Lanka as Sinhala Buddhism. The adjective Sinhala is both a reference to an ethnic group: Sinhala people, the majority population in Sri Lanka, and to an Indo-European language: Sinhala spoken by the Sinhala public. Thus, Sinhala Buddhism has two meanings–Buddhism in the Sinhala language and Buddhism practiced by the Sinhala people.
Though TheravÄda Buddhism has been the most frequently used identification for Sri Lankan Buddhism, in recent decades, with reference to Buddhism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a new designation called Protestant Buddhism has been created.”
And, since you are confused or are unable to state how you want Buddhism compared to other liberal religions, this document may help you figure it out:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism4.htm
Look at how that document is organized.
If you do not have a preference on how the comparison information is to be presented, how about on the following 2 factors (comparing Buddhism with other religions to determine the liberality of each based on following):
1 – Being able to re-interpert founding/original teachings?
2 – Behavior of followers being compatible with modern humanist/liberal ideas?
Let me know.
- S
OTC asked me
“Would the failure on your part to convince the Blind, which you will CERTAINLY fail to do, mean that Light and Colour is mere speculation?”
But the same is true of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the China Teapot and (SomewhatDisgusted’s favourite) Shilboot! I asked you, if I said there is a halo round my head that nobody can see, do you think it exists?
We have done all this (at which point did you stop following this discussion?)
Mr Yapa,
Completely off topic but just to be pedantic .. you said there is no gravity in space. Wrong.
There is gravity in all of the universe. Otherwise the planets will not go round the Sun – they will go shooting off in all directions!
You are making the common error in equating ‘weightlessness in an orbiting spacecraft’ with lack of gravity. You experience ‘weightlessness’ while in orbit because the centrifugal force is exactly equal and opposite to the gravitational pull of the Earth. You can prove this by placing any of your fellow believers in a position in space somewhere between Jupiter and Mars and see what happens. My guess is that he will go crashing into Jupiter, provided that’s his karmic destiny …
Dear Arosha Bandara,
Other than generally advising against learning about South Asian history from British journalism, I have some points to make:
“ “While [Asoka] was inspired by the teachings of Buddha – and his son was in fact the first Buddhist missionary to Sri Lanka – he didn’t impose Buddhism on his empire. Ashoka’s state was in a very particular sense a secular one.””
The Mauryan empire was “secular” in that Asoka encouraged all religions and respect for religious authorities (brahmanas and sramanas) without promoting a particular faith in his Major Edicts. In his Minor Edicts, though, Asoka preached Buddhism left and right.
Asoka could not impose Buddhism because that would be un-Buddhist. As much as the secags believe that they are the only tolerant people out there, history proves them wrong.
* And finally a quote from the coronation address of the present (5th) King of Bhutan – “..’Throughout my reign I will never rule you as a king. I will protect you as a parent, care for you as a brother and serve you as a son. As the king of a Buddhist nation, my duty is not only to ensure your happiness today, but to create the fertile ground from which you may gain the fruits of spiritual pursuit and attain good karma.’”
What does this have to do with anything? Do you want Mahinda to give that speech?
“Specially if the only significant contribution to SL being made by Buddhism is the creation of Angry Buddhists, it should definitely be put aside.”
Sounds good. But what should we do with Secular Agnosticism if its only significant contribution has been creating Schizo Secags?
Wijayapala,
It is quite amazing how blinkered you are that you reject even positive statements just on the basis of who is making them.
We will have to agree to disagree on which introduction of Buddhism to SL made ‘a bigger splash’ – the one in 300 BC or 1885. I shall bullet point my reasoning for the benefit of anybody interested.
In 300 BC there was no resistence. The king embraced the new religion as the flavour of the era and that was that.
In 1885 it was quite a different story. Christian missionaries were hard at work harvesting souls by the hundreds of thousands. The re-introduction of Buddhism was a monumental task, and what was achieved is remarkable. You described yourself the effort that was needed. In my opinion, and that of other commentators on those few decades of the Buddhist revival, the Buddhism that was presented to the people is modelled on ‘what works’ in other religions (devotional like Christianity as described by Soma Thera, with some Hinduism thrown in). Read Obeyesekera and Gimlich.
You mentioned stupas and statues. What?!!! There were far more Buddha statues built and temples built AFTER the Buddhist revival, and a flag, and poya day holidays. And Buddhism took the form of a regular ‘organised religion’.
For that reason I say the post-1885 ‘kick start’ by the visiting Westerners was massively significant in the survival of Buddhism in SL. In 300 BC it was a walk in the park, or should I say forest.
Dear yapa,
Thank you for your kind words. I have to clarify a few things. It was not my intent to praise all “angry Buddhists” throughout history more or less to put them on the same level as “pious Buddhists.” I was simply showing that without the angry Buddhists there would be no Buddhism today, just like how the systems of Makkhali Gosala, Purana Kassapa, and many other contemporaries of Gautama Buddha are now nonexistent.
Digression: the secags here might squeal in delight if they knew that there were secags in Buddha’s time!!! (unfortunately, history is not their strong area) As proof that samsara is a true phenomenon, I present to you Sanjaya (Schizo Sujewa) and Ajitha (SD):
Sanjaya Belatthaputta
If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not. If you asked me if there isn’t another world… both is and isn’t… neither is nor isn’t… if there are beings who transmigrate… if there aren’t… both are and aren’t… neither are nor aren’t… if the Tathagata exists after death… doesn’t… both… neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not. – (Wow!!!!!! It’s like the secags had only one brain throughout human history which they have had to pass down throughout the centuries and share one at a time…this is where it began!!!!!)
“In the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1), Sanjaya’s views are deemed to be amaravikkhepavad, “a theory of eel-wrigglers.” (that pretty much sums it up!)
“These two future arahants ultimately left Sanjaya’s tutelage as it did not address their unresolved desire to end ultimate suffering.” (No kidding!)
And here’s Ajita_Kesakambali (for the secags who speculate that not believing in samsara promotes a moral life):
“Renowned historian DD Kosambi, who elsewhere calls Ajita a proto-materialist, notes that he “preached a thoroughgoing materialist doctrine: good deeds and charity gained a man nothing in the end. His body dissolved into the primary elements at death, no matter what he had or had not done. Nothing remained. Good and evil, charity and compassion were all irrelevant to a man’s fate.”
Now back to the topic. Of all the people you brought up, Yapa, I mostly admire the Buddhist activists in the colonial era because unlike Duttugemenu and Vijayabahu, they defended the Dhamma with words and ideas and not violence. I think it is their example that we must strive to emulate.
“5. Just as king Asoka gave up his anger and gave up the responsibility of protecting Buddhism by decreasing his army, we know what has happened to Buddhism and the to his kingdom as well.”
Buddhism did not disappear in India because Asoka decreased his army. It began to disappear after Asoka’s death because his children (not Mahinda or Sanghamitta) were not Buddhist. Actually the entire empire did not last long at all after Asoka’s death.
Dear Off the Cuff:
If a six sided dice with numbers from 1 to 6 marked on each side is thrown an infinite number of times, what would the probability of 6 coming up on the top face be? (written for the benefit of others, I know you are conversant)
You have correctly said that the number is 1/6… however keep in mind that this is only an average. In other words, if you rolled the dice many times, and looked at the frequency distribution for 6, you would see that the number was close to 16.6667%. The important point is that one trial is meaningless. On the other hand, you are also assuming that the dice is a certain shape (cube). And the die is a single object. On the other hand, I do not think very many processes in nature exhibit such simple behavior. For example, consider evolution. The rate of reproduction has dramatically increased since humans first existed. Right now the world population is 6823200000. How do you explain this in terms of karma/rebirth? By the definition of karma/rebirth, if the number of people on Earth is increasing, then the amount of bad karma that people acquire must also be increasing – this increase must be occurring chaotically at quite a high rate! The six-sided dice analogy you suggested no longer works, as the population increase of the world no longer obeys the law of averages. Let me restate it another way: I don’t think that the behavior of large-scale complex systems can be conceived in terms of simple probabilities, over a long period of time.
Dear Brother Heshan (your brother in the Lord):
Firstly let me congratulate you for converting Schizo Sujewa unwittingly into a theist!! I have to say I was highly impressed how adroitly you steered him, using pseudo-scientific vocabulary and without invoking the Gospel outright, into accepting your “Singularity.” I knew secags were easily fooled but I wasn’t prepared for your above demonstration. No doubt by the end of the week you’ll have him singing Hosannas!!
Now this SD is a tougher nut to crack as he did not gullibly suck your words up right away (I think he was designated to hold Sanjaya’s brain at that time). But is he prepared for the Big Bang?
“if you want to deny the existence of God, you will have to prove the source of the original cosmic energy, which is mentioned indirectly on the first page of the Bible, and mentioned directly in Hinduism (Vedas), and whose existence is taken for granted in the Big Bang Theory of science.”
!!!! Big Bang Model can be used to prove that Jesus died for our sins?????? Secags the world over (or the one currently holding a brain) should be trembling in terror!! Their entire Secular Agnostic Reality is being threatened to the core by Prophet Heshan who spreads the Good Word through science!
On the other hand, Buddhists who have some familiarity with the Tripitaka may not be so impressed. See, we have this superstition that the Buddha himself described something similar to your “Big Bang of God-Bomb,” although in quite different and non-theistic terms:
Agganna Sutta:
“There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious–and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious–and they stay like that for a very long time.
But that’s only the beginning of this idolatry! In the next several lines of the exact same Sutta, Buddha began to describe something suspiciously sounding like that most pernicious tool of the Devil, evolution, as well as the development of human soceity! (although thanks be to Jesus, Buddha was not very flattering in his notion of either):
“At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no male and female, beings being reckoning just as beings. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with color, smell and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.
“Then some being of greedy nature said: ‘I say, what can this be?’ and tasted the savory earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavor, and craving arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavor, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And the result of this was that their self-luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self-luminance, the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.
“And those beings continued for a very long time feasting on this savory earth, feeding on it and being nourished by it. **And as they did so, their bodies became courser, and a difference in looks developed among them.** Some beings became good-looking, others ugly. And the good-looking ones despised the others, saying: ‘We are better-looking than they are.’ And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the savory earth disappeared. At this they came together and lamented, crying: ‘Oh that flavor! Oh that flavor!’ And as nowadays when people say: ‘Oh that flavor!’ when they get something nice, they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.
“And then, when the savory earth had disappeared, a fungus cropped up, in the manner of a mushroom. It was of a good color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. And those beings set to and ate the fungus. And this lasted for a very long time. And as they continued to feed on the fungus, so their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks increased still more. And the good-looking ones despised the others…And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the sweet fungus disappeared. Next, creeper appeared, shooting up like bamboo…, and they too were very sweet, like pure wild honey.
“And those beings set to and fed on those creepers. And as they did so, their bodies became even coarser, and the difference in their looks increased still more…And they became still more arrogant, and so the creeper disappeared too. At this they came together and lamented, crying: ‘Alas, our creeper’s gone! What have we lost!’ And so now today when people, on being asked why they are upset, say: ‘Oh, what have we lost!’ they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.
“And then, after the creepers had disappeared, rice appeared in open spaces, free from powder and from husks, fragrant and clean-grained. and what they had taken in the evening for supper had grown again and was ripe in the morning, and what they had taken in the morning for breakfast was ripe again by evening, with no sign of reaping. And these beings set to and fed on this rice, and this lasted for a very long time. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks became even greater. And the females developed female sex-organs, and the males developed male organs. And the women became excessively preoccupied with men, and the men with women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other, passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later, because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity. But those who saw them indulging threw dust, ashes or cow-dung at them crying: ‘Die, you filthy beast! How can one being do such things to another!’ Just as today, in some districts, when a daughter-in-law is led out, some people throw dirt at her, some ashes, and some cow-dung, without realizing that they are repeating an ancient observance. What was considered bad form in those days is now considered good form.
“And those beings who in those days indulged in sex were not allowed into a village or town for one or two months. Accordingly those who indulged for an excessively long period in such immoral practices began to build themselves dwellings so as to indulge under cover.
“Now it occurred to one of those beings who was inclined to laziness: ‘Well now, why should I be bothered to gather rice in the evening for supper and in the morning for breakfast? Why shouldn’t I gather it all at once for both meals?’ And he did so. Then another one came to him and said: ‘Come on, let’s go rice-gathering.’ ‘No need, my friend, I’ve gathered enough for both meals.’ Then the other, following his example, gathered enough rice for two days at a time, saying: ‘That should be about enough.’ Then another being came and said to that second one: ‘Come on, let’s go rice-gathering.’ ‘No need, my friend, I’ve gathered enough for two days.’ However, when those beings made a store of rice and lived on that, husk-powder and husk began to envelop the grain, and where it was reaped it did not grow again, and the cut place showed, and the rice grew in separate clusters.
“And then those beings came together lamenting: ‘Wicked ways have become rife among us: at first we were mind-made, feeding on delight……and the rice grows in separate clusters. So now let us divide up the rice into fields with boundaries.’ So they did so.
“Then, Vasettha, one greedy-natured being, while watching over his own plot, took another plot that was not given to him, and enjoyed the fruits of it. So they seized hold of him and said: ‘You’ve done a wicked thing, taking another’s plot like that! Don’t ever do such a thing again!’ ‘I won’t', he said, but he did the same thing a second and a third time. Again he was seized and rebuked, and some hit him with their fists, some with stones, and some with sticks. And in this way, Vasettha, taking what was not given, and censuring and lying, and punishment, took their origin.
“Then those beings came together and lamented the arising of these evil things among them: taking what was not given, censuring, lying and punishment. And they thought: ‘Suppose we were to appoint a certain being who would show anger where anger was due, censure those who deserved it, and banish those who deserved banishment! And in return, we would grant him a share of the rice.’ So they went to the one among them who was the handsomest, the best-looking, the most pleasant and capable, and asked him to do this for them in return for a share of the rice, and he agreed.
“‘The People’s Choice’ is the meaning of Maha-Sammata, which is the first regular title to be introduced. ‘Lord Of The Fields’ is the meaning of Khattiya, the second such title. And ‘He Gladdens Others With Dhamma’ is the meaning of Raja, the third title to be introduced. This, then, Vasettha, is the origin of the class of Khattiyas, in accordance with the ancient titles that were introduced for them. They originated among these very same beings, like ourselves, no different, and in accordance with Dhamma, not otherwise.
(as much as this might confuse the secags, they can console themselves in that the Buddha was not offering a Scientific Theory but was speaking only metaphorically to describe the origin of attachment and of casteism)
If Agganna Sutta does not lift you into God’s Kingdom, dear Heshan, here are the rantings of another heathen Buddhist on how the Big Bang confirms the Buddhists’ *cyclical* understanding of the universe:
This is no surprise to Buddhists as we have been taught by Buddha that all things are interconnected and impermanent and thus the very universe that we call home must in fact “die” itself only to reborn anew as is the nature of all things.
Jesus would be writhing more in pain after reading this stuff than when he was nailed to the cross!
“But when 300,000 Tamils are locked up in barbed wire camps, and the proud Buddhists are busy waving Lion Flags and lighting firecrackers,”
Despite what the voices in your head claiming to be Jesus Christ are telling you, I think there is at least some cause to light firecrackers: less than one-third of the above number are still in the camps waiting for the SLA to remove the LTTE’s landmines from their homes. Think positive! Can I hear a Hallelujah?
Dear Yapa:
Really, Avyakatha questions are out of the domain of the Buddhist Doctrine and hence the Buddhists. I think it is a duty of Scientists or Philosophers to answer them.
I think it is the desire of every man to know when the Universe began, when the Universe will end, and what happens after he dies. So whether or not Buddhism can answer these questions or not, people will find other ways to do so. On the other hand, the refusal of Buddha to answer these questions raises questions about Enlightenment itself. Because if Buddha, having reached a stage of Enlightenment, did not know the answers to these questions, then we can conclude that Enlightenment is not the highest form of knowledge available. So it is in your best interest, as a Buddhist, to make a strong case proving that Buddha knew the answers, but did not wish to reveal the answers for whatever reason.
OTC,
“Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer
e.g. my belief that I had caught all the errors.
Faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof
e.g. I have an unshakable faith in God.”
Sounds good. When I was talking about Buddhist “faith” I was really referring to your definition of “belief.” Belief does not carry the certitude of fact but it is quite a different thing from a faith in something even when it defies evidence/proof.
Samsara and Nibbana are not facts, but the secags have failed to provide an alternative explanation of reality relying on facts that counter samsara or nibbana.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted:
Once you take God as an axiom, *anything* follows easily, even a giant ice-cream sundae orbiting Neptune. God is the mother of all cop outs, which relieves you of responsibility for all further explanation – why does X happen? Oh, that’s easy, God did it.
RE: “…one cannot separate the creation of the Universe from the existence of a omniscient, omnipotent God. If one attempts to do so, there will be a gap (question mark: ?) in the system.”
Just because we have a question mark in the system, doesn’t mean we can fill it in with some arbitrary, pointless assumption. I don’t see how a gigantic celestial cop-out does anything to improve our lack of knowledge. This is the God of the Gaps argument Heshan, and you should know better than to use it.
I don’t know of any system of logic that does not contain axioms. The problem is that if you try to prove an axiom, you get caught in a *vicious* cycle of circular reasoning. This is why I disagree with atheists who ask the question, “who made God?” You could go on asking, “who made…….who made God?” an infinite number of times. On the other hand, if you assume that the Universe has a starting point – a singularity – then this question of “who made…. who made God?” becomes rather irrelevant. At this point in time, God existed, regardless of who made him, where again, we assume that God made the Universe.
Dear BalangodaMan:
Right on!
We in SL are a most ungrateful bunch.
However, it is does not mean they are not capable… considering the past successes of the ancient civilizations and the overwhelming success of the diaspora (both ethnicities). What is needed is a self-empowerment program… in my opinion, the days of self-empowerment from religion are over. Only a massive investment in technology can take a society forward (India, Japan, etc). But such an investment must correspond to the creation of a class of highly skilled technical workers… this will only occur if the Government makes a major investment, such as the Indian government has done. Only the Government has the resources to initiate such a project, which should then lead to private sector competition. Of course, the assumption is that you have capable people in the Government who are at least cognizant of such issues…
Sujewa:
Thanks for your comments.
Even with the speculative/metaphisical items removed or de-emphasized/written off as unconfirmable ancient historical artifacts – Buddhism – or an agnostic or an atheist Buddhism that is not concerned with the following – all of existence being suffering, nirvana, karma, reincarnation/rebirth would still be useful to a practitioner/follower in leading a responsible/ethical life – in my opinion.
I agree that it still serves an ethical purpose… in fact, I am not sure what other purpose it serves. “Avyakatha” demonstrates that Buddhism as a system of logic is incomplete. This is another difficulty with a religion – it does not evolve. From an ethical standpoint, that works just fine. But from a scientific perspective, it presents numerous dilemmas. For a given religion to be superior or equal to science, we would have to assume that every truth – every subtelty in regards to the behavior of the Universe – has already been deciphered within the framework of the religion itself. “Avyakatha” would imply that this is not necessarily the case.
Happy vesak everyone ….
Sujeewa we agree that India is a very good secular model to emulate -
India fortunately retained the spirit of buddhism without the words and without a sangha …
however Thailand Burma and SL are trapped within an Asokan model – we share much with these countries and can also learn somethings from another ignored buddhist kingdom Bhutan – gross national happiness – remember? definitely it is necessary to work at this –
another poem towards some consensus
KARMA AGAIN
Karma is selfish energy
Selfless action is universal energy
With karma we build a prison
A prison for one – a prison for all
Yes we call this samsara
With universal energy we move out
Throwing out the bricks of our attachment
One by one
All this takes a long, long time
One life is but a drop in the ocean
The universe balances itself
Yes we are lost souls
Till we find
We don’t exist!
All that we are
Is karma
We are nothing but
The choices that we made
A stream of actions
Without an actor
If you believe everything
You are not a Buddhist
If you investigate all this
With your own mind
Then you tread the path
The most important thing
Is not to call yourself anything
Remember – you don’t exist
Live a life of non-self
Not self
You can negate Buddhism
But call yourself a Buddhist
You can negate whatever
But call yourself that
In the past our Buddhism
Was a reality without a name
The name arose when other names appeared
To compete with that name
Don’t confirm
A single name
Just go for the real thing
IN THE PRACTICE OF TOLERANCE ONE’S ENEMY IS THE BEST TEACHER
Dear BalangodaMan,
I am reproducing below Two posts from you
In the first you have accepted that my argument about the inability to convince the concept of colour to the Blind does not make “Light and Colour” Speculative concepts.
You qualified your reply by stating that there exist many who have SEEN colour and Light.
My response was to reframe my question, by removing the witnesses you quoted, by asking you that, IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real.
How did that Valid Argument change overnight in to an invalid one?
Is it because I removed your witnesses and made you the ONLY witness to the existence of “Light and Colour”?
Shame BM Shame. Your Intellectual Dishonesty has again come to the Fore.
These are the main points that you have to address
1. You and only You KNOW that there is something called Light and Colour
2. The rest of the World lacks the COGNITIVE ability to sense Light and Colour
3. It is Physically IMPOSSIBLE at this point of time to convey what Light and Colour is to the Blind World using any method of Cognitive Science or Logic or Math (i.e Cognitive Science is immature).
4. The Blind World will call you Mad for even suggesting that something called Light and Colour exists.
5. The Blind World will call Light and Colour Speculation
6. Nevertheless Light and Colour is very much Real and it exists.
Can the Educated, Intelligent, Free thinking AGNOSTICS provide a RATIONAL answer to this problem?
BM whether you practice Self Hypnotism and go in to a Hypnotic Trance or whether you Hypnotise the Congenitally Blind or whether you use Shillboot or LSD or Opium or Heroin or whatever to bring about Hallucination either in yourself or the Congenitally Blind you will still fail to convey the concepts of Light and Colour to the Blind because they live in a Dark world and has had ZERO experience of Light or Colour.
You see Agnostics “Light and Colour” is a real entity but you are ABSOLUTELY powerless to convey that to the Congenitally Blind.
Does your failure Subtract ANYTHING from the TRUTH of the existence of Light an Colour?
BM, we are discussing REAL PHENOMENA that all of us who have SIGHT know to be real. Hence bringing up SPECULATIVE an Imaginary items to counter a REAL one does not work.
Hope you see the hole in your argument against Kamma and Rebirth.
BalangodaMan said, May 27, 2010 @ 4:45 am
OTC asked me
“Would the failure on your part to convince the Blind, which you will CERTAINLY fail to do, mean that Light and Colour is mere speculation?”
But the same is true of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the China Teapot and (SomewhatDisgusted’s favourite) Shilboot! I asked you, if I said there is a halo round my head that nobody can see, do you think it exists?
BalangodaMan said, May 26, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
OTC
“Blind from Birth” that Colour is real, they will fail to do so. But to all of us with sight, the reality of colour is beyond question”.
Of course you make a valid point. BUT the problem is (unlike colour) no one has seen karma, rebirth, nirvana to come and show us that it is real. If I tell you there is a halo round my head that no one can see will you believe me?
Heshan said, May 27, 2010 @ 6:26 am
“Right now the world population is 6823200000. How do you explain this in terms of karma/rebirth? By the definition of karma/rebirth, if the number of people on Earth is increasing”
(more questions)
Or indeed how did it all begin?
Is it fair that good people are reborn in more affluent countries (by their karma) and go on to become ‘bad’ people by their excesses and non-compliance with the ‘way’?
Did the dinasaurs accumulate so much karma to be wiped out? Or is their extinction a form of nirvana?
If so, why doesn’t our world induce an extinction to achieve nirvana for all living things? (Proposal No 2 to the UN) Referendum?
Re. Heshan said, May 27, 2010 @ 6:37 am
Consider this …
“Enlightenment” can mean omnicscience
“Enlightenment” can mean delusion
“Enlightenment” can mean hypnotic suggestion
“Enlightenment” can mean madness
“Enlightenment” can mean one-upmanship
So using Mr Yapa’s logic there is only a 1 in 5 chance of “enlightenment” being omniscience. That is only 20%. There is a greater probability 80% that anyone claiming to be ‘enlightened’ is not omniscient.
(I can hear the Believers going “but the Buddha was not omniscient, he was Enlightened. That is different. Omniscience is a Christian concept, like ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ and ‘scriptures’ and ‘religion’ – Mohammed was a Prophet, not Enlightened etc …”)
I heard when I was a child that when you become ‘enlightened’ you levitate (rise up in the air). So there is a 20% chance of this happening, or do some of the other ‘enlightenments’ also display this annoying side-effect? But Mr Yapa (SD) points out that we have a 50% of not falling down. This is where, as a child, I got really confused between Arahants and Superman.
Heshan said, May 27, 2010 @ 7:18 am
“Avyakatha” demonstrates that Buddhism as a system of logic is incomplete.”
I agree but …
I said earlier, we cannot use ‘the introspective explorations of an ascetic on the meaning of (his) life on a metaphysical plane’ as gospel truth of the working of the material world (in which we all live). Particularly as the material world is the one one is rejecting in the search for the meaning of life ‘on a metaphysical plane’.
In fact, in the ‘world into which one transcends’ when meditating (read self-hypnosis) nobody else exists, not even the world – hence the idea of ‘transcending’.
IMO the Believers have grossly misundertood the Buddha. To follow his example they must themselves explore their inner world ‘as if they did not exist’ (no self). They will then come up with very different answers even among themselves.
I shall repeat that …
IMO the Believers have grossly misundertood the Buddha. To follow his example they must themselves explore their inner world ‘as if they did not exist’ (no self). They will then come up with very different answers even among themselves.
This is where Buddhism *is an inspiration to engage* in philosophy.
::
(Mr Yapa et al)
However, most Buddhists do not. We only talk about it.
To Believers like Mr Yapa, OTC, Wijayapala ‘doing Buddhism’ means ..
(1) knowing verbatim what is in the scriptures. The dogma.
(2) brand loyalty
(3) tribal loyalty
(4) protectionism and militancy
(5) picking holes in other religions
(6) attacking the West
(7) ensuring the preservation of the numbers in SL
I repeat, Buddhism is none of the above. Instead, it is to inspire us to ‘look within ourselves’. The result you will get will be different from anybody else.
The main thing is, you are not likely to get the same result as the Buddha got. So the answers he gave are largely irrelevant.
There is, therefore, no point in arguing about what *he* found (that the Believers regard as gospel!). What is important to you should be what YOU find. And that should not, and cannot, concern anybody else.
In other words, you cannot ‘discuss’ Buddhist philosophy. It is private to you. It is what YOU find for yourself, within yourself.
OTC,
The case of ‘explaining Color and light to the blind’ argument does not hold for the ‘reality’ that we discover when exploring our fantasies while under hypnosis.
Under hypnosis (when we meditate) we can conjure up all sorts of realities as real. The Flying Spaghetti Monster even.
It will not be *real* to another another person meditating right next to you. These realities exist in our mind only (though a special version of mind – not the conscious mind in which we normally think).
A result of this, if you do this often with consistant patterns, is you begin to believe these as real. You become programmed with it. It now not only becomes unquestioningly real to you but also your automatic (conditioned) reactions conform to those ‘newly installed pattens of belief’.
What this means is, with ‘karma, rebirth, nirvana’ you are trying to explain/show something that only exists in YOUR MIND – and of others that have had similar programming.
Someone who has not had this will not see it. The most they can do is to ‘take your word for it’, or reject it.
This is how religious faith/belief originates in a person (via the various ways in which we become conditioned – even without meditation because there are other natural ways in which our sub-conscious gets programmed – ‘my Mum is the greatest Mum in the world’ is an example. For example we get involved in religious rituals when in highly emotional states – we are highly susceptible to programming of the subconscious mind in such conditions)
So to address your example directly: ‘Colour and light’ are things that exist OUTSIDE our minds, in the material world.
The notion of karma, rebirth, nirvana are concepts that originate IN our minds that we feed into our sub-conscious mind through various means. For example the Buddha did so by meditating. For the lay Buddhist it is conditioning by various means when growing up in a Buddhist society/family/early. It is not something that exists outside of our minds (except you can see in this thread and elsewhere how strongly we attempt to rationalise what is strongly programmed in our sub-conscious mind when it is challenged in the real world).
To recap Sujewa’s original question … the agnostics totally agree that KRN are things that exist as real in the minds of the Believers. But KRN does not exist in the *real* world (the material world).
Further
(colour and light exist in the real/material world)
(in the material world we now understand how the items of *real* that exist in the mind are formed)
(if Sujewa submits himself to this test, a good hypnotist can make him believe that KRN are *real* in his mind)
(OTC the same will work for you in reverse, the only proviso is you can only be hynpotised if you do not resist, which I think is unlikely !)
Dear Off the Cuff;
Addressing BalangodaMan you said;
[Would the failure on your part to convince the Blind, which you will CERTAINLY fail to do, mean that Light and Colour is mere speculation?]
How could he possibly convince others?
He is born blind!
Thanks!
Dear Believers,
I have a question for you.
Arahant
———-
If I were to announce that I know of an Arahant living today what would be your response?
Dear Heshan;
Your post of May 26, 2010 @ 11:49 pm and SomewhatDisgusted’s in response to my “Probability Answer” showed me how difficult is the correct ‘Decision making process” is and how easily one can get into pit falls on the way.
SomewhatDisgusted took my argument out of context and you already know what has happened to him. He took a ride on the tiger and traveled much faster than light In a relative way and landed on the previous night.
You also have wrongly interpreted the Statistical data into the real situation and put yourself into the pit fall and say;
“Please convert your fraction to a percentage. You will see that it is
16.6667%, which is not significant. If the population of the world is 6 billion, and only 16.6667% had a chance of experiencing rebirth, then 100200000 individuals have undergone rebirth,, which is not even 1/4th of the entire population.”
Incorrect decisions are fatal as riding on a tiger.
Please see the correct interpretation of the data;
When a being is dead there can be two possibilities that can happen to him.
1. will be born again
2. will not be born again
Each possibility has a probability of 0.5 (1/2)
** Above probability is obtained when fair by both possibilities, or both possibilities have the same chance of getting. But truly and according to the Buddhism the chance of 2.above is zero.(Except in the case oh Arahanth)
Therefore the probability of 1. above is 1
Now under 1. above, there are three possibilities again as the person (being) born as
i. the same person
ii. a different person
iii. not the same person and not an entirely different person
** Again in the Buddhist context and in truth i and ii above are non existent.
Therefore the probability of iii above is again 1.
According to the Principles of Probability, in this case “a person reborn as not the same person and not an entirely different person” has the mathematical probability of 1×1 = 1
That is rebirth has a 100% probability.
NOTE:
Mathematics is a mere tool. It has to be guided by a mind. But by a right mind. Mathematics itself does not guarantee accurate results!
Again you say;
“According to science (not religion), the Universe was created from a ball of energy. This energy was concentrated at one point . And then, according to science, the energy transformed itself into what we perceive as the Universe. So science does not deny that this energy has always existed. What it does not do is tell us the source of the singular energy. Until that question is answered, one cannot deny the existence of God. Remember also that science says new energy cannot be created – therefore science is forced to take the position that this energy has always existed.”
Once a mind is conditioned to something it is very difficult for mind to come out of it. Your mind is very tightly conditioned for a need of a god. This is why even great scholars and scientists cannot give up their religious beliefs even though they know that they are not true. If you really has a need of of god there is no harm worshiping “energy” considering it as god rather than a creator god that is disprovable. Many people worship energy in different forms. “Agni” (fire) is one of the most popular energy gods. Such rituals are harmless.
further, Science’s notion you mentioned above about the “creation”(?) of the universe is just a theory. No one really knows whether it is true or not, though some positive evidence are there.
Why should one really think that the universe must have a beginning? Humans (some) are so proud that they think even the universe must be imaginable by them. So, they make imaginable models of the universe, give an arbitrary name “Big Bang!” , what a proud crazy creature?
“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”
If you want to know about Buddhist Cosmology, please read “Agganna Sutta” and ” Brahmajala Sutta”. Really Buddha, explained these things not to quench the thirst of curiosity. But to explain the fruitlessness of life and the Sansara.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan,
Shame BM Shame.
You talk big about Rationality and have been making up Hypothetical situations asking the believers to answer them but you have no answer to the following simple straightforward question
IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?
Without Dancing around the Question, lay out the Logical or Scientific Process you will adopt to Convince the BLIND, who have never experienced Light and Colour that Light and Colour are indeed REAL Phenomena of the Universe. You are free to adopt any SANE method you wish.
This is about your ability to convey a VERY REAL phenomena to a group of people who are incapable of grasping that reality. So please don’t start dancing around Kamma, Rebirth or Nibbana, that does not form part of the question.
In this case you KNOW that Light and Colour are real.
So please enlighten the GV readership HOW you would convince the Congenitally Blind the ACTUAL REALITY of Light and Colour.
If you can’t do so, come straight out and admit you can’t do it.
Readers would obviously see the parallels of my question above to the question posed on this thread from the believers.
Idiotic Wijayapala continues to demonstrate that he cannot read properly or understand written material;
RE:
“Dear Brother Heshan (your brother in the Lord):
Firstly let me congratulate you for converting Schizo Sujewa unwittingly into a theist!! I have to say I was highly impressed how adroitly you steered him, using pseudo-scientific vocabulary and without invoking the Gospel outright, into accepting your “Singularity.” ”
Feel free to point out an instance where I accepted the existence of a god or gods. You won’t be able to because there are none.
You will however see, if you are able to read properly Idiot Wijayapala (perhaps you may want to get someone to help you) that I stated recently that all major religions have speculative items in them – gods, nirvana, karma, etc. So that means I do not believe in an existence of a god or gods. Of course if proof is provided I am sure I will be willing to re-examine my stance, as an agnostic, but, no such proof has been provided w/ in the last few thousand years.
More tickery & dishonesty from the political Buddhist Wijayapala The Idiot – to whom Buddhism is merely a tool for organizing people into supporting his version of a Sinhala-Buddhist dominated Sri Lanka.
- S
State of this conversation/debate/discussion/drama/comedy on Thu AM:
- as usual the believers are all over the place – w/ comparing the agnostics to some people who may or may not have existed thousands of years ago, w/ blaming the West for all manner of ills, etc.
- the original point of this article has been well established – the believers cannot show that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real aspects of this universe/world. Thus, Buddhism remains a speculative religion.
- other useful & interesting side discussions have begun, by new contributors as well the old believers & the agnostics team & others such as Heshan.
- i still have to respond to one post from OTC in detail, & possibly more – will check this weekend (will get it done between today & the end of this coming weekend).
– off to get some work done, am glad that this debate may assist others see that Buddhism is a faith based, speculative religion – and not an undisputed truth.
— Hope all the believers have a good Vesak celebration/observation. If I attend any Vesak events this weekend (have been invited to a couple of events), I will try not to “disturb” the believers there w/ my questions
, since plenty of that is happening on this forum 
- S
OTC & B-Man,
Here is one answer to how the blind deal with color:
From: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1866
“Q: How do blind people come to know color?
-Andrea (age 21)
Tiffin University, Ohio
A: It would seem as if a truly blind person (not just someone who is partially blind, or “legally” blind, or became blind sometime in life) would never be able to experience colors in the way that someone can see does. Nonetheless, we can describe in words all about what colors are.
Different wavelengths of visible light have different colors, and mixtures of light of different wavelengths have different colors. A blind person can feel the thermal energy deposited by light, and so can be convinced that light exists and carries energy. Then it is just a matter of description of what light is and its properties. I’m afraid that for a blind man this may remain abstract and unverifiable, and he may just have to take his friends’ word for it all.
You can give a blind person a device that senses light and emits sound or shakes or something, depending on the dominant color of the light striking it. In that way, the blind person can explore what colors are present when and where, but it still may be a bit of an abstraction.
We do the same sorts of things in experimental science, since there are lots of things we cannot directly sense with our eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, but can sense with the aid of equipment. Such as infrared radiation, X-rays, lots of colorless, odorless gases, and other things.
Now that you mention it, there is a property of some elementary particles which is whimsically called “color”, which plays the role of the electric charge, but for the strong nuclear force instead of the electromagnetic force. Color isn’t directly observable, so in a great sense, we are all “blind” to this particular property. But it has lots of observable consequences, so we are happy with the abstraction, even if the name color is somewhat meaningless in this context.
Tom ”
::
How this question & answer is irrelevant to proving the existence of karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana:
1 – there are billions of people who have vision, who can show/prove to other people with vision or partial sight, that color exists, & that light exists.
2 – karma, rebirth, nirvana are all speculative. the believers cannot prove the existence of any of those items to even a fellow skeptical beliver (believer in the faith/Buddhism, but uncertain about the speculative aspects).
I am sure B-Man can add moe to this
Further, existence of light & color can be measured by man-made devices (not just human eyesight), the existence of karma, rebirth, nirvana cannot be measured or shown to be real/an actual part of the world/universe by any device.
- S
Dear Heshan,
The point I was trying to make is that Probability cannot be calculated IF you don’t know all possible states of an event.
You yourself have buttressed my argument by bringing up the shape of the Dice. Similarly the Centre of Gravity of the Dice may not exactly coincide with the Geometrical centre. The unknowns are many and hence probability calculations will have no meaning. As much as your statement about Probability and Buddhism.
Dear Heshan,
You said
“On the other hand, if you assume that the Universe has a starting point – a singularity – then this question of “who made…. who made God?” becomes rather irrelevant. At this point in time, God existed, regardless of who made him, where again, we assume that God made the Universe. “
The problem with Creation Theory is that it is self defeatist.
The moment you say the Universe needed a Creator the Question comes up as to who created the creator.
If you are prepared to accept that God with such creative power just existed why cant you accept that the Universe he is supposed to have created also Just Existed?
Dear Sujewa,
You said
“So, as I mentioned earlier, the modern liberal versions of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity may be as liberal or more liberal than liberal Buddhism.”
You have asked me how you should get about proving your statement.
Try something on the following lines
Buddhism – Prohibits the taking of a life. This is a restriction
Islam – Requires killing of an animal by bleeding it to death. This is a freedom
Christianity – No restriction on killing animals. This is a freedom
That Sujewa is a comparative analysis. It is an example where Buddhism is not liberal while the other two are liberal.
So please go ahead and prove your point but make sure that you restrict yourself to the teachings of each religion without straying in to the behaviour of errant practitioners.
OTC
“IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?”
Good question. Answer a bit long but this question is worthy of it. I need to cover all the bases. I know how you love to jump on bits of loose ends …
Step 1
——
The first thing I would do is ask MYSELF whether the experience of Light and Colour is something ‘real’ and not just my imagination. After all, in this case, no one else has experienced it and no one therefore has mentioned it as a possibility to me. So, how can I be sure I am not mistaken?
Example: When I was a student my friend who was having an LSD trip said to me that my tie had turned into a phallus. He said it was very funny (!) which was evidence from his uncontrollable laughter. But we knew why he was saying it. And he knew afterwards that my tie was indeed a tie, and had been all along. So, if I were to experience something no one else had ever experienced before (for example, Light and Colour in the way my friend was seeing!) I would first question the authenticity of my experience. Whether it was real or imagination? Whether it is a reasonably expected observation given the circumstances?
If I conclude that it is just my imagination I would mention it (if necessary) as ‘just my imagination’ – just as you would if you had an interesting dream that you want to share. It is a personal fantasy experience only you could have had.
If it is an expected observation I would mention that I had that observation as expected – if anybody was interested in following it (as in the case of my friend on acid).
Step 2
——
If after due scrutiny I was convinced that I have indeed had a breakthrough, discovered something new – as in your example – and if I consider that information to be something I should share with the world full of Congenitally Blind people I would consider the following.
(1) Establish Credibility: As the people are not going to be able to experience it themselves they will have to take whatever I say in this regard on trust. For this I would need to establish credibility.
There are plenty of examples of this in every religion. Jesus walked on water, fed the 5,000 or something and turned water into wine. Mohammed came down the mountain with prose. I read that the Buddha darted across the sky and replicated himself into four (saw a lecture on YouTube on this as well).
In this case, I would need to show the world that I have a faculty called ‘sight’ which they do not have, and that would require convincing people why I am special/different.
But before that I would consider the next item (2)
(2) Relevance: This should come before (1) ie, I would have to consider what difference my breakthrough would have on the rest of the world BEFORE I take steps to do (1) (unless I just want to show myself off as a clever dick!).
If my discovery makes no difference to them and my discovery only affects me (like my friend’s experience on his acid trip. we don’t really care if the spiders who chased him caught him or not!) it is only a matter for me. (Someone close to me has a hearing disorder – she hears sounds in a ‘strange way’ – acutely sensitive. It is a problem for her and we care, but it does not mean anything in our experience of sound. So, to compare with your ‘blind’ scenario, she knows there is such a thing as sensitive hearing because she experiences it. We know such a thing exists because we believe her. But knowing it does not affect us in our own hearingexperience).
So, I would consider what difference my breakthrough discovery of Light and Colour would make to the Congenitally Blind population of the world, in your example.
Step 3
——
If I found it imperative that Congenitally Blind worlds’ population should know about Light and Colour – such as they need to act upon my discovery (remember we come this far ONLY if prior considerations above are satisfied – ie. my information is genuine and relevant) I would consider the following.
(1) a ruse: I would take the view that ‘the end justifies the means’ and take an unethical approach – such as do some ‘slight of hand’ type of trick that would make the Blind people acknowledge my authority and take my word for it and act accordingly. The trick I would perform will of course appeal to the senses they have (not sight). For example, Buddha darting across the sky or appearing to do so in a magic trick ‘a la’ David Copperfield. Mohammed getting some cleric to write the verses of the Qu’ran on the way back from the mountain.
(2) take the necessary action for the people on their behalf. The Christians have such a concept when they say ‘Jesus suffered for our sins’.
(3) show the Blind people what steps they can take to ‘see for themselves’. This I think is the essence of the Buddha’s teachings. In this case the Blind people can accept or reject the value of ‘being able to see Light and Colour’ and decide for themselves whether the price they have to pay for it is justified. Comes down to how they answer the WIIFM radio station (WIIFM = what’s in it for me?).
Conclusion
————
In the end, IF it is necessary to show that I can see, it comes down to having to exert one’s authority as some sort of GOD – because being able to see Light and Colour when no one else can makes one superhuman – (but only in that regard).
However, if the Light and Colour experience is only an illusion, one that even the other Blind people can experience IF they knew how, then it opens up a whole load of possibilities ranging from good (teach something useful) to bad (manipulate while it is not common knowledge, claiming omniscience etc).
There is the possibility of genuine mistake as I mentioned. For example, the experience of Light and Colour may only be because of some defect/idiosincracy in me, an illusion, and not something real in the world. The world of only Congenitally Blind people will, in time, discover the mechanism behind such occurances – and possibly brand me a charlatan when my game is up! (as has happened as skepticism increases in the world)
There is this last possibility. The Blind people in the world can take on trust that something called Light and Colour exists, but is only of academic interest because they cannot benefit from it and it plays no part in the real world. Therefor it is not important whether it is accepted as real or not by anybody.
Actually there is one more possibility – and how could I forget? – that some people may take advantage of the fact that someone in history, even in ancient times, could see something called Light and Colour and use that as a vehicle to manipulate the masses into doing atrocious things like discriminate against minorities unfairly, claim superiority on the basis that that ancient person shared the same shoe size as us, or wage war on those who do not believe. (All these have happened in history, so I would go with this as most probable)
What should I do? I should try and ensure that my unusual ability to see is not used by present and future generations to do bad things. After all, being able to see does not make me a God, neither does it give me the ability have any idea how the world and society should be run in the year 4,500!
Hope I have answered your question adequately.
OTC, Wijayapala, Mr Yapa,
Now may I ask again …
If I were to announce that I am in contact with an Arahant living toady what would be your response?
Miracles of Gautama Buddha
—————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha
Truly amazing! Puts walking on water down on par with water skiing …
This refers to the ‘establishing credibility’ mentioned in my explanation of ‘how I would explain Light and Colour to a Congenitally Blind world’ (OTC).
Hi BalangodaMan,
“In 1885 it was quite a different story. Christian missionaries were hard at work harvesting souls by the hundreds of thousands.”
Err… Sri Lanka barely had a million people when the British established themselves. Are you still having problems with numbers despite your wondrously sophisticated Secag mind (which is supposed to be illusory)?
“The re-introduction of Buddhism was a monumental task, and what was achieved is remarkable.”
There was no “reintroduction” of Buddhism. The people were already Buddhist, and in the same paragraph you contradict yourself by describing it as a “revival.” Make up your mind, and don’t let yourself go Schizo like another unnamed secag here!
“Read Obeyesekera and Gimlich.”
You mean GOMBRICH, right (sheesh secags can’t spell either???)? Wasn’t he the same deluded fellow who doesn’t know when the Buddha lived?
Dear Yapa:
You also have wrongly interpreted the Statistical data into the real situation and put yourself into the pit fall and say;
I have not misinterpreted the statistical data at all.
Simple question: Which of the probabilities is higher?
a. A single individual has a 16% chance of being reborn
b. Supposing the entire population is 6 billion people, what is the probability that
all 6 billion people will be reborn?
The answer to b is as follows: P(p1) + P(p2) + …. P (p6000000000)
Since each person has an equal probability, we can multiply the sum:
(16/100) (6 billion) = 960,000,000
But 960,000,000 is exactly 16% of 6000000000
So the probability that the entire population of 6 billion people in the world will be reborn, is 16%, given that each person has a 1/16th chance of rebirth.
When a being is dead there can be two possibilities that can happen to him.
1. will be born again
2. will not be born again
Each possibility has a probability of 0.5 (1/2)
You are assuming a sample size of 1. That is why it is 50/50. If you increase the sample size, the probability will decrease.
Also, a sample size of 1 is nonsense. What about this?
If you walk across a road, you are either hit by a vehicle or you make it to the other side (in this case, no one should cross the road since there is a 50% of them being hit)
If you rob a bank, either you will get the money or not (in this case, people should start robbing banks since there is a 50% chance of getting money)
If you run for President, you will either become President or not (in this case, everyone should start running for President).
** Above probability is obtained when fair by both possibilities, or both possibilities have the same chance of getting. But truly and according to the Buddhism the chance of 2.above is zero.(Except in the case oh Arahanth)
Therefore the probability of 1. above is 1
It is 1 only in your imagination.
Now under 1. above, there are three possibilities again as the person (being) born as
i. the same person
ii. a different person
iii. not the same person and not an entirely different person
** Again in the Buddhist context and in truth i and ii above are non existent.
Therefore the probability of iii above is again 1.
According to the Principles of Probability, in this case “a person reborn as not the same person and not an entirely different person” has the mathematical probability of 1×1 = 1
That is rebirth has a 100% probability.
When you multiply 1X1, you are assuming a probability of 100% and asking what is the probability that the event can happen. That is rather silly.
NOTE:
Mathematics is a mere tool. It has to be guided by a mind. But by a right mind. Mathematics itself does not guarantee accurate results!
Mathematics is much more logical than Buddhism, since most of Buddhism is concerned with cognitive psychology and the number of approaches to cognitive psychology is infinite.
Once a mind is conditioned to something it is very difficult for mind to come out of it. Your mind is very tightly conditioned for a need of a god. This is why even great scholars and scientists cannot give up their religious beliefs even though they know that they are not true. If you really has a need of of god there is no harm worshiping “energy” considering it as god rather than a creator god that is disprovable. Many people worship energy in different forms. “Agni” (fire) is one of the most popular energy gods. Such rituals are harmless.
I am not asking you about rituals or mind-conditioning, I am asking you what is the source of the cosmic energy. Do you deny that the cosmic energy created the Universe?
further, Science’s notion you mentioned above about the “creation”(?) of the universe is just a theory. No one really knows whether it is true or not, though some positive evidence are there.
There is more empirically verifiable evidence for the Big Bang theory than for rebirth.
Why should one really think that the universe must have a beginning? Humans (some) are so proud that they think even the universe must be imaginable by them. So, they make imaginable models of the universe, give an arbitrary name “Big Bang!” , what a proud crazy creature?
Now you are answering the question… so you believe the Universe has always existed! Well, that is not what science says. If your view is the Buddhist view, then you have just demonstrated that Buddhism and science are mutually exclusive , e.g. incompatible.
If you want to know about Buddhist Cosmology, please read “Agganna Sutta” and ” Brahmajala Sutta”. Really Buddha, explained these things not to quench the thirst of curiosity. But to explain the fruitlessness of life and the Sansara.
Do you know who Brahma is? According to Hindus, Brahma is the creator of the Universe. It’s rather interesting that Buddha would name a cosmology sutta as “Brahmajala.” Buddha the former high-caste Hindu who must have studied vedas when still a Hindu prince! The sad thing is that he probably hid his full knowledge from the future believers, such as yourself.
Dear Off the Cuff:
If you are prepared to accept that God with such creative power just existed why cant you accept that the Universe he is supposed to have created also Just Existed?
You have raised an important point. If you believe the Universe has always existed, then, of course, there is no need for a Creator God. On the other hand, if you believe the Universe was created, such as science (Big Bang implies), then there is the question of the cosmic energy that drove the process. My argument is with those who believe the Universe was created, but not by God. As for those who believe the Universe has always existed, I am not sure what to tell them, other than it is not the view held by science. I don’t know of any notable scientists who believe the Universe has always existed.
Friend Wijayapala:
!!!! Big Bang Model can be used to prove that Jesus died for our sins??????
It can be used to prove that Buddhist cosmology is incompatible with science. Did your Jathika Chinthanaya champion Nalin not inform you that time and space are only illusions of the mind? Of course Nalin will not spout such nonsense when going abroad, but at Kelaniya U, only the true believers will attend his lectures (the non-believers may need a white van ride before believing!)
See, we have this superstition that the Buddha himself described something similar to your “Big Bang of God-Bomb,” although in quite different and non-theistic terms:
Creation of castes and creation of the Universe are two different things. You need not blindly quote volumes of irrelevent dribble, to put the point across. If you want to show a similarity, show us the reference to the original cosmic energy. Every process needs a starting point. Alas, even before the brain cells of your rather *far-reaching* imagination took stray, your parents had to initiate the process.
But that’s only the beginning of this idolatry! In the next several lines of the exact same Sutta, Buddha began to describe something suspiciously sounding like that most pernicious tool of the Devil
No need for Jewish/Christian devils, when the Sons of The Soil believe in Mara and do Bodhi-Puja before killing the demalas off in the 10 thousands.
Dear All;
RE: Posts of May 27, 2010 @ 8:10 pm & May 27, 2010 @ 11:00 pm and similar posts by the same
I don’t understand why these people cannot understand what a waste and harm they are doing by wasting theirs and reader’s energies, on tons of irrelevant and worthless material disrupting/sabotaging a would be fruitful discussion. Why these people are so behaving? if they want this behaviour they should join a comedy. Really some people patted unduly on their backs for their own advantage and now they are running non stop like battery operated toys.
This is like giving razor blades to monkeys. These monkeys now trying to change the patterns of thinking of the people by forming clownish blogs and organizations. These vision- less vain psychos, I don’t know what a destruction is planning to the society with the razor blades: technology ,money and turbulent minds they are having. Still some of our so called scholars encourage them. What a cynicism is this?
Somebody must tie up these fat mad dogs!
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan,
“IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?”
“Good question. Answer a bit long but this question is worthy of it. Your post of May 27, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Took a very long time for you to recognize that it was a GOOD question.
So you were trying to bluff your way out in your previous posts?
Strange that you seem to be in two minds as to whether you are actually having SIGHT or BLIND like the others and Hallucinating about Light and Colour. A concept you could not even Hallucinate about as you would not know what Light and Colour is, if you were indeed blind.
Could you not notice that you could circumnavigate obstacles without using an aid such as a stick or Dogs that the blind need to?
Could you not notice that you could recognise each of them before they even opened their mouths to talk? Could you not notice that the Blind have to depend on Touch and Sound to recognise each other? Logic seems to be deserting you.
The Blind living in the tropics probably would dispense with clothing while those in temperate climes will use them to keep warm. Clothing for them is not to cover nudity and shame as they won’t have that shame just like a newly born. You as the ONLY person with sight might be living in a world full of Nudists.
Now the Question was “How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?” not about your Philosophy.
Please answer the question without taking the readership of GV on a Philosophical ride to avoid answering the DIRECT question.
Are you able to do that or NOT?
Dear Sujewa,
You have not understood the question which is
“ IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?”
You are the only person with Sight there are no friends to support you
These people are CONGENITALLY BLIND hence they do not know the Concept of Colour or light.
If you tell the blind that light can be perceived as heat they will think that light is nothing but heat.
If you use a device that converts light to sound they will think that light is sound.
You see Sujewa unless Science MATURES and is able to INTERFACE a light sensitive device directly to the BRAIN you are powerless to convey the Concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind.
Science will be able to interface neurologically to the brain one day and till then Light and colour though TRUE phenomena, will just be SPECULATION to the congenitally blind. So other than BalangodaMan the rest of the Blind World will remain in the Dark about Light and Colour.
Refers to your post of May 27, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
Dear Heshan;
RE: Your last post addressed to me
You are a hell of a shrewd man my friend. When I showed your interpretation in the probability question is wrong, now you made the interpretation from end to the beginning. Heshan, unlike many things, Mathematics cannot be manipulated, subjectively. Mathematics is objective, and if two persons get two different answers to a Mathematical problem, definitely one of them is wrong. In this case you are wrong, I know my Mathematics well. (There is no place for different opinions in Mathematics, even then a Mathematical question is given to three blind mice of ours they would give a thousand odd random opinions for the answer.)
You say;
“Mathematics is much more logical than Buddhism, since most of Buddhism is concerned with cognitive psychology and the number of approaches to cognitive psychology is infinite.”
So what? The ultimate aim of Buddhism is not, to be the best logical subject in the world. Really everything true, really belong to Buddhism, hence Mathematics is also can be considered as a Dhamma, though Buddha did not teach Mathematics in a University. Buddha taught only the essential part of Dhamma for the liberation of beings. Buddha did not rule out the existence of Dhamma out of what he preached. I can remember I told you this in a different forum citing the particular incident and the occasion, giving the example of the handful of jungle leaves. so showing one superior parameter in a subject that Buddha did not teach, you cannot undermine Buddhism. Even other Dhammas that Buddha had not taught , but found recently, has no difference from the Dhamma taught bu the Buddha. Really the Buddha does not claim the ownership even for the Dhamma taught by him. Dhamma belongs to none. You and I can benefit from it, nothing else. Buddha has advised to give up even Dhamma once one realized the ultimate goal. For a such person (enlightened) even Dhamma is worthless.
I have seen several times you are trying categorize Buddhism under subclasses of many subjects. That won’t work, Heshan. No subject is matured enough to contain Buddhism. All the man made subjects are creations of mind, with the help of five sensory organs which surf the material world. Buddha’s teaching is not created knowledge. It is the knowledge gained through “wisdom” observing things as it is. This is “unconditioned” knowledge. Non other than Buddhas and Pachcheka Buddhas can create such knowledge by themselves. No material knowledge created by any scientist can be compared to the Dhamma preached by a Buddha. They are very much inferior. Even, Einstein is just a new born child compared to the Buddha.
A Buddha is born to the world once in Billions of years. His purpose of birth is nothing more than to reveal the “covered up” path for liberation for the beings. If specifically mention to show the “Four Noble Truths” to the world. A Buddha has no idea to become a computer specialist or the best Mathematician in the world. Those are very inferior motives compared to the purpose of a birth of a Buddha. A Bodhisathva has to suffer and strive in Sansara for billions of years to be a light to the world. He will not undergo such suffering for a less worth objective.
Buddha or Buddhism does not belong to anybody. Sinhalese consider it is a rare fortune to be the guardians of such a great Philosophy. We are only guardians, The Dhamma is yours as well. We have no right to forbid anybody from benefiting from it. Dhamma is yours, benefit from it. you are a fortunate person to be born to here about him. Many people of the world die even without any clue of the Buddha’s words. Off the Cuff must have done more merit than you to be born as a Buddhist as he said. But birth is not the only parameter that decides the destiny of a person. If you work hard you can be more fortunate than Off the Cuff. Day is still young.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa !
Re. your objection to my answer to OTC.
My May 27, 2010 @ 11:00 pm was a detailed and comprehensive answer to a very very good question asked by OTC.
You have a better answer? Or was OTC’s question irrelevant in your opinion?
The relevance of this question is massive. We are examining our reaction to someone saying to us that they have an insight into something we cannot see ourselves. That is … ‘nobody’ living at this time can see. This is the origin of all religions – including Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha. Hence, we need to address this matter before even beginning to waste our time talking about *what* was said by whatever/any religious leader. May I refer to the excellent advice in the Kalama Sutra by one of the wisest men of his time.
I think it is you who is trying to limit free exploration of the issues. I have detailed earlier that some believers seem to think (erroneously) that the ‘good place’ (heaven, nirvana) is reached/guaranteed by adamantly sticking to dogma and preventing other people from discussing it.
Mr Yapa!
“A Buddha is born to the world once in Billions of years.”
So ….. er ….. the previous Buddha was a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
OTC,
Yes, once again. Totally agree that this is one of the best questions asked in this thread.I take my hat off to you (as we try to better each other in trying to ask better and better questions – the best way to progress this discussion).
Somehow you do not seem to like the answer
“Please answer the question without taking the readership of GV on a Philosophical ride to avoid answering the DIRECT question.”
The avenues I have covered are important. How I (or anyone) would explain Light and Color would depend on key factors that need to be considered –
eg.
what difference it would make to the people?
what is my agenda?
how can it be achieved?
what price ?
etc
It is not black and white (pardon the expression).
The initial exploration of ‘am I sure I am really seeing something unique’ point is valid because of the context in which the question is asked. (yes, I agree the scenario with the Blind scenario you present is not realistic to make this point. Granted. But that’s a defect in the analogy, not the reasoning).
In the context – ie. whether the Buddha was indeed seeing past lives – questioning whether what I am seeing is unique, is one of the first things to ask myself.
I have a true story from my childhood. When I was 10 (I even remember the classroom I was in at that time) I found that a small piece of light plastic/paper was attracted to and sticking to the end of my pen, like a magnet. I thought I had made a massive scientific discovery (people such as Galileo were my heros at the time). I told my friends, showed them, and they were fascinated as well. Later, years later, I learned about static electricity.
Why is this important? We have already discussed meditation/self-hypnosis. Evidently, in that time and place Gautama Buddha was an advanced practitioner of this phenomenon. (I am specific in ‘Gautama’ Buddha as we are told there were many Buddhas at that time who also practiced meditation). From all accounts Gautama Buddha’s experience was somewhat unique at that time. However, today we can reproduce it – it is done daily in all parts of the world. It is mainstream. We can experience ‘past lives’ for entertainment – at least what appears as ‘past lives’ to us. We can install and strengthen ANY belief as a ‘truth’ into our system through meditation/self-hypnosis (see NLP where it is used for powerful positive results today). The effect can be demonstrated in a ‘live’ demonstration (see fire-walking). So, we know it is not a ‘mystical’ thing as thought of in those days.
OTC, you said to Sujewa
“will just be SPECULATION to the congenitally blind”.
… well, no not really. If the Blind have faith/trust in *the person* who claims Light and Colour are real then they can follow the path he lays out for them. Sure, it is a risk they take.
This too is an important point you have raised. The ‘risk’ is an important consideration – the ‘sighted’ person could be a complete conman! Say, he could be blind like everyone else and he could convince them to pay a subscription to be ‘shown the way’ when actually he is bluffing. On the other hand, he could be genuine. Or genuinely mistaken.
So to address your analogy, it is imperative that all the blind (in this case the whole world) take an active interest in investigating super-human claims of ‘being able to see’ with every piece of reasoning, measuring equipment, investigation, there is.
I hope that is what we are doing here.
(though of course the ‘sighted person’ could state that his ‘sighted assistance’ will NOT be forthcoming to anyone attempting to investigate his claims. This is the vibe I get from Mr Yapa in his last response to this).
wijayapala said, May 28, 2010 @ 4:15 am
“In 1885 it was quite a different story. Christian missionaries were hard at work harvesting souls by the hundreds of thousands.” (my statement)
To which Wijayapala said …
“Err… Sri Lanka barely had a million people when the British established themselves. Are you still having problems with numbers despite your wondrously sophisticated Secag mind (which is supposed to be illusory)?”
Narrow mind?????
The activity of converting a few thousands in the post-1505 period translates to quite a lot of millions by the 20th century. You already know how religions are handed down through generations that multiply. What’s the point?
My point, however, still stands. The Buddhist promo machine in the late 1800s had a big job on their hands.
Try and understand the dog, not the fleas.
Wijayapala, these are well known facts about ‘history’ – in general, the study of which …
(1) history is ‘discovered’ – we learn more and more about history as we go on finding out more (eg. archeology, breaking down of taboos in open discussions like this)
(2) in the past was not written, it is *re-written* even now (for political reasons by politically motivated people – like what you are trying to do)
It doesn’t do your credibility much good to deflect the argument to personal attacks.
Lastly, for how long do you think future generations will remain happy not to question the propaganda-dressed-as-history for what it is? (Note: already the political motivations which became ‘bad sense’ of 1956 is ‘mudd’ – (deliberate spelling))
As more of the world gets excavated in the coming 1,000s of years we will learn more about the past. Then if they find advanced civilisations in SL prior to 2,600 ago what will that do to our current history books? (and racial politics?)
::
Mr Yapa/Heshan and probability
——————————
If only 16.7% are reborn then where do all the other people come from? Fresh meat?
“If you rob a bank, either you will get the money or not (in this case, people should start robbing banks since there is a 50% chance of getting money)” (Heshan)
Love it!
“There is more empirically verifiable evidence for the Big Bang theory than for rebirth.” (Heshan)
Aaaaaaaaaaaah but, Mr Yapa might say (or not) that the Universe itself was reborn in the Big Bang? The story I get is that there is no discovery ever that the Buddha did not take into account. Such is the nature of omniscience. (but he did not reveal too much as it would prevent humans from finding out for ourselves when the right time comes).
OTC,
RE: the following:
“Dear Sujewa,
You have not understood the question which is
“ IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?” ”
The Q has been answered well by myself & B-Man above, though you are unable to see it/understand it, so let me try another type of answer;
To put it briefly – Buddhism is not sight. More below;
So, if the purpose of your light/blind question is to say that the Buddha was the only person with sight & the rest of the world is/was blind, then, as an agnostic, I would have to ask you to prove that the Buddha did indeed see something that is useful to me – or, the point of this whole conversation – are karma, reincarnation, nirvana real? The answer to that question – as is evident from all the comments here – that those items are speculative/not real items in an ancient religion – the believers take them to be real and the non-believers can see that most likely they are fictional devices used in order to justify a certain way of being in the world/relating to the world.
You would have to be a hardcore/blind beliver, or, in the case of Yapa, merely a believer in the so-called supreme wisdom & unparalleled accomplishment of the Buddha to accept that Buddhism is anything more than an anceint religion or that it is of any significant use outside the realm of private religion for believers.
As I can see from recent comments – Yapa has gone full blown believer, not even covering his blind beliefs w/ any appeal to rationality anymore. Idiot Wijayapals is up to his same old tricks – twisting Buddhist knowledge & history to support a Sinhala-Buddhist dominance of Sri Lanka. OTC, you, on the other hand, seem a little bit more reasonable for the moment. So, take another look;
The blind not being able to see light being compared to non-believers or other human beings not being able to see what the Buddha reportedly saw is purely a defense of religion or defense of special knowledge owned by a priviledged one or few (the same tacic used by Egyptian priests) type of argument. There are many such ways to distract readers from the obvious:
Buddhism is merely an ancient religion – dealing with a very limited amount of facts & useful ideas (compared to things discovered by humans since the invention of Buddhism) – and several core items in Buddhism – such as karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana cannot be proven to be real aspects of this world or universe – and those are items that the belivers accept as real w/ out any significant proof because they want to believe in Buddhsim (for various reasons – triba nationalism in the case of Idiot Wijayapala, and because it makes him feel good/self-indulgent in the case of Yapa).
- S
Dear Yapa:
Mathematics is objective, and if two persons get two different answers to a Mathematical problem, definitely one of them is wrong. In this case you are wrong, I know my Mathematics well. (There is no place for different opinions in Mathematics, even then a Mathematical question is given to three blind mice of ours they would give a thousand odd random opinions for the answer.)
Correct: mathematics is objective. My answer is not wrong, however. You are the one who is wrong, in this case. You went from 50% probability to 100% probability based on “:because Buddha says so.” If a student wrote “because Buddha says so” on an examination question, the teacher would not appreciate it. Also, you chose a sample size of one, which is rather meaningless.
So what? The ultimate aim of Buddhism is not, to be the best logical subject in the world. Really everything true, really belong to Buddhism, hence Mathematics is also can be considered as a Dhamma,
So you are admitting that mathematics is superior to Buddhism, when it comes to logic.
though Buddha did not teach Mathematics in a University. Buddha taught only the essential part of Dhamma for the liberation of beings.
He must have failed in his task. As I explained to Off the Cuff, the population of the world is increasing at a chaotic rate, which means rebirth is increasing at a terrific rate, which means the acquisition of bad karma is also increasing at a terrific rate. Furthermore, many of the followers are worshiping Hindu gods (Kataragama), doing Bodhi-puja to ward off demons, and fighting bloody wars to gain control of meaningless possessions like land.
. For a such person (enlightened) even Dhamma is worthless.
The real question is, is Enlightenment the highest form of knowledge?
I have seen several times you are trying categorize Buddhism under subclasses of many subjects. That won’t work, Heshan. No subject is matured enough to contain Buddhism. All the man made subjects are creations of mind, with the help of five sensory organs which surf the material world. Buddha’s teaching is not created knowledge. It is the knowledge gained through “wisdom” observing things as it is. This is “unconditioned” knowledge. Non other than Buddhas and Pachcheka Buddhas can create such knowledge by themselves. No material knowledge created by any scientist can be compared to the Dhamma preached by a Buddha. They are very much inferior. Even, Einstein is just a new born child compared to the Buddha.
Buddhism is mostly cognitive psychology and philosophy. Buddha believed everything we see is simply an illusion of the mind, including space and time. To see the true nature of something, it is necessary to detach ourselves from it. This is an extreme view. You can see that we can detach ourselves from ourselves… but when the self is gone, what remains? Buddha did not answer this question properly. In other religions, it is given as God/the soul/etc. But in Avyakata, when Buddha is asked what happens after Enlightenment, he refuses to give an answer. I said his view was extreme – if he had said what happened after Enlightenment, it would have implied that there was a constant in the Universe. But this constant would not be an illusion. Space, time, existence – all could be defined in terms of the constant. What is this constant? As I have said, it is “God.” It is the Universal energy. Buddha only taught nihilism – basically, the most efficient way for people to psychologically self-destruct and reappear in a place which he refused to specify. But every coin has two sides. One does not exist merely to go away. The missing piece of Buddha’s puzzle is the “God-knowledge.”
Wijayapala,
[satire]
I was doing a bit more research on the Panadura debate of (1872?).
You are absolutely right that 10,000 people attended. However, I read somewhere that on that day the PA system failed and most of the 10,000 people you said attended were potentially unable to hear any of the submissions.
A proposed move to a nearby hall was abandoned due to there not being the correct sockets for the electricity. Finally, a large cave was found with lots of echo, which was needed for the people at the back to hear, in the absense of electricity for the PA system. Actually, without the PA system which ran on electricity only the first few rows could have heard what they were saying, and the echo was not much good.
Calling the maintenance people with whom there was a support contract for the electricity there was a further problem – the support contract did not cover electrical malfunction as electricity had not been invented yet, at least it was not that widespread in Panadura – the PA system in attendance was a pre-release beta of the first such machine ever in the world that wasn’t to be available for another 50 years or so anywhere in the world. There was no broadcast on the ‘wireless’ either.
Historians agree that in those days people spoke very loud and it is not unreasonable to expect a gathering of 10,000 people to avidly listen to an intellectual debate without amplification, and also follow the nuances of the argument accurately enough to form a judgement of the relative merits of the two sides of the argument. Telepathy was not uncommon.
I also heard that a third participant for this debate was turned away on the grounds that he was representing the views of persons without any religion, and it was deemed that it was improbable, indeed impossible, for a ‘person without religion’ to exist. It was thought as unlikely as a person without a head, or a person without parents even.
[end satire]
Dear Heshan
RE: “On the other hand, if you assume that the Universe has a starting point – a singularity – then this question of “who made…. who made God?” becomes rather irrelevant.”
I’m sure no one here in this thread will have a problem accepting such an axiom, not even the Buddhists. The difference between you and the rest though, is that you choose to call the axiom “god”, whereas someone else would call it “nature”, or the “unknown” or a “singularity” or something.
The problem with using the term “God” of course is that it’s an overloaded word. The question that you need to answer is how you move from this deistic, axiomatic, starting-point “God” to the theistic, Christian, prayer-answering, judgement-passing god of the bible? In fact, I’ve already asked this question before!
If you can make this connection, I can see no problems with continued usage of the word “God”. Otherwise, it’s better to use the word “singularity” or perhaps “the unknown” to refer to this axiom, just so we avoid confusion with its “normal” usage.
And let’s not forget that the “normal” usage is already hopelessly confused since followers of a particular faith insist that theirs is the one true god, be it the Christian God or Thor, or Allah or Amun-Ra or the Great Ju Ju of the mountain. Why do you believe in the Christian God again?
cheers,
/SD
Heshan,
I am wondering whether Mr Yapa’s understanding of what the Buddha taught is mature enough to understand what you understand from what the Buddha taught? Someone once said to me ‘you know Buddhism so well then you must be a Christian’!
Heshan, you do know your stuff.
I have to say, this is now getting quite hilarious. Is Mr Yapa really serious?
The Earth is 4.53 billion years old. According to Mr Yapa’s reckoning the Buddha has been here about 4 times. Who was he preaching to? Tadpoles? Or was he just popping in to see if homo sapiens have appeared yet?
Then there is the ‘probability of rebirth is 16.7%’ revelation. Wow, you don’t need advanced calculus for that. The chicken either crossed the road or didn’t cross the road. Therefore the probability of a chicken crossing the road is 50%. But then if no one sees it cross the road does that mean that the chicken never crossed the road? Will a congenitally blind person accept that a chicken crossed the road? How would you explain that to a congenitally blind person?
You make a good point about Kataragama. I too feel that most Buddhists believe in god or gods. At least they pin their hopes on there being one or two ‘gods’ around when in times of need. Personally I feel this is the default among humans – the exceptions are people who like not to be manouvered into any type of ‘externally imposed’ belief systems or by any organised religion.
If the Buddha’s message was that ‘no god or gods will fix things for you’ then he has failed to get his message accepted, in the case of SL Buddhists at least. Atheism is not an easy concept to get across to simple people, the fisherman and the farmer in the paddy field. Even upmarket, highly educated Buddhists in SL go to do Bodhi Poojas, and to Kataragama, and to Buddhist temples to worship (someone/something). When we talk about ‘protecting Buddhism’ are we protecting ‘Buddhism’ or an abberation of it that’s nothing like Buddhism? Is it too late?
Or is the answer that SL should be honest about its claims to Buddhism if indeed the religion is Buddhism by name only?
Dear Heshan;
have a story for you. Have you heard of mischievous, shrewSinhalala lower school guy calleSiripalala? He does such a cunning tricks that our teacher was never be able to control or catch him.
One day our teacher gave an assignment, to write an essay onMakkaka” (tick or flea).
Siripalala wrote his essay. It goes thus;
Makkaka has six legs. It is black in colour. It can jump here and there very quickly. ………………., went on like that and wrote a marvelous essay and got9.5 out of ten. (not 10 out of 10 like in thth 5th standard scholarship examination, which was personally endorsed by our scholarly Commissioner General of Examinations.)
Next day, the teacher gave another topic for the essay, Dog. So do you know what our smSiripalapala did. Read his essay for yourself.
Dog is a four legged animal. Dogs hmakkaskkas. Makkaakka has six legs. It is black in colour. It can jump here and there very quickly. ………………., so went on the same essay until the end. The teacher had to give him good marks.
Next day the topic was coconut tree. smarteertee, wrote his essay as thus;
Coconut tree is a tall tree. I a dog was lying near that coconut tree. dogs hmakkaskkas. One of makkaskkas jumped on to the coconut tree. Now tmakkaakka has six legs. It is black in colour. It can jump here and there very quickly. ………………., so went on again the same essay until the end. The poor teacher had to give good marks.
However, teacher is also a smart man, who got an appointment undJanasaviyaviya” and thought for a plan to give the culprit a good lesson. A good topic came into his bright mind, FISH, fish cannot hmakkaskkas, ho! ho!!
Following morning jubilant teacher gave the topic the class. This was Siripalapala essay.
Fish live in water. Fish don’t hmakkaskkas. However, in case the imakkaakka on a fish, tmakkaakka has six legs. It is black in colour. It can jump here and there very quickly. ……………….,
Same way, all of your stories hamakkaakka. That is God. By the way Heshan, is your name Siripala?
Thanks!
correction……
“Same way, all of your stories hamakkaakka.”
It should be
Same way, all of your stories has a makka.
Thanks!
Another correction….
The first sentence should be corrected as follows.
I have a story for you. Have you heard of mischievous, shrewd lower school Sinhalala guy called Siripalala?
Thanks!
Heshan,
Re: the following;
“Buddhism is mostly cognitive psychology and philosophy.”
Could be.
“Buddha believed everything we see is simply an illusion of the mind, including space and time.”
Well, in a sense those two are illusions IF we come to a firm conclusion re: those two items (nature of space and time) EVEN THOUGH they are not fully explored yet. Space is still being explored (on both a universe scale & on the nano scale), and time feels different based on what the person is engaged in – so, I can see some value in acknowledging that time & sapce are illusory – or, to be more precise, that time & space can often be misunderstood by different individuals based on their perspective.
“To see the true nature of something, it is necessary to detach ourselves from it. This is an extreme view.”
Not sure how this is extreme. To see a full picture of something it is often necessary to take a few steps back. The concept also works on much larger & much smaller scales. This is why we try to use impartial (removed from, not having a part in, not attached to) judges & juries when we try to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person.
“You can see that we can detach ourselves from ourselves… but when the self is gone, what remains?”
Nothing remains – or, when the body dies that’s the end of the person, as far as anyone has been able to prove over the last few thousand years or more.
“Buddha did not answer this question properly. In other religions, it is given as God/the soul/etc. But in Avyakata, when Buddha is asked what happens after Enlightenment, he refuses to give an answer. I said his view was extreme – if he had said what happened after Enlightenment, it would have implied that there was a constant in the Universe.”
Not necessarily. Ancient Hindu’s seemed to have believed in the birth & death of universese/all of reality – (kalpayas – was that the measuring term for that?). I think the Buddhist world view acknowledges that ancient Hindu view when it says that all thing are temporary. Except, the catch is, temporary could mean billions of years – which, on a human scale, might as well be permanent
“But this constant would not be an illusion.”
Why would it not be? If a human lives 100 years at most, and a human is in touch w/ maybe 10 generations or less – covering maybe 1000 – 2000 years, those are still very small numbers compared to billions of years that a universe may live before it collapses. So, from the human perspective, a universe can be seen as constant. However, if the universe does collapse into nothing or a very small thing at some point, then the universe is not constant.
“Space, time, existence – all could be defined in terms of the constant. What is this constant? As I have said, it is “God.” It is the Universal energy.”
Here you are using a term/concept from Christianity – a relatively new human religion that echos older religions – Hindusim/Krishna (i think), also Egyptian religious mythology, etc. – God – & applying it to the universe as we now understand it (even though we do not yet have a full explanation of it). It is a GIANT ILLOGICAL LEAP to conclude that the current understanding of the universe was mirrored/explained via Christianity/The Bible over 2000 or so years ago. This is as absrud and fantastic as Yapa claiming that Buddhism, as taught by the Buddha 2500 years ago, contains with it all human knowledge that we would ever discover.
“Buddha only taught nihilism – basically, the most efficient way for people to psychologically self-destruct and reappear in a place which he refused to specify.”
I think the above is mostly incorrect. If we are to take the believers at their word, or, The Buddha at his word, he believed, or seemed to have believed according to various sources, that karma & rebirth are real & that nirvana, achieved through the Eight Fold Path is the way out of rebirth in samsara/this human plane. And there were also helpful guidelines set down to assist the monks with life on Earth and lay followers with living life on Earth. This is far from nihilism.
“But every coin has two sides. One does not exist merely to go away. The missing piece of Buddha’s puzzle is the “God-knowledge.””
This is entirely a faith based statement. Observation of life on Earth makes it clear that people who live & die stay dead – that no significant part of themselves (personality) goes anywhere else. Just as the Buddhist believers are using their knowledge of science to justify the Buddhist world view, you are using yours to justify a Christian world view.
Neither the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, heaven, a creator God, hell, the devil NOR karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proven to be real. Both appear to be sets of speculative/fictional (most likely) devices used to teach people a way to live in this world & then to keep them on those paths using fear of punishment after death. Fortunately many humans have outgrown or will/do outgrow such irrational fears. Life on Earth, being human, is plenty – it is more than enough, and it can be better for all if billions of people stopped waiting & working for the afterlife & got busy solving out problems here & now (such as poverty, war, etc.). In that sense, both Buddhism & Christianity have failed, by themselves, to turn this planet into a good place to live for all. However, the combination of religions & secular reason & desire for good things on Earth (both sides kept in check & assisted by the other) have managed to create some pretty great societies on Earth.
The arrogance that comes with metaphysical certainty – that one’s religion fully & accurately explains human existence – has lead to many problems both in the East & the West. Thus it is best to verify those things that can be easily verified & are found to be useful & then withhold judgement on other fantastic, unprovable aspects of religions (such as God & karma).
As far as useful ethics/values/guidelines for living a responsible & useful-to-others life, obviously Christianity stripped of its fantastic items (as demonstrated by positive secular European ideas & practices) & Buddhism stripped of its fantastic items (as demonstated by lives & work of Buddhism influenced people who may not be full believers in India & Sri Lanka, Japan, US, elsewhere) both work well.
- Sujewa
Dear Heshan,
“if you believe the Universe was created, such as science (Big Bang implies),”
Big bang implies there was an explosion.
An explosion does not require a creator, just a build up of pressure in side a container like in the case of a volcano or it could be an uncontrolled chemical reaction or a Nuclear Reaction. Non of these require a creator.
Hence we come back to the original question, If the Universe required a creator then who created the creator?
Dear Sujewa,
IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?
This is about your ability to convey a VERY REAL phenomena to a group of people who are incapable of grasping that reality. So please don’t start dancing around Kamma, Rebirth or Nibbana, that does not form part of the question.
That’s from my post to BM on May 27, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Hence please don’t mix up religion in your answer.
“The Q has been answered well by myself & B-Man above,
Contrary to your assertion NO AGNOSTIC or RATIONALIST have been able to Answer the Question other than attempting to Dance around it.
(refers to your post of May 28, 2010 @ 9:07 pm)
seems this thread is still flaming. anyway i have long stopped following this comment thread but thought i’ll post this interesting discussion on real time with bill maher which dipped into similar points i was discussing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXuA0u4zp5g
just a note though.. bill maher is a self confessed “Atheist” not an agnostic, and if you have ever come across him before there is no doubt about that. i think the girl in that video is an agnostic although she declares she’s an atheist. she also has similar reservations about believers to what i had which i thought was interesting.
Dear Heshan,
“As I explained to Off the Cuff, the population of the world is increasing at a chaotic rate,”
Agreed
“which means rebirth is increasing at a terrific rate,”
Rebirth as a Human is increasing. Yes.
‘which means the acquisition of bad karma is also increasing at a terrific rate.”
You arrive at this conclusion as your understanding of Buddhism is insufficient
Being born a Human is not due to bad Kamma. Rather it’s due to good kamma.
Attaining a Human Birth is a first requirement in enlightenment and that requires merit.
Though you raise an apparently valid point about the increase of population you have forgotten that in Buddhism ALL living beings are included within Kamma. All living beings include the Devas, Animals etc. So unless you have a Collective statistic encompassing ALL living beings your statement does not hold water.
Dear OTC,
You said: “IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?”
There are two aspects to this question. One is the aspect you aren’t interested in. If you want to know how to *convince* someone else, the answer to that has already been given. We are all already congenitally blind to X-Rays. Yet we know they exist! They’ve been proven to exist beyond a shadow of doubt. So the answer to your question is exactly that. Build up a convincing case that something called light exists so that even a congenitally blind person can accept. it. Has the Buddha built such a case for KRN? How come you can’t prove it to us?
But in any case, that’s not the answer you are expecting right? You are trying to point out that the claim could be true but it’s difficult to prove, which is why you keep repeating this question. Yes, everyone agreed at the very outset that something may be true despite being difficult to prove, so we are all agreed upon that.
In fact, that’s why we are called agnostics!! We aren’t really very sure. But then again, there are millions and billions of things we aren’t sure of. You, on the other hand, seem quite certain. So what is your certainty based on? The philosophic burden of proof lies with you, not with us.
Secondly, you’ve not answered the key question: on what grounds would you dismiss the very likely possibility that meditation gives rise to self-hypnosis, making KRN imaginary constructs, and instead, choose to believe that KRN is very real?
cheers,
/SD
OTC,
“Being born a Human is not due to bad Kamma. Rather it’s due to good kamma.
Attaining a Human Birth is a first requirement in enlightenment and that requires merit.”
So that would explain the theory of Evolution.
There were good tadpoles that were reborn as fish, pious dinosaurs that became ants by rebirth, all the way to some pretty religiously inclined apes that went to temple every poya day and evolved into modern humans. All the time did they follow the Eight Fold Path, from the tadpoles to the dinosaurs?
Is it just possible (even a slim chance) that following the Noble Eight Fold Path is not really essential for beings to be reborn as/evolve into humans?
Also, supposing there was a really really extremely pious Brontosaurus (they were herbivores). Could he have been born as a human in the next birth? Possibly true. He might have been very lonely though. Of course he had no one to mate with so this lone humans became the first human extinction … possibly the first of many?
The above would answer the following OTC statement also.
“So unless you have a Collective statistic encompassing ALL living beings your statement does not hold water.”
Really?
SomewhatDisgusted,
“the very likely possibility that meditation gives rise to self-hypnosis”
Not ‘gives rise to’ … I would put it more strongly than that. Meditation *IS* self-hypnosis. This is measurable, replicate-able. Well researched, particularly in the West since the 60s rise in popularity.
(OTC, Mr Yapa)
Perhaps one of the Believers can describe how one meditates, what changes occur and how the phenomenon is explained in Buddhism?
(and I shall post a piece – a tutorial – on self-hypnosis. How you too can repeat it and get the same ‘extraordinary’ results)
Sujewa:
“Buddhism is mostly cognitive psychology and philosophy.”
If it’s more than this, then what is that “more”?
Well, in a sense those two are illusions IF we come to a firm conclusion
They are taken as illusions in the context of Buddhist doctrine:
“In Buddhism, time and space are immense without an outer limit and yet miniscule without an inner limit. Time and space are immeasurable and boundless. ”
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Buddhist_Perspective_on_Time_and_Space
“To see a full picture of something it is often necessary to take a few steps back. The concept also works on much larger & much smaller scales. This is why we try to use impartial (removed from, not having a part in, not attached to) judges & juries when we try to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person.
Not necessarily. For example, consider the following:
“What is light? How does it travel, and how fast can it go? Even as a teenager, Einstein was fascinated by the nature of light. When he was just 16 years old, Einstein tried to imagine what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. Could he travel as fast as light? Could he travel faster?
In 1905, nearly a decade after this first “thought experiment,” Einstein answered these questions with his Special Theory of Relativity.”
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/light/index.php
You see, he didn’t stand back and just watch the beam of light.. he actually imagined himself directly interacting with it (e.g. riding it).
Nothing remains – or, when the body dies that’s the end of the person, as far as anyone has been able to prove over the last few thousand years or more.
Energy remains – a fact confirmed by science.
Not necessarily. Ancient Hindu’s seemed to have believed in the birth & death of universese/all of reality – (kalpayas – was that the measuring term for that?). I think the Buddhist world view acknowledges that ancient Hindu view when it says that all thing are temporary. Except, the catch is, temporary could mean billions of years – which, on a human scale, might as well be permanent
Hinduism (Vedas) acknowledges the existence of a soul. The soul contains within it the original God-energy (shakthi). Rebirth ends when the soul liberates itself and is reunited with its source.
Not necessarily. Ancient Hindu’s seemed to have believed in the birth & death of universese/all of reality – (kalpayas – was that the measuring term for that?). I think the Buddhist world view acknowledges that ancient Hindu view when it says that all thing are temporary. Except, the catch is, temporary could mean billions of years – which, on a human scale, might as well be permanent
The Hindu belief is very very different to the Buddhist one:
“Hindu viewpoint of Modern Cosmology
There are many metaphorical parallels between modern cosmology and the Hindu theory of ‘Shrishti’. The ‘Anda’ itself resembles the hypothetical energy point from which the Big Bang and hence the Universe emerged. The true intonation of Om is very long and drawn out, it is described as an all pervading sound. Its parallel is the cosmic nackground radiation, currently at a temperature level of 3 kelvins, which pervades the Universe. [2.725 K, to be more exact, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation. Such precision does matter, sometimes.]
Even string theory finds a place in the Hindu texts. The first thing that ever was and will be is ‘Shabda’ or sound. This energy is produced by vibrations in energy produced by the powers of the Trinity (Lord Brahma, Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva). Although at a very high level, this resembles the multidimensional vibrations of the infinitesimal strings which are said to be the basis of all creation.
[edit] The end of the Universe
The ultimate fate of the Universe is still an open question. The final answer depends upon the mass-energy content of the system as a whole. If it is below a certain limit, the Universe shall expand forever. If it exceeds a certain limit, it will contract into what has been conjectured as The Big Crunch.
The Hindu viewpoint of the continuous cycle of creation, destruction and rebirth is attuned to the theory of Big Bang – Expansion – Contraction – Big Crunch. This ‘oscillation’ is portrayed in Hindu texts, especially in the Bhagwad Gita as Shrishti followed by Vinaash. The period of Vinaash is one of extreme chaos where the very laws of Nature are described to fail. If the Big Crunch happens, the movement of galaxies towards each other will produce very strong gravitational fields which may make relativistic effects perceptible at a great magnitude. The physical phenomena which we are used to may change wildly or be non-existent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Cycle_Of_The_Universe
Here you are using a term/concept from Christianity – a relatively new human religion that echos older religions – Hindusim/Krishna (i think), also Egyptian religious mythology, etc. – God – & applying it to the universe as we now understand it (even though we do not yet have a full explanation of it). It is a GIANT ILLOGICAL LEAP to conclude that the current understanding of the universe was mirrored/explained via Christianity/The Bible over 2000 or so years ago. This is as absrud and fantastic as Yapa claiming that Buddhism, as taught by the Buddha 2500 years ago, contains with it all human knowledge that we would ever discover.
I am not using any term from Christianity. None of my arguments are based on Christianity . Christianity has but one major assumption, and that is that mankind is saved through Jesus. Other than three or four lines in the first chapter of the Bible, Christianity has nothing to say about space, time, or energy. What I am talking about here is God , in particular the cosmic energy that created the Universe. My argument parallels the Hindu one, which states that the Universe was created out of this ball of energy, and that the source of that energy was God himself.
I think the above is mostly incorrect. If we are to take the believers at their word, or, The Buddha at his word, he believed, or seemed to have believed according to various sources, that karma & rebirth are real & that nirvana, achieved through the Eight Fold Path is the way out of rebirth in samsara/this human plane. And there were also helpful guidelines set down to assist the monks with life on Earth and lay followers with living life on Earth. This is far from nihilism.
You are contradicting yourself now. Recall that you said nothing remains after death. If nothing remains after death, the logical consequence of the end of existence would be nihilism (annihilation of the self).
This is entirely a faith based statement. Observation of life on Earth makes it clear that people who live & die stay dead – that no significant part of themselves (personality) goes anywhere else. Just as the Buddhist believers are using their knowledge of science to justify the Buddhist world view, you are using yours to justify a Christian world view.
It seems as if you have a rather poor knowledge of Christianity. Christianity is concerned with Jesus not God. A Christian is not “saved” by belief in God alone. On the other hand, my objective here is to indirectly prove the existence of God. To do that, I don’t need any knowledge of Jesus. After all, Jesus was not around at the time of the Big Bang. As I have suggested, the best way to indirectly prove the existence of God is to examine the Big Bang at time t=0. Why did this cosmic energy suddenly transform itself into the Universe? I wouldn’t call that a “world-view”, rather, an observation.
Neither the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, heaven, a creator God, hell, the devil NOR karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proven to be real. Both appear to be sets of speculative/fictional (most likely) devices used to teach people a way to live in this world & then to keep them on those paths using fear of punishment after death. Fortunately many humans have outgrown or will/do outgrow such irrational fears. Life on Earth, being human, is plenty – it is more than enough, and it can be better for all if billions of people stopped waiting & working for the afterlife & got busy solving out problems here & now (such as poverty, war, etc.). In that sense, both Buddhism & Christianity have failed, by themselves, to turn this planet into a good place to live for all. However, the combination of religions & secular reason & desire for good things on Earth (both sides kept in check & assisted by the other) have managed to create some pretty great societies on Earth.
I agree that mankind can live without religion. The reason I say that is because knowledge of God is often obtained a priori (without experience). For Einstein, God was the mystery of the Universe which science could barely unravel. For Ramanujan, God was the unifying force behind his mathematical equations. For Kant, God was one of the three ideas of reason. So you see, many great scientists/philosophers/mathematicians see God or at least the hand of God in their work – even if they don’t use the word God explicitly. They see an order in the Universe which defies simple rational coincidence. You are correct, however, that less enlightened beings simply worship/venerate God out of fear. What that shows is that the God-belief was there even in the early stages of the evolution of primitive man. As man learned to subdue Nature, the belief took on other forms. But it remained. And most likely, will always remain.
SomewhatDisgusted:
The problem with using the term “God” of course is that it’s an overloaded word. The question that you need to answer is how you move from this deistic, axiomatic, starting-point “God” to the theistic, Christian, prayer-answering, judgement-passing god of the bible? In fact, I’ve already asked this question before!
I don’t believe in a personal God. As regards Christianity, I said it in a different thread a long time ago: it serves a very good ethical purpose. It is simple to understand, and simple understanding is what the vast majority of people are capable of. From a philosophical point of view, Buddhism is X1000 times more complex, but whom has this complexity benefited? Look at the state of Sri Lankan society. Similarly, Vedic India produced monumental works of mathematics, astronomy, etc. for 1000′s of yrs – but India did not experience true equality – respect for human dignity – until several decades after Gandhi. There is little value in teaching such complicated philosophies to most people.
Somewhat Disgusted:
I said it in a different thread a long time ago: it serves a very good ethical purpose.
I should clarify; by ethical purpose, I am referring to the set of universal values which define so-called modern civilization: kindness, compassion, etc. One can learn these without any religion, of course, but I would say that organized religion actually accelerates the process. It is easier to teach a child than an adult.
This thread has become rather boring, although there’s a certain aspect of it that keeps me checking in every now and then. How long it would take for the agnostics to realize the truth about Heshan? Looks like it has dawned on Sujewa and SD, and I don’t know how much longer BalangodaMan can ignore the signs…
You see, Heshan is by no means a fellow agnostic. As far as I can tell, he’s not here to advance the notion of a secular Sri Lanka because no one religion or race can claim the whole and holy truth. He’s jumped into this debate because he never misses an opportunity to bash Sinhala-Buddhists!
Now god knows they need bashing with a giant enlightenment stick, no argument there. But Heshan doesn’t wield one. Instead he brings his trademark weaponry: blind prejudice (“bodhi-poojas before killing demalas”), abrahamic arrogance (“god-knowledge”), shallow understanding (“Buddhism is nihilism”), all sheathed in the lingo of science and reason.
In short, Heshan is a believer – as much as, if not more so, than the other believers on this thread. And believers have always hated each other more than they hate non-believers. Hence this strange alliance between a Christian and agnostics. Wondered how long it would last.
As for me, I’m somewhere between Buddhism and agnosticism. I believe that faith and doubt are both healthy impulses, and it is in their interaction that the truth is revealed. Buddhism asks me to renounce neither.
Dear Sujeewa and agnostics and others who may like to respond
TOLERANCE seems a key value – and i would like to know how you would define it – is it patience without understanding or is it patience with understanding – or do you have a third view?
Next – how have you applied this key value to this debate?
Next – if as you must surely want to – promote tolerance – does it mean that you will also meet the intolence of angry buddhists – with tolerance?
in a way I am trying to see how committed you are to non violence
if you are intolerant towards the angry buddhists it will mean that you are in some sense in the same boat –
while this is a challenge in some ways – it is assuredly a friendly one – and of course somewhat off topic – yet so fundamental i feel …..
would love to have your reactions my friends
Some are atheists and lots more are agnostics; a small percentage constitutes as believers. This is true even in a devout Islamic nation; many people follow a faith because it is the way things are. It allows them to belong to a family, community, and then the country at large.
I have said this before; I consider myself as an atheist; but I have no qualms about participating in Hindu rituals along the lines of what the society dictates. For example, when my father passed away, all of us participated in the funeral rituals. My mother is a believer and it is not not about one person but about pulling together as a family and community; this is far more important than my own beliefs!
This is why I long ago have stopped debating on this subject; a) it is impossible to convince a believer otherwise, b) if a believer is happy about his faith and so be it. this is my take on this issue.
However, on the subject of Secularism and State, I have every right to argue that, a state must be separated from any religious influences. This is fundamental to a multicultural state like Sri Lanka. On the other hand, it is not easy to promote secularism without addressing the sinhala Buddhist Insecurity in Sri Lanka. We can win the argument in favour of Secularism but it will be another thing to get it implemented. This is why I believe that we need to address the insecurity first and this is not an easy matter!
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “I have an even greater example of the “consideration” you can find in advanced Western countries- how the elderly are treated…”
I tend to agree with you that Sri Lankans have closer-knit family units than their western counterparts. I don’t know whether mine is a biased viewpoint, but it appears to be true. However, I don’t know whether it could be a result of our inter-dependence and/or whether this deteriorates rapidly when the independence of individuals increases with better economic circumstances. i.e. Is this culture doomed to extinction, assuming economic development? (I hope not). Or is there merely too much emphasis on individuality in the west and can a happy balance be struck? I hope it can. Japan might be a good case to compare with and I think OTC might be able to help here.
Still, while we should acknowledge the good things we have, there’s no doubt of the need to address the bad. In that sense, the problem BalangodaMan has highlighted is valid. I attribute it mostly to the upper and middle “classes”, who are most capable of effecting change. I don’t see how less privileged people can be held accountable for an education they’ve never received or options they’ve never had.
People who bribe, and can afford to bribe, are people in our skewed upper/middle classes. The people who can afford cars are also in those classes. Given the hierarchical nature of our society, only those classes can change the status quo. I don’t see reform coming from bottom up (unless we are talking of some sort of revolution). Sadly, these persistent post-colonial?? attitudes, unnecessary wars, identity crises etc. etc. all help to aggravate these problems and that’s why a frank exchange of ideas is necessary.
RE: “If Sri Lankans had a rationalistic secular and Western-like mindset as you and Schizo Sujewa envision…”
I think this is a silly characterization. There is no logical pathway from secular humanism to mistreating your parents. You’re welcome to point it out if there is. There is however, a logical pathway to violence and insularity from any divisive religious grouping, as has been demonstrated by some amply in this very forum. Do you disagree with this?
RE: “the arrival of Buddhism which spawned a 2300-year tradition of historical chronicles…”
I think this is undeniable. Whatever said and done, it’s clear that Buddhism played a major role in Sri Lanka throughout its history and will continue to do so. The question is, how should these belief systems upgrade themselves to be in line with 2300 years of human progress since then? Unless someone is postulating that all such progress was successfully achieved 2600 years ago (as Mr. Yapa seems to be doing with his “everything is Dhamma” theory), this is a necessary and valid discussion.
As for history itself, it can help us to learn from past mistakes or help us understand practical constraints (i.e. how did we get into this mess in the first place and how do we chart a course out of it) but it should not be the determinant of what the right thing to do is. I strongly believe that history has *no relevance* in this regard, which is why I don’t bother with talk about Eelams and Sinhala countries and all sorts of glories of the past, as if any of us were responsible for those glories. For most things, we already know what the right thing to do is and history has no bearing on the fact that those things must be done.
(Contd…)
cheers,
/SD
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “Samsara and Nibbana are not facts, but the secags have failed to provide an alternative explanation of reality relying on facts that counter samsara or nibbana.”
I see no reason to provide such alternative explanations. The lack of an explanation does not mean we must fabricate one, using a “God of the gaps” style argument. The burden of proof rests with those claiming to know reality, not those who see no reason to believe in those claims. We’ve covered this ground before, no idea why you keep coming back to it. You should either acknowledge the counter-argument or specify what exactly you’re disagreeing with.
RE: “Agganna Sutta”
Thanks for the passages. I’d always wondered where people had found mentions of big bangs etc.
So the big bang is implied because of a reference to contraction/expansion? Interesting. A few things to note, there’s no mention of contraction to a singularity but still, let’s run with it. One problem with the big crunch is, this possibility is no longer in vogue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Freeze
As for evolution, the passages are so vague that they are only indicative of evolution when taken completely out of context. You’re welcome to show me a single passage that is quite definitive, with no necessity to reach quite a bit to find meaning. In fact, what’s all this about luminous beings eating honey with hands and fingers? Are these Devas? So these luminous beings are curiously anthropomorphic, just like God? And it doesn’t say anything about them evolving. It only says they didn’t look the same anymore – some turned butt ugly. And then something about the savoury earth disappearing? So what does any of this have to do with evolution?
This is a bit like Nostradamus’s predictions – make them vague enough, and they’ll fit the bill somewhere. To me, this seems more like an example of subjective validation. If we do not compensate for our cognitive biases, we can even end up seeing the virgin mary in a piece of toast. Heshan has posted some similar big bang claims from Hinduism, although he’s forgotten to mention similar claims from Christianity. Looks like every ancient religion was privvy to these eternal truths, all except for us human beings a few thousand years later.
As for that passage about differences in sex-organs, this idea directly negates evolution. Sexual reproduction predates rice paddy.
Which reminds me of another question that was side-stepped, are trees living things? what about bacteria? What features are required of a life form before the “Gandhabbaya” decides to invade a body? These ideas all predated our knowledge of evolution and that the differences between animals are not as distinct as our human conceit would have it.
Anyway, other than for that “cyclical understanding of the universe” (which is not a known property of the universe), I am unable to see any connection, and in fact, see mostly direct disconnects with known facts.
cheers,
/SD
Ordinary Lankan May 29, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
Re. Tolerance
———–
Glad you asked.
A very PC (politically correct) word, but if you think about the implications of it in ordinary usage it is far from straight forward.
Whenever I come across ‘Tolerence’ in a racial/religious context it is to mean thus : ‘I don’t agree with that other point of view. I think they are misguided, narrow-minded, bigoted. But I will be diplomatic to avoid a scene, confrontation. Having said that, I know I am right and they are seriously wrong!’.
So, the word ‘tolerence’ in some ways allows the continuation of prejudice, is in itself a word to convey prejudice.
A better idea for society is ‘understanding’. This is to mean: ‘I understand why I feel strongly about what I feel strongly about (self-realisation). Therefore, I understand why *they* feel similarly strongly about what they believe in. I will try and meet them in the area of commonality and try and help us understand our differences from the viewpoint of our commonality’.
This is why I am more interested in the common concepts that exist in all religious faiths. Common aspects that all religions have – eg. some items that require faith, some items on ethics, morality, worship, some rules, some rituals leading to customs, culture, heritage, an awful lot of superstition, some proponents of fundamentalism, as well as revisionism – these exist, or can exist, in ALL religions in equal measures.
This is why ‘agnosticism’ is a good place to start – ie. ‘we simply don’t know. we cannot know beyond what we have the capacity to know as humans’. (we’re all like OTC’s congenitally blind people for whom the existence of light and colour is of no consequence. not atheism because we cannot even know that there is no god).
Yes, it is frustrating when the potential to live in harmony in the world is scuttled by any religious factions claiming to be products of the ‘truth’, thereby denigrating all others. It is frustrated by the followers of some religions claiming to be god’s chosen people, or that others are evidently sinners, infidels, bad stuff.
To be tolerent of such divisive mentality is a cop out IMO. It only delays progress so much so that progress/change may never really start to happen.
Speaking as a Buddhist-born, how acceptable is the notion that anyone not born Buddhist comes into this life with bad karma, evidently as convicted sinners? How close is that to the Nazi Germany’s view of the Jews? Did we tolerate that?
OTC,
I asked the question
“If I announced that I am in contact with an Arahant living today what would be your response?”
You did not answer.
Here’s another one, inspired by your Light and Colour and Congenitally Blind people question.
“if someone said to you that he can tell you the lottery numbers that will come up on this week’s draw (as he can see this clearly while all other humans cannot) what would be your response?’
What are your thoughts?
Hey Ordinary Lankan,
RE: “in a way I am trying to see how committed you are to non violence”
I am not committed to non-violence; in the sense that violence is useful in some cases (in stopping people who use large scale violence/war to attain their political aims such as the Nazis, the LTTE, etc.) – but due to the collateral damage & the devestation that violence can bring about – and violence can easily lead to more and more violence to the point where the reason for new violence is the previous cycle of violence & not the original conflict that caused the first round of violence, it should be used only when absolutely necessary as a political tool or a personal tool – not in the excessive manner that it has been used in modern (since ’48) Sri Lankan history. Violence or the threat of violence/possible violence/large scale war is a good tool for making countries & tribes behave in acceptable ways in regards to other countries & tribes. However, again, due to its double edged nature & possibility for great unintended consequences use of violence should be very tightly controlled & violence should only be used when absolutely necessary – as when faced with the possibility of a violent death at the hands of another, etc.
- S
Heshan,
Re: Buddhism & nihilism – item 1, & my view on life after death – 2:
[per: I think the above is mostly incorrect. If we are to take the believers at their word, or, The Buddha at his word, he believed, or seemed to have believed according to various sources, that karma & rebirth are real & that nirvana, achieved through the Eight Fold Path is the way out of rebirth in samsara/this human plane. And there were also helpful guidelines set down to assist the monks with life on Earth and lay followers with living life on Earth. This is far from nihilism. (my statement)
You are contradicting yourself now. Recall that you said nothing remains after death. If nothing remains after death, the logical consequence of the end of existence would be nihilism (annihilation of the self (your reply) ).
Let’s start with item 1 – Buddhism & nihilism:
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm
“The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.”
and:
“The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality.”
So, let’s take a look at the above in light of this conversation.
Buddhism, in my view, believes in an uproveable afterlife type scenario – expressed via the ideas behind karma and rebirth. Which is the same case in Christianity – ideas re: life after death, eternal life, etc. are a part of that religion.
So, neither Buddhism nor Christianity are nihilistic. Both make grand claims about after life and life before this one that cannot be proven in this world/universe.
Item 2 – my view on life after death;
Do the dead, on Earth, come back to Earth in some form? Does a person – let’s say SomewhatD – when he or she dies – comes back via a karma/rebirth type universal device and take a human body again & continue to live – but with memories of the previous life deeply repressed? Probably not. When a human person dies on Earth they appear to die forever.
What, if anything, happens to the human person who dies on Earth in possibly another realm – world, dimension, universe, etc. Unknown. Most likely nothing as no dead person has come back to tell us (outside of religious mythology) that they did indeed go & live in another place/dimension, etc. Not counting near death experiences, those are something else – most likely the brain going into some dream like state as it is shutting down or something. Near death is not death, in my opinion.
So, we have two ideas – the Buddhist belief/stance towards afterlife (karma, rebirth), and my personal view re: afterlife (most likely there is none). Those two are not the same.
- S
Hi Heshan,
Re: the following:
“Buddhism is mostly cognitive psychology and philosophy.” (you)
If it’s more than this, then what is that “more”? (you)
There is how organized Buddhism is used on Earth/in Sri Lanka. It has been/is a tool of statecraft, of organizing & motivating people to accomplish or not accomplish certain objectives.
Also, in Sri Lanka & every other country that has its own version of Buddhism, the umbrella term & practice Buddhism becomes a repository for folk wisdom & knowledge, earlier religious ideas & gods – basically human knowledge & ideas from earlier eras.
Also, it is a set of guidelines – or within Buddhism exists a set of guidelines – namely the Egith Fold Path – that instructs people/believers as to what is acceptable behavior. So, even when all the metaphysical aspects are suppressed & the psychological aspects are not understood or ignored, the Eight Fold Path http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html can be used – literally, w/ out any symbolic understanding – as a useful & productive way to related to, work with, live with, other human beings.
I am sure the believers can point out more – other things that exist w/in Buddhism that is more than cognitive psychology & philosophy. But watch out, you may never hear the end of it
- S
Heshan, OTC, & others,
It’s Saturday, and I’ve already spent the first couple of hours of the day at this discussion, so, that’s it for the day. Be back tomorrow with more replies. Enjoy the day in the meantime.
- S
Sujewa:
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm
“The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.”
and:
“The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality.”
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Buddha himself never wrote anything down. This is why we have ended up with entire sects of Buddhism, which disagree on what the Buddha actually said. To take one example, Mahayana Buddhists not only believe in Heaven, but also believe in salvation and divinity:
“MAHAYANA: Mahayana arose out of Mahasanghikas. They believed the divinity of Buddha. They gave more importance to faith rather than reason. The ultimate aim of life was to go to heaven. They offered prayers to Buddha. They believed in the worship of Buddha and made his beautiful idols. Sanskrit was the religious language. They had many religious rituals. Mahayana had two philosophicial schools. Mahayana had two philosophical schools, the madhyamika and yogachara. They teaches the salvation for all. Skhovati his the Mahayana heaven. They gave prominent place to the Boddhisatvas, who for the great kindness and helped humanity with their own suffering. It is very popolar in china, Japan,Central Asia and many parts of India.”
http://hubpages.com/hub/BUDDHISM-GAUTHAM-BUDDHA
At this stage, it is worthwhile to ask the question, what makes Theravada Buddhism more “accurate”, e.g. closer to the “true teachings” of the Buddha, than the other forms of Buddhism? It is my understanding that the believers in this thread all subscribe to Theravada alone, and would reject the larger share of practices which form an integral component of other sects of Buddhism. For example, it is unlikely that the Theravadans would look favorably upon the vast assortment of Hindu deities found in Tantric Buddhism.
Buddhism, in my view, believes in an uproveable afterlife type scenario – expressed via the ideas behind karma and rebirth. Which is the same case in Christianity – ideas re: life after death, eternal life, etc. are a part of that religion.
In Christianity, the afterlife is clearly dilineated. It is a very simplistic description, of course, and one that has zero value from the standpoint of logic and reason. There is absolutely no way to prove that this said afterlife – known as Paradise – exists. On the other hand, at least to the best of my knowledge, (Theravada) Buddhism does not describe the existence of such a dimension. I keep pointing to the Avyakata, which, unfortunately, the believers on this thread have done a rather job of justifying. On the question of what occurs after Enlightenment , the Buddha remained silent. In all other religions, if one is not reborn on Earth again, it implies that he/she exists in some kind of paradise for all time to come. Once again, the believers must answer this question of what occurs after Enlightenment, if they wish to assert that Therevada Buddhism has logical cohesion , e.g. a beginning and an end. I mentioned earlier that a basic desire of human beings (regardless of background) is to know what happens after death. If the Buddha refused to answer this fundamental question, which is probably ingrained into the human psyche, it should come as no surprise that many choose to ride the “God-train”, e.g. plan for a journey in a so-called paradise.
Do the dead, on Earth, come back to Earth in some form? Does a person – let’s say SomewhatD – when he or she dies – comes back via a karma/rebirth type universal device and take a human body again & continue to live – but with memories of the previous life deeply repressed? Probably not. When a human person dies on Earth they appear to die forever.
What, if anything, happens to the human person who dies on Earth in possibly another realm – world, dimension, universe, etc. Unknown. Most likely nothing as no dead person has come back to tell us (outside of religious mythology) that they did indeed go & live in another place/dimension, etc. Not counting near death experiences, those are something else – most likely the brain going into some dream like state as it is shutting down or something. Near death is not death, in my opinion.
It is indeed significant that no one has come back from the dead to tell us about the “other realm.” On the other hand, keep in mind that we cannot discard the issue of “awareness” here. The human senses are rather poor – after they all, they have been fine-tuned by evolution for the bare minimum of survival, and not much else. There might be other states of awareness which only a few possess, e.g. extra-sensory perception (ESP).
rajiv mv:
Now god knows they need bashing with a giant enlightenment stick, no argument there. But Heshan doesn’t wield one. Instead he brings his trademark weaponry: blind prejudice (“bodhi-poojas before killing demalas”), abrahamic arrogance (“god-knowledge”), shallow understanding (“Buddhism is nihilism”), all sheathed in the lingo of science and reason.
Do you deny that the army commanders all went to seek blessings from the Asgiriya and Malwatte prelates? At the same time, these army commanders cannot admit they killed a single innocent Tamil in cold blood. Fonseka spoke out not because of guilt, rather for political expediency. Whatever happened to the example of Ashoka, who rejected violence and sent his son to spread the message of peace… there is nothing shallow to be found here, except in the minds of those who corrupt an otherwise peaceful doctrine, by letting 30,000K die in 3 months, so they (who call themselves “guardians”) can lay claim to a piece of barren land (justified in their mythology as a historical “birthright.”)
*30K
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON WITH SIGHT in a world full of Congenitally Blind How would you convince that BLIND world that Light and Colour are indeed real?
That was my question. It has no connection with religion
“We are all already congenitally blind to X-Rays. Yet we know they exist! They’ve been proven to exist beyond a shadow of doubt.”
Yes we all are congenitally blind to X-rays, Gamma rays, All forms of invisible radiation, Microbes, Virus, etc. What is the faculty that is used to prove that they exist?
As I said before, a Bat is also blind but it has a picture of the world that can pin point a flying insect although that world excludes light and colour.
In the case of the Congenitally Blind they have no idea of what Light or Colour is. As I pointed out to Sujewa if he uses a device that is sensitive to the wavelength to convert Light and Colour to sound (a faculty that the blind posses), the blind would be lead to believe that Light is some Musical Instrument.
If on the other hand as I pointed to Sujewa, the blind being able to sense heat would only lead the blind to believe that light is just another source of heat.
You see SD, the Congenitally Blind has absolutely NO CONCEPT of Light and Colour. So how would you convey the REAL MEANING of Light and colour to them?
You see SD Light and Colour is Very Real.
You know it I know it. So does everyone else with sight.
You are powerless to CONVEY that to the Congenitally Blind
Why? Because Science has still not matured to be able to Interface something like a Video camera directly to the Visual Cortex in the Brain. Research is going on and they will surely succeed one day. But till then, Light and Colour though Very Real phenomena, will remain Speculative items to the Congenitally Blind.
Dear Off the Cuff:
It seems you have been asking a question which has a very clear answer.
“Ability to ‘see’ light still important for regulating body clock in some blind people
16 January 2008
People who are profoundly blind may still be able to ‘see’ light and subconsciously use it to regulate their body clocks, research funded by the Wellcome Trust and National Institutes for Health has shown. The findings have implications for advice and treatment offered to those who lose their vision.
An international team of researchers including scientists from the UK and US found that even if a person’s rods and cones – the cells of the eye responsible for vision – have been completely destroyed, the patient may still be able to detect light, even if they are unaware of it.
Researchers worked with two patients, both of whom had developed degenerative blindness and had lost their sight completely decades previously. However, it was noted that neither patient reported disturbed sleep patterns, suggesting that their internal body clocks, known as circadian rhythms, were still operating correctly.
Through a series of experiments1, including asking one of the patients to say whether they thought a light was on or off over a particular interval, researchers were able to show that even though they were not consciously aware of being able to see light, they were able to detect the presence of blue light well-above the level of chance alone.
The results of the study by scientists from Imperial College London, the University of Oxford and City University in the UK, and Harvard University and Thomas Jefferson University in the US, are published in ‘Current Biology’.
The retina of the eye hosts a number of photosensitive cells, including cones, which are sensitive to colour but only operate in good light conditions, and rods, which operate at low light levels but only in monochrome. However, before light reaches these cells, it passes through a region containing a small number of photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (pRGCs). The researchers believe that the pRGCs are involved in a number of non-image forming tasks, including regulating production of the sleep hormone melatonin, thus influencing our natural body clock.
“Even people who have been blind for 30 or 40 years may still be able to detect light of a particular wavelength,” says Dr Stuart Peirson from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at the University of Oxford. “Although they may have lost all their rod and cone cells, which we traditionally thought solely responsible for detecting light, their ganglion cells still appear to work. While these cells may be of no use for their vision, they play an important role in regulating their body clock.”
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2008/WTX042851.htm
Dear Heshan,
“Researchers worked with two patients, both of whom had developed degenerative blindness and had lost their sight completely decades previously.”
My question is based on the Congenitally Blind not someone who has EXPERIENCED what Light and Colour is at some point of time in her/ his life.
The Congenitally Blind has ZERO experience about the Concepts of Light and Colour.
However thank you for a very interesting link.
Heshan,
OTC is talking about people who have NO CONCEPTION of what ‘sight’ is. His argument is that, someone with this limitation is unable to comprehend the message – like a mouse is unable to understand the workings of a motor car engine, however well you describe it and whatever technologically advanced tools you have.
However OTC, whilst you say ‘the question is not about religion’ … well, it is – because that is the topic of this thread.
I have already given you due credit for raising it. It has given us an ideal vehicle to examine some of the difficulties when someone says he has ‘unique insights that no one else has’, and on what basis we (choose to) believe what anybody says.
This question that logically follows from your brilliant question …
OTC, will you answer ‘what would you say to someone who claims he can SEE the lottery numbers that will be drawn next week’?
Dear OTC,
RE: “But till then, Light and Colour though Very Real phenomena, will remain Speculative items to the Congenitally Blind.”
Yes. Mostly true. (Mostly because strictly speaking, they need not be speculative given that we don’t consider X-Rays to be speculative) But I’ll mostly agree with the above statement. So all we’ve succeeded in doing with the above issue is to re-establish what we’ve always agreed upon.
What this still does not indicate is, out of the many billions of unknowns in this world, why you choose to believe in KRN. In that case, we might as well believe in God too, because God might be operating in a different dimension or be similarly undetectable. We have no reason to disbelieve the flying teapot either. So how exactly does any of this help any case for KRN?
RE: “Research is going on and they will surely succeed one day.”
This is something I think we would be better of doing as opposed to insisting that speculative things are true, as Mr. Yapa has been doing, and who, not stopping there, goes on to insist that it be the basis of governance as items of absolute truth.
As long as we can all agree that
1. These items may or may not be true, we are yet to find out for certain. (You may choose to believe it, which is a personal decision, but that does not mean others should logically need to or that they can even be criticized for their decision not to)
2. That these items cannot be presented as absolute truths and certainly cannot form a basis for government.
If we can agree on the above, I think we can head off into more fruitful directions. The question is, are you in disagreement with the above, as Mr. Yapa seems to be?
cheers,
/SD
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“Yes. Mostly true. (Mostly because strictly speaking, they need not be speculative given that we don’t consider X-Rays to be speculative)”
Of course X-rays etc are not speculative to us who have sight.
But to the congenitally blind even that is speculation as you have no way to convince them. From the Congenitally Blind person’s perspective anything that requires SIGHT to be convinced, becomes Speculation. Hence SD, there can’t be a qualifier. To the Congenitally Blind Light and Colour IS speculation. You see SD, we can see the result of an X-ray on film, The congenitally blind can’t.
A Congenitally Blind Agnostic would ask you to prove what you state about Light and Colour to be True. He will say unless you can convince him using Cognitive Science or any method, he will consider what you call Light and Colour mere Speculation. You are powerless to prove it. But does that alter the Reality?
The Agnostics were presented with KNOWN TRUE PHENOMENA (Light and Colour) and were asked to prove that it was indeed real to a group of people that did not possess the faculties required to understand that phenomena (the Congenitally Blind). The Agnostics floundered because Cognitive Science, Math, Cognitive Logic is still IMMATURE to deal with the problem. At the present moment of time NO TOOL EXISTS to convey the REALITY of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind.
Hence the inability to prove a phenomena using Cognitive Science, Math or Logic cannot be used to discard the phenomena as Speculation. The MATURITY of Science plays a PIVOTAL role as seen from the above.
You see the standard of proof I imposed on you with this question was IDENTICAL to what the article imposed on the believers.
The problem you faced is identical to the problem faced by the believers.
You failed because Science is immature at this point of time. The identical reason why the believers fail.
At a future time Science will be able to interface to the Human Brain Neurologically. At that time you will succeed in convincing the Congenitally blind. The believers too would then know for certain whether Rebirth and carry over of Kamma to a future birth is true or not and so would you.
Till then the believers will continue to believe in it and you have no Rational or Logical grounds to label it as speculation. You don’t know about it and neither do we but we chose to believe in it from what we observe in this world.
“In that case, we might as well believe in God too, because God might be operating in a different dimension or be similarly undetectable.”
Yes you can believe in God too as long as the belief does not extend to a Loving, Compassionate, Omniscient and Omnipotent one. Because a loving God will love all irrespective of religion. A compassionate God would not allow abject poverty and suffering to the majority of his flock. He would not create Sickness (Germs, Viruses etc). He would have made sure that each person from birth will have equal opportunity to develop. He would make sure that innocent babies will not be born with Aids just because the Mother has Aids. He would not have allowed deformed and malformed babies. You see he is claimed to be both Omniscient and Omnipotent so why did he not see and prevent all the disasters of this world. Why the Chaos? I could go on and on but you yourself is aware of all this.
“1. These items may or may not be true, we are yet to find out for certain. (You may choose to believe it, which is a personal decision, but that does not mean others should logically need to or that they can even be criticized for their decision not to)”
That has been my position all along. We chose to believe it (remember it is not faith).
You chose not to. That’s you right.
To label it as speculation you have no Logical or Rational grounds.
No Buddhist will ever force his views on others or criticise you for holding different views. Our view is that you reap what you sow, we are unaffected by it.
“2. That these items cannot be presented as absolute truths”
Why? For a Buddhist these are absolute truths and they will present them as such. You need not believe it as you are not forced to do so. If you don’t like it just reject it.
“……certainly cannot form a basis for government.
I am not sure what you mean by the above. If you meant Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana then I would tend to agree as accept for Volitional Action or Premeditated Action the other two entities can hardly be included in governance. Volitional Action or Premeditated Action is a different thing altogether as that is recognised by any democracy within its system of governance (I am not talking of a carry over to a subsequent birth here).
The Buddhist system of Governance is the Dasa Raja Dharma. A very benign system which I detailed some time back.
Dear Off the Cuff:
Even a congenitally blind person will still see black. Black is also a color. Also, “color” can often generate heat. If you expose a congenitally blind person to two different incandescent light bulbs, one of which is significantly warmer than the other, they will be able to tell you which light bulb is warmer. But by asserting that a particular light bulb is warmer, they are also indirectly asserting that one light bulb is brighter than other – even if they can’t see it.
So by using heat from light bulbs, perhaps one could teach a congenitally blind person to differentiate between colors. Assuming that each light bulb of a different color emits radiation of a unique frequency, it should be possible for the blind person to indirectly identify colors.
Balangoda Man:
OTC is talking about people who have NO CONCEPTION of what ‘sight’ is. His argument is that, someone with this limitation is unable to comprehend the message – like a mouse is unable to understand the workings of a motor car engine, however well you describe it and whatever technologically advanced tools you have.
I have to question the use of the word limitation. A blind person can still read (using Braille), play the piano, etc. Some of them can even paint:
Blind painter
Esref Armagan is a Turkish painter who has been blind since birth. His paintings are amazingly realistic, incorporating color, perspective, and great detail. To determine how this may be possible, Harvard neurologists Alvaro Pascual-Leone Amir Amedi are scanning Armagan’s brain. From New Scientist:
Gallery Armagan Images Room1 Esref1Ba Pascual-Leone and Amedi want to see what Armagan’s brain can tell them about neural plasticity. Both scientists have evidence that in the absence of vision, the “visual” cortex – the part of the brain that makes sense of the information coming from our eyes – does not lie idle. Pascual-Leone has found that proficient Braille readers recruit this area for touch. Amedi, along with Ehud Zohary at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, found that the area is also activated in verbal memory tasks.
http://boingboing.net/2005/01/31/blind-painter.html
Heshan,
You have misunderstood. Nobody is talking (here) about ‘how to make the blind see’. OTC’s question has nothing to do with BLIND PEOPLE.
Neither is the scenario under discussion about ‘something that is known to exist for real’.
As SomewhatDisgusted points out, there must be a billion things that ‘may’ exist or ‘does exist’ that we are unaware of, and another billion or so things we ‘think exists’ that do not. How can we tell which do and which don’t IF the audience do not have the CAPACITY to understand it?
OTC,
You are still showing signs of misconstruing Sujewa’s question in the article.
Actually you are agreeing with the agnostics – that there is no proof that will convince a non-believer that KRN exist, except as items of faith (even extremely strong belief) to the believers.
In this article, Sujewa gives the believers the choice of any method or methods of their choosing that will convince the agnostics that KRN are real.
You are saying that ‘believers can see that KRN are real’ – which is exactly what Sujewa is saying. We are helping you by giving you the feedback that ‘we can’t see that’.
That is what this article is about.
(it is not about the agnostics asking the believers to provide scientific proof that KRN are real. That is your mis-reading of it)
Surely, if a musically gifted blind person allocates musical notes to the colour spectrum, you could convey a rainbow to him. But he still won’t know what the hell a rainbow looks like other than a musical tune. lol
Not only that if we successfully interface a finely tuned radar system into a blind person’s brain he would be a better fighter pilot than a top gun ace that relies on sight to negotiate the air craft. Just like a bat.
I think heshan is confused with what we know as perception. Surely you can create perceptions of something but that doesn’t convey the true meaning of it. In fact I feel even humans see the world in a set/very limited way that our cognitive senses only allows us to do so.
Had we evolved differently we would have seen the world in an entirely different manner. Who knows there could be more senses in this world, yet we can’t sense them because we don’t have the right organs or the capacity in our brain to process it. Because we have never sensed them we can’t comprehend or even have words in our vocabulary to describe it.
Therefore it doesn’t mean what we see with our own eyes, other senses are necessarily the whole truth. It’s the truth within the domain of human perception. Therefore what we see and feel with our own senses is the truth to the human domain (think analogy to set theory) only.
Ask a being in a higher dimension or even an extra terrestrial being and they would surely see a whole different universe! Even our cohabitants of this planet, other animals sees the world in different ways since they have different sensual organs.
All these examples are irrelevant heshan other than to distract people.
Dear OTC,
RE: “To the Congenitally Blind Light and Colour IS speculation. You see SD, we can see the result of an X-ray on film, The congenitally blind can’t.”
You are taking about it in a very narrow sense. If you take Gamma-Rays, can you visualize them? Does such a visualization even make sense, unlike X-Rays? We don’t need to be able visualize them to know they exist. I mean come on, there’s no objective definition of vision after all! Most animals have more primitive vision systems than we do. We just happen to have a *particular interpretation* of the phenomenon of light – as in entirely subjective. Take a look at synesthesia.
So this argument from blindness will not take us anywhere. From a bat’s perspective, we are quite blind although from our perspective, a bat is blind. All we can establish here is what we’ve already established, things can exist outside of our sensory abilities or even our ability to verify them – there is *absolutely no argument there* so let’s not spend anymore time on that.
The question is this: there could be an infinite amount of such things. Why choose one unverifiable thing over the other? On what basis? That is the key question. Can you address that question instead?
RE: “Hence the inability to prove a phenomena using Cognitive Science, Math or Logic cannot be used to discard the phenomena as Speculation.”
Your strong anti-science reaction, when science has *no relevance* to this issue, is interesting, because I just came across this paper. The abstract is quite interesting. Here’s a detailed news article on the paper.
RE: “Till then the believers will continue to believe in it and you have no Rational or Logical grounds to label it as speculation.”
What we don’t know to exist for sure *IS* speculation, unless you wish to redefine the dictionary term. Speculation does not imply that it’s false, merely that we are not sure.
RE: “You don’t know about it and neither do we but we chose to believe in it from what we observe in this world.”
And now we once again come to the same key question. What are these convincing reasons that cause you to accept these things as real? Can you provide that itemized list for us?
cheers,
/.SD
OTC,
Re: the light/color/blind question – if it is not related to religion, why did you raise it here?
Anyway, here is another way that a person blind from birth or fully blind who has never seen light & color can be convinced of the existence of both:
1. Establish the credibility for the concept of sight with the blind person – demonstrate/prove to the blind person that other people have functioning eyes and that they can see the world. This can easily be done by the relative ease with which the sighted person can move around in a cluttered space, etc.
2. Teach the blind person to read/access books, internet, etc. Using tech available for blind perople for reading purposes.
3. Have the blind person explore recorded human history. Have them notice the amount of times where the existence of sight is acknowledged.
4. Have the blind person read/hear about the number of times the existence of light & color is mentioned in human history – in news & other factual recordings.
5. After all that, a reasonable blind person who accepts the fact that 1) sight exists, & that 2) light & color is mentioned as a fact billions of times or more in human history in fact based documents and recordings – may come to accept the existence of light and color.
6. If after all that the blind person still does not accept the existence of light & color, that’s cool, they can’t directly see it after all, leave them alone.
The above info, however, does not have anything to do with the existence of speculative items K, R, N. As there are no observable or not easily observable but can be measured via devices proof for the existence of K, R, N.
If someone says that the tools/methods have not yet been invented, then the answer is that if such tools have not been invented, then it is possible that there is a lot more, much more fantastic stuff, than K, R, N out there & thus there is no need to sign up to a belief system that uses K, R, N.
- S
OTC,
You are merely playing with words here & are ignoring actual things that exist in this world in the statement below:
“Till then the believers will continue to believe in it and you have no Rational or Logical grounds to label it as speculation. You don’t know about it and neither do we but we chose to believe in it from what we observe in this world.”
Let’s see if we can express/break down the idea that you present in the quoted text above, about K,R,N using a different set of words (this is a rational & logical ground for rejecting K, R, N as speculation):
1. Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana – as described & taught in Buddhism – cannot be observed to be true/real in this world or universe.
2. Yet, Buddhists continue to belive in those aspects – for various reasons. Even though they do not appear to be real/true/actual things that exist in this world, actual things that affect real people.
3. So, a nonbeliever (or even some believers) can recognize that K, R, N are speculative items – proposed as actual things that influence the world but cannot be proven to be actual things – so perhaps real, perhaps not – but to state that they are in fact actual is a speculation or a statement of faith & belief, not a statement of fact
Now re: the color/blindness question that you posed – not being able to see color & light is not the same thing as not being able to show that K, R, N exists/are real. Because, there are billions of people who have sight who can show to other people with sight that color & light are real. And, as mentioned above in several posts by the non-believers & Heshan there are even ways to convince some blind people that color & light exists. However, even a believer cannot prove to another believer that K, R, N are real. They would have to defer to the Buddha’s authority ultimately to establish/accept that those things may be real, even though we cannot prove them to be real. Thus, a non-believer can easily reject K, R, N as metaphysical specualtion that exists within a religion using logic, reason, observation, etc.
- S
Heshan,
RE:
“The human senses are rather poor – after they all, they have been fine-tuned by evolution for the bare minimum of survival, and not much else. There might be other states of awareness which only a few possess, e.g. extra-sensory perception (ESP).”
I am not certain if the above is true – the ability to make art, & even invent religion – that humans posses tells me that our senses assist us with doing far more than minimum survival – or that our senses are only developed to the point of bare minimum of survival. Plus, when we talk about the human senses we are also talking about the human brain – which takes the input from the senses and can develop some amazing new things that allow us to extend our natural/limited by body reach – such as the creation of missiles that can travel thousands of miles & hit a chosen target – & of course the ability to counter such missiles with other missiles in air. Anyway, your quote above dealt with the lack of contact from the dead from beyond the grave (if such an existence – life beyond death, is possible). I think, most likely, that no such contact exists because that the dead are simply dead, end of story, and not because the living are not capable of seeing the dead, etc. However, I would be totally cool w/ discovering that we do not die after the body dies – it would certainly be freaky & interesting
On to a related subject, I think eventually we can create human bodies that can pretty much live forever – or at least millions of years. Perhaps these will be robot bodies that we can transfer our conciousness/brains to – or just far better medical tech that can repair the aging bodies that we are born with. At such time eternal life – or something close to it – may be a reality. So, I think religions that speculate about such a concept (eternal lifea) are perhaps expressing a deep human desire to transcend death that may eventually be made real via new tech developments.
- S
Balangoda Man:
OTC clearly said that to a blind person light and color is speculation. The example I gave of the congenitally blind Turkish painter clearly disproves this.
He never “saw” Bill Clinton, yet he painted him:
http://www.armagan.com/i/14b.jpg
What about his other paintings? Look at the way he used color:
http://www.armagan.com/paintings.asp
Does the combination of colors look like speculation to you?
I agree that not every blind person can paint on such a level, but here we have an example of a congenitally blind person who clearly has a very good idea about colors.
Observer,
“Had we evolved differently we would have seen the world in an entirely different manner. Who knows there could be more senses in this world, yet we can’t sense them because we don’t have the right organs or the capacity in our brain to process it. Because we have never sensed them we can’t comprehend or even have words in our vocabulary to describe it.”
Aha!
Dear Sujewa,
“Re: the light/color/blind question – if it is not related to religion, why did you raise it here?”
Because it is related to the METHOD not religion.
I posed a Hypothetical but a REAL scenario that we all know is true (except the congenitally blind).
I asked you to PROVE that REAL concept using the same methods that you asked the believers to use.
You failed because Science was IMMATURE in that Field.
Believers failed for the same reason.
OTC,
you said … re. K,R,N
“You don’t know about it and neither do we but we chose to believe in it from what we observe in this world.”
Yes, of course, what you observe in the world fully supports your belief daily. BUT (don’t get too excited about that statement because …) what you observe in the world, your world, is that EVERYONE or most people around you also believe it strongly. THAT is the origin of your belief and the strong reason you have for it’s undisputability – not rational, objective scrutiny OF what you believe.
Someone living in a similar insular society said to me he is ‘certain’ of the existence of his god. I offered him that same explanation as above, that ‘he is certain only because everyone around say they are certain’. I also told him I am not certain at all, far from it, I have no reason to suppose that his god exists. I also told him the reason is the same as the one that makes him certain – that I live in a diverse society where many different people believe different things.
He then said that makes him very sorry for me as I am very confused, whereas he is certain.
I agree he has a good point there.
(though I’m happy to agnostic rather than pin my hopes on something that may not exist).
OTC, that conversation I think sums up this discussion.
OTC,
re. given that the challenge was to prove KRN is real by science or whatever other method the believers choose … you said,
“Believers failed for the same reason.”
Ok, so case closed, innit?
::
OTC, but we CAN prove that KRN can be mistakenly believed as *real* by a person if induced through hypnotic means – externally of self-induced as when in transcendental meditation, when wanting to believe such a thing.
What other evidence, except through meditation, did the Buddha have (as reported in the scriptures) for him to know that KRN are real? (I repeat, EXCEPT through meditation)
Consider this, an astronomer looks through his telescope and sees that there is a giant spider on the Moon! He publicly announces it. All his contemporaries believe his discovery as he is well respected in the field. (though it is a fantastic claim)
However, it is later discovered that the giant spider he saw is actually a real spider on the glass at the end of his telescope! (ie. now has a simpler explanation)
In the absence of other evidence, do we still continue to believe that there is a giant spider on the Moon?
More … Spider on the Moon
————————–
I suppose if the Spider on the Moon became the source of another religion, and it was later found to be a mistake (see above) the believers will still claim that there is a spider of the Moon thus …
Just following some of the arguments by the believers on this thread:
Modern telescopes are not powerful enough to detect the spider, so it must be real.
Science cannot prove that there is no spider on the Moon and therefore we believe that the spider on the Moon is real.
It is not possible to convence an audience that has never seen a spider on the Moon that there is a spider on the Moon.
The astronomer is omniscient, so regardless of later finding that there as a spider *on the telescope* there is actually one on the Moon.
It is sacriligious to question it.
It is illegal to question it on the basic that this telescope is protected by the Constitution (because it is the one that found the spider on the Moon)…
OTC,
RE:
“You failed because Science was IMMATURE in that Field.
Believers failed for the same reason.”
The non-believers have shown several methods by which the blind can be convinced of the existence of light & color.
Also, there is another huge difference between light/color & K, R. N that you are refusing to acknowledge;
- light/color are real things – we know because those of us with working eyes can easily see them – including yourself
- K, R, N on the other hand is speculative/most likely fiction – NOT REAL like light/color – even the believers have to ultimately rely on the reported word of the Buddha as the justification for accepting the possible existence of K, R, N in this world.
::
On to other matters, re: comparison between Islam & Buddhism – as to which is more liberal, the following may wrap up my thoughts on that matter;
- Buddhism as it exists now in this world is more peaceful & allows questioning ot it more easily – w/ out monks putting out death threats on the questioners/non-believers/critics for example
- Islam, as it exists in this world right now has more violence associated with it, most likely due to the fact that there is an active war going on between parts of Islam & the West & other Muslims & also non-believers. Just as, the political situation in SL during the civil war years affected the perception of Buddhism in SL by outsiders, the war situaion world wide on Islamic lands is affecting how Islam is perceived, what elements are in the forefront, from both within the Muslim world & outsiders.
- However, there are positive, useful, compatible with the modern secular world aspects to Islam in its entirety (as it has existed in all lands, throughout its history) – such as the elimination of caste/racial divisions, care for the poor & the needy, encouragement of science & philosophy several hundred years ago, & also reform of Turkey, & also Grameen Bank/micro-lending revolution pioneered in Bangladesh, etc.
- S
So this conversation/dabate has now gone on for over 20 days on this thread/under this article & perhaps over a month in the previous Akon & Buddhism article.
The inability to prove karma, reincarnation, & nirvana as being real aspects of this world has been well established here. (same goes for the god concept, Heshan
Interested related topics have been introduced & discussed. I am sure more are on the way
But there is something even more important than religion for SL & diaspora & rest of the world too – & that’s the ending of poverty & the ending of under development.
Both those things are possible through a modern, open, agnostic, secular approach that seeks to work with mainstream/non-extremist believers & non-believers.
SL & the rest of the world needs a lot more of institutions like Grameen Banks/similar institutions, & similar thinking.
Religious freedom – of religion & from religions – intellectual freedom, & freedom of expression – are related to ending poverty. However, ending poverty is the more pressing issue in SL & the ending of poverty – the kind of work required – will result most likely in collaborations between believers & non-believers – & this will most likely lead to greater intellectual & religious freedom in SL.
So, I will be promoting SL development, ending poverty, etc. from this point on, primarily, at my New SL Agnosticism blog http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/ & elsewhere.
Economic freedom for an individual is very closely related to intellectual freedom – ultimately, & hopefully soon – both will be easily available in SL.
- S
(same goes for the god concept, Heshan
I never denied that the God-concept lacks scientific merit. I merely pointed out what a coincidence it is that the Big Bang theory assumes the existence of cosmic energy, which religion also takes for granted. It would be dishonest of me to not point out the similarity.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
You say
“You are taking about it in a very narrow sense.”
No, I am talking within the scope of the problem posed
1. There is a Real Phenomena (Light & Colour)
2. There is a Group of people who have not experienced that phenomena (Congenitally Blind)
3. That group of people does not have the faculties required to sense the phenomena.
4. Everything you say will just be speculative to that group
5. You are asked to convey the Actual Reality to this Group using any means at your disposal
This is a problem between you, the Congenitally blind and the METHODS you chose to convey the reality of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind.
It is not about whether Light and Colour is Real or not. That it is a Real is beyond question.
Its about your ability to convey the real concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind.
There is Total Freedom to choose the Method, there is absolutely no restriction on that.
Hence alpha, gamma, Beta and X-rays, Faith and Belief does not come into the picture.
So how do you go about solving the problem?
You have mentioned Synesthesia.
It has no relevance to the above problem as these people have no idea of Light and Colour even to Hallucinate about it.
That our interpretation of the universe is limited by our faculties is a fact that I have been trying to impress upon the Agnostics several times. I have stated that Birds have sharper eyesight than us. Serpents have glands that are sensitive to infrared while we are blind to that. A view through an IR sensitive camcorder will show how clear the picture is even in total darkness though it is in monochrome. Dogs have an incredible sense of smell. Bats have a completely different world view. They can travel faster than us but can capture a flying insect with ease. Termites are totally blind but they build intricate colonies with temperature control of the nests.
“All we can establish here is what we’ve already established, things can exist outside of our sensory abilities or even our ability to verify them – there is *absolutely no argument there”
Interesting. Does that mean you will acknowledge that ESP can be real? Remote viewing can be real? And the Chinese explanation of a whole system of medicine developed using their Philosophical understanding of the balance between opposing energies are real? Even though none of them has been proven with conventional methods?
“Your strong anti-science reaction, when science has *no relevance* to this issue, is interesting, because I just came across this paper. The abstract is quite interesting. Here’s a detailed news article on the paper.”
How do you characterize my questioning the Maturity of Science as an Anti Science stance? Is it your contention that Science is MATURE in every field? Or has my questions undermined your over-dependence on Science? Or is it the contention of the Agnostics that they have special privileges in posing questions? Or is it the view of the Agnostics that believers are incapable of rational thinking to pose questions on Science?
I question Science because Scientific investigation is the only way to prove Rebirth as a certainty (there have been chance correlations but that is not the same thing). So what makes you think that Science is irrelevant? Your assertion that Science is irrelevant came as a surprise.
I believe that at this moment of time Science is incapable of proving rebirth. That is because Science is IMMATURE in that field. If Science was Mature it could disprove Rebirth beyond a shadow of doubt. It can’t do that yet because Science has not matured to that level. Hence for now Rebirth is a Question mark.
It’s good to remember that Science was unable to prove Paternity till 1985. Before that No one was sure who the Father was, Scientifically speaking.
“And now we once again come to the same key question. What are these convincing reasons that cause you to accept these things as real?”
Action and result in this life needs no proof. In Buddhism what is important is Action with volition. Such volitional action can be good or bad. Man made laws recognise volitional bad actions, the results of which are observable. Volitional good actions gives observable good results too. What is uncertain is the carry over of the result to a possible future birth. Based on what is observable we believe the unobservable to be possible. The doctrine of Kamma provides a believable explanation to the vast diversity of the world hence we chose to believe in it. You have chosen not to do so, that’s your right.
Dear BalangodaMan,
“OTC, but we CAN prove that KRN can be mistakenly believed as *real* by a person if induced through hypnotic means – externally of self-induced as when in transcendental meditation, when wanting to believe such a thing.”
Many other things can be implanted in the Human mind through Hypnotism of a receptive person. That is a well known fact. Doesn’t prove or disprove Buddhism though.
Dear Heshan,
“Even a congenitally blind person will still see black. Black is also a color.”
Is that a new Physics lesson Heshan?
Colour we see is due to the selective wavelength reflected by an object illuminated by white light. Black absorbs all white light and nothing is reflected back. It can however convert the visual energy that it receives and radiate low wavelength IR Heat.
If you say Black is a colour which frequency within the Visual frequencies is emitted by Black? Please give a reliable reference to confirm your statement.
Off the Cuff:
Read carefully:
“A black pigment can, however, result from a combination of several pigments that collectively absorb all colors. If appropriate proportions of three primary pigments are mixed, the result reflects so little light as to be called “black”.This provides two superficially opposite but actually complementary descriptions of black. Black is the lack of all colors of light, or an exhaustive combination of multiple colors of pigment.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black
In other words, you can combine colors to make a new color. If you mix eggs with eggs, you still have an egg. If you mix colors with colors, you still have a color. As the quotation indicates, this definition of “black” is opposite but equal to the definition of black being the lack of all colors of light. The opposite of “lack of all colors of light” is consists of at least one color. Therefore, by the second definition, black is a color.
* opposite but equal
Correction: it should read as opposite but complementary.
Off the Cuff:
Since the absence (or near absence) of light can be perceived (a person knows when something is dark or black), then in that sense, black is a color.So we can all agree that black is a colour if you define colour a certain way and is not a colour if we define it another way.
If we define colour as a quality of the light or absence of light that emanates from an object as perceived by our eyes and brains (including white and black provided you are not totally colour blind, in which case neither black nor white would be a colour), black is a colour. If we define it as a frequency of light, black is not a colour. If we define colour as a flavour of quarks ….
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-132724.html
Exactly as I said – from the point of view of human perception, not the ER spectrum, black is a color.
Off the Cuff:
1. There is a Real Phenomena (Light & Colour)
2. There is a Group of people who have not experienced that phenomena (Congenitally Blind)
3. That group of people does not have the faculties required to sense the phenomena.
4. Everything you say will just be speculative to that group
5. You are asked to convey the Actual Reality to this Group using any means at your disposal
The example I gave of the blind man who paints portraits of people and things he has never seen would contradict 3,4, and 5.
He has never seen a fish, but drew one anyway:
http://www.armagan.com/view.asp?i=4
He never saw Bill Clinton but still drew him:
http://www.armagan.com/view.asp?i=14
In his drawing of fruits, even the seeds in the watermelon are accurate:
http://www.armagan.com/view.asp?i=8
In particular, your assertion that the congenitally blind do not have the faculty to sense the phenomena is entirely wrong. How do you draw something if a picture of it does not exist in your mind? In the case of the blind painter, the fact that he can’t see a given object before painting it is irrelevant. Given the extremely high detail of his paintings, he has a mental image of the object that is equally as good as the mental image possessed by someone who can actually see the object.
To add to my last point:
As far as perception is concerned, what matters is not whether or not we can see an object by way of light and color, but that we can sense the structure of the object, e.g. we have a map – an outline. The only thing that light and color do is illuminate. You don’t have to “see” something in color to know it exists. You just have to get a feel for its structure. The example of the painter I gave is a very good one, in this regard. By running his hand over a car, he was able to paint one. Can he prove that the car is a certain color? Probably not. But I don’t think it matters. As I said, what matters is the outline of the object – the bare skeletal structure. How far can one go with just a mental image? Well, look at his paintings – there is really no limit.
OTC,
In your comment to SomewhatDisgusted – May 31, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
You are continuing to state your position again and again without paying any attention whatsoever to the pertinent questions that challenge that position.
You say …
“If Science was Mature it could disprove (I think you meant ‘prove’) Rebirth beyond a shadow of doubt. It can’t do that yet because Science has not matured to that level.”
On what evidence are we (or rather the people who lived in Buddha’s time) to believe the doctrine of karma, rebirth, nirvana as *real* as told by the Buddha?
Is it because he said he saw that through meditation?
Is it because he said he is omniscient (all knowing)?
Is it because the Buddha is acknowledged as a religious leader the world over and as such it is customary that he is believed by the followers?
… or he doesn’t actually know but he thought it is a good concept to believe for the well-being of the people of his time perhaps? That it is a good foundation on which to build some sound ethical and moral priciples appropriate to that society at that time?)
Or is there some other reason why you believe KRN to be true? (we have suggested tribal loyalties, childhood conditioning, blind faith etc)
::
Please don’t get me wrong – I am not trying to undermine your faith, simply trying to establish THE BASIS on which you feel that KRN are things that will eventually be provable with certainty when the right tools of measurement are available, as you say.
It is unlikely that either of us will be alive when such a tool is available, which is why we are discussing the source of your belief now – rather than waiting to see …
The argument both SD and I have consistently put forward is – wouldn’t the same basis support the belief that The Flying Spaghetti Monster (an invented deity to illustrate the process by which we believe in the real-ness of imaginary religious things)?
::
Pls refer to my Spider on the Telescope point. Also relevant to this question. Are you saying that when the right MATURE tools are available we will ‘find a large spider on the Moon without a shadow of doubt’? Rather than acknowledge that the image of the spider seen was due to a mistaken reading (ie, in the case of KRN – now that we know how meditation works)?
Duty
——
A fellow Buddhist-born friend once told me that it is our *duty* to regard the Dhamma as the *truth* – because the Buddha was Enlightened (and being born-Buddhist is a great privilege and responsibility).
So I asked him how the Buddha’s advice in the Kalama Sutra (that we should not believe what our religious leaders tell us) alters or affects that.
He told me that, yes of course you should follow his advice, but you should do that *in private*, not discuss it with anyone.
Question: Do Mr Yapa, OTC, Wijayapla have a view on that?
Does discussing (and scrutinising) the issues as the Buddha advised undermine the need to ‘protect Buddhism’?
(an aside)
I just mentioned this to a friend sitting by me
“Does discussing (and scrutinising) the issues as the Buddha advised undermine the need to ‘protect Buddhism’?” (my statement)
He said (in jest)
“Yeah, we should not believe what our religious books say, not believe what our religious leaders tell us. We should personally scrutinise all claims and truths put forward by our religious books and teachings ourselves, challenge all claims methodically and objectively, and then only then come to the (only available) informed conclusion that it is the truth” (LOL!)
Dear OTC,
You ask: “Interesting. Does that mean you will acknowledge that ESP can be real?”
I’m very surprised by this question. Of course there’s always a possibility, I can’t believe the number of times this has been acknowledged. I’m now wondering whether you have stopped following the discussion altogether? We cannot prove a negative. I even posted a video by James Randi just a few days ago, do watch it, it explains the idea quite well.
During that whole process, you have avoided the key question. On what basis, do you choose to believe as *true*, one particular possibility over the other gazillions of possibilities?
The answer to that philosophical question, is the very foundation on which science rests.
Re: “Hence for now Rebirth is a Question mark.”
Precisely!! So the same question, on what basis do you believe in one question mark as true when there are millions of others for which we can think of similarly plausible explanations?
“The doctrine of Kamma provides a believable explanation to the vast diversity of the world hence we chose to believe in it.”
All power to you if you think seeing a plain and simple cause and effect in this life implies there’s
a. A next life
b. That the causes in this life somehow affect this next life
c. That there’s a Nibbana to escape all cause and effect
I fully acknowledge that you’re free to believe it, not because there’s any logic in it (on the contrary, it’s a leap of logic), but simply because none of us have any answers to some of life’s greatest questions. All of us need to resign ourselves to these realities, there is no shame in it, rather than hoping there’s a sound logical basis for beliving in KRN, which, as it stands now, there isn’t. It is better to take the stance that Wijayapala seemed to take at the very outset, as in – I don’t know the answers, so I’m going to go with something that makes me happy, which then becomes your personal gamble on the meaning and nature of life.
But at the same time, it’s very important to realize that others really do have a very sound basis on which they may not make any such leap, perhaps choosing to live with uncertainty (my personal choice) or make other assumptions instead, so I’m glad that you’ve acknowledged it. That’s precisely what this whole debate has been about. Individual freedom to choose one’s religion, or be free from it altogether, without state imposition.
cheers,
/SD
Another thing OTC. I have no opposition to the way you believe in religion – as a personal choice. In other words, I have no problems with doubters and those who will live and let live.
But I do oppose those who believe in it as an undeniable, plain-as-day truth, which is an *utter delusion*. That’s the kind of certainty that leads to evil – because one automatically assumes that one is working on behalf of the indisputable truth! no less. That’s the kind of uncompromising certainty that has made religion self-important and demanding and something I think that all of us, both believers and non-believers alike, must get together and oppose.
What are your thoughts on that?
cheers,
/SD
To all the agnostics & Heshan,
I think I am going to go through & collect some of our ideas & statements from this discussion/debate re: the inability to prove the existence of K, R, N & produce a kind of a FAQ type document for other agnostics, non-believers, etc. – & will post it at my SL agnosticism blog & elsewhere so that all the ideas will be easily accessible when this discussion comes up again elsewhere. Hope you are all OK with this – let me know. Thanks!
- S
Re: the notion that discussing aspects of Buddhism – attempting to show whether they are real & or useful to the present needs – is detrimental to Buddhism idea;
I do not believe that people discussing aspects of Buddhism & pointing out, for example, that K, R, N are not real things (most likely) weakens Buddhism. Because the existence of speculative metaphysical items is a trait shared by all of the major religion. It can be argued that Buddhism has the least number of these speculative items. And, positive elements of Buddhism (& all other religions) are still very useful to many even if there are elements w/ in the religion that cannot be proven to be real. So, when it comes to competition among religions, taking a close look at Buddhism does not weaken it.
Is taking a close look at Buddhism & rejecting counter-productive ideas & interpertations (such as that the poor deserve their fate due to karma) useful to Sri Lanka? Yes. As a developing country with a large poor population, the learned or those who have access to & time for taking a look at the philosophical & intellectual framework that supports Sri Lanka may be able to find new solutions to existing problems by analyzing the methods of thinking that either produced or helps to sustain the current problems.
Can agnostics & other non-believers work with moderate believers to make things better for all in Sri Lanka & in the Diaspora? Yes. Happens all the time.
Will a fully developed/out of poverty & vastly more productive Sri Lanka mean the end of Buddhism or the end of religion in Sri Lanka? No. Japan & the US are good examples to take a look at in this regard – both are well developed & both have a population that heavily supports & practices religion(s). And both, still, after full development, have the traditional religion as the most practiced religion.
Is close analysis of Buddhism a threat to creating or attempting to create an entirely Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka? Yes. However, such a project is impossible to achieve even w/ out opposition from agnostics, etc. as Sri Lanka has always been a multi-ethnic & multi-religious country & due to the significant number of people who are either non-believers or are believers of other religions, SL will continue to be a multi-ethnic & multi-religious country.
Is taking a close look at Buddhism useful for the creation for a common Sri Lankan identity? Yes. Because as this conversation/debate shows, Buddhism is merely an ancient religion- built on speculative items just like all of the other ancient religion. Thus, it is not necessary to oppose the creation of a common Sri Lankan identity on the grounds that it will somehow negatively affect an undisputed/holy/universal truth. As this discussion shows Buddhism is a personal preference that is not supported by any greater undisputed/universal attributes – thus, only one of many concerns & not the most important concern when attempting to create a common identity in SL.
Is the creation of a common Sri Lankan identity & everyone working to re-build SL after the war & to get it out of poverty & debt useful for Sinhala-Buddhists? Yes, obviously. Lack of conflict & greater investments, loans, assistance from all sectors of SL population & from the diaspora will speed up the development of SL & will be useful to all who live there & are connected to it – most of those being Sinhala-Buddhists.
- S
Hey Agnostics,
I just re-posted a flood relief appeal from SL Red Cross at SL agnstcsm blog:
http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/2010/06/flood-relief-appeal-from-sl-red-cross.html
Check it out & help SL Red Cross out w/ feeding ppl, etc. if you can.
(the appeal is several days old, but probably still relevant, check w/ SLRC for the latest updates/needs)
- S
Dear Heshan,
Looks like you are insisting on giving a Physics Lesson
Would like to see your answers for the following three Questions.
Is light and Colour Electromagnetic Phenomena?
Does each Colour in the Visible EM Spectrum have a unique Wavelength?
If so, what is the Wavelength of the so called “Colour Black” ?
The Wiki page referenced by you starts as follows
Black is the color of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum; they absorb all such frequencies of light.
I am refraining from writing anything else to keep my questions in focus.
Dear Heshan,
You have brought up the case of ONE congenitally blind person who has trained himself to partially overcome his Congenital Disability by working out a system to paint. This painter displays admirable courage and talent but He cannot “SEE” and He does not possess the faculty of Vision.
Like any other Congenitally Blind person he has developed the sense of space using his other senses, Touch, Sound, Heat, Smell etc. It is well known that a Blind person’s remaining faculties become sharper and more acute in order to compensate for what is lost.
This artist uses Braille something he does not need if he can “SEE”
His web site says
“He has also developed his own methods of doing portraits. He asks a sighted person to draw around a photograph, ”
Now why should he do that if he can “SEE”?
Can he chose the correct colour if the colour palette that he uses is rearranged at random every few minutes?
Has he been subject to Scientific investigation? (I could not find any, probably you can)
Would this not be the first thing that would happen if the scientific community believes that his ability could be used to help the millions of Congenitally Blind to SEE?
Bringing up an example of one man who has developed a system to paint, does not prove that he can “SEE” or that the Congenitally blind can see.
Sujewa,
You have my permission to use my posts.
Your post here (Sujewa Ekanayake said, June 1, 2010 @ 8:13 pm) covers all the bases, and does it well.
Religion and Science
———————
Those of you wanting more scientific *proof* for ancient religious concepts will find some more here …
http://www.islamicity.com/science/
Question for the Believers: why do you say these *scientific* proofs are less valid than those that Mr Yapa has put forward?
Dear Off the Cuff:
I have already stated that there are multiple definitions of black as a color. If you wish to believe that the only valid definition of color is in the context of the ER spectrum, that is your choice.
He has also developed his own methods of doing portraits. He asks a sighted person to draw around a photograph
That is only for portraits . The point I have made is that he is able to draw pictures in extremely high detail without actually seeing any of the objects. Most people who are not blind cannot draw half as well (myself included). The question I asked you is, how does a blind person draw something without seeing it? He has to have a mental image in his mind based on some quality of the object that he has somehow assessed. Based on how accurate his drawings are, this mental image is as accurate as the image that a person who can see will see.
Here is one example: he was able to draw a car just by feeling with his hands what a real car looks like:
Using his hands as sensors Esref Armagan felt his way round the all-new Volvo S60 with its dynamic sculpted form with his hands and then did the painting all the while he was documented on film. The resulting documentary Volvo S60 Blind Preview got an overwhelming reception from Volvo fans around the world. The film can be found on: http://www.youtube.com/user/VolvoCarsNews#p/u/2/7CNx3qTI8xA and on http://www.facebook.com/volvo. (watch the video related to this press release).
http://blogs.automotive.com/6597638/miscellaneous/ebay-famous-blind-artists-2011-volvo-s60-painting-now-for-auction/index.html
This is the car he drew:
http://image.automotive.com/f/miscellaneous/ebay-famous-blind-artists-2011-volvo-s60-painting-now-for-auction/31635654/2011-volvo-s60-painting-esref-armagonjpg.jpg
He has never seen a car, but he is able to draw a car that looks exactly like a real car, without seeing the car – only feeling it with his hands. Which proves my point: you don’t have to see something with your own eyes to know what it looks like. And you don’t have to see something with your own eyes to know it exists.
Dear Sujewa,
Good to hear you plan to create an article. This stuff is more or less in the public domain anyway!
Dear BalangodaMan,
Looking forward to reading your guide to self-hypnosis.
Dear Yapa,
Where are you? Don’t abandon us, your Internet friends!
Dear Heshan,
It was nice to read the story about the blind painter. However, I think OTC’s overall point is valid. There are many things that can exist in the world which cannot be detected by our senses. Even our entire existence might be a dream (debated by philosophers for millenia). I think no one has objected to this idea ever.
The question has always been, how do you decide what’s true and what’s not true, given the infinite possibilities out there? How do we establish a shared reality and not a subjective one? That is the philosophical basis of science after all.
cheers,
/SD
Dear Somewhat Disgusted:
There are many things that can exist in the world which cannot be detected by our senses.
That is a point which is well-known to science. However, in the case of the congenitally blind person, OTC asserted that blind people have no sense of perception when it comes to light and color. I have shown that in the case of color, it is indeed possible for a blind person to have some sense of what color “is.” Try painting a watermelon with your eyes closed. As I said, you will find that it is necessary to have some mental image of the object before you actually paint it. The exact correlation between this mental image and the placement of color – that is something I cannot explain. Nevertheless, such a correlation exists. In the case of the blind painter, the color is not random, but perfectly placed.
Here is some advice about painting:
Don’t use white paint for highlights; rather, use lighter hues of the natural color of the flower for a realistic effect of light. As with painting shadows, blend your highlights into the surrounding color gradually to capture a realistic sense of depth.
Can you see the depth in this picture?
http://www.armagan.com/view.asp?i=9
This is would imply a correlation between color and depth in painting. It becomes harder and harder to claim that the blind painter has absolutely no perception of color. Now the real question is, what about the other congenitally blind people… are they truly “blind”, or can they be taught to perceive color in a similar manner as the blind Turkish painter?
OTC & other believers & Agnostics,
Now that we’ve taken a close look at some speculative aspects (in my opinion) & also negative aspects (use of religion for racist projects, etc.) of SL Buddhism, let’s take a look at the positive aspects of SL Buddhism.
Let’s make lists & discuss.
Such a thing may be useful for creating/promoting secular/agnostic/non-believer behavior that may be useful – in a positive sense – to SL & the diaspora.
I’ll start, here are a couple of positive things that I’ve gotten out of SL Buddhism:
1. Each individual human being is very valuable. I think one place where this idea is expressed via religious terms is the belief that only humans are capable of attaining nirvana.
2. Anti-racist/anti-caste stance. In SL Buddhism (at least the version i was taught starting in the 70′s) one of the key differences between Buddhism & Hinduism is said to be the Buddha’s rejection of the caste system.
Alright, who’s got more items?
A formal/articulated set of common & useful values & practices (for the new/post-civil war SL & diaspora) for mainstream people (non-believers & believers) may be derived from looking at positive aspects of SL Buddhism.
- S
Heshan,
RE: Blind, Colour and Light
————————–
SomewhatDisgusted is right. OTC used a good analogy to make a good point. Unfortunately even the best analogies can have a ‘blind spot’ where it does not fit the scenario and purpose, and sometimes (like now) someone knowledgeable about the subject of the analogy (like you Heshan) comes along and takes it to pieces.
But that’s re. the *subject of the analogy* – not the subject under discussion.
The point OTC was trying to make still stands though. It helped us explore new ground, even some that OTC might prefer us not to have. (eg. how does a sighted man know he can see? expected question, I know, but think about it)
SD, I shall write my ‘do it yourself self-hypnosis/meditation 101′ as soon as time allows, within the next few days, with stuff/magic you can do yourself.
Mr Yapa? Demonstrating the concept of ‘no self’?
BalangodaMan:
What I have been saying in regards to the blind man is that he able to perceive the form of a given object without actually seeing it. In order to draw anything, you absolutely must be able to perceive the form of an object. What is extraordinary about the blind man is that his mental perception of the form of the object matches the actual form of the object, with a degree of accuracy that is anything but a mere coincidence. In other words, just by touching a car, he knew what a real car looks like. Off the Cuff asked, how does a congenitally blind person know that light is real… well, if you let this painter guy feel the heat emanating from a narrowly focused laser beam, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was able to use the heat to determine the form of the laser beam, and then paint the laser beam, just like he did with the car.
Balangoda Man,
In regards to the actual question, can we know something without perceiving it with our senses, the answer is yes. It is a famous question in philosophy, albeit a rather old one:
Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1781) advocated a blend of rationalist and empiricist theories. Kant states, “although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience”[2] According to Kant, a priori knowledge is transcendental, or based on the form of all possible experience, while a posteriori knowledge is empirical, based on the content of experience. Kant states, “… it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion).”[2] Thus, unlike the empiricists, Kant thinks that a priori knowledge is independent of the content of experience; moreover, unlike the rationalists, Kant thinks that a priori knowledge, in its pure form, that is without the admixture of any empirical content, is knowledge limited to the deduction of the conditions of possible experience. These a priori, or transcendental conditions, are seated in one’s cognitive faculties, and are not provided by experience in general or any experience in particular. Kant nominated and explored the possibility of a transcendental logic with which to consider the deduction of the a priori in its pure form. Concepts such as time and cause are counted among the list of pure a priori forms. Kant reasoned that the pure a priori forms are established via his transcendental aesthetic and transcendental logic. He claimed that the human subject would not have the kind of experience that it has were these a priori forms not in some way constitutive of him as a human subject. For instance, he would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place unless time and cause were operative in his cognitive faculties. The claim is more formally known as Kant’s transcendental deduction and it is the central argument of his major work, the Critique of Pure Reason. The transcendental deduction does not avoid the fact or objectivity of time and cause, but does, in its consideration of a possible logic of the a priori, attempt to make the case for the fact of subjectivity, what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
Heshan, I agree that it appears that some blind people can *see* without seeing. Thanks for the link.
If Kant is saying that we are born with some inherent knowledge then that could support the KRN doctrine, although that would also mean there is some ‘container’ that contains it – the one that thinks. I expect the reality of it to be something quite beyond human comprehension (which makes me an agnostic). We, and Kant, can try and understand in terms of the limited hooks we have in human experience. Much like my neighbours dog has a hard time getting to grips with what I do for a living
Dear All;
I will be back in the discussion soon.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan,
“What I have been saying in regards to the blind man is that he able to perceive the form of a given object without actually seeing it.”
No argument here. Of course he is able to perceive form but not with sight but with the other senses which he has developed to a much more acute level than you and I.
He has developed an acute sense of 3D space. No wonder, as he has been doing this for over 35 years (with feed back from his sighted friends and relatives). This sense of 3D space is what allows any Blind person to walk about in his own environment without using a cane or without stumbling on objects, as long as those objects remain where they should be.
For anyone to claim that Esref Armagan can “SEE” colour without subjecting him to controlled tests is very naive. His colour palette would have a specific place holder for each colour. Testing could be as simple as interchanging the colour position of the palette. E.g. Colour red replaced by colour blue. If he still uses the colour red correctly, taken from a different position of his palette, instead of the Blue that now occupies the usual position of Red then it will indicate the possibility that he can recognise Red from Blue. Yet it won’t still confirm that he can “SEE” the Red from the Blue as it is possible that he can smell the difference of the composition of each colour rather than “SEE” each colour. That would mean he has developed his sense of “SMELL” to an acute level like that of a dog’s.
What I find strange is the Gullibility of “SOME” Agnostics who question everything but what they want to believe in.
OTC,
“For anyone to claim that Esref Armagan can “SEE” colour without subjecting him to controlled tests is very naive. His colour palette would have a specific place holder for each colour. Testing could be as simple as interchanging the colour position of the palette. E.g. Colour red replaced by colour blue. If he still uses the colour red correctly, taken from a different position of his palette, instead of the Blue that now occupies the usual position of Red then it will indicate the possibility that he can recognise Red from Blue. Yet it won’t still confirm that he can “SEE” the Red from the Blue as it is possible that he can smell the difference of the composition of each colour rather than “SEE” each colour. That would mean he has developed his sense of “SMELL” to an acute level like that of a dog’s.
What I find strange is the Gullibility of “SOME” Agnostics who question everything but what they want to believe in.”
Whoa, steady on!
In the first paragraph, clearly you DO understand the concept of testing a hypothesis rigorously. On the second paragraph and the rest of your posts you are prepared to go the ends of the Earth in making ludicrous and fantastic claims about the afterlife, pre-lives and non-lives, as if they are as DEFINITE as the Sun will rise tomorrow. As if you can demonstrate to the agnostics the basis of your certainty.
Hey pal, ‘agnosticism’ is not a belief system. Scepticism is the opposite of ‘gullibility’. Agnostics are sceptics. So there.
Dear BalangodaMan,
Whoa Pal, Vision is a known phenomena that requires the excitation of the Retina in the Human eye.
Your post of June 3, 2010 @ 2:32 am to Heshan accepts that the Blind artist can see without the usual Skepticism.
“and sometimes (like now) someone knowledgeable about the subject of the analogy (like you Heshan) comes along and takes it to pieces.”
So where is that Skepticism?
Do you believe that Esref Armagan can “SEE” colour and “SEE” Light without a working Retina?
BalangodaMan,
“On the second paragraph and the rest of your posts you are prepared to go the ends of the Earth in making ludicrous and fantastic claims about the afterlife, pre-lives and non-lives,”
That’s what you say about my post dated June 5, 2010 @ 2:40 pm addressed to Heshan.
Are you under the influence of Shilboot or whatever you take to Hallucinate?
Or are you under the influence of your most recent “Self Hypnotic Trance”?
Challenge you to show a SINGLE statement in my post to Heshan referred to above, even REMOTELY resembling an AFTER LIFE. (you specifically named the second para)
You are like a Chameleon. One day you are an Agnostic and a Skeptic the next day you are a believer (you are prepared to believe that Esref Armagan can SEE).
Your DISHONESTY is APPALLING
Dear Off the Cuff:
I agree that his perception of space is rather unusual. However, it does not explain the patterns of color in his paintings. If you had no idea of what color was, what difference will it make whether you fill one spot (region) with a certain color as opposed to another? If you examine his paintings, you see that he has no trouble with borders. In other words, there is no unwanted overlap of colors to indicate a blind person guessing which color is which.
In regards to whether we need light to “see” color, what about dreaming? In the pitch black of night, we still have dreams that are full of color. You might argue, it is because we have seen such colors from birth, and so the color is ingrained into our mind. In other words, you are arguing that in order to know what color is, we first have to see. I found the following passage interesting:
Re:can blind people see their dreams
Posted by ILoveElias on 02/12/2007
Straight from the horses mouth…I’ve been blind all my life, I was born that way, and I do dream. I had one dream when I was little, where I actually knew that I was dreaming. Most of the time of course, your asleep, and don’t realize that your dreaming until you wake up. But I remember lying on the livingroom floor, and I could feel myself going into a dream. I’ve never had that happen again, but it was pretty interesting.
As far as dreams in general, I’ve had lots of them. I’m not sure exactly what your questions are, so this explanation could get long. Lol. Anyway, I’ve had people ask me if I dream in color? And do I see people when I dream, see what they look like? Or, if I’m dreaming, if there are objects in my dream, say an animal, a table, what have you, do I know what it looks like?
So, to the first question, I usually don’t dream in color. However, I do know what colors are, the general ones. For example, if I hear the word blue, I think of the sky, the ocean, or someone’s shirt.
Green I associate with the grass.
White, black, brown/tan I associate with a person’s skin color.
Red I associate with flames or passion, or blood. Some people may find that morbid, but I don’t.
Anyway, you get the idea.
On to the second question, if I dream about someone I know, then I already know what they look like, so yes I see them. If I’m dreaming about someone I don’t know, if I dream about a baby for example, then I generally know what they look like, but I don’t get into the characteristics that would separate one baby from another. So, I know that babies are small, so in my dream, their small, but I don’t see eye color, hair color, etc.
If I dream that I’m in need of assistance, and a police officer comes up, then I know he/she’s wearing a blue uniform, that they have a gun & a badge on them, etc, but again, I won’t see facial characteristics, hair color or eye color..
And finally for the third question, I know what an object looks like. So if I’m dreaming that I’m talking to someone, and we’re sitting in chairs, I see the chairs. Not in color, but if you asked me about it the next morning, I could tell you that we were sitting in chairs talking.
I hope this helps clarify things for you somewhat. It’d be easier to explain in person, so if you need more of an explanation, don’t hesitate to ask.
I’ve done public speaking all my life to both children and adults, so I’m usually good at answering their questions.
http://www.afb.org/message_board_replies.asp?topicid=2440&folderid=3
I am beginning to accept your explanation that the blind person does not see the color. What he sees are the shapes of objects. However, what I don’t understand is how the blind Turkish painter can paint with no “sense” of color – at least in my case, I would become bored rather quickly. Also, color adds perspective to a painting. While he his awareness of 3-D space may be unusual, recall that he is painting on a 2-D canvas. The question is whether he is using color to create 3-D perspective on a 2-D space.
Balangoda Man:
If Kant is saying that we are born with some inherent knowledge then that could support the KRN doctrine, although that would also mean there is some ‘container’ that contains it – the one that thinks. I expect the reality of it to be something quite beyond human comprehension (which makes me an agnostic). We, and Kant, can try and understand in terms of the limited hooks we have in human experience. Much like my neighbours dog has a hard time getting to grips with what I do for a living
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5
According to Kant, we are able to perceive space and time without any prior experience that would impact our perception of them:
Kant tries to prove this by arguing that our conceptions of space and time cannot be derived from experience of objects, because any such experience presupposes the individuation of objects in space and/or time, and that although we can represent space or time as devoid of objects, we cannot represent any objects without representing space and/or time ( A 23-4/B 38-9; A 30-1/B 46)
It’s a brilliant argument: we can only be aware of an object if we assign to the object some coordinates in space and some coordinates in time. But if we did not already know about space and time, this assignment would be impossible. The second part says that it does not make sense to talk about an object independently of space or time. Clearly, knowledge of space and time is not something we derive through experience. Now the next question comes naturally: are there other forms of knowledge we possess which are independent of experience? I don’t know if KRN fall into this category, as the believers would argue that KRN are essentially laws of nature that describe the behavior of the Universe. Space and time, for example, are not laws of nature. My opinion, at least, is that space and time are simply functions of our perception that allow us to perform ordering arrangements. Nevertheless, this does not make them “unreal” or “illusions of the mind.”
I think happiness is important … gross national happiness developed by Bhutan … here we have gross national suffering
take that from ‘buddhism’ sujeewa – we have perhaps assumed that there is such a thing as buddhism -
i am not sure – all isms are creatures of thought – therte is something that lies beyond thought – and that must be and can be experienced
but our busy, neurotic and restless mind keeps covering it
good luck with your work for the poor – when you help someone in need they dont care ab your religion right? even in SL
Dear Heshan,
“it does not explain the patterns of color in his paintings. If you had no idea of what color was, what difference will it make whether you fill one spot (region) with a certain color as opposed to another? If you examine his paintings, you see that he has no trouble with borders. In other words, there is no unwanted overlap of colors to indicate a blind person guessing which color is which. “
Remember that he has been practising painting for over 35 years. The earliest paintings he did would have looked childlike to a sighted person. He would have started with simple objects and would have had help and feedback from sighted friends and relations. This feedback from those with sight would have been the knowledge that he has in store in his mind.
The ability to create a mental image of the 3D space is his own but that image would not tally with that of a sighted person’s but would nevertheless be a mental image based on his 3D sense. That he has an uncanny sense of space even on a 2D medium is undeniable that would be a possible reason for his ability to demarcate even the 2D space with such accuracy. An accuracy developed over 35 years of practice and stored knowledge of descriptions given by sighted people integrated with his keen tactile and other receptors. The processing of the sense of touch is done in the same part of the brain as does the processing of visual Data. All these Data are processed as Electrical / Neural signals after all.
“The question is whether he is using color to create 3-D perspective on a 2-D space.”
I believe that he is using colour to create a 3D perspective. He is actually using knowledge gathered over the years of how colour can be used to do that (via feedback from sighted people).
Extract
Abstract
This article provides a critique of a recent inaccurate claim that the congenitally blind literally “see” in their dreams, which flies in the face of findings that were established in 3 careful previous studies. It first shows how this claim arose through a blurring of the distinction between actual seeing through the visual system and imagery that preserves spatial and metric properties without specific reliance on the visual system. It then discusses the 3 mistaken reasons for this blurring. This correction is important beyond the specific issue of seeing in dreams because the original findings lend important support for a cognitive theory of dreaming by showing that the imagery necessary for dreaming develops between ages 4 and 7.
————————————————–
Man article extracts
Researchers generally employ raised-line drawings that blind people can trace with their fingers. Kennedy (1993, 1997), for example, has conducted extensive empirical research showing not only that blind people are capable of drawing two-dimensional figures but also that their drawings are similar to the drawings of sighted individuals in the depiction of depth, motion, perspective, vantage point, surfaces, contours, edges, and other characteristics. Kennedy did not interpret his findings as evidence that blind people experience visual imagery. Rather, he attributed the accuracy of drawings by blind people to the overlap in information obtained through visual and tactile perceptual systems. According to Kennedy, even though vision and touch are two different perceptual systems, one responsive to light waves and the other to pressure, they are both processed in an area of the brain that encodes and integrates the common elements of information. Kennedy suggested that the area of the brain that is responsive to several modalities, not just to vision, could more accurately be called “multimodal” or “amodal.”
Blind people sometimes do employ visual language to describe their dreaming experiences, but they also use visual language to describe waking experiences that clearly do not include “seeing” things. Blind people talk about “watching TV,” “keeping an eye on things,” “seeing what you mean,” “taking a look at something,” and “visualizing a scene,” although these visual terms do not imply a visual component. These colloquial expressions are simply the most convenient phrases that blind people have for communicating their experiences. It should be noted that blind people also use the term visual to describe imagery experiences that do not fit neatly into any other category of sensory experience (Kerr & Johnson, 1991). Blind people who know, for example, that a star appears as a small spot in the night sky may include stars in an image of a nighttime scene. Although the blind person’s conception of a star may derive only from descriptions, he or she understands it as a visual phenomenon and labels it accordingly. Likewise, blind people describing dream imagery favor words such as visualize to explain their awareness of the detail of the dream environment without having to move around or touch particular aspects of the dream setting.
… activity in the visual cortex is not restricted to visual processing (Bértolo et al., 2003, p. 282). The attenuation may also be related to auditory, haptic, somatosensory, or tactile processing or, in fact, to generalized imagery processing that is tied to no specific modality
End Extract
http://psych.ucsc.edu/dreams/Library/kerr_2004.html
OTC,
“You are like a Chameleon. One day you are an Agnostic and a Skeptic the next day you are a believer (you are prepared to believe that Esref Armagan can SEE).”
I’m glad you said that.
You see, to you a person is either this or that. Can you not accept that a person may have a certain view on something (or make a certain observation eg. like pointing out parallels between Heshan’s position – as I understood it – with that of the believer of KRN) but have other views on other things?
You, like many people living in insular societies can see only in terms of ‘us and them’ – it is a whole package – like, if you are Sinhalese then you are a Buddhist, and if so you believe in ‘this’ and you oppose ‘that’. Your whole mindset is already decided by people who lived centuries ago! You are trapped by it. You have difficulty grasping the concept of individuality, the freedom to think.
OTC you said
“Your DISHONESTY is APPALLING”
I can well understand that a mindset that regards ‘individualism’ as principally ‘dishonest’ will have some difficulty understanding that an agnostic viewpoint can exist. Hey, you know what? Yes I think there is a great need to escape from something really awful, but it is not the samsara of the cycle of births. You need to escape from the awfulness of a closed mind. We are trying to help you do that.
my religion is NOT best – and religion includes views held religiously like agnosticism too
just an idea – pl read – http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385525053&view=excerpt&ref=banner_crn_ShambhalaSun_KinshipOfFaiths_9780385525053_0510
from the dalai lama – highly recommended to those interested in this kind of non – partisan thinking
Dear BalangodaMan,
Criticism is accepted and is also expected to be fair.
You are TOTALLY DISHONEST and Fabricate things at the slightest opportunity.
I challenged you to show that you made a fair criticism and you have failed to take it up. You are very free in throwing wild accusations at all and sundry but is a coward when challenged to prove them.
Here is the relevant part of my post again (in case you failed to see it).
You said
“On the second paragraph and the rest of your posts you are prepared to go the ends of the Earth in making ludicrous and fantastic claims about the afterlife, pre-lives and non-lives,”
That’s what you say about my post dated June 5, 2010 @ 2:40 pm addressed to Heshan.
Challenge you to show a SINGLE statement in my post to Heshan referred to above, even REMOTELY resembling an AFTER LIFE. (you specifically named the second para)
Off the Cuff:
Thanks for your excellent explanation of June 8th, 2008. I have finally found information about the methods employed by the Turkish painter. As you have correctly guessed, the methods were developed through trial and error:
Blind from the
> birth, Armaðan became curious about his environment at the age of six.
> “For instance,” he says, “I thought watermelons grow on trees, but they
> are on the ground.” He learned the names and colors of everything in the
> environment and memorized them. “I had the freedom to examine objects in
> my hand,” added Armaðan.
>
> “When we were together with friends, I asked them to describe the scenery
> for me.” At the age of 12-13, Armaðan thought, “I wonder if I can draw
> everything that I have asked about?” then he examined reliefs, learned the
> shapes of houses, mountains and trees. “I placed cardboard under the
> photographs in newspapers and asked people to use a hard pencil and draw
> them for me. After I checked them with my fingers, my brain started to
> sense them. I learned all colors and shapes and memorized them.”
>
> When Armaðan was 12, he started by drawing by pencil. His first drawing
> was a butterfly. Later he switched to oil painting. However, he did not
> use brushes. “If you are blind you do not understand if you are dipping
> the brush in the paint or if it has enough paint on, or if you paint the
> canvas. So, I started painting by my fingers. I have never seen the colors
> but I learned to use them,” Armaðan explained.
http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/msg07353.html
… activity in the visual cortex is not restricted to visual processing (Bértolo et al., 2003, p. 282). The attenuation may also be related to auditory, haptic, somatosensory, or tactile processing or, in fact, to generalized imagery processing that is tied to no specific modality
Quite right. An image is being processed – however the image is not acquired through the processing of sensory input obtained through sight. What is remarkable is that at one level, the same image appears in the mind whether one sees it or touches it. That is why in the Turkish fellows paintings, the objects appear exactly as they are in real life – as a person with normal sight would see them.
Oh dear Mr OTC, Sir.
When I said
“On the second paragraph and the rest of your posts you are prepared to go the ends of the Earth in making ludicrous and fantastic claims about the afterlife, pre-lives and non-lives,”
But you do!
Let me translate. Your stand in this debate is that living beings have a cycle of births, ie. this life, previous lives and lives still to come. (I’m sure you have not changed your mind).
This is what my phrase ‘afterlife, pre-lives and non-lives’ mean (the last one meaning nirvana).
Trying to understand the basis of your objection I am puzzled.
Perhaps you missed the phrase ‘and the rest of your posts’, meaning I am making an observation on your general agenda (belief in KRN), the ‘second part of your post’ being an example of it.
Perhaps you object to the word ‘afterlife’, a generic concept that covers all ideas about life beyond what we are in now, including the rebirth concept of Buddhism.
OTC, to most people in the world all forms of ‘life beyond death’ is ‘the afterlife’. You and Buddhist believers know the afterlife as a sanitised and DEFINITE cosmological and meta physical phenomenon which you call ‘rebirth’. But in essence you are still talking about something that is ‘after’ this ‘life’. Sorry, but that is the English in common use around the world.
The concept you call ‘rebirth’ comes under the general heading of ‘afterlife’ in common usage in the context of RELIGION. Now here is the problem. The ‘afterlife’ is a religious concept. Rebirth is one of the many forms of afterlife believed around the world. So far there is no problem …. until you start to claim that rebirth is not a religious concept but a real physical phenomenon. I think this is where the general concept of afterlife is a problem for you. Just as the word ‘faith’ is a problem because it is in common use in the context of religion AND you wish it to be known that your religion is the actual truth.
Religion is great … as a religion. Period.
Don’t let’s turn it into something it is not.
A screwdriver is a great tool. In carpentry. Not much use in (say) cookery or as a musical instrument.
Religion has a use as a human construct (a framework) for a variety of human needs. It is just that. It is ‘lets pretend’ so people can pin their hopes on something they can believe (Faith), like an imaginary friend.
It’s not real.
The afterlife is a religious concept. You believe in it because you believe in rebirth. Others may not.
Dear BalangodaMan,
You extracted two paragraphs from my post of June 5, 2010 @ 2:40 pm to make a dishonest charge. Below are the two paragraphs you chose.
“For anyone to claim that Esref Armagan can “SEE” colour without subjecting him to controlled tests is very naive. His colour palette would have a specific place holder for each colour. Testing could be as simple as interchanging the colour position of the palette. E.g. Colour red replaced by colour blue. If he still uses the colour red correctly, taken from a different position of his palette, instead of the Blue that now occupies the usual position of Red then it will indicate the possibility that he can recognise Red from Blue. Yet it won’t still confirm that he can “SEE” the Red from the Blue as it is possible that he can smell the difference of the composition of each colour rather than “SEE” each colour. That would mean he has developed his sense of “SMELL” to an acute level like that of a dog’s.
What I find strange is the Gullibility of “SOME” Agnostics who question everything but what they want to believe in.”
Please keep your attention on the second paragraph which has only two lines.
You state in your post of June 5, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
On the second paragraph and the rest of your posts you are prepared to go the ends of the Earth in making ludicrous and fantastic claims about the afterlife, pre-lives and non-lives, as if they are as DEFINITE as the Sun will rise tomorrow.
My charge that you FABRICATE statements and DISHONESTLY accuse others is based on the part of your statement that I have emphasized in bold, above, which specifically refers to my two line paragraph.
I have not discussed anything about religion in that paragraph but you chose to project it as such dishonestly. In fact I have not discussed Religion anywhere in that post.
I did notice the “and the rest of your posts” part in that sentence and I also noticed your DISHONEST attempt at trying to bring in Religion to a post that did not discuss it in the slightest.
Dear Heshan,
Thank you for sharing what you found about Esref Armagan. His work is an inspiration to the sighted.
Ordinary Lankan,
RE: the following:
“my religion is NOT best – and religion includes views held religiously like agnosticism too…”
I am not certain what you mean by agnosticism being a view held “religiously”. Here is, in a very basic sense, how agnosticism is used (at least by me) to determine if people are basically lying or not (under the guise of religious teachings/religious traditions, etc.):
1. Can what they say is the way that the world works/how humans are related to the universe, etc. – be checked by me to see if that view/teaching, etc. is correct – or factual – or real?
Agnosticism is not a religion – it is a method or an approach. Such as saying that those things that actually exist are of importance. Such as saying that there are true/actual things and that there are false/not actual things.
And because religions are of use to many people, the non-believers give somewhat of a pass to the existence of false or most likely speculative items that make up the core of most religions. In this case K,R.N in the Buddhist context. We are fine with saying that those things are speculative (not even saying very loudly that those things are flat out false most likely) UNTIL the religious – whether it be Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. decide to use their religious beliefs to justify their political/taking land & property of other people/focing people to behave in a certain ways projects. When that happens it is important for non-believers to point out that the so-called “truths” at the core of most religions are a set of speculative ideas.
The world is most likely mostly agnostic or mostly made up of non-believers (though they may fall under culturally Buddhist, Christian, etc.). When the believers attempt to use their speculation based world views to re-shape the world, it is a good idea for non-believers to oppose it. Full on religious belief (and religious belief not kept in check via reason) can be an obstacle to progress/has been in the past on this planet.
- S
Ordinary Lankan,
Re: “good luck with your work for the poor – when you help someone in need they dont care ab your religion right? even in SL”
Thanks. Poverty is that arrow that’s wounded SL. Pulling it out requires the ability to tell real things apart from speculative things. Once the arrow is pulled out we can figure out who shot it (we ourselves, the “western conspiracy”, Dutugemunu, the Cholas, etc.
& what the arrow is made of, etc.
Poverty in Sri Lanka is definitely (same for poverty in the US & most other places with talented & driven people) unnecessary suffering – as SL & Diaspora has enough money at its command during a given year to completely get rid of poverty in SL. Most are however unable to see this – because they have been trained to worry about the after-life & the soul & nirvana, etc. (or far less spiritual things such as a separate state, etc.
instead of being encouraged to focus on things that need to get done & collaborating with like-minded others to make it happen.
All that, however, should end soon. Let’s hope
& do the work.
- S
OTC, there you go with knickers in a twist.
The operative word that triggered my comment was your use of the word ‘gullibility’. Agnostics are agnostics because they want to get as far away from being ‘gullible’ as possible. I am a keep spotter of gullibility. In my view, and I know you disagree, belief in KRN is a sign of gullibility – as is the belief in god, the truth fairy and Santa Claus. In the case of KRN, those I have met who believe in such do so because peer pressure make them so believe. That’s just my observation. If peer pressure dictated that they believe in Jesus they will have done so. And they do, those who do.
Therefore I found it ironic that you accuse agnostic people of being ‘gullible’! Agnosticism is the opposite of gullibility, in my understanding.
Sujeewa
some extracts from something I wrote a while back – and this is published by OL
there are levels of religion –
Religious texts discern three levels from which truth seekers, depending on their psychological evolution and tendencies, relate to belief systems. The lowest level is the energetic seeker who engages in the service of others. At the middle level is the devotee who relies on the disciplined observance of rituals for spiritual growth. The intellectual seeker occupies the highest level. His or her actions are governed by wisdom sought critically and with openness. Actions when taken are based on this inner light rather than a dogmatic belief in the value of service or ritual for their own sake. As a result the intellectual seeker curbs the likelihood of harm to others as a consequence of his or her actions. The energetic seeker has more devotion and less intellect whilst the devotee inclines more towards knowledge than action. Needless to say these are broad categories.
and on religion not being an approach – that is not the way i do it – to me religion is an approach
Religion is not a concept but an approach. It is an exploration of reality – a search for meaning beyond words and concepts. Race on the other hand is a master concept. The former is a search for truth. It is beyond convention. The latter however is convention and based on human agreement. Whilst religion opens the door to right understanding race seems to shut it. Yet the relationship between them appears to be one of interdependence.
Religion represents spiritual interests whilst race represents temporal interests. Spirituality and good governance are inter-dependent. One cannot survive without the other. The nature of this relationship may be illustrated as follows.
Society may be compared to a clay lamp filled with oil (lay support for spiritual orders) and the lighted wick (genuine monks and religious men). The oil must be used 100% for spiritual practice which consists of burning itself continuously and selflessly to provide illumination to society. The needs of monks are few being the basic needs supplied by the lay community. The lay community on the other hand requires guidance from monks, through example and precept, on the proper conduct of the business of life. When religious orders are filled with rogues who grow fat on lay sustenance without providing the required illumination, both spiritual and temporal interests suffer. As a result society as a whole descends to the physical and racial level – which if not balanced by spiritual insight resembles a nasty, brutal and merciless conflict between animals.
In a functional (as opposed to a dysfunctional) society religion and race combine to safeguard the ethical foundation of the community through appropriate forms of social organization. Race serves religion – not the other way around. Pride of place is thus given to upholding spirituality which in the final analysis enables the community to transcend the notion of race and become part of a modern nation state.
let me know your contact mail – checked the blog out – its good – there are people from all walks of life who want to see a fresh and practical approach to religion – we need to leave these feudal ties behind – at least NOW
Ordinary Lankan,
RE: the following (& the post with the following):
“let me know your contact mail – checked the blog out – its good – there are people from all walks of life who want to see a fresh and practical approach to religion – we need to leave these feudal ties behind – at least NOW”
Couple of interesting items in that post to respond to – re: the concept of race or races (which, for me is purely a social/intellectual construct – an idea only, changeable at will, thus not a hard physical reality – as opposed to gender differences, those are actual physical differences), and the relationship with teachers of ethics & spirituality (monks) and their lay followers (from a Buddhism frame work that relationship you mentioned is good – well, from a feudal/ancient Buddhist framework, but, as the monks do not participate fully in modern life (money making, war, romance, family life, running businesses, making art, etc.) their knowledge is limited, thus, other sources of knowledge/gudiance/wisdom outside of those provided by monks are necessary these days). Anyway, will elaborate after I’ve read any other related material that you’ve posted on a blog/will e-mail, etc.
You can e-mail me at wilddiner AT aol.com. I’ll also add a contact link to the SL agnosticism & Greater SL sites/blogs this weekend.
Also, if you want to post anything at SL Agnosticism or Secualr Sri Lanka or related sites, re: a more useful approach to dealing with religious advice & contemporary problems & needs/goals to accomplish that have arisen long after the invention of Buddhism, let me know/e-mail them to me.
- S
OL,
Good insight in your piece to Sujewa.
Question for you: how do you think religious societies (races) will maintain it’s ‘traditional’ religion going into the future (say) 2 or 3 generations when all things indicate that we are likely to have a more educated society who have access to wider points of view and choice? Will insular societies such as we have in SL need to restrict access to alternative points of view? If not won’t SL in 100 years time be less Buddhist in number?
Dear BalangodaMan,
How does Gullibility and my post about the Congenitally Blind boil down to Religion?
Remember you accused me of many things, referring to the second para you duplicated. That post (let alone the para) did not contain any reference to religion.
So you invented one.
Which proves that you are DISHONEST.
Does that convoluted Logic stem from consuming Shilboot / Hallucinating Drugs or Post Self Hypnotic Trance auto suggestions?
I used the word “Gullibility” to refer to the otherwise soul searching scientific investigators who are prepared to “BELIEVE” that a Congenitally Blind person can “SEE” without a working Retina. This brings in to question the professed Agnosticism. Is it just a “CLOAK” to be Fashionable?
You were prepared to “BELIEVE” and dispensed with the Rational, Agnostic, inquiring, Scientific, argument because the Idea of being able to see without a WORKING RETINA suited your argument even though such a thought flies in the face of Rationality. To Hell with Rationality if you can win an argument by any means, right?
You were GULLIBLE to swallow a suggestion that the Congenitally Blind who do not posses a Working Retina could see, without subjecting that suggestion to the Rigors of Agnostic inquiry.
This is what you said
“Unfortunately even the best analogies can have a ‘blind spot’ where it does not fit the scenario and purpose, and sometimes (like now) someone knowledgeable about the subject of the analogy (like you Heshan) comes along and takes it to pieces.”
I cannot see any challenge of Heshan’s statement. But I see “Blind Belief” of what Heshan said. That to me is GULLIBILITY PERIOD.
B-Man,
Re: the following Q your posted to OL:
“Question for you: how do you think religious societies (races) will maintain it’s ‘traditional’ religion going into the future (say) 2 or 3 generations when all things indicate that we are likely to have a more educated society who have access to wider points of view and choice? Will insular societies such as we have in SL need to restrict access to alternative points of view? If not won’t SL in 100 years time be less Buddhist in number?”
Here’s my answer to that Q: development/access to all the information in the world/intellectual freedom, etc. does not mean that religion will disappear. For example – lots of intellectual & religious freedom in the US, & lots of people (the majority) still participate in religions.
Belief in Race Theory, however, will go away, I think, in SL. Since it will appear to many, specially now, after the war, that there is no significant difference between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. So, in the future, we could have more Sinhala Christian’s & Hindus, & more Tamil Buddhists. People who want a religion will pick one that makes the most sense to them & appeals most to them. So, the days of keeping people imprisoned to a lingustic-religious identity will come to an end as the country further develops. Anyway, that’s the positive possibility. Even when fully developed, I expect to see the majority in SL still following Buddhism as the religion.
The negative possibility for the future is that after a brief period of peace, Sinhala nationalism/separatism or Tamil nationalism/separatism will come back to life & then we will be back at war. Hopefully that will not happen.
- S
B-Man & OTC,
I do not see any “dishonesty” by B-Man in this “can the blind be convinced of the existence of color” discussion.
And, if the blind not being able to be convinced of the existence of color has no relation to the larger discussion about K, R, N being real (as OTC claims), I do not see why this topic is important.
Millions of people can verify that color is real & can also prove this to others (people with working eyes).
No one can verify and prove to millions of others that K, R, N is real.
Color and K,R,N are not similar things. Thus, to use the existence of color to support an argument for the existence of K,R,N is nonsensical.
The God concept in Christianity & Islam are similar to K, R, N in Buddhism.
Existence of color & the blind is similar to existence of x-rays or other “invisible to the naked eye” things & the sighted. In both cases there are methods to prove to the people who cannot see a certain thing that those things are in fact real, are a part of the real world.
Many blind may accept the existence of color in the world by reading accounts of color in newspaper articles & other factual documentation of the world & by speaking with sighted people that they trust – based on previous experiences with them.
::
Also, B-Man, tell us more about the arahant that you know.
- S
Dear Sujewa,
“I do not see any “dishonesty” by B-Man”
Expected response from you.
“Hora ge Amma gen Pena ahanawa wage”
Lot’s of water has flown under the bridge when it comes to the discussion about the Congenitally Blind and Light and Colour. Though very late in the day, would be interesting to see how you CONVEY the CONCEPT of light and Colour to the CONGENITALLY BLIND.
OTC, you say: “That post (let alone the para) did not contain any reference to religion.”
That’s a rather odd thing to say, given that this entire conversation has been about religion. So I too assumed that this tangential discussion on vision was to somehow buttress your case for KRN? The problem is, all of that only serves to prove something we already agree upon – “we don’t know”. How you move from there, to “I’m pretty certain this stuff is true so I’m going to live my life based on it and think others ought to also”, is what’s unclear to the rest of us.
OTC,
RE: “Lot’s of water has flown under the bridge when it comes to the discussion about the Congenitally Blind and Light and Colour. Though very late in the day, would be interesting to see how you CONVEY the CONCEPT of light and Colour to the CONGENITALLY BLIND.”
I mentioned this at least two times earlier (go up & see if you have the time), but the following method can be used to “prove” to the blind that light & color are real aspects of this world;
1- have them (the blind) read (using braile – sp?, etc.) or hear factual recordings/observations made in human history – going all the way back to the Greeks & beyond (Romans will probably help, they kept a lot of records) – or, if that’s too far back for authentication, have them read news articles, literature, etc. from early 1900′s & after. The readers, the blind readers, will be able to see that there are millions of instances where the factual existence of light & color have been recorded in human history. So, that info. should make it possible for many of the blind to accept that light & color exists in the real world, though they themselves cannot see it because they do not have working eyes.
2 – Another possible way is for the blind to explore the photography & video & film industries. By reading about or hearing about those industries the blind should be able to understand that how those industries make money is by manufacturing images (with the help of light & color) & then selling those images to customers. Such products, or such industries, cannot exist if light & color did not exist (even black & white photos need light). And if the blind in question understand that people are not ready to easily part with their money then they could understand that there are actual products that exist (photos, movies, video, etc.) that people pay money to have/get.
3 – Another way, along the same lines, is for the blind person or persons to call every photography or camera store in town/or in a big city like NYC, & ask them how cameras & photography work. No doubt the answers will include references to light and color.
OTC, let me know if you think if at least SOME blind people may be convinced of the existence of light & color via the methods mentioned above.
- S
OTC,
I would echo Sujewa’s sentiment about ‘blind and colour’ and your ‘what’s that to do with religion’. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you posted a question on the wrong thread, but I am pretty sure the question was about a claim by you that ‘KRN is real because we can’t verify it’ or some such nonsense.
In both cases there are methods to prove to the people who cannot see a certain thing that those things are in fact real, are a part of the real world.
I think the “indirect proof” has been beaten to death… the point is that a congenitally blind person will never know for sure (at least not directly) that color is real. Yet we, the sighted, know it “exists”. Then again, this raises the question of whether what we perceive is “real” or is it just relative. An owl can spot a mouse from 200 ft in the air, yet if it were a human, he/she would not see any movement. As far as science is concerned, this question has been answered: that human senses are unreliable, period, and technology is a far more accurate substitute. This raises yet another existential issue: since science deals only with what is, what about that which exists, but science has yet to conceive of? Regardless of what science has achieved in its relatively short life span, it is still a human endeavor, and every human endeavor has certain limitations – for example, we can explore the moon, but we cannot travel to every part of the Universe. I think it is human nature to postulate what might exist in place of what we don’t know actually exists. Perhaps, at the end of the day, it is impossible to be 100% rational. To be 100% would imply you never made a mistake.
*you would never make a mistake.
Sujewa,
“Also, B-Man, tell us more about the arahant that you know.”
Well, nobody took that up. And I don’t know one.
I was going to ask OTC and the believers that if there was one living today, and if he said that KRN are not real things in the world/universe would the Believers accept that to be true? OR will they say that, in that case, he cannot be an arahant?
Question was about, how do Believers decide who to believe? (it must have been current in the discussion at the time) Also, for the same purpose I asked, if someone said he can tell you next week’s lottery numbers will you (say) pay him $10,000 for it?
Yes, there will always be religion. But if freedom of choice prevails there will be as many Sinhalese Hindus and there will be many Tamil Buddhists – and indeed Sinhalese Shilboots, Sai Bababians, agnostics etc. Whatever the result SL is unlikely to remain 70% Sinhalese Buddhist … UNLESS a law is brought in to define one’s ‘official’ religion as that of your ancestors, regardless of whether you chose a different one for yourself, OR introduce severe penalties for changing your religion away from Buddhism. So, every time I hear someone say SL is 70% Buddhist and must remain so I ask them how that proportion can be maintained in a free society free from religious-coercion.
Heshan,
Re: “Perhaps, at the end of the day, it is impossible to be 100% rational. To be 100% would imply you never made a mistake.”
I think that is an entirely other gigantic discussion
– what is rationality & can someone be 100% rational. I think, in the agnostic viewpoint, it is implied that we are uncertain if anything is 100% so – specially seemingly speculative things at the core of ancient religions, as we discussed above at length. Anyway, certain things require certain approaches. For example, fixing a flat tire requires that we deal strictly with the problem at hand and not the problem as a metaphor or any religious significance of the problem (though those approaches may be interesting also). Watching a fictional movie requires that we suppress our awareness that the story is not real if we want to enjoy it – we can’t keep saying to ourselves that those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park movie are not real as we watch the movie, it would take the fun out of the activity. Acknowledging what actually appears to exist and what does not appear to be real is a useful process, which may be an approach that is a part of rationality or something that can be filed under another name – maybe practicality or dealing with things as they are. Anyway, a person can lead a perfectly good/fun/useful life without having to buy into speculative items at the core of religions (God, gods, karma, nirvana, rebith, etc.).
- S
Heshan,
Re: “I think the “indirect proof” has been beaten to death… the point is that a congenitally blind person will never know for sure (at least not directly) that color is real. Yet we, the sighted, know it “exists”. Then again, this raises the question of whether what we perceive is “real” or is it just relative.”
We appear to be real.
- S
B-Man,
RE: “Also, for the same purpose I asked, if someone said he can tell you next week’s lottery numbers will you (say) pay him $10,000 for it?”
I would say to that dude “tell me the numbers, and if you are correct, I’ll pay you $10K after I collect the winnings”, & I can sign an agreement with him saying that I will perform as promised/will pay him the $10K.
- S
To agnostics & others who are interested in development/anti-poverty work in SL (found a ‘new to me’ org):
http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/2010/06/link-of-day-navajeevana.html
Myself & a couple of other secularists are working on getting a small donation (hopefully the 1st of many) together for that org Navajeevana. They can provide some basic training in IT for 1 disabled person, 1 day training thing, for 600 rupees. Also they can educate a child for 1 year for 30,000 rupees (i think that’s about $300). So they say on their site: http://www.navajeevana.com/Support.html.
- S
Sujewa,
“I would say to that dude “tell me the numbers, and if you are correct, I’ll pay you $10K after I collect the winnings”, & I can sign an agreement with him saying that I will perform as promised/will pay him the $10K.”
Aah, that’s not the deal though.
To OTC, how about applying the same to religion? ‘We’ll believe it when we see it’.
Hey, that’s an idea. Next time the local monks guarantee that giving them a ‘daney’ will directly benefit my uncle who died 10 years ago … hmmm … doesn’t it contravene the Sale of Goods Act? Or is religious promises exempt? and if so why?
Sujeewa and BM
thanks for your responses – re question below -
Question for you: how do you think religious societies (races) will maintain it’s ‘traditional’ religion going into the future (say) 2 or 3 generations when all things indicate that we are likely to have a more educated society who have access to wider points of view and choice? Will insular societies such as we have in SL need to restrict access to alternative points of view? If not won’t SL in 100 years time be less Buddhist in number?
conventional buddhism will certainly find that it is threatened – not only by non religious approaches but also by international movements like engaged buddhism – of which the local version is old sarvodaya -
my view is (and this is what some cutting edge US thinkers are also thinking) that there is an increasing convergence of different spiritual approaches that will form a new humanistic approach to the challenges we face – and an initial challenge of course is religious division and prochialism – but the answers can be found from within religion itself when we take a deep approach and re-interpret with the benefit of experiential engagement
dont treat buddhism in SL as an unchanging monolith – it is changing and you need to ask the insiders – not just from those taking part in this discussion – how and where it is going – my suggestion is that you will find it both exciting and interesting to see where the young buddhists are going – at least the under 40′s
change is the law – even when we think that there is no change -
Ordinary Lankan,
Very encouraging for SL.
Agree that a humanistic world ‘religion’ mindset will emerge eventually, taking all the good bits and discarding the bad. It is already happening in some sense in the ‘freedom to think’ parts of the world.
I think while intellectual Buddhism is a proactive pursuit of self-discovery most ‘Buddhists’ is SL prefer instead (even want) to be led; or are wanting to remain comfortable within the framework of early conditioning (sadly with its baggage, such as racist ‘truths’, the ‘undeniable truth’ of KRN etc). This is a great need as most people are poor, inadequately educated and not trained intellectually.
The New Age Buddhism will hence be regarded as a Western thing (therefore rejected as fake, a distortion) – in fact I often come across an accusation that it is some Western conspiracy against Theravada Buddhism. You see it in this thread too. Interestingly, ‘new age humanistic Buddhism’ is also similar to the Agnostics’ position in this thread.
Practical Buddhism. Now that’s an idea …
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“That’s a rather odd thing to say, given that this entire conversation has been about religion. So I too assumed that this tangential discussion on vision was to somehow buttress your case for KRN?”
How can it be ODD to state a fact?
What is ODD is to attribute to someone something that is not stated by that person and that is Dishonest.
My contribution in this thread was mainly to show that the METHOD and STANDARD of proof that is demanded is irrational as Science has not matured to be able to dissect a Philosophy like Buddhism. I have shown many things that are true but without Scientific or Rational proof.
My position has been that Karma (Premeditated Action) and its result (Vipaka) requires no proof in this life but when it comes to the question of a Carry Over to a subsequent life there is no Scientific proof YET. Except for a few cases there is a dearth of scientific investigation in this field. The Stargate project yielded results in Remote Viewing but was shut down due to pressure.
I believe in the carry over of Karma as it provides a believable explanation to the disparity seen in the world. Why should not everyone have the same opportunities in life? Is it only chance that gives one living being an advantage over the other? When everything else in the world has a cause why should we think that there is no cause for this disparity? Do we have to assume that there is no cause because Science has been unable to find one? What makes one believe that a Scientific cause will not be found for ever? If there is belief in the carry over of Karma then Rebirth is just a corollary. So would be the cessation of that cycle. However as you pointed out why should we not be made aware of the reason for our fortune or misfortune? Why should we not remember what we have done in a previous life that is bringing a result in this life? It is stated that when the mind is sharpened to a fine level we can remember our previous life but then why should we not remember it now? That is a question mark that I have been pondering over from the time you pointed it out. Could not find a possible reason yet but that is insufficient reason for me to reject Karma outright.
It is impossible to convey the CONCEPT of light and colour to the Congenitally Blind as they have not experienced it. The main reason is the inability of Science to interface to the Brain at a Neurological and Electrical level. When Science MATURES in that field to be able to interface to the Brain, then the Congenitally Blind will experience Light and Colour. Till then the CONCEPT would be beyond the reach of the Congenitally Blind and beyond the reach of Science to convey it to them.
If you can remember my previous posts I have stressed on the IMMATURITY of Science or any other Logic system available today to investigate the carry over of Karma. Remember that my argument is about the Inappropriateness of the Investigative Tool and is NOT to provide proof on the carry over of Karma.
Dear Heshan,
“the point is that a congenitally blind person will never know for sure (at least not directly) that color is real. Yet we, the sighted, know it “exists”.
You have understood the real reason why I brought up the subject.
The Congenitally Blind will NEVER know the CONCEPT of Light and Colour either Directly or Indirectly. Simply because they have never experienced it and they do not possess the equipment by which to sense it.
One day in the Future however Science will be able to interface to the Brain Neurologically and Electrically and be able to convey the required signals to the Brain to allow the Congenitally blind to experience these two phenomena.
The failure to convey the Concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind lies in the current state of Science not in the reality of the phenomena called Light and Colour.
Dear Sujewa / BalangodaMan,
This is what I said.
would be interesting to see how you CONVEY the CONCEPT of light and Colour to the CONGENITALLY BLIND.
I did not ask you to prove it to the Congenitally Blind BUT to CONVEY THE CONCEPT of Light and Colour to them.
The Congenitally Blind will not know the CONCEPT of Light and Colour either Directly or Indirectly. Simply because they have never experienced it and they do not possess the equipment by which to sense it.
One day in the Future however Science will be able to interface to the Brain Neurologically and Electrically and be able to convey the required signals to the Brain to allow the Congenitally blind to experience these two phenomena.
You see, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to CONVEY the CONCEPT of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind. Period.
The failure to convey the Concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind lies in the current state of Science not in the reality of the phenomena called Light and Colour.
Dear Off the Cuff:
The Congenitally Blind will NEVER know the CONCEPT of Light and Colour either Directly or Indirectly. Simply because they have never experienced it and they do not possess the equipment by which to sense it.
Well, if the light gives off heat, then they can sense the heat energy – an “indirect” proof. But as you have correctly stated, the inability of their retinas to process the light signals prevents them from experiencing light, such as we do.
One day in the Future however Science will be able to interface to the Brain Neurologically and Electrically and be able to convey the required signals to the Brain to allow the Congenitally blind to experience these two phenomena.
The failure to convey the Concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind lies in the current state of Science not in the reality of the phenomena called Light and Colour.
You can still convey the concept indirectly. For example, you might begin by telling a blind person that color can be used to distinguish different objects. You would first have to explain to them the meaning of the word “different,” which is not difficult. They could touch a large object and then a small object – that would be one difference. Hot and cold is another. Wood and plastic. As we have discussed in some detail, a blind person has an excellent perception of space – and in space, the various volume dimensions of objects can vary greatly. I think the difficulty – or limitation – here, is not with science, but with semantics. Everyday human language has evolved only to describe what we experience directly with our 5 senses. This does not mean that we cannot describe what we do not see – what it means is that in order to so, a more abstract approach is required. My personal preference is a quantitative approach , e.g. something along the lines of advanced mathematics, but for most humans, philosophy/religion has so far been the primary tool.
Dear All;
I am sorry that I could not be in the discussion for some time. The primary objective from our part set at the beginning of the discussion was to answer the allegations leveled by various quarters against Buddhism and its practices in Sri Lanka. However, later it was limited to the questioning of transcendental components of Buddhism: karma, rebirth and nirvana on the basis of the knowledge system developed in the western world until the development of “Newtonian Science” and its popularized notions. I think Heshan tried on Principles of Newtonian science and SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake and BaangodaMan tried it on popular notions of Science, not even properly understanding the Principles of Newtonian science. On the basis of the “traditions” found in the Newtonian Science and its popular notions the critics of Buddhism demanded the “rational proofs” to transcendental things, displaying their “deterministic discipline”. They did not realize that their utmost faith in Science or Scientific Worldview itself barred them from a free and unbiased inquiry of another worldview. They went to investigate another worldview with the bias that scientific world view was superior to other views and to view it through their sunglasses. They fall into the weird trap of inquiring something which is outside of their knowledge system, using the methodologies found in their system. The weirdest thing was that they did so while admitting that there are things out side their purview. They were failed to identify Buddhism as a separate worldview and tried to identify it as a subclass of Science.
We (especially Off the Cuff, wijayapala and I) repeatedly pointed out that Newtonian outlook was not a significant outlook today after the development of Modern Science, but they could not come out of their outdated trap of worldview. However, it seems that Heshan who has the discipline of Science later realized that there is a truth in our argument. Most peculiar thing is that people who have no knowledge in either system are grabbing one worldview and vehemently rejecting the other. Their problem was the acute attachment to popular beliefs and the lack of understanding of the scope and limitations of what they believe.
Please see the following for the imitations of science.
1. http://www.csiro.au/csiro/channel/pchas.html
2. Science Cannot Provide Complete Answers to All Questions
There are many matters that cannot usefully be examined in a scientific way. There are, for instance, beliefs that—by their very nature—cannot be proved or disproved (such as the existence of supernatural powers and beings, or the true purposes of life). In other cases, a scientific approach that may be valid is likely to be rejected as irrelevant by people who hold to certain beliefs (such as in miracles, fortune-telling, astrology, and superstition). Nor do scientists have the means to settle issues concerning good and evil, although they can sometimes contribute to the discussion of such issues by identifying the likely consequences of particular actions, which may be helpful in weighing alternatives.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm#sci
Really such adamant scientific worldview holders have already done a massive harm to the traditional knowledge systems prevailed in our countries. On the basis of the popular and authoritative Newtonian opinions and questioning, many of our knowledge like indigenous healing systems, rituals, belief systems, habits, values, social organizations, technology etc. etc. were abandoned without any inquiry. We have thrown away our green leaves to catch a running deer. (Duwana muwan deka nodamaw nelu pala)
Thanks!
correction…
Link (1). above should be
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~pcknox/teaching/phil/scope.htm
THANKS!
OTC,
“I believe in the carry over of Karma as it provides a believable explanation to the disparity seen in the world.”
Ok. Yours is ONE plausible explanation – among millions of others.
Here is one of those other million scenarios – equally BELIEVABLE.
Try this.
‘Beings’ with the potential to be born into a life (as we know it) ‘exist’ in some other dimension (somewhere else, not where we are right now). They are able to choose what kind of ‘life experience’ they want to have – this is like selecting which book to read or what movie to watch. These ‘beings’ may choose, this time, an adventure story or a really sad and tragic one with much pain, or some other among millions of possible ‘life content scenarios’. Next time they may select an entirely different one, or as in book reading, may choose one of the same genre, or perhaps none at all. They may make their selection on the basis of what emotion they wish to experience, or on the basis of what they want to learn, or on the basis of watch they want to do to other ‘people’, or million other reasons.
These ‘beings’ are what we know as ‘us’ – you and me. In this scenario what kind of life we have on Earth is one that we have CHOSEN, for whatever reason. So the difference between YOUR explanation and this is that what we encounter in this life is our own choosing – of course, in this life we are limited in our capacity to know this or why we chose as we did. It is like when you go to see a movie where you cannot know that it is a movie and not real, until it is over. But we know it as an individual choice before we started, or perhaps selected for us or recommended by some other ‘being’ as appropriate – like our teacher choosing a course of study for us at college.
So in this scenario, it does not matter whether you do good things or bad, whether it is pre-meditated or not. It is a ‘life experience’ that starts and ends, and whatever happens in between is forgotten. The good and bad are part of the ‘designed content’ of the life one selects. For example, one might CHOOSE to experience the life of a murderer. Hitler may have CHOSEN his life.
OTC, how plausible is this explanation?
(and have your seen the movie The Matrix’? If so how did you understand it?)
OTC,
Another scenario is based on the thing called RANDOM. Right now we, in our limited capacity as humans, cannot comprehend ‘random’. Random would explain why certain lottery numbers are selected and not others. Why someone is born as a beggar and not a king.
Maybe someday we will understand ‘random’ – like we once did not understand the cosmos, now we do to a larger extent. What you are saying is, what we know as ‘random’ is determined by some (devine?) moral judgement. PHEW!
(‘devine’ … by definition moral judgement is ‘devine’ . Pls don’t try to argue against this OTC!)
OTC,
I said …
“(‘devine’ … by definition moral judgement is ‘devine’ . Pls don’t try to argue against this OTC!)”
Before you launch into a another merry-go-round let me clarify what I mean.
There is no reason to suppose that the workings of the physical universe is influenced by concepts of morality, because morality is a human idea. For example, you do not expect an apple to fall to the ground harder if it is a bad or a naughty apple, do you?
So, what I mean by ‘devine’ is the (whatever) that makes these moral judgements (including KRN). Now, just so that you don’t start off on another tangent – I don’t mean a man in a long white beard with the slogan ‘Christian God’ on his t-shirt. I mean the ‘force’ that administrates this moral judgement (since the laws of nature/physics no not appear recognise morality, let alone make a fine distinction on whether it is pre-meditated, justified or whether justified through existence of mitigating factors – all of which are judgements with necessary human subjective considerations).
Mr. Yapa’s latest post reminds me of Dawkins’ article: Lying for Jesus.
(http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394)
Or for a video example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1XgqSR7WRE
I guess these arguments could be called: Bullshitting for Buddhism?
Amusingly, it is apparently the “scientific worldview holders” who are adamant and have done irreparable harm to society. How about that!!! Mr. Yapa decries the abandonment of “indigenous healing systems”, not realizing that any indigenous healing system immediately becomes mainstream medicine the moment it passes a double blind trial. Yet, Mr. Yapa, in great anguish, blames those foolish, (decadent?) western scientists for the veda mahattaya’s inability to make his thailayas stand up to the test. Ane manda Sarath!
But things get curioser and curioser still. Mr. Yapa then goes on to claim that the “scientific world view holders” are adamant, when all they are saying is that they don’t know! The Buddhists are the one’s claiming to know for sure about rebirths, karmas and nirvanas. The mind boggles.
Dear BalangodaMan,
I have stated my case very clearly in my post to SD on June 12, 2010 @ 10:46 pm.
I don’t go off on Tangents as my posts have been consistent in addressing the “METHODS and STANDARDS of PROOF” that you demand.
I have clearly stated that the methods you chose are too IMMATURE to deal with a Philosophy like Buddhism as it can’t even explain known real phenomena. You have not proven otherwise.
I believe in certain things that my reasoning tells me are believable but I don’t expect you to believe in what I believe in. You are free to believe in whatever you want to believe in. I respect your right to believe in anything you want to. You can even believe that a Human can see without a working Retina. That’s your choice.
But one thing I don’t do is to manufacture statements and dishonestly attribute those statements to others.
Dear Heshan,
No indirect method will ever provide the experience needed to understand the concept of Light and Colour to someone who had never had such an experience in His/Her entire life.
If you use the heating property of light such a person will associate light with heat (such as when using a magnifying glass to focus an image of the sun on the flesh). Heat is an experience that such a person has had but not Light.
There are many other properties of a concentrated beam of light (such as metal cutting etc) but none of them will be able to convey the ILLUMINATING property of light to the Congenitally Blind. That group of people simply do not have the faculties needed to associate light with illumination. Hence it will be impossible to convey the concept that light illuminates to a person that has no experience of it. That person does not understand what illumination is.
The Turkish painter is probably the World’s best congenitally blind exponent who can use colour. But he does not know what colour is as he has had no experience of it. He uses a system that he has developed, without which he would be helpless in doing what he is doing.
Hopefully science will be able to either develop a method to do an Eye transplant or neurologically and electrically interface to the brain. An Eye transplant would mean a nerve transplant too as the optic nerve may be required to be transplanted. It will happen one day but for now Science is incapable of doing so. Science is still Immature to be able to tackle such a task.
Mr Yapa,
As SomewhatDisgusted said, ‘we simply do not know’. But if you DO know then we are curious and are all ears! We’d dearly love to hear the reasons why you are so sure – ‘definitely’ as OTC has said on more than one occasion.
That’s all.
I don’t think anyone is criticising Buddhism here. We are trying to understand why you are sure of those things that are merely speculative (most likely). I am personally disappointed that as advocates of things that cannot be proved you guys are doing a poor job of it IMO.
Mr Yapa, attacking science in this debate is a complete herring rouge (as they say in France). It is irrelevant and a diversion. The question we are asking is: HOW WOULD YOU PROVE to someone who was not born into a Buddhist society (and therefore not subject to the early conditioning you had) that KRN are real true things in the world?
The challenge was ‘using science or whatever other means you choose’.
So far it seems that, only people who have this early conditioning (at an age of under 8 years when our critical faculties were not yet developed and we are totally dependent on our environment for emotional security) believe this stuff as the truth. This is similarly true of Christian and Muslim believers and also other religions.
Now, about scientific progress undermining tradition – yes this is a huge things. The Monkey Trials of the 1920s, Galileo’s excommunication, and more recently the effect of the Human Genome Project on concepts of race. Yes, lots of antiquated agenda’s are being destroyed. Is astrology real? Why not ban astronomy to protect astrology in SL? I asked earlier, does the Sale of Goods Act (or whatever the consumer protection legislation in SL is) exempt religion and voodoo from it’s scope? Mr Yapa, you avoided answering that!
Dear Off the Cuff:
It is possible to understand a concept on different levels. For example, for a seeing person, the grass is green and it has a certain texture. But what does the grass is “green” really mean? It means the grass is not red, blue, pink, violet… it means the grass possesses a particular unique property – its color. A blind person can understand that color might be used to distinguish one object from another – without experiencing light/color directly. He can understand one of the properties of the color – that color serves as an identifying market. He can also be taught that light is radiation, by experiencing the heat given off through radiation. In other words, when you see an object, and it is a certain color, you are seeing the external form of the object only. It’s internal properties need not depend on color. It’s internal properties may not even be visible to your direct sight. Now, I am saying, suppose the object in question is color itself. Is it possible to convey the properties of color to a blind person? Can a blind person make sense of these properties? If the answer is yes, then the blind person has indirectly affirmed that color exists. After all, if we are aware of the properties of the object, do we need to be able to see the object itself?
Yapa,
Re: the following & the entire post that it came from:
“Really such adamant scientific worldview holders have already done a massive harm to the traditional knowledge systems prevailed in our countries. On the basis of the popular and authoritative Newtonian opinions and questioning, many of our knowledge like indigenous healing systems, rituals, belief systems, habits, values, social organizations, technology etc. etc. were abandoned without any inquiry. We have thrown away our green leaves to catch a running deer. (Duwana muwan deka nodamaw nelu pala)”
This stuff that you are talking about is mostly fiction, or are off-point, or are just empty parables. If a system works well, it will be kept by people – more or less. It may be augmented with new knowledge, but, unless forced by, well, force, to give something up (in this case, by outsiders) people in SL would keep using a system, or a set of practices, that works well until better replacements, improved systems have been found. Where the traditionalists like yourself runs into problems is when you adopt the belief that all progress in a given area of human thought/knowledge was made at a certain point in the past (in this case during invention & development of Buddhism) & that looking at useful ideas in the present or looking at useful elements of future developments is useless. Things go out of use in a free or a relatively free society not because outsiders make it so, but because the people in the society no longer find those things useful, adopt new/better things, etc. For example, the Sinhalese were not Buddhists at first (according to legends/history, etc.), then, after Buddhism was introduced to the island it became popular, replacing whatever beliefs that existed prior, or alterting those in a way to make room for Buddhism. The same will be true for the next thing (new core ideas) – something more flexible than traditonal SL Buddhism & more honest, and would have great practical use for an island that has grown beyond tribalism/into a common national identity & one that is no longer isolationist or xenophobic, but is highly competetive & coorperative when & where need be w/ the rest of the world. It (the new belief system) may still be called Buddhism or a kind of Buddhism, but it will be far different than your current idea/version of Buddhism.
Anyway, whenever you start talking about Newtonian science vs. modern science etc. you are merely trying to avoid dealing with the question (because there is no firm answer that would show non-faith based support for your choice to believe K,R,N out of faith) – and the question is can karma, reincarnation, nirvana be proven to be real things that exist in this world & affect people? Can non-believers be made to understand/see that those items are real? The answer is no. Most likely because those items are symbolic devices, or are speculative, or are fictional.
In the case that OTC broght up – convincing the blind that color & light exists – we have shown how this is possible – and that’s because color & light are real things that actually exist in this world, not merely symbolic devices for maintaining a system of ethics/a world view.
There are entirely this world/this lifetime based interpertations for K, R, N (in some cases more powerful/useful than the traditional interpertation – that K, R, N are real as described in the ancient teachings) that would work well for supporting Buddhism now & in the future. But I’ll just let the believers figure those things out, since you guys are the experts
- S
OTC,
RE: the following:
“This is what I said. – would be interesting to see how you CONVEY the CONCEPT of light and Colour to the CONGENITALLY BLIND.:: I did not ask you to prove it to the Congenitally Blind BUT to CONVEY THE CONCEPT of Light and Colour to them.::The Congenitally Blind will not know the CONCEPT of Light and Colour either Directly or Indirectly. Simply because they have never experienced it and they do not possess the equipment by which to sense it.::One day in the Future however Science will be able to interface to the Brain Neurologically and Electrically and be able to convey the required signals to the Brain to allow the Congenitally blind to experience these two phenomena.:: You see, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to CONVEY the CONCEPT of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind. Period.:: The failure to convey the Concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind lies in the current state of Science not in the reality of the phenomena called Light and Colour.”
1. Light & color are real things, the sighted see that they are real & most blind people (probably) accept that they are real aspects of this world.
2. Science, or modern science, or older science, is not required to convey (here’s the meaning of the word – to convery: “to make known; communicate in words, actions, appearance, etc.”) the existence of light & color to those who cannot see them because they were born without sight. Several ways in which the existence of light & color can be conveyed to the blind have been mentioned above.
3. Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana, just like the concept of God in Christianity or the gods in older religions, or the concept of heaven, hell, afterlife, etc. – are symbolic devices (most likely) and are not real aspects of this universe. They are teaching & controlling tools, as opposed to being real things such as light & color. Thus, most likely being fictional or speculative, or symbolic things, K, R, N existing as real items in this world, universal devices or properties that affect real people outside the realm of ideas & symbols – cannot be proven or even conveyed to non-believers or people who insist on proof for those items if you say that those items are real items, and not just ideas. So, the maturity or the lack of maturity of science has nothing to do with K, R, N being speculative or false. K, R, N is what they are because they are ideas only, not real things that affect people directly. If science was never invented, K, R, N would still be speculative. K, R, N being speculative has nothing to do with science. K, R, N are speculative because they cannot be shown to be/cannot be observed to be real/actual.
If you have a different interpertation of the word convey/or are working with a different interpertaion/definition of the word convey, let me know.
- S
All,
Check out “how do you prove photography to a blind man?” article:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/how_do_you_prov.html
Believers of various, let’s say metaphysical phenomenon use a variation of “the blind cannot see such and such, just as many cannot see such and such items described in my religion, etc.” arguments. Problem being, there are ways to convey the existence of real but hard to detect items to people, but there are no ways to prove that something speculative (such as K, R, N) is in fact real.
- S
Dear OTC,
You said: “My contribution in this thread was mainly to show that the METHOD and STANDARD of proof that is demanded is irrational as Science has not matured to be able to dissect a Philosophy like Buddhism. I have shown many things that are true but without Scientific or Rational proof.”
So you are saying that Buddhism is now effectively shielded from further rational inquiry, since trying to understand it using rationality is like a blind man trying to understand colour. I think we’ve already agreed to acknowledge this as a possibility a few dozen times and let’s even go the whole hog and assume it is true! I don’t personally mind either way.
But the question that consistently remains unanswered is, out of the many such infinite possibilities, on what *basis*, do you choose to accept as true, this one particular possibility over all others? Can you give us a direct, to-the-point answer?
Dear OTC,
Let me rephrase the same question in a different way, just to make it more clear. There are *billions* of things out there we don’t know anything about, not just the notion of KRN. The question is, how do you *choose* one particular thing to believe as true out of the billions of other possibilities we similarly know nothing about? What is the basis?
OTC, to make SomewhatDisgusted’s question even more specific …
1. KRN is a possibility
2. The existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possibility
How can we be certain (‘definitely’ in your words) about 1 and not 2 ?
Dear BalangodaMan/SujewaEkanayake;
In my view karma, rebirth and nirvana have the status of “Modern Theories” considering their properties and the functions in the Buddhist doctrine and the nature. There is no better way of explaining the fate of a being before his birth and after his death and also the vast complexities in his life.
If life does not continue, birth should be the beginning of a being and death should be the end of him. Without coming to this conclusion one cannot say life does not continue or reject the “concept” of rebirth unless they disprove rebirth.(Here I am confined to “rebirth”, karma and nirvana will be discussed later) Therefore there are only two ways by which one can definitely say rebirth is non existent/not real/not true. i.e.
1. By disproving the “concept” of “rebirth”.
2. By showing “birth” is the beginning of a being and “death” is the end.
None of you have done so. Still you have been calling rebirth a “speculative item”. Tell me how you came to that conclusion? Tell me the rationality behind your mighty conclusion.
When I get the answer I will explain how karma, rebirth and nirvana fit into the status of modern theories.
Thanks!
OTC,
Re:
“My contribution in this thread was mainly to show that the METHOD and STANDARD of proof that is demanded is irrational as Science has not matured to be able to dissect a Philosophy like Buddhism.”
Science is not needed to dissect Buddhism. Simple/ordinary observation is enough. The following things: karma, reincarnation, nirvana cannot be observed to be true/real. Thus, they remain speculative items within a religion, quite possibly symbolic items used to create a frame work for teaching/following a certain ethical path & religious worldview. Buddhism is a collection of ideas that leads to a set of behavior and several ways of looking at the world and interacting with the world. It is, like all other religions, entirely a human intellectual construct, one view on the world, based on speculative things, and not a description of the world as it actually exists, or not a universal truth or an undisputed truth. This could have been pointed out hundreds of years ago (and probably was), science – modern or Newtonian, is not necessary to point out that K, R, N are speculative things, concepts/ideas only, not real things that exist in the real world (other than as ideas & people who are motivated by those ideas) and affect real people directly.
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted/BalangodaMan/SujewaEkanayake;
It is true that none has rationally proved that karma, rebirth and nirvana exist. Further, none has disproved them using any method including rationality or rationality based most developed systems such as Modern Science or Newtonian Science. Therefore one should not jump into the adamant hasty conclusion that they are not true/unreal or speculative items. Calling them arbitrarily so is unfair, unjustifiable and it is an injustice done to them. In the circumstance what any reasonable person can do is to be open minded and to say that I don’t know whether they exist or not OR I am not convinced. Anything mentioned further is arbitrary and not justifiable.
Further, it has already been proved that there are things that are not perceived by rationality (and through sensory perception) and most of the subject matter of karma, rebirth and nirvana belong to that category. Therefore it is essential to find some other method other than rationality to investigate these doctrines. I think there cannot be disagreement on this point. Therefore, if somebody really wants to explore these “concepts” he really has to find an alternative method other than rationality.
(That must be the real meaning of Off the Cuff’s bringing in “congenitally blind man” into the discussion. Just as congenitally blind man cannot identify colours, a rationalist cannot understand the above mentioned “concepts”.)
Investigating these “concepts” through popular and traditional rationality will not bear fruits. Why not try an alternative way?
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa,
“Science is not needed to dissect Buddhism. Simple/ordinary observation is enough. The following things: karma, reincarnation, nirvana cannot be observed to be true/real.”
Science is observation.
It becomes simple after someone observes but complex before that.
At the present time there is no method available to observe the Carry Over of Karma to a subsequent birth. No method to observe Rebirth.
I have shown that there are Phenomena that are true but lacks a Method for Observation. The absence of a method is due to the Immaturity of Science.
Before the Microscope was invented Microscopic organisms were unknown but that did not mean that Microscopic Organisms did not Exist before the Microscope. This is SUFFICIENT proof to show that the Human inability to observe does not make a Phenomena Untrue.
The ability to Observe is NOT the ACID TEST for Reality To believe so is rather Naive.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“But the question that consistently remains unanswered is, out of the many such infinite possibilities, on what *basis*, do you choose to accept as true, this one particular possibility over all others? Can you give us a direct, to-the-point answer? ”
Please reread my post addressed to you on June 12, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Your question was answered in that post even before you asked it.
Here is the relevant passage
Extract
I believe in the carry over of Karma as it provides a believable explanation to the disparity seen in the world. Why should not everyone have the same opportunities in life? Is it only chance that gives one living being an advantage over the other? When everything else in the world has a cause why should we think that there is no cause for this disparity? Do we have to assume that there is no cause because Science has been unable to find one? What makes one believe that a Scientific cause will not be found for ever? If there is belief in the carry over of Karma then Rebirth is just a corollary. So would be the cessation of that cycle. However as you pointed out why should we not be made aware of the reason for our fortune or misfortune? Why should we not remember what we have done in a previous life that is bringing a result in this life? It is stated that when the mind is sharpened to a fine level we can remember our previous life but then why should we not remember it now? That is a question mark that I have been pondering over from the time you pointed it out. Could not find a possible reason yet but that is insufficient reason for me to reject Karma outright.
End extract
You asked me why I chose to believe in it.
Given the questions I have raised can you tell me why I should not.
Dear Sujewa,
Entry Word: convey
Function: verb
Meaning: 1
to cause (something) to pass from one to another — see communicate 1
2 to support and take from one place to another — see carry 1
Entry Word: communicate
Function: verb
Meaning: 1
to cause (something) to pass from one to another
Synonyms convey, impart, spread, transfer, transfuse, transmit
Related Words deliver, hand over, surrender, turn over; broadcast, diffuse, disseminate, propagate; contaminate, infect, poison
Near Antonyms catch, come down (with), contract
Meaning 2
to engage in an exchange of information or ideas
Synonyms brainstorm, intercommunicate
Related Words correspond; converse, talk; bond, commune, relate; accost, approach, contact
I used the word “convey” in the context of passing the knowledge about Light and Colour a sighted person has to the Congenitally Blind
If you are more comfortable with the word Communicate instead of the word Convey please replace it with the one you are comfortable with.
The Gist of my question is about how you would make a Congenitally Blind person understand the concepts of Light and Colour as the Sighted knows it.
Please don’t confuse it with proving that Light and Colour are real. That is not the question.
In order to make the question clear, ASSUME that you are the ONLY person living amongst a World full of Congenitally Blind (I stated this before) and describe how you would Communicate to the Blind that there is something called light that allows you to see and that there is something called colour that allows you to distinguish objects WITHOUT having to use the sense of touch like they do.
How do you make sure that your Peers have the SAME understanding that you possess about Light and Colour?
Dear
SD said
“Let me rephrase the same question in a different way, just to make it more clear. There are *billions* of things out there we don’t know anything about, not just the notion of KRN. The question is, how do you *choose* one particular thing to believe as true out of the billions of other possibilities we similarly know nothing about? What is the basis? ”
BD said
“1. KRN is a possibility
2. The existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possibility
How can we be certain (‘definitely’ in your words) about 1 and not 2 ? ”
Prior to 1985 how could you be certain that the man posing as your father was actually your father and that your actual father was not anyone of the millions of males living around?
Prior to 1985 Science did not know who the Father was but yet you believed that the man claiming to be your father was actually your father. I am sure that you still believe so even now. Why on what basis? Have you done a paternity test to make sure? I don’t think so.
(this is just for argument and is not intended to hurt anyone’s feelings)
Yapa & OTC,
Do you believe that there is such a thing as an actual existence of something in the real world – such as a car or an apple?
Do you believe that the existence of such an item is of the same value/of use to humans as the non-existence of such an item? For example – is it the same thing to have a car vs. not have a car?
Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana are speculative concepts. Speculative because the existence of those items in the real world, similar to the existence of a creator God, gods of Egyptian religions, gods of ancient Norse religions, have yet to be proven to be true/real.
Proving that something exists – for example the car, vs. proving that something does not exist – for example an individual who claims to own a car but does not own a car – is not the same thing. In the first example, if someone actually does own a car, then we can move forward with the discussion – the nature of the car, how it is to be used, is it a good device or an evil device, etc. If someone does not have a car, then further discussion regarding the individual’s or anyone elses relationship to the non-existent car is useless, because we are talking about an item & a relationship that does not exist (person + car, affect of both on the world).
All things in the world can be broken down into 3 categories: 1) things that exist, 2) things that do not exist, & 3) things that may exist but we are unable to confirm whether they exist or not due to various reasons.
K, R, N falls into category 2 or 3. Category 2 is the atheist position. Category 3 is both the agnostic & believer position re: K, R, N. Except the agnostics say most likely K, R, N are concepts only, not real things. The believers say that K, R, N are real, but cannot be proven to be real to non-believers. Anyway, until K, R, N can be moved to category 1, they are speculative aspects of a religon.
- S
Sujewa:
I think that is an entirely other gigantic discussion
– what is rationality & can someone be 100% rational. I think, in the agnostic viewpoint, it is implied that we are uncertain if anything is 100% so – specially seemingly speculative things at the core of ancient religions, as we discussed above at length.
Do you think it is rational to remain uncertain? Uncertainty would imply the puzzle remains unsolved, that missing pieces remain to be found. Now, I am not proposing belief in KRN or even a theistic God as a substitute… I am considering uncertainty for its own sake, on its own terms. In science – which presupposes a “rational” approach to deconstructing the Universe – uncertainty is quantified; that is, treated in terms of likelihood/unlikehood. This is not however, a definitive answer to the question. Probability is not black and white – it stands right in the middle (unless you are Yapa and wish to deal strictly with 100% confidence intervals, which are meaningless in the real world
). There is, however, another approach to the original question. Suppose uncertainty is inevitable. For example, you may have been taught long ago that infinity is a concept. It is a concept because it is impossible to prove an infinity of anything. Can you build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms? Or a car that goes an infinite number of miles? I think the answer to the original question ,then,is, uncertainty is inevitable, given the constraints of human reasoning itself. Human reason (logic) invariably fails… where it fails, rationality no longer matters. One definition of rational involves making the choice that best serves one’s self interest. It would be difficult to make such a choice haphazardly. I think this is why religions are still around – why they have always been around. These religions serve as substitutes for rationality.
Mr Yapa,
“Why not try an alternative way?”
Yup, bring it on. What alternative way do you have?
All we have proved so far through observation is that people who have been brought up with one set of religious beliefs (of any religion) tend to believe that those beliefs are true for most if not all of their lives. So THAT is the common causal factor in all religious beliefs. If you Mr Yapa had Muslim parents you will adamantly swear on the absolute truth of Islam I bet.
Again, you are saying it is the truth because you were parented by Buddhist parents, further conditioned by others around you when you were a child – NOT because you are privy to some unique insight that we do not have access to.
Dear OTC,
You said: “The ability to Observe is NOT the ACID TEST for Reality To believe so is rather Naive.”
Excellent. I do quite agree. But please explain what the logical alternative is.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
Dear OTC,
You said: “The ability to Observe is NOT the ACID TEST for Reality To believe so is rather Naive.”
Excellent. I do quite agree. But please explain what the logical alternative is.
…………………………………
Here you are asking for a “logical” explanation.
Why are you insisting for a logical explanation? Logical explanation means a “rational” explanation.
We have already shown that rationality cannot capture these “non material” things. Further, if you can remember I have shown some time ago modern scientific notion of reality which means “if reality is written some day the language of which will not be Mathematics, Science or Logic. That means it says that at least rationality alone cannot explain reality.
Therefore it is essential that somebody seeking to find reality to explore alternative methods as well. It is quite clear that rationality cannot explain karma, rebirth and nirvana as they are non material. So asking a logical explanation in this scenario has no meaning and absurd. I think you will have to come out of that “rational trap” developed in you by outdated “Newtonian Worldview”. You will have to explore alternative ways to capture thins that are not within the reach of rationality. I think we have offered you alternative ways to understand karma, rebirth, nirvana and the whole doctrine of Buddhism. If you want we can remind and explain them in detail.
Thanks!
Heshan,
RE:
“Suppose uncertainty is inevitable. For example, you may have been taught long ago that infinity is a concept.”
Infinity is also an actual thing – most likely – as in you can count forever, you will not run out of numbers (of course you may have to invent new numbers after a while, but the process of adding more & more to numbers can be carried out forever). Also space is said to be infinite, although, I am not certain about that one, remains to be seen.
“It is a concept because it is impossible to prove an infinity of anything.”
It appears that numbers can go on forever. (numbers are also concepts, but they can be depicted in symbol form in the real world, thus, i think you can bring the idea of an infinite set of numbers into the real world by having a computer count & keep counting, & also having it display the numbers, maybe even print them out, as the numbers are being created/acknowledged).
“Can you build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms?”
No, but no one is going to try to seriously take on such a task, since space & money are limited, as well as a number of guests that can be realistically served from one hotel.
“Or a car that goes an infinite number of miles?”
This may be possible. All the parts would have to be replaced as they break down.
“I think the answer to the original question ,then,is, uncertainty is inevitable, given the constraints of human reasoning itself.”
About many things we can be certain. Significant events that happened in a small space – let’s say a room with just one person in it, in the past (yesterday let’s say), if the events that happened in that space was well documented (videotapes, observed, notes taken, etc.). If for example only 1 donut was delivered to that room all day, and the person did not have the means by which to make more donuts, and there is a lot of documentation that proves that only 1 donut was seen in the room during the time period mention, we can be certain that only 1 donut existed in the room mentioned during the time frame mentioned.
“Human reason (logic) invariably fails…”
Not so in many instances. It may fail at various instances but in many other instances it succeeds. Logic has worked pretty well for humans overall.
“where it fails, rationality no longer matters.”
An accepted rational model can help catch & correct failures in logic or in a given approach/way of thinking.
“One definition of rational involves making the choice that best serves one’s self interest.”
That’s just acting out of self-interest. But yes, in a given context, if, for example, survival depended on adopting a certain set of behaviors, that could be defended as being the rational choice.
“It would be difficult to make such a choice haphazardly.”
Depending on whether the person making the choice is well informed. Many people make choices that they think are the best one for them/out of self-interest, & then discover that they were wrong.
“I think this is why religions are still around – why they have always been around. These religions serve as substitutes for rationality.”
Religion or any such system of thinking can be a survival tool. It helps people deal with the fear of death, relate in a positive sense to the universe, & also many are trapped in religion – conditioned via teachings from childhood & via their societies to think only along certain lines – an attempt at creating an insurance policy for survival of communities & nations. Religion, or something like it, will always be around, most likely. But we can minimize it’s negative effects on the individual, nations, etc., by evaluating things based on experience, observation, reflection, discussion, usefulness/most usefulness/least usefulness, etc., & making changes to way things are being done, have been done, if the past methods have not yielded the best results. If religion is an eternal human tendency, then the manner in which we choose to deal with it will determine whether religion is useful, harmful, or neither.
- S
Dear Mr. Yapa
You said: “In the circumstance what any reasonable person can do is to be open minded and to say that I don’t know whether they exist or not OR I am not convinced. Anything mentioned further is arbitrary and not justifiable.”
Finally! So you agree that it’s not justifiable for a reasonable person to say that KRN definitely exist? It might, it might not.
Mr Yapa,
“I have shown that there are Phenomena that are true but lacks a Method for Observation.”
So are a billion other things! Including CONTRADICTORY things. How do we know which is true? Particularly when choosing between contradictory ideas, such as in deciding which religious dogma is true? (religious dogma of the various popular religions is generally contradictory)
NOW READ THIS …
Mr Yapa, my guess is that, it is because the people who told you about the ‘true’ version of the religious truth are the nice pople who gave you food, a place to sleep peacefully and emotional securty, and sent you to school as a child. Equally, in your perception, the people who believe some other supposed ‘truth’ are those nasty people your parents told you are followers of that foul and dispicable ‘other religion’ that has brought nothing but misery to the followers of your religion and did a lot of bad things in the world. Am I right? Now THIS IS something that CAN be tested scientifically/statistically!
::
More on ‘Contradictory’
————-
Colour and Light is a bad example. In using Congenitally Blind as an example we are forgetting one thing – mutually exclusive or contradictory. Replace the Colour and Light with choosing between two contradictory things neither of which cannot be obsevered (eg. KRN and The Flying Spaghetti Monster). This is what we are talking about – on what basis do we choose between two or more CONTRADICTORY (mutually exclusive) things when none of those are observable? Or better, none ‘sufficiently observable’ to facilitate making an informed choice between them?
Dear OTC,
You said: “Prior to 1985 Science did not know who the Father was but yet you believed that the man claiming to be your father was actually your father. I am sure that you still believe so even now. Why on what basis? Have you done a paternity test to make sure? “
I’m reasonably certain my father is my father because
a. My voice is identical to his
b. My appearance is very similar to his
c. The birth certificates and stories of my origins do not display inconsistencies
d. There is no reason for me to be suspicious that I am being actively deceived or misled
If not, there is a high likelihood that yes, he may not be my father. As with any other thing, it would be somewhat naive to be convinced that someone is your biological parent without adequate reason. In fact, I know at least two people who have been adopted and are *completely oblivious to the fact*, although to everyone else, it’s an open secret.
Of course, in such cases, it doesn’t really matter! After all whoever raised and cared for you in a loving environment is at the end of the day your father/mother. Does the biological parent matter if they aren’t there to look after you? Would you even have a real bond? So, on this particular issue, I think it’s OK to take it on authority, because to me at least, it doesn’t really matter.
All in all, you are yet to provide any basis for how you choose one possibility over the other, apart from raising a counter-argument about parentage which, far from the intended effect of bolstering your case, undermines it and buttresses the position of an agnostic. Can you take another crack at explaining *your basis* for choosing one possibility as true over another, instead of just letting them be what they are – possibilities?
Mr Yapa,
I said,
“Now THIS IS something that CAN be tested scientifically/statistically!”
Meaning, we can scientifically test that children who are told that their religious dogma is ‘the Truth’ go on to believe even as adults that their religion is the truth and reject other religions as untrue. A statistically provable. You can even check that informally among your friends and relatives.
Mr Yapa,
You are knocking ‘rationality’ in the same way you were knocking ‘scientific method’ in trying to prove your point.
Stop!
It is irrational to attribute something to something when there are more reasonable explanations to explain it. (eg. childhood conditioning, as I said above this is scientifically testable)
It is irrational to suggest the truth of something on the basis of the lack of truth in something else that is equally unprovable (eg.Christianity, Islam)
To suggest the truth of something on the basis of ignoring all evidence that contradicts it is irrational.
Now pls try and argue against that.
Mr. Yapa,
Looks like you are back to promoting irrationality again. The funny thing is, you use rationality to debunk God (i.e. the omnipotence paradox) and then jump to irrationality when you yourself cannot logically defend your own arguments.
Would it be redundant to say, what irrational nonsense is this?
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
Thanks for the insightful posts. You said: “…increasing convergence of different spiritual approaches that will form a new humanistic approach to the challenges we face…”
Could you clarify what you mean by “spiritual approaches” just so we are on the same page. I ask because the numinous and the superstitious are often confused.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
“Finally! So you agree that it’s not justifiable for a reasonable person to say that KRN definitely exist? It might, it might not.”
True, it is not justifiable for a reasonable person to say that KRN definitely exist ON THE BASIS OF RATIONALITY. But you know well that I do not rely entirely on rationality and hence the above statement of yours does not hold for me, and for the people who believe that rationality has a limited scope and cannot explain everything. For those who accept that rationality is not the only justifiable way of assessing things, there are other ways of assessing justifiability. Karma, rebirth and nirvana are very we justifiable through such alternative methods that are not inherent to humans like rationality. Unlike rationality, such methods/capabilities should be acquired through practice and effort of the prescribed methods. Even in day to day life there are subjects that cannot be learnt through rationality, but need sheer practice. You can’t learn to perform magic through rationality, but you need sheer practice. Can you learn swimming without jumping in to water?. Singing, playing a musical instrument, martial arts all these need practice to master them. Same way there is a different method to realize some doctrines like karma, rebirth and nirvana in Buddhism. This has been identified so by lord Buddha himself and prescribed the methodology too. Just as you have to jump into water to learn swimming, you will have to follow the prescribed methodology to understand such doctrines. You cannot learn them through mere rationality. Through rationality you can make some intelligent guesses about them, but cannot have the full understanding. Just as a man learnt swimming through rational lessons cannot think of existence of real swimmers, rationalist cannot understand karma, rebirth and nirvana really exist or not. But, not so for all others.
However, we must keep in mind that on principle a rationalist cannot call karma, rebirth and nirvana as speculative items as mentioned by me in an earlier post.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
Looks like you are back to promoting irrationality again. The funny thing is, you use rationality to debunk God (i.e. the omnipotence paradox) and then jump to irrationality when you yourself cannot logically defend your own arguments.
Would it be redundant to say, what irrational nonsense is this?
…………………………
Are you still going to say that anything not rational is nonsense?
Such beliefs got outdated long ago. They belonged to the Newtonian Era. Today there is a recognition for ” non rational things” even in the modern science of west. Today rationality is not the only horse.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa;
You say;
Do you believe that there is such a thing as an actual existence of something in the real world – such as a car or an apple?
Do you believe that the existence of such an item is of the same value/of use to humans as the non-existence of such an item? For example – is it the same thing to have a car vs. not have a car?
Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana are speculative concepts. Speculative because the existence of those items in the real world, similar to the existence of a creator God, gods of Egyptian religions, gods of ancient Norse religions, have yet to be proven to be true/real.
………….
You seems to stay much behind your colleagues in the discussion.Tell me exactly the way you assess something real/exists. Give me the reasons why you say
1. A car or an apple exists in the real world? (And also what do you mean by “real world”?)
2. Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana are speculative concepts?
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa;
Your attention is also drawn to my post of June 14, 2010 @ 8:42 pm.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“Unlike rationality, such methods/capabilities should be acquired through practice and effort of the prescribed methods.”
What in heaven’s name are these prescribed methods?
If you mean meditation, then I have already introduced the idea that meditation (while I recommend it to everyone) is self-hypnosis. That is the active ingredient in it. You can come away believing anything 110%. These is a whole new industry built around this phenomenon. So Mr Yapa …. we DO then have a rational explanation as to why one (that is you) would ‘be convinced of the truth of KRN’ by such a prescribed method.
As a scientific test you can re-programme yourself to believe the opposite.
So Mr Yapa I hope by ‘these prescribed methods’ you mean something else.
Waiting …
Yapa,
All these have been discussed before at length, but I’ll provide the answers to the following Qs anyway:
“1. A car or an apple exists in the real world? (And also what do you mean by “real world”?)
2. Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana are speculative concepts?”
The two items mentioned – a car and an apple – are real things that exist in the actual world/reality – not just ideas only – go to a supermarket & ask for an apple & you’ll get one, walk to a city street & you’ll see a car.
K, R, N are believed to be real by some/many or all Buddhists. However, their existence in the real world cannot be proven, as we have seen in this discussion. Thus, they are speculative ideas. Speculative (in this case) = said to be, or thought to exist, by some, but cannot be demonstrated to be real.
The real world is the space that we are having this discussion in. Also, the space that you see in front & around you.
- S
Yapa,
RE:
“In my view karma, rebirth and nirvana have the status of “Modern Theories” considering their properties and the functions in the Buddhist doctrine and the nature. There is no better way of explaining the fate of a being before his birth and after his death and also the vast complexities in his life.”
There are probably thousands of ways, in my view, to explain the vast complexities of life we see around us – how they perhaps came to be, etc.
There is, most like, no life before this one for an individual alive now & no life after this one – so, no explanation is needed for those most likely non-existent things.
“If life does not continue, birth should be the beginning of a being and death should be the end of him.”
That’s what it looks like.
“Without coming to this conclusion one cannot say life does not continue or reject the “concept” of rebirth unless they disprove rebirth.(Here I am confined to “rebirth”, karma and nirvana will be discussed later) Therefore there are only two ways by which one can definitely say rebirth is non existent/not real/not true. i.e.”
Sure, there is not enough information that supports the idea of rebirth as a real thing in this world. Thus, it can be put aside. Very easy for me to do. As easily as putting aside the idea that Bigfoot lives in NYC. Some believe this, but they have no proof for it. It is possible that somewhere in Central Park a Bigfoot like creater is hiding out, but highly unlikely.
“1. By disproving the “concept” of “rebirth”.”
Can’t disprove non-existent things. The fact that they do not exist in the real world is proof that they are ideas only.
“2. By showing “birth” is the beginning of a being and “death” is the end.”
Birth is the begining of an individual’s life and death is the end. Look around, ask around, no one has come back from the dead.
“None of you have done so. Still you have been calling rebirth a “speculative item”. Tell me how you came to that conclusion? Tell me the rationality behind your mighty conclusion.”
You see the words, yet you fail to understand them. Because you are heavily invested in the idea of rebirth. If it works for you, cool. But, rebirth does not appear to be a real thing that exists in this world, thus a speculative idea only – something that exists in a religion – Buddhism – in order to control the believers.
“When I get the answer I will explain how karma, rebirth and nirvana fit into the status of modern theories.”
K, R, N may fit into the status of modern theories, ancient theories, or modern fiction or ancient fiction, or modern art or ancient art, or deep wishes, or modern or ancient mind control methods, but they are, most likely, not real things that any of us have to worry about having to deal with in this life/this world.
- S
Dear Mr. Yapa,
“Such beliefs got outdated long ago. They belonged to the Newtonian Era. Today there is a recognition for ” non rational things” even in the modern science of west.”
Once again you confuse irrational things with counter-intuitive things. These are not the same Mr. Yapa! There are *reasons* for believing in these counter-intuitive things, supported by experiment. That’s the whole point! You confuse such reasoned conjecture with the complete absence of reason. Do you think physicists pluck these concepts out of thin air and insist they are true with no reasons to support them? They might suspect something is true because there’s ample reason to think so and they are convinced it’s true only when it’s supported by evidence. What *reasons* do you have to believe in a theory of KRN?
Here’s an exercise for you, since you claim that modern science is not run on the basis of rationality: show me one reputed scientist, who insists or is convinced that some scientific concept is true, without giving a single convincing reason to support his/her claim. Now compare that with your position.
“True, it is not justifiable for a reasonable person to say that KRN definitely exist ON THE BASIS OF RATIONALITY”
So you concede that you have no reasons to give. At least, you have finally found the honesty and courage to admit this. I have no problem with you believing in KRN irrationally if you so wish, however, you must stop there, and not go on to insist that we run a country based on such unjustified beliefs. That is no basis for a government. Then anyone can demand anything without having to give any reasons whatsoever – all they have to say is that it’s irrational.
Dear Sujewa;
You seems to take things for granted with ease. Rationalists are not supposed to do so. They can come to conclusions if and only if there are reasons. You seems to be different and seems to be fond of emotionally comfortable and advantageous ideas. rationalists are supposed to be conscious about accuracy and precision. You seems to go for arbitrary decisions and conclusions. Please consider following statements of yours. They are not logical conclusions.
1.The two items mentioned – a car and an apple – are real things that exist in the actual world/reality – not just ideas only – go to a supermarket & ask for an apple & you’ll get one, walk to a city street & you’ll see a car.
K, R, N are believed to be real by some/many or all Buddhists. However, their existence in the real world cannot be proven, as we have seen in this discussion. Thus, they are speculative ideas. Speculative (in this case) = said to be, or thought to exist, by some, but cannot be demonstrated to be real.
2. There are probably thousands of ways, in my view, to explain the vast complexities of life we see around us – how they perhaps came to be, etc.
There is, most like, no life before this one for an individual alive now & no life after this one – so, no explanation is needed for those most likely non-existent things.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa;
You say;
“K, R, N may fit into the status of modern theories, ancient theories, or modern fiction or ancient fiction, or modern art or ancient art, or deep wishes, or modern or ancient mind control methods, but they are, most likely, not real things that any of us have to worry about having to deal with in this life/this world.”
Please define what you mean by “real”.
If what you mean by real is not what I mean by real there is no dispute between us. To clarify this please define what you mean by real.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa;
BD said
“1. KRN is a possibility
…………………………….
Don’t you agree with your colleague’s opinion above.
I am referring to your statement mentioned below.
““K, R, N may fit into the status of modern theories, ancient theories, or modern fiction or ancient fiction, or modern art or ancient art, or deep wishes, or modern or ancient mind control methods, but they are, most likely, not real things that any of us have to worry about having to deal with in this life/this world.”
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan,
You say (A):
“Why not try an alternative way?”
Yup, bring it on. What alternative way do you have?
Answer (B):
The primary objective of the Buddha was not to impart and improve the knowledge in people. It is a by-product in achieving the primary objective:liberation from suffering. The path to liberation is “Noble Eight Fold Path” and in following the path the experience and realization of Buddhist doctrines such as karma, rebirth and nirvana is possible. Following the Noble Eight Fold Path is the alternative way.
Even SomewhatDisgusted has accepted that Noble Eight Fold Path can be understand through rationality, if my memory is correct. Just begin it and see, just as you start, you start understanding it.
(A): All we have proved so far through observation is that people who have been brought up with one set of religious beliefs (of any religion) tend to believe that those beliefs are true for most if not all of their lives. So THAT is the common causal factor in all religious beliefs. If you Mr Yapa had Muslim parents you will adamantly swear on the absolute truth of Islam I bet. Again, you are saying it is the truth because you were parented by Buddhist parents, further conditioned by others around you when you were a child – NOT because you are privy to some unique insight that we do not have access to.
(B). You cannot apply general conclusions about other religions to Buddhism. Buddhism is really not a religion according to prestigious dictionaries. I consider Buddhism as a religion just because it involves in spirituality and not because anything common to other religions. In the common definition of religions Buddhism does not into that category.
Really you know all creator god based religions can be proved with simple rationality as entirely baseless and if talk in strict sense there is no significant truth in them other than as a belief system which brings some mental relief to believers. Such doctrines are full of contradictions. Really, they have no literary value or objectivity for detail discussions. For such religions it is true that without conditioning your mind by parents or some other influential group there is no basis for them to be accepted. But it is not so for Buddhism. You take any doctrine of Buddhism (for the moment keep aside karma, rebirth and nirvana and take other doctrines) and try to find contradictions in them. You will never find any. Take “Dhammapadaya” for example and do it yourself. Isn’t this something special to for you to think back about Buddhism. Just read Two three doctrines and see for yourself how they are free of contradictions and see how each doctrine is harmonious with others and how consistent they are. Just think how possibly such a thing can occur. These really are eye openers if somebody is open minded.Just try the alternative method a bit and if you still feel it is absurd, you can throw Buddhism into the dustbin with reasons. Olease do it we have no any objection to it.
In my case I have a respect for Buddhism not just because my parents were Buddhists. Really it helped, but I was didn’t have much respect for Buddhism until recent time. I also was very proud of my Science education and I also used to question Buddhism on Science Principles. But when my awareness of Buddhism grew I realized that it is much subtler than anything I had ever learnt. I also was not less adamant than you all then.
Take the alternative for a trial and see.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan,
Looks like SomewhatDisgusted does not agree with you statement about “Observation”
You said
“CONTRADICTORY (mutually exclusive) things when none of those are observable?”
I said:
The ability to Observe is NOT the ACID TEST for Reality To believe so is rather Naive.
SomewhatDisgusted said
“Excellent. I do quite agree. But please explain what the logical alternative is. ”
Do you agree with my statement to which SD has agreed?
Dear Sujewa;
“Birth is the begining of an individual’s life and death is the end. Look around, ask around, no one has come back from the dead.”
You seems to have very simple arguments to arrive at big conclusions. If you were an early scientist like in the era of Greeks (BC), Modern Science would have born in the 1st century AD. Prince Vijaya would have used a GPS for navigation on his way to Thambapanni.
Please do not take things so simple.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted
“I’m reasonably certain my father is my father because
a. My voice is identical to his
b. My appearance is very similar to his
c. The birth certificates and stories of my origins do not display inconsistencies
d. There is no reason for me to be suspicious that I am being actively deceived or misled ”
SD is your farther an only child?
Any males in your family on your father’s side?
Genetics is a funny thing having a similar voice or looks does not prove Scientifically or Rationally your parentage. So before 1985 you could not be 100% certain that the man living with you was actually your biological father.
Have you read the book “When She was White” by Judith Stone or seen the film Born black to White parents?
In 1966, a 9-yr old Sandra Laing was expelled from an all white school South African school due to a reclassification of her complexion–DARK. This is despite her being the daughter of white-skinned, European, Afrikaaner parents.
Unless you have been very lucky not to have male relations on your fathers side, you would have had a very hard time proving your paternity “SCIENTIFICALLY” or Rationally before 1985 (actually it was IMPOSSIBLE to do). Even if you don’t have males older to you on your fathers side you ould be just an exception and will not disprove my contention.
Hence before 1985 You, BM and SE would have just had to BELIEVE in your paternity in spite of your Agnosticism. If you have not done a paternity test yet, even today you are a “BELIEVER”
Heshan (& anyone else who have thought about the following, or looked into them),
Let me know your thoughts re: the following questions that I am researching. When you get a chance. Thanks. Also, please differentiate between (or clearly label) factual/confirmed/verifiable information, secular theories (non-religious theories/speculative ideas/possibilities), and religious theories (working off of speculative ideas that exist in world religions).
1. Is the universe infinite?
2. If so, how can it be? (how does it sustain itself? what is the source of energy – if any?)
3. Does the existence of an infinite universe mean the existence of an infinite energy source? (related to Q2 – but more elaboration on the energy source(s) possibilities)
4. How can we tap into that infinite source of energy (if it exists) to solve the energy need problems of Earth?
5. Is there a danger in tapping into the infinite source of energy that sustains the universe? (if such a source exists) – as in, might it cause a problem to the stability of the universe?
(easy questions, right?
- S
Yapa,
RE:
“Dear Sujewa;
BD said
“1. KRN is a possibility
…………………………….
Don’t you agree with your colleague’s opinion above.”
Yes, K, R, N are possibilities, but seems highly unlikely – or very remote possibilities. Out of 99% possibility of K, R, N being real, I would assign it less than 1% possibility. Or, K, R, N being real is as possible as God of Christianity, Islam, etc. being real, or Thor being real.
- S
Yapa,
Re: “Please define what you mean by “real”.”
Real = things that actually exist. In the case of K, R, N – they exist as ideas only, in a religious tradition (Buddhism) – but those ideas do not represent actual foces at work in the universe or actual mental states (in the case of nirvana), in my opinion.
Here are some example of things that actually exist – real things = books, pens, laptops, light bulbs.
Here are some examples of things that are ideas only, but they do not exist in the real world (at least at this point in time
– outside the sphere of ideas – time travel, a fast train that can go from east coast of US to west cost of US in 1 hour,
developed countries powered entirely via solar power, physical immortality or keeping the body going forever. K, R, N can be filed under this category.
- S
Yapa,
RE: “Please consider following statements of yours. They are not logical conclusions.”
The statements you referred to, posted below, are logical conclusions. Generally deductive reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning was used to arrive at the conclusions posted below. If you are unable to follow the chain of reasoning, you may want to re-read this thread, because many of the following were debated at length earlier.
So, the conclusions that you referred to, from an earlier post of mine:
“1.The two items mentioned – a car and an apple – are real things that exist in the actual world/reality – not just ideas only – go to a supermarket & ask for an apple & you’ll get one, walk to a city street & you’ll see a car.
K, R, N are believed to be real by some/many or all Buddhists. However, their existence in the real world cannot be proven, as we have seen in this discussion. Thus, they are speculative ideas. Speculative (in this case) = said to be, or thought to exist, by some, but cannot be demonstrated to be real.
2. There are probably thousands of ways, in my view, to explain the vast complexities of life we see around us – how they perhaps came to be, etc.
There is, most like, no life before this one for an individual alive now & no life after this one – so, no explanation is needed for those most likely non-existent things.”
(re: this item – there is not enough proof to believe that there is a pre-life or an after-life, thus, my conclusion for the moment is that those ideas are theories only, not of great significance – at least to me).
- S
Mr Yapa,
“1. KRN is a possibility” … does not give any weight to your argument that KRN is real.
Something can be a possibility, but it can at the same time be ‘highly unlikely’. It can be a possibility along with a million other things, including those that are mutually exclusive. ‘Agnosticism’ is the view that nothing is impossible – but in many cases we ‘simply do not know’ – and in some cases ‘we simply cannot know’ (eg. next week’s lottery numbers).
Sujewa’s puts your problem in sharp focus … you and other believers (of all religions) have INVESTED so much emotionally that it is impossible for you to consider any other way of thinking. In fact, the emotional investment is not just yours but that of several generations, centuries even. Ironically, through a programme of meditation (or professional hypnotic treatment) you can detach yourself permanently from the religious and other programming that you gained against your will as a child and see things without bias for the rest of your life, see clearer. Then you can put the Buddha’s teachings into perspective and benefit more from it, teach others. If we can do this in our generation we might have some real progress in the next – otherwise our children will also be writing in the internet forums of the future that ‘KRN is definitely real’ without a shred of evidence, and become the laughing stock of a more educated, more astute, less gullible world.
Sujewa:
Infinity is also an actual thing – most likely – as in you can count forever, you will not run out of numbers (of course you may have to invent new numbers after a while, but the process of adding more & more to numbers can be carried out forever). Also space is said to be infinite, although, I am not certain about that one, remains to be seen.
Actually, infinity is not real. It is an ordering relation. You have zero, negative infinity, and positive infinity. In the sense of “ordering”, then, infinity is a conceptual approximation, whose existence cannot be proved – if the existence of infinity could be proved, it would contradict the definition of infinity itself. In fact, in mathematics, the existence of infinity is not proved, but taken as an axiom, e.g. “Axiom of Choice”:
This axiom asserts that there is a set I that contains 0 and is closed under the operation of taking the successor; that is, for each element of I, the successor of that element is also in I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity
In other words, this set I is inductive; if you list any positive or negative number in the set, let us call it “n”, the number following it, n+1, is also in the set. In this sense, infinity only exists by way of implication.
It appears that numbers can go on forever. (numbers are also concepts, but they can be depicted in symbol form in the real world, thus, i think you can bring the idea of an infinite set of numbers into the real world by having a computer count & keep counting, & also having it display the numbers, maybe even print them out, as the numbers are being created/acknowledged).
Indeed, in theory, numbers – actually what are called certain sets of numbers – go on forever. What is intriguing here is that human reason cannot conceive of the beginning or end of certain arrangements of numbers. This would imply that our way of ordering the Universe is itself rather limited. In other words, our *human* reasoning is constrained by certain approximations. In other words, certain phenomena which arise cannot be explained in definitive terms, but like infinity, can only be explained by way of implication.
“Can you build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms?”
No, but no one is going to try to seriously take on such a task, since space & money are limited, as well as a number of guests that can be realistically served from one hotel.
Actually, this is a famous problem that proves several things. One of them is that an infinite collection of objects cannot necessarily be characterized in the same sense as a finite collection of objects. For example, if the hotel could only accommodate a finite number of guests in a finite number of rooms, then once the hotel was full, no more guests could be accommodated. However, an infinite hotel would come equipped with a infinite number of rooms. The hotel can never become “full”, because for every room n that exists, there is another room n+1 that exists – so by moving a guest from room n to room n+1, and so on, there is always a vacancy. Another thing is that in the normal hotel, the number of odd-numbered rooms must be less than the total number of rooms. This is not the case in the “infinite hotel” – it can be shown that the number of odd-numbered rooms is equal to the total number of rooms.
“Or a car that goes an infinite number of miles?”
This may be possible. All the parts would have to be replaced as they break down.
I should have clarified – if the car had an infinite energy source, it could go forever. On the other hand, this car – a so-called perpetual motion machine – would violate the basic energy laws of physics:
1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited ‘free’ energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy.
2. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). Such a machine is different from real heat engines (such as car engines), which always involve a transfer of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder one, the latter being warmed up in the process. The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics
3. A more obscure category is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, usually (but not always)[2] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics. Although it is impossible to make such a machine,[3][4] as dissipation can never be 100% eliminated in a mechanical system, it is nevertheless possible to get very close to this ideal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
So you can see the issues involved in building a real-life car that moves forever… it would seem that the Universe does not look favorably upon infinity! Yet from a theoretical point of view, we very frequently conceive of objects that are “endless”, or unbounded, so to speak. For example, a two dimensional line. Or as you have mentioned, space. Again, validating my point is that human reasoning is only as good as the best approximation.
About many things we can be certain. Significant events that happened in a small space – let’s say a room with just one person in it, in the past (yesterday let’s say), if the events that happened in that space was well documented (videotapes, observed, notes taken, etc.). If for example only 1 donut was delivered to that room all day, and the person did not have the means by which to make more donuts, and there is a lot of documentation that proves that only 1 donut was seen in the room during the time period mention, we can be certain that only 1 donut existed in the room mentioned during the time frame mentioned.
Certainly, we can be certain when dealing with objects whose behavior is not counter-intuitive to our 5 senses. The difficulty is when we start talking about objects that defy common-sense, e.g. the infinite hotel or even the behavior of a spinning electron, whose position and velocity cannot be verified at the same time (verification of one would obscure the accuracy of the other).
“Human reason (logic) invariably fails…”
Not so in many instances. It may fail at various instances but in many other instances it succeeds. Logic has worked pretty well for humans overall.
It seems that the human brain is not necessarily fine-tuned to perform delicate logical tasks but rather is focused more on survival-based tasks and issues related to the latter.
“
“One definition of rational involves making the choice that best serves one’s self interest.”
That’s just acting out of self-interest. But yes, in a given context, if, for example, survival depended on adopting a certain set of behaviors, that could be defended as being the rational choice.
The problem with the afterlife and similar sets of questions is that one does not really have a set of choices – choices whose benefits/disadvantages can be evaluated empirically – from which to pick… which would imply that any interpretation of such choices must fall under one of three categories: (1) to make such a choice is irrational, since the outcome cannot be judged, (2) the choice made cannot be rational since it is based on speculation alone, and (3) since the choice made is based on speculation, it is not necessarily irrational, since such speculation can neither be proved nor disproved – in other words, the outcome of the speculation is unknown.
Dear BalangdaMan;
You say;
“If you mean meditation, then I have already introduced the idea that meditation (while I recommend it to everyone) is self-hypnosis. That is the active ingredient in it. You can come away believing anything 110%. These is a whole new industry built around this phenomenon. So Mr Yapa …. we DO then have a rational explanation as to why one (that is you) would ‘be convinced of the truth of KRN’ by such a prescribed method.”
Have you really explored “Buddhist meditation” before came to the above mighty conclusion of “self-hypnosis” or you explore the “meditations” in other religions and generalized your conclusion to Buddhism or is it an idea came into your mind that is pleasing your heart as a good counter argument to the Buddhist’s arguments? Do you think your answer very well answer the complex nature of Buddhist meditation. Do you think it is the specific answer?
However, Buddhist meditation is only a part of Noble Eightfold Path.
Thanks!
Yapa,
I think there is another significant difference between the agnostics (at least myself ) & believers such as yourself. I do not believe that all of existence or even a significant part of it is suffering. So, all of Buddhism, or at least the elements that you are emphasizing (sp?) as important (end of suffering coming via Buddhism, a path that cannot be verified using rationality, etc.) really has no relevance (or very little relevance) to my world view & thus my life. As fas as I can tell the “suffering” in this world is due to poor management (on a national/regional scale), lack of productivity & stability in various parts of the world – all of which results in extreme poverty & evil on one end and abundance & also some evil on another – anyway – though these problems are big, they are not impossible to solve – they’ve been getting solved, little by little, inch by inch, with some back & forward steps from decade to decade – but ultimately moving forward, toward the end of poverty, etc. – & an end to what I would call “material suffering”. But what about the other kind of suffering – the emotional or spiritual kind – that’s just a part of life, in order to deal with that you’ve got music (blues), plenty of distractions, and philosophy that makes dealing with non-material/emotional/spiritual/human thought & feeling based suffering easier. And some non-material suffering is necessary (reaction to death for example, teaches the value of life, etc.). Anyway, the ways of ending human suffering are plenty. Buddhism is just one of many paths for dealing with certain kinds of emotional suffering. However, I personally do not see a special need to elevate it above all others, to keep people trapped in it via a misplaced sense of duty or obligation to an ancient past or whatever. So, in a way, we do live in two different intellectual/emotional/point of view realities. But in the shared reality, in the real world, certain things actually exist – such as music & food, & certain things – such as K, R, N, are ideas only. Buddhism appears to be an interesting historical development, may have been in the cutting edge of thought 2500 or so years ago, but the world has moved on, new & better, more useful, easier to access & understand & practice ways of ending both material suffering & emotional/intellectual/spiritual suffering have been invented. On the non-material aspect – maybe better is the wrong word, but different, appealing to different tastes. In a sense religions are like art, some will appeal to some, some will not. In the end, it does not matter much, & there are far more important things to worry about (happiness, rule of law, just laws, ending poverty, human rights, individual rights, intellectual freedom, etc.).
::
And, on an unrelated note (or is it?
– everyone here who has not seen the movie Mystery Train by director Jim Jarmusch (who is a fan of “Eastern” culture, & also Buddhism) should check it out – hands down one of the best American or world movies of all time – there are some elements in it that the Buddhists may like – a mixture of an overall sense of sadness & joy, theme of impermanance & transitory-ness/travel/moving, subtle connections among unknown people, etc. It is very slow paced & not much really happens in a typical Hollywood movie sense, but it is funny, & the ghost of Elvis is in it:) Criterion just came out with a DVD of it: http://www.criterion.com/films/2057-mystery-train
From a recent essay on the movie: http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1488-mystery-train-strangers-in-the-night
“Mystery Train (1989), his fourth feature, caps a trilogy that presents America as a strange land full of strangers…More than portraits of dislocated outsiders, these films are comic, bittersweet love letters to America, hardly blind to the country’s ugliness and faults but open to seeing it from a new angle.”
And,
“Mystery Train is a puzzle movie as humanist manifesto. Not just attuned to the formal pleasures of synchronicity and repetition, it’s founded on the most basic facts of human commonality and difference: our lives are filled with shared experiences that we nonetheless feel and understand in disparate ways.”
More at: http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1488-mystery-train-strangers-in-the-night
::
- S
Heshan,
Re:
“The problem with the afterlife and similar sets of questions is that one does not really have a set of choices – choices whose benefits/disadvantages can be evaluated empirically – from which to pick… which would imply that any interpretation of such choices must fall under one of three categories: (1) to make such a choice is irrational, since the outcome cannot be judged, (2) the choice made cannot be rational since it is based on speculation alone, and (3) since the choice made is based on speculation, it is not necessarily irrational, since such speculation can neither be proved nor disproved – in other words, the outcome of the speculation is unknown.”
Another option is not to participate in the question & answer process regarding the after life since, or if, it appears that the after life is entirely a theoretical argument/an intellectual construct only, and the ignoring of that idea poses no significant loss to the individual. So, for an agnostic or let’s say someone who sees that – most likely – death is the end of an individual’s life in all significant sense – theories about the after life really are no big deal, not of great significance. Meaning, all behavior recommended & justified on the basis of an afterlife can be rejected, ignored, etc. – meaning much in the religions can be ignored, as they are dealing with ideas only, speculative aspects that seem to have no direct/real relationship to this world.
I want to take a closer look at #3 that you mentioned:
“3) since the choice made is based on speculation, it is not necessarily irrational, since such speculation can neither be proved nor disproved – in other words, the outcome of the speculation is unknown.”"
Let’s see:
1. A choice is made based on a question and options built on speculative items. For example, do A because it will have a positive affect on one’s karma (speculative item), & not doing A, or doing B, will negatively affect one’s Karma.
2. So, since karma is a speculative item, then, the person can choose A, or B, or neither, because it is not known whether karma is real. And specially if the person believes that most likely karma is not real, then it will be easier for him to not respond to the question, not make any choice.
So, what’s more rational or what makes more sense in light of this? Ignoring, or not worrying about or not dealing with what appears to be highly speculative (karma, or any other after life/pre-life related ideas in any religion for example) ideas is probably the best way to go. Can use time & energy saved for other, more useful, things. So I personally would have to say that doing something in order to come into a positive relationship with something that most likely does not exist is somewhat of an irrational act. But the act may have secondary uses, such as distracting from the fear of death or reducing a fear of a negative afterlife (for those who believe in the afterlife concept) – so that’s why I said that the act is soemwhat irrational – not useful as reccomended by religions, but perhaps useful to calm self down, etc.
- S
Mr Yapa,
re. Noble Eight Fold Path … “Just begin it and see, just as you start, you start understanding it.”
The Noble Eight Fold Path, in my understanding, describes a set of recommendations for good pious living. I do not see how ‘good pious living’ can give anyone an insight into the unknowable. You need to do better than that.
For example, how does ‘not sleeping on a large or high bed’ help me see that KRN is real?
::
“Really you know all creator god based religions can be proved with simple rationality as entirely baseless”
Mr Yapa, you really have get off this irrelevancy! Why do you think the whole of human thinking is polarised into ‘a creator god based religion’ on the one hand and Buddhism on the other? There are thousands (if not millions) of view points (actually infinite, since the beginning of time and till the end) about the reason we are here. A rejection of a creator god does NOT prove that KRN is real.
Let me say that, KRN is REAL to you as much as a ‘creator god’ is REAL to those who believe in a creator god. Look around you – you will see that that’s true. eg. go visit any church on a Sunday! Or a Mosque on Friday.
::
Re. the Dhamma “.. and try to find contradictions in them. You will never find any”
Mr Yapa, in this thread and the one before I have detailed dozens of contradictions, as well as impracticalities for society if KRN is real.
Religious dogma is a means to an end (in a period of history), and is really confined to the time period and the society’s needs at that time and place – eg. see Islam, Christianity. When taken in a different time and place (eg. 21st century SL in the global village is NOT 500 BC India in small village) there will be masses of contradictions.
(eg. the needs of the time: Jesus and his people had the oppression of the Roman rulers. Mohammed had been banished for being a clever dick and sought revenge. Sidharta Gautama had his own personal dilemmas which he needed to go away and try and solve. These were the needs. The original and authentic purpose of these religions. They do not quite fit when used for other purposes in another time).
Mr Yapa, modern society had not structured itself on the basis that KRN is real, even in SL. That includes the law of the land. KRN is real only in the minds of the believers.
Off the Cuff said,
June 16, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
OTC, I am sorry I do not understand what you mean, or indeed how it helps the discussion.
Mr Yapa,
“Have you really explored “Buddhist meditation” before came to the above mighty conclusion of “self-hypnosis” “.
Now it’s your turn to differentiate ‘Buddhist meditation’ from the generally accepted activity and phenomenon. Please describe the process, the resulting changes you have personally experienced, and your explanation for why you think those changes occur.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa, while you answer my question (what’s different about Buddhist meditation) can you explain the ‘phenomenon’ of fire walking? How is it that people who practice meditation can demonstrate walking on burning coals?
(may seem an odd question but it has a relevance to what I need to prove to you)
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“Real = things that actually exist.”
Now the question is how do you determine whether something exists or not.
Tell me how do you determine the existence/non existence of something. (Give me the general principle, not examples)
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“The Noble Eight Fold Path, in my understanding, describes a set of recommendations for good pious living. I do not see how ‘good pious living’ can give anyone an insight into the unknowable. You need to do better than that.”
I will have to say that you are discussing things without enough understanding of them. Noble Eight Fold Path is not a set of recommendations for good pious living. I am very sorry about your poor understanding. Do you really think you can involve in a deep discussion about Buddhism if your understanding of Buddhism is so poor? Do you think it is reasonable for you to give deep comments, conclusions, decisions and rulings on the basis of such poor understanding on the subject? Do you really believe that you are doing justice to Buddhism or any other subject by giving various “rulings” on that subject based on such a low level of knowledge? After so much of discussion, if your level of knowledge about Noble Eight Fold Path is this, I don’t know what to say.
But I can make a humble request, before involve in a discussion please get some awareness about it. If you think you can discuss and give rulings about anything off hand, I don’t think anyone will take what you say seriously in the future. No one will have a trust on you.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“Have you really explored “Buddhist meditation” before came to the above mighty conclusion of “self-hypnosis” “.
Now it’s your turn to differentiate ‘Buddhist meditation’ from the generally accepted activity and phenomenon. Please describe the process, the resulting changes you have personally experienced, and your explanation for why you think those changes occur.
……………….
It is not my turn, it is your turn to justify what you have said. You have said meditation is self-hypnosis.
Please explain and justify your conclusion. (Otherwise it will become irrational and arbitrary and I will have to conclude that it was said with ill-will.)
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
Further to the above post , do you still say karma, rebirth and nirvana are speculative items? If so please justify and explain your claim.
If you have changed your mind justification and explanation not necessary.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake ;
You say;
“I think there is another significant difference between the agnostics (at least myself ) & believers such as yourself. I do not believe that all of existence or even a significant part of it is suffering. So, all of Buddhism, or at least the elements that you are emphasizing (sp?) as important (end of suffering coming via Buddhism, a path that cannot be verified using rationality, etc.) really has no relevance (or very little relevance) to my world view & thus my life.”
…………..
If you take what you believe or things that has a relevance to you as truths, then there is no use of discussing with others about truths or realities. Please choose truths at your will and election. If truth is that much subjective and can choose as a garment from a department store, the opinion of your girl friend would be sufficient to choose truths.
I think you will have to be more serious about things.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“Mr Yapa, in this thread and the one before I have detailed dozens of contradictions, as well as impracticalities for society if KRN is real.”
………….
You have never shown any such contradictions logically. None of them logically came from the premise that karma, rebirth and nirvana are true. They were hap hazard imaginations of yours. Please give me one logical conclusion that contradicts or has such social implications that are unbearable by the society, starting from the above premise.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
Mr Yapa, while you answer my question (what’s different about Buddhist meditation) can you explain the ‘phenomenon’ of fire walking? How is it that people who practice meditation can demonstrate walking on burning coals?
(may seem an odd question but it has a relevance to what I need to prove to you)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This again shows the lack of understanding of what you are discussing. Who told you that Buddhist meditation is meant for walking on burning coals?
Tell me do you really know what meditation means? Do you really know what “Vipassana Meditation” means?
Are you really talking of what you don’t know? Ask this question frankly from yourself.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
I said
The ability to Observe is NOT the ACID TEST for Reality To believe so is rather Naive.
You said
Excellent. I do quite agree. But please explain what the logical alternative is.
At last we have agreed that the ability to observe is not the test for Reality which goes against Sujewa’s definition of Reality
You ask what the Logical alternative is
I believe currently there is none in existence due mainly to the immaturity of Science and Logic as I have consistently pointed out.
Hence we will have to wait until Science matures to look for answers.
Dear BalangodaMan,
You said you don’t understand. Then please refer to SomewhatDisgusted’s post of June 15, 2010 @ 5:56 am reproduced below
“Dear OTC, You said: The ability to Observe is NOT the ACID TEST for Reality To believe so is rather Naive.”
Excellent. I do quite agree. But please explain what the logical alternative is.
and the chain of posts related to it to help you understand
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
(eg. the needs of the time: Jesus and his people had the oppression of the Roman rulers. Mohammed had been banished for being a clever dick and sought revenge. Sidharta Gautama had his own personal dilemmas which he needed to go away and try and solve. These were the needs. The original and authentic purpose of these religions. They do not quite fit when used for other purposes in another time).
…………………………
Tell me how you arrived at the above conclusions, regarding the authentic purposes of those religions? Are you sure they were the real purposes? Is there any authoritative references to this effect?
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan,
“A rejection of a creator god does NOT prove that KRN is real.”
No it does not.
But it does prove that a creator God that is Loving, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent does not exists.
Hence it also puts and end to you equating Buddhist Philosophy to that of a Loving Creator God religions.
You have failed to prove with Buddhism what Yapa has proved about Creator God Religions.
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake ;
You say;
There is, most like, no life before this one for an individual alive now & no life after this one – so, no explanation is needed for those most likely non-existent things.”
(re: this item – there is not enough proof to believe that there is a pre-life or an after-life, thus, my conclusion for the moment is that those ideas are theories only, not of great significance – at least to me).
……………………..
You think Agnostics are supposed to believe things without reasons. Is that the reason why you narrate things the way you want without giving reasons?
You seems to take things as true or untrue as comfortable to you.
I think it must be a lesson you learnt from “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF THE WEST.”
Why should anybody bar the supreme right of individual freedom at any occasion? Why should anybody bar the right of a person to choose his own truths as his wish? It is a violation of individual/human/ fundamental rights. One must have the unlimited freedom of choice.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake ;
You say;
Yes, K, R, N are possibilities, but seems highly unlikely – or very remote possibilities. Out of 99% possibility of K, R, N being real, I would assign it less than 1% possibility. Or, K, R, N being real is as possible as God of Christianity, Islam, etc. being real, or Thor being real.
……………………….
1. Tell me how and why you say “…..but seems highly unlikely – or very remote possibilities. (Does this also imply that highly likely, as you have mentioned it as “seems” highly unlikely? Are you not sure about what you say to start as it seems.. ?)
2. How do you arrive at the conclusion “Out of 99% possibility of K, R, N being real, I would assign it less than 1% possibility? How the possibility is not between 2% and 3% or less than 0.0023%?
3. Justify your claim of
“Or, K, R, N being real is as possible as God of Christianity, Islam, etc. being real, or Thor being real.”
(Please keep in mind that we have already proved that the possibility of the God of Christianity, Islam, being real is 0%. Do you mean to say less than 1% equals to 0%?)
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Self-hypnosis
————-
Firstly, I recommend it for many reasons – whether you call it transcendental meditation or anything else. (Mr Yapa, when you have read this you can then tell us how your method of meditation and the result you seek, and get, is different).
It is clear that the believers regard the activity of meditation as a religious excercise, as if the resulting changes emanate from some divine source. Therefore Mr Yapa regards the subject of meditation as sacred, an untouchable subject perhaps.
Ok, so let me explain self-hypnosis instead.
I will use fire walking to illustrate it.
Would you walk on burning coals in bare feet? Most people would not! Why? Because we think it will burn our feet, and we know how it feels when you touch a burning hot object. But (just like the kassippu example that SomewhatDisgusted introduced where the facts explain it) it is a fact that anyone can walk across burning coals at a normal walking pace and not suffer any physical harm. The reason for this is not relevant to this discussion (contact with your feet is brief) – but the important point is we THINK that we will get burned. In fact we have been programmed from childhood to believe deep inside that fire hurts, and hurts pretty bad, and that keeps us from doing it.
So if we want to walk over burning coals with bare feet something needs to change in us, we need to erase the deep mental programming that we have which translates to fear. This programming is in our subconcious mind – this is the part of the brain that we do not have direct conscious access to, the part that dictates our conditioned responses. For example, we do many things unconsciously, like walking. We do not think consciously about putting our right leg after our left – we manage that because your subconscious mind has it pretty much programmed in. It is also the programming in our subconscious that makes us retaliate when attacked. I mention this last point as I shall return to this later.
To walk on burning coals this is what you need to do. You need to gain access to your subconscious mind and erase the existing (irrational) programming that it will hurt/burn and replace it with a new programming that (for example) walking on burning coals will have a cool and pleasant sensation on your feet. Now, you can have this done for you by a trained professional hypnotist or you can do this yourself through self-hypnosis methods. The mystics do it themselves. You will see what a powerful means of mind control this is and amazing feats can be achieved.
So how to perform self-hypnosis?
The phychologists will tell you that your subconscious is most easily reached when you are in a highly emotional state, or when you are surprised, and also apparently while you have an orgasm (but lets not go there right now!), and when you are in a hypnotic trance.
So self-hypnosis involves putting yourself into a hypnotic trance. Here’s how you can do that.
Sit in a quiet room (when you get better at this you can even practice this when standing, walking, going about your business, though not in a deep trance). No, you do not need to sit in the lotus position and touch your fingers like in the movies and chant ‘ohmmmmm’ – BUT it will help. Why? Because we have been programmed to think that it will. Perhaps worth pointing out that you cannot, and no one can, hypotise you if you are not willing, or if you believe that it is not possible. For this reason, if you believe that this is a mystical/religious/divine thing then you will have some difficulty getting into a hypnotic trance, because you believe it is not possible. Your deep programming may prevent you from being hypnotised. It is known that some people are easily hypnotised, others not.
Now relax your muscles, let them feel heavy, from head to toe. Concentrate on your breathing. Now count backwards from say 300 …. 300, 299, 298 etc. Let your mind wander, don’t force yourself you think of anything. Don’t worry if you miss any numbers or repeat any.
What we’re doing here is this. We need to think of nothing. To think of nothing is somewhat impossible so we do the next best thing of thinking of one thing only. After a while you will find yourself drifting off, you can forget counting now and enjoy the bliss of entering what feels like another dimension. It may feel like you’re asleep and wide awake at the same time.
Ok, now that you are in your hypnotic trance you can just enjoy that – it will relieve your stresses and make you calm – or you can choose to do some real improvements on yourself. For example, to go back to the fire walking challenge, you can spend some time ‘feeling’ in your mind (which now will feel quite different to how it feels to think consciously) how cool the burning coals feel under your feet. Imagine walking on icy water puddles on a boiling hot day. Now do this for 15-20 mins. You may need to repeat this several times over several days. If it has worked, instead of being fearful of walking on those hot coals now you will be raring to go! Enjoy.
You can use this technique to cure phobias, stop smoking, cure shyness, gain confidence, motivation – absolutely anything that would be solved by reprogramming the subconscious mind. Look up the internet under hypnosis, Paul McKenna, Milton Ericsson, NLP.
Remember I said it’s our disempowering subconscious programming that makes us retaliate when under attack? A worthwhile thing to reprogramme is anger. You cure this you can make yourself believe that every person is your best friend, that nobody means any harm towards you, that compassion is endemic in the world. If you do this while in your hypnotic state and do it regularly you will change in how you respond to hostility and other negative or unpleasant interventions of others. This is why I said earlier that we should teach our young people these techniques. This is one of the most important lessons we can learn from the Buddha’s experience and example.
Now the risks. Because you are tinkering with the subconscious mind you have to be careful what you put in there while in trance. If you go into a hypnotic trance while feeling negative you will programme yourself to be negative. If you, for example, go into trance believing that life is suffering that is what you will become and you will go into depression. This is probably a reason why some people regard transcendental meditation as dangerous.
There are other excercises to demonstrate the power of reprogramming the subconscious like the fire walking example above. See any good stage hypnotic act or demostrations in an NLP seminar. The key change you achieve is the difference between ‘how we consciously think of doing something, or consciously responding’ and ‘some automatic force within us that makes us do something, or react to something automatically’.
So what has any of this got to do with religion?
Several things. Firstly, all religious people believe that their religion is the absolute truth. This is deeply embedded in their subconscious. It’s no wonder, because we are at our most receptive to programming in our formative years, up to age 8 apparently. Plus religion to many people is a deeply emotional experience, and we tend to do religious things when we are in a deeply emotional state, when things get desparate. All this adds to the deep seatedness of our religious beliefs.
Secondly, one of the popular entertainment/pastimes of the modern age is past life regression. This is done under hypnosis. You can see from the above that it is easy to ‘see’ past lives when in the context of a past life regression session can’t you? After all, you are there to experience past lives. You have paid money. You WANT to experience past lives. The hynotist suggests and directs (not necessarily as a scam. he may genuninely want to let you have a satisfying experience). The more you get reprogrammed by your past live experience the more unshakable your belief becomes that you were King Vijaya or some other famous person, or an elephant even (it never is a small insect or an insignificant person).
Now Mr Yapa, I have explained my experience of self-hypnosis and transcendental meditation – same thing in my experience – BTW very popular in the west since the late 1960s. Will you now kindly explain (hopefully more directly than you have tried to validate KRN as a truth) how Buddhist meditation differs from what I have described above please?
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
(1). You say:
Are you still going to say that anything not rational is nonsense? (This part was missing in your post)
“Such beliefs got outdated long ago. They belonged to the Newtonian Era. Today there is a recognition for ” non rational things” even in the modern science of west.”
Once again you confuse irrational things with counter-intuitive things. These are not the same Mr. Yapa! There are *reasons* for believing in these counter-intuitive things, supported by experiment. That’s the whole point! You confuse such reasoned conjecture with the complete absence of reason. Do you think physicists pluck these concepts out of thin air and insist they are true with no reasons to support them? They might suspect something is true because there’s ample reason to think so and they are convinced it’s true only when it’s supported by evidence. What *reasons* do you have to believe in a theory of KRN?
Here’s an exercise for you, since you claim that modern science is not run on the basis of rationality: show me one reputed scientist, who insists or is convinced that some scientific concept is true, without giving a single convincing reason to support his/her claim. Now compare that with your position.
………………
Answer:
I don’t think what you say about irrationality and counter intuitive things are correct.
I was specifically talking about the things that do not fall under rationality. Do you think it is correct to call all such things as “irrational”?
You have already accepted there can be things that are outside of the purview of rationality. Then how can you rule out such things as “irrational” (or as you earlier called it as “nonsense”?)
Really the word “irrationality” has a humiliating connotation in the modern context. It has the hidden humiliating connotation of absurd/nonsense, which has been really demonstrated by you using the word “nonsense” for the same in a different post.
During the Newtonian era the terms non rational and irrational had the same meaning that is untrue/absurd/nonsense. According to the deterministic Newtonian outlook “not rational” things were untrue and these untrue things were named as “irrational”. But today in the Modern Scientific outlook, “not rational” does not essentially mean untrue/absurd/nonsense and the word irrationality is not used to represent them. So it seems you are trying to humiliate my views using an outdated meaning of that word. (beating scare crow?)
Wrt the counter intuitive argument, I don’t think things that are “not rational but true” can be fully accommodated under the umbrella of “counter intuitive things.” Here is a dictionary meaning for “counterintuitive”
Adj.1.counterintuitive – contrary to what common sense would suggest
I don’t think what we were trying to discuss can be simplified and pack into such a simple concept.
Further, you say “There are *reasons* for believing in these counter-intuitive things, supported by experiment.”
Dear SomewhatDisgusted, in a very lower level it is true that we accept things through experiments. But in a deeper level I think you know “experiments or examples” do not prove theories or make theories correct. It is true that this method was introduced to Scientific Method by Galileo, however, this method bases on “induction” does not ensure the accuracy of a theory based on it. (based on experiments or examples) Until Galileo’s time the sole method used in Scientific Method was “deduction” and it ensure the theory based on it provided the axioms are true. After the introduction of “experimentation> observation> conclusion” methodology to Science by Galileo, Science found a very easy and fast method for Scientific investigation that led Science grow in a massive pace after his period. However, such theories based on this methodology have fewer acceptances and cannot rule out alternative theories. This is what has happened to “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”. Still there is no consensus about this theory among Scientists and it was not able to rule out the possibility of alternative theories.
So, so called form of Scientific Method you are fond of talking is not an accurate tool to investigate subtle things. It is a crude tool that can be used to to arrive at crude theories.
Again you say;
“Here’s an exercise for you, since you claim that modern science is not run on the basis of rationality: show me one reputed scientist, who insists or is convinced that some scientific concept is true, without giving a single convincing reason to support his/her claim.”
It is not my claim that modern science is not run on the basis of rationality. It is the truth, modern Scientists do not keep all their eggs in the bag of rationality. However, there is no ground for your asking “show me one reputed scientist, who insists or is convinced that some scientific concept is true, without giving a single convincing reason to support his/her claim.”, as I have not done a such thing. No Scientist would do it without giving convincing reasons, but these reasons necessarily need not to be rational. Here you seem confused by taking two terms “rational” and “convincing” in the same meaning. It was so in Newtonian Science, but not in modern Science.
We have enough convincing reasons for karma, rebirth and nirvana, but the problem has been that you wanted convincing to be “rational”, that is not a mandatory condition in modern notions.
As I had said earlier, your problem is you cannot come out of the “outdated Newtonian Trap”. Your base of thinking is outdated Newtonian out look which produces wrong results in the modern era.
…………..
(2).You say:
“True, it is not justifiable for a reasonable person to say that KRN definitely exist ON THE BASIS OF RATIONALITY”
So you concede that you have no reasons to give. At least, you have finally found the honesty and courage to admit this. I have no problem with you believing in KRN irrationally if you so wish, however, you must stop there, and not go on to insist that we run a country based on such unjustified beliefs. That is no basis for a government. Then anyone can demand anything without having to give any reasons whatsoever – all they have to say is that it’s irrational.
Such beliefs got outdated long ago. They belonged to the Newtonian Era. Today there is a recognition for ” non rational things” even in the modern science of west. Today rationality is not the only horse.
………
Answer:
You are trying to interpret something that is not logically possible from my answer. We have offered enough reasons for the existence of karma, rebirth and nirvana including much material evidence. But you stick into old Pure rationality “pound of flesh” refusing one ounce less. Really the reasons available for them is sufficient to accept them in the status of a modern theory, Modern theories are really “suggestions” and do not demand the “only horse status”. It has been proved such theories are not possible through “Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty”. Big Bang Theory, Chaos Theory or Darwin’s Theory cannot sustain in a “one horse status”. They co-exist with alternative theories.
Thanks!
Self-Hypnosis – Part 2
——————–
Ooooops! If you followed my earlier piece I forgot to tell you how to come out of a self induced hypnotic trance!
Just think to yourself ‘I’m going to be wide awake, refreshed and feeling great when I count to 5. One .. two .. three .. four … five’. Open your eyes. You will be wide awake and refreshed and clear in your mind.
A further clarification on why the subconscious mind is important to understand. You may say to yourself ‘I must not lose my temper or be angry’. This does not work because when the triggers happen that normally make you get angry and lose your temper it is not what you have ‘resolved to do consciously’ that dictates whether you get angry or not – it is how you are programmed in your subconscious. That is your conditioned response.
This is how ‘compassion meditation’ works (Mr Yapa, I mean compassion meditation as practised generally around the world. You will tell us how Buddhist meditation is different, as you say that it is different).
So by conditioning yourself to ‘never be angry and lose your temper’ you become a calm person. This is achieved through meditation (self-hypnosis as above). THIS is what the Buddha demonstrated by example and is famous around the world for having done so.
In other words, you feel ‘anger’ coming on … but you are not angry. You respond to hostility with a smile, caring, goodwill.
So Mr Yapa, please explain how (in your opinion) Buddhist meditation is different from what I have described above, and perhaps you would tell us how it works differently from what I have described. (is it the subconscious mind? is it something divine? is it something achievable through Buddhist teachings only? if so how can we repeat it? is the result measurable?)
BTW may of the other Eastern practices, though taking on a different physical from (eg. yoga), work on the same central mechanism of conditioning the subconscious mind because you get into a trance-like state which makes the subconscious open to suggestion, like peace and calm.
You can also use Paul McKenna’s CDs, and hundreds of others filed under ‘relaxation’ tapes. The first time you do this you will be well surprised by the experience.
Dear All;
RE: the post of Sujewa Ekanayake of June 16, 2010 @ 11:37 pm and of Heshan of June 17, 2010 @ 6:05 am
Heshan’s explanation about infinity, I think on the question asked by Sujewa, “Is the universe infinite?”, is commendable.
From his explanation, it is clear that if the universe is infinite, it is not perceivable by humans.
What then will happen, if we suggest that universe is finite?
If universe is finite it must have a boundary. Then comes the problem that what do you have outside that boundary. Even if there is no material thing, but just empty space it implies that there is some space out of our universe, that implies that our “finite universe is not a universe.
What does that imply?
We cannot perceive universe whether it is finite or infinite.
That is for humans there is no meaning for the question “Is the universe is finite or infinite” and has no and cannot give a definite answer.
Only now we realize this through logic. But the lord Buddha has very specifically mentioned this fact about 2500 years ago and said the the subject of universe is unthinkable and warned people not to try to perceive it as it would make people go mad.
The Buddha refrain from answering 14 such questions including the above question naming them as “Avyakatha”.
How did that man of olden day (as some people of the forum used to call the Buddha) have that insight to specifically explain such a mighty conclusion, which is proved to be accurate to the split of a hair? Is it not something special about Buddhism?
(I can remember once Heshan saying that existence of Avyakatha in Buddhism means Buddhism is not finite system of knowledge, as it did not have answers for these questions, But I don’t think Hehan is holding that view anymore.)
Further, I would like to invite all to investigate rest of the Avykatha questions to see whether the position of Buddhism about them is correct. I think it is a good way to check the credibility of Buddhism.
Please see
http://www.google.lk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.berzinarchives.com%2Fweb%2Fen%2Farchives%2Fsutra%2Flevel4_deepening_understanding_path%2Finterferences%2Ffourteen_questions_which_buddha_rem.html&ei=1UYbTNQRjYWsB-Hb-awM&usg=AFQjCNGkRti1NqcZtYDe0oTGu0TWKVU5Kg
Thanks!
Please also read;
http://www.google.lk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Ftipitaka%2Fmn%2Fmn.063.than.html&ei=nkgbTJaSAoWErAfn3M2sDA&usg=AFQjCNGZiz0_ZQvdLrQaw9IXvWp5PRduJw
Thanks!
correction…
(I can remember once Heshan saying that existence of Avyakatha in Buddhism means Buddhism is not finite system of knowledge….
It shoud be corrected as
(I can remember once Heshan saying that existence of Avyakatha in Buddhism means Buddhism is not “perfect/complete” system of knowledge…….
Thanks!
Self-Hypnosis Part 3
——————-
When I said most (extreme) religious experiences are experienced when in an emotional state – hence we are directly accessing (therefore programming) the subconscious mind – the act of prayer also is one of these activities. The act of prayer makes us emerge refreshed, and also secure because we are enhancing an internalised belief in a super-human being. The more we pray to (say) god the more we are convinced of the existence of god. Similarly a belief in KRN is further enhanced by the very same mechanism while in a self-hypnotic experience, or transcendental meditation (TM), or anything else that render us ‘suggestible’.
Yapa,
Just skimmed over the recent posts, will get to them/replies after work.
In the meantime, K, R, N are still speculative items. And Buddhism is very similar to all of the other/Creator God based religions when it comes to speculative items, afterlife etc. Either you see this & refuse to admit it, or you do not see it/are unable to see it due to your commitment to Buddhism.
Also, this is probably the 5th time these items are being debated – or you are asking the same questions, even after it was demonstrated that K, R, N cannot be proven to be real. I think it is time to create an FAQ about why K, R, N are speculative & why Buddhism is similar to the other religions when it comes to the speculative items. So that when these questions get asked for the 8th time by the believers in a few weeks, I can just post a link & an FAQ # for the answer. Will see if I can get this FAQ done this weekend.
- S
Yapa,
RE: “Only now we realize this through logic. But the lord Buddha has very specifically mentioned this fact about 2500 years ago and said the the subject of universe is unthinkable and warned people not to try to perceive it as it would make people go mad.”
I disagree with Buddhism/the warning attributed to the Buddha re: this item, the nature of the universe, including whether it is finite or infinite, should be explored. The universe outside of our world is the new oceans (as in, 1000 years ago we were barely starting to explore the oceans on this planet), and, just as the oceans have yielded some very useful info & material, exploration of space may do the same.
- S
Yapa,
RE: the following (re: death being the end of an individual’s life):
“You think Agnostics are supposed to believe things without reasons. Is that the reason why you narrate things the way you want without giving reasons? You seems to take things as true or untrue as comfortable to you. I think it must be a lesson you learnt from “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF THE WEST.”
Why should anybody bar the supreme right of individual freedom at any occasion? Why should anybody bar the right of a person to choose his own truths as his wish? It is a violation of individual/human/ fundamental rights. One must have the unlimited freedom of choice.”
Again, your memory fails you or you are not able to observe reality (the world around you). We have discussed the lack of proof for rebirth for a long time, in the previous weeks. But looks like I will have to copy all that material & re-post again (perhaps that FAQ doc I plan on creating will help).
Let’s try again, in a very simple way:
1. Individuals are born.
2. They live, & then they die (usually, in that order).
3. The dead do not come back to life.
So, once a person is dead, they are dead. There is plenty of evidence for the above mentioned 3 items being facts/true/real asepcts of the world. If you cannot accept them, then you are not dealing with the real world, or you refuse to – which is fine, your choice. But most people acknowledge that death is the end of an individual’s life on Earth (and the rest, after life, etc., are speculations, since there is no significant proof for after life). It appears that Buddhism has warped your mind to such a degree that you cannot recognize reality. That is a danger of the religious path.
- S
Here’s more context to my post above:
From Yapa’s post:
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake ;
You say;
There is, most like[ly], no life before this one for an individual alive now & no life after this one – so, no explanation is needed for those most likely non-existent things.”
(re: this item – there is not enough proof to believe that there is a pre-life or an after-life, thus, my conclusion for the moment is that those ideas are theories only, not of great significance – at least to me).
……………………..
You think Agnostics are supposed to believe things without reasons. Is that the reason why you narrate things the way you want without giving reasons?
You seems to take things as true or untrue as comfortable to you.
I think it must be a lesson you learnt from “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF THE WEST….”
My response is above, at: June 18, 2010 @ 8:13 pm post.
- S
Dear BalangodaMan,
Is Meditation Just a Form of Self-Hypnosis?
<b. Here is an answer to that question from a woman whose credentials in the subject far outweighs yours
Patricia Carrington, Ph.D.
Author of “The Book of Meditation”
Although both meditation and self-hypnosis involve some degree of trance, there are also some important differences between them. One of the identifying characteristics of self hypnosis is the increased receptiveness of subjects to self administered suggestions about mental or physical behavior which they want to bring about. The hypnotized person acts (or thinks) in the way he believes the hypnotist or he himself is directing him to act.
Self-hypnosis is therefore goal-directed, and psychologist Robert White, discussing the theory of hypnotism, has suggested that goal-directed striving is one of the primary characteristics of all hypnotic states.3
This description of hypnosis is very different from most descriptions of meditation. In the great traditions, meditation is looked upon as a goal-less, non-striving state. Although in actual practice the meditator may make some effort during meditation (perhaps in an attempt to reach some spiritual goal), this is usually only a minor aspect of the experience and is often discouraged by meditation teachers. Self-suggestions such as telling oneself to relax during meditation, or the implied ‘suggestion’ involved in repeating a mantra which has become a signal to oneself to enter a state of deep relaxation, do of course play some role in the meditative experience. Certain forms of Yoga also require the meditator to employ some suggestions to help her reach Brahman, the highest state of consciousness, but these minor uses of suggestion can scarcely be compared to the central position given to suggestion in self hypnosis. With respect to active striving toward a goal during the process itself (although not ultimately since meditators as well as hypnotic subjects typically have long-range goals) these two states seem very different.
Meditation and self-hypnosis do not necessarily show the same kinds of physiological change either. As we shall see in the next chapter, meditation typically brings about a lowering of metabolism, a deep quietness of mind and body. By contrast, some hypnotic states raise metabolism, as when an athlete uses self-hypnosis before a game to ‘psych’ himself up. Other hypnotic states bring about no physiological changes at all, including no changes in brain waves, 4 and a number of researchers have shown that hypnotized subjects usually have an activated brain-wave pattern, which is no different from ordinary wakefulness.5
The only time hypnotized persons show wave patterns similar to those seen during meditation is when they are given specific suggestions to enter a meditation-like state. If they are directed to become deeply relaxed, they will usually obligingly do so, just as they will do many other things, including going to sleep, under hypnosis.*
The relationship between meditation and hypnosis is not entirely solved, however. It is possible that in the broadest sense of the term, meditation is a form of ‘hypnosis’, although it is certainly not the kind most of us in the West know.
It is interesting to note that Zen monks are taught to suppress the hypnotic trance. The name they give to it is sanran (meaning ‘confusion’), because they feel that it interferes with their practice of meditation.6
Western hypnosis is a highly motivated state where the subject plays a ‘role’, acting out certain prescribed actions or thoughts. Abraham Maslow,7 who has called this Western form ‘striving hypnosis’, points out that a much less familiar type, ‘being hypnosis’, allows the subject to move away from role-playing and enter an intense absorption similar to that of ‘peak experiences’ or mystic states of contemplation. This being-hypnosis is used almost exclusively for certain spiritual disciplines such as Yoga or Zen. It is possible that it is a form of meditation, or vice versa.
Because striving-hypnosis and meditation, while not the same thing, do have some points in common, however, it is perhaps not surprising that one of the most prominent of all the modem relaxation techniques, autogenic training, had its origin in the study of hypnosis as practiced in the West.
1. R. E. Shor, ‘Hypnosis and the Concept of the Generalized Reality Orientation’, in Altered States of Consciousness, ed. C. T. Tart (New York: Wiley, 1969), pp. 233–50.
2. Ibid, p. 241.
3. R. White, ‘A Preface to a Theory of Hypnotism’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36 (1941), pp. 477–506.
4. N. Kleitman, Sleep and Wakefulness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 329–38.
5. L. Cheitok and P. Kramarz, ‘Hypnosis, Sleep and Electroencephalography’, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 128 (1959), pp. 227–38; A. L. Loomis, E. N. Harvey and C. A. Hobart, ‘Electrical Potentials of the Human Brain’, Journal of Experimental Physiology, 19 (1936), pp. 249–79; J. B. Dynes, ‘Objective Method for Distinguishing Sleep from the Hypnotic Trance’, Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 57 (1947), pp. 84–93; A. Kasamatsu and T. Hirai, ‘An Electroencephalographic Study on the Zen Meditation (Zazen)’, in Tart (ed.), op. cit., pp. 489–501.
6. A. Kasamatsu and T. Hirai, ‘An Electroencephalographic Study on the Zen Meditation (Zazen)’, in Tart (ed.), op. cit., pp. 489–501.Maslow, as quoted in Shor, op. cit., p. 249.
Dear Yapa,
I read with pleasure the Excellent post of yours June 18, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Keep to the same line of reasoning without allowing yourself to be diverted from your main objective.
Great post
Intellectual?
———–
How can you have a proper discussion with these guys on an intellectual plane?
On the one hand, the subject of Buddhism is regarded by the believers as dealing with …
(1) science – when Mr Yapa brings in Quantum Physics and
(2) cognitive psychology – when perception of unsatisfactoriness/suffering is brought in and
(3) neuro-sciences – when they say that KRN is discoverable/observable as real through meditation and
(4) politics – when it is suggested that the country should be run on these lines and
(5) philosophy – as it deals with the nature of existence.
And on the other hand, Mr Yapa seems to take the view that these subjects are SACRED and he therefore takes great offence at these theories being critically analysed.
It is understandable that a religious person will take great offence at having his religion scrutinised by non-believers. We know that. It is well known.
But yet, Mr Yapa maintains that Buddhism is NOT a religion, that it is statements of fact or some such thing.
Ironically, Mr Yapa ignores the advice by the Buddha himself as preached to the people of Kalama (IMO arguably the most useful part of the teachings with regards to dogma).
Now Mr Yapa is pointing out that the reference to ‘the Buddha’ is inappropriate form of address, although we have not referred to Einstein in this thread as The Great Learned Professor Einstein Big Pants, or indeed The Lord Jesus Christ.
It seems to me, the believers’ angle is ‘it is all these authoritative things (1) to (5) above’, while they can add credibility by associating with all those things of high regard BUT when anything is challenged it then suddenly becomes a ‘sacred item’ beyond the bounds of discussion, unless it is praise, devotion and blind acceptance.
Mr Yapa, you will have to decide once and for all … are we discussing things capable of intellectual exploration and analysis (such as real things) or instead are we discussing a religion (cherished items of faith)?
Dear BalangodaMan,
Thanks for that extremely interesting and well-written post on self-hypnosis. A lot of things, including meditation, fall into place quite well. I think I will give it a try myself, with the goal of controlling my propensity to get easily distracted! Thanks for also pointing out how a more resistant person could nevertheless go ahead with hypnosis, I just hope I don’t end up being open to suggestion in general!
As for having a discussion on an intellectual plane – I think some of the believers made it clear from the outset that they had no intention of reflecting on these issues intellectually. Too many counter-arguments are just counter-arguments for the sake of defending Buddhism at all cost, with no real reflection on the underlying issues. I’m having so many WTF experiences with some of these arguments that it boggles the mind that such thinking can emanate from otherwise normal individuals. Just goes to show what a menace to reason any religion can be.
Gentlemen
if both sides dont seem to be any closer towards understanding the other side – why persist?
is this not two monologues rather than a dialogue? if so how can it be of use to anyone?
said this before – but to me the most useful thing the Buddha said in the kalama sutta is that you must have a friendly disposition to be able to make an intelligent choice. he emphasized on metta, karuna, muditha and upekkha – the brahma viharas.
empathy is ESSENTIAL for intelligence. without it we are less intelligent than we can be. this is confirmed by modern research as well –
I feel – w/o offending anyone – that this debate is a failure – and it is a collective failure –
unless you are arguing to affirm your ego’s and this whole debate is an exercise in ego building ….
Dear OTC, BalangodaMan
OTC, the article you pasted really doesn’t make much of a case for meditation, other than just saying it’s different. When you read it, you can clearly see that *everything in meditation* can be described in terms of hypnosis, including being in a more relaxed state.
The only real difference it highlights? “In the great traditions, meditation is looked upon as a goal-less, non-striving state. Although in actual practice the meditator may make some effort during meditation (perhaps in an attempt to reach some spiritual goal),”
What a contradictory statement. This says is that if you just aimlessly sit in one spot, it’s meditation. Uh ok. That’s crystal clear what the difference is then! Of course, if a practitioner actually wants to reach a “spiritual goal”, they have to strive “a little” for it, in other words self-hypnosis. So the only take away from this statement is that you nevertheless do use self-hypnosis to achieve anything, otherwise you’re just sitting beneath a tree doing nothing.
Really, please do make a clear case for what the differences are. I think the account BalangodaMan gave provides a clear, repeatable basis for what really happens in a meditative state. The only question I might ask BalangodaMan is, what about all this stuff where people reduce their breathing rate and enter a coma like state? Is that self-hypnosis as well?
OTC,
This is for the benefit of SomewhatDisgusted actually. I don’t think OTC will be helped by this at all
He will continue to object.
Re.
”
Patricia Carrington, Ph.D.
Author of “The Book of Meditation”
I agree with this article totally.
If OTC reads both my post and this article he will also see that they do not conflict, simply expanding on my introductory piece.
The point Ms. Carrington is making is that while in trance you can (a) do nothing or (b) work towards a goal – the choice is yours. The operative idea is that, whatever you DO decide to do will be embedded in your subconscious mind to change the way you respond to things, your attitudes, including who you believe yourself to be.
Ms. Carrington details that when monks do this they do not normally go into trance with the aim of reprogramming it (only to calm their minds, escape from reality) and it is called ‘meditation’, whereas sportsmen do seek reprogramming (and it maybe called NLP or psyching up). And so you would also aim to reprogramme your subconscious mind if your aim is to instill universal and everlasting compassion, as I described. According the terminology in Ms Carrington’s article ‘compassion meditation’ would be an oxymoron, but it does not detract from the value of her analysis or the commonalities with my piece.
If OTC is reading, what the article DOES confirm is that meditation and self-hypnosis works on putting things into the subconscious mind – even if it is ‘nothing’, which actually means you are removing the disempowering things from it. Which is why you feel better afterwards. And you become a better PERSON after it.
Important to stress the warning I gave of some of the dangers though. If you meditate on the notion that ‘life is a bitch’ then that will be your internalised reality from then on. Your choice OTC and good luck.
Further warning, some of the natural responses we have are necessary – like survival reactions. If you erase those from your automated system (de-sensitise) you will not have your normal faculties when in danger. For example, you can be programmed to be compassionate towards someone coming towards you with a knife, and it may well avert a nasty situation, but most likely it may not. The existing programming (ie. to run) is a better plan I think.
The gist of this subject, in context, is … you cannot rely on what you end up believing after being in a trace state – whether the truth of KRN, or god or the truth of the Qu’ran.
(it is irrelevant whether it is externally induced or not)
Ordinary Lankan,
You are absolutely right.
I think for great many millions of Buddhists their religion serves them well, in many ways. As a religion, is it not expected that any non-believer will challenge it – unless challenging religion per se.
However, this is why I think the ‘believers’ here are doing the vast majority of proper believers a great disservice – by re-classifying a religion as (1) science/physics (2) the truth (3) political ideology (4) philosophy etc they are attracting reasoned counter arguments. There are enough people in the world who love a counter argument to anything (like me). It is an expected response in an open forum.
What I have learned from this discussion:
Buddhism is a religion to millions. It is of relevance to those who believe. It may have certain good things for others too. The ‘truths’ in a religion require faith which the believers draw upon. Claims of superiority over other religions such as Christianity, Islam or any other will always be met with counter arguments.
Dear OTC,
You said: “Hence before 1985 You, BM and SE would have just had to BELIEVE in your paternity in spite of your Agnosticism. If you have not done a paternity test yet, even today you are a “BELIEVER”
Frankly, this makes no sense. You seem to be arguing the opposite case, without even realizing it. There’s a huge difference between being willfully deceived and voluntarily deceiving yourself. If someone lies to me about my parents and I have no reason to suspect it, then I’m being willfully deceived. But if I notice obvious signs that my parents are not my real parents (i.e. I have blond hair while both my parents have black hair) and I choose to ignore that fact, then I’m voluntarily deceiving myself.
We have laid out an entire alternate set of arguments where the world can function quite well without this concept of KRN. Many contradictions have also been pointed out. If you refuse to acknowledge those issues, you are willfully deceiving yourself. I can’t help you with that!
Dear OTC,
You say: “You ask what the Logical alternative is
I believe currently there is none in existence due mainly to the immaturity of Science and Logic as I have consistently pointed out.
Hence we will have to wait until Science matures to look for answers.”
I quite agree, we need to wait and see! But why you choose to make a leap of logic in the meantime is the question at hand. On what *basis* are you considering only KRN to be true over gazillions of other similarly unverifiable beliefs? This question still has not been addressed at all.
Yapa,
You say: “We have offered enough reasons for the existence of karma, rebirth and nirvana including much material evidence.”
If you had offered such reasons, this debate would not be continuing! Why don’t you highlight these reasons for us, *in point form*, something that you have consistently evaded doing.
BTW, Yapa, I found the youtube video from which you cut and paste all your arguments about Heisenburg etc (without attribution): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9BICp84RBA
It would have been far easier if you just gave us the link and refrained from copy/pasting irrelevant things. It’s also no small wonder that you don’t seem to understand the fundamental philosophical basis of science. Furthermore, your biggest problem is that you confuse certain philosophical truths to be evidence for the truth of *everything in Buddhism* including KRN. Again, faulty logic.
You said: “How did that man of olden day (as some people of the forum used to call the Buddha) have that insight to specifically explain such a mighty conclusion, which is proved to be accurate to the split of a hair? Is it not something special about Buddhism?”
If the Buddha had given a single answer to any of these questions, I would have been really impressed! But the point is, all he said was answers couldn’t be found! Heck, even I could have said I don’t know the answers! These problems have been debated by philosophers for millennia. Plato, who lived around the same time as the Buddha, raises some of these very same questions. It goes without saying that people before him would have raised them also!
These questions are still unanswered and it only takes a reasonable amount of thought to see that we may never be able to resolve them.
For example, can you even comment on whether the reality you see around you exists as it is or whether we live in a dream? Of course not! Some people will come to this realization, in their teenage years, once they understand the concept of a dream and that it’s very difficult to distinguish some dreams from reality. So it only requires a little bit of further thought to see that perhaps our very existence is a dream! Movies like “The Matrix” explored those issues in a creative way and brought those issues into mainstream thought, issues that not all people really think about, which is why average joes like us might be quite impressed by it. But the questions themselves have bothered philosophers from as far back in human memory as we can go.
The only thing all this shows is that the Buddha was a great thinker. But you are welcome to highlight things that he has thought of that no other human being has even got close to thinking of independently. To this date, I have not found a single such thought that only an “enlightened one” could have been privvy to.
Furthermore, you consistently overlook the stories that the Buddha has said about luminous beings eating stuff with their hands etc. etc., all of which contradict our knowledge of evolution. We’ve highlighted so many other such contradictions with neuro-science etc. I’m really tired therefore of people who have *no interest* in having an honest intellectual discussion and don’t plan to bother much with your posts in future.
Just a correction. I said, movies like “The Matrix” explored those issues in a creative way and brought those issues into mainstream thought, issues that not all people really think about, which is why average joes like us might be quite impressed by “it” By “it” I meant, the philosophical issues, not the movie itself (The movie is impressive for having presented them nicely). The philosophical issues themselves may not have captured our attention, but they exist and will continue to exist. There are too many questions that we haven’t even begun to ask yet, and it is pure mindless devotion to think that Buddhism is the only answer we need.
SomewhatDisgusted,
“The only question I might ask BalangodaMan is, what about all this stuff where people reduce their breathing rate and enter a coma like state? Is that self-hypnosis as well?”
The subconscious manages our automatic functions such as breathing and other things that we take for granted like not falling over when we walk. And while in trance yogis influence their subconscious to redesign/manage how it works like I explained. So I expect this is the connection. I suppose very few people can really push it to the limit.
It is believed that our subconscious minds represent a huge unexplored territory like the oceans are, we only use a small amount of it creatively apparently. Some futurists predict that in hundreds of years time this is where most of our interaction and communications/creativity/life will happen. Telepathic dialogue? If you think about it, this scenario is not that much more fantastic than the suggestion to Victorian people that in a hundred years time people will be travelling to far away lands, as a daily activity, at 35,000 ft up in the air!
Good luck with this stuff. Get a Paul McKenna CD. Look up NLP (but watch out for scammers as it has in some ways also turned out to be a multi-level marketing gimmick in some parts of the world!)
A few thoughts on questions …
It is inconceivable that people living today can rely on things known about 2-3,000 years ago as the gospel truth for one more reason … How did the people living at that time know what questions to ask? Even if we knew exactly what words they used what would they have meant in the context of ancient times? I think Sujewa said, ‘what is the size of the universe’ in those days would have meant something quite different to what we mean today – as the size of the known ‘world’ did not extend beyond the horizon to most ancient people, lands beyond this world would most likely have meant the land across the ocean for most people of those days.
I think most people today understand this. Which is another reason why it is remarkable (or unremarkable!) why this thread has gone on for so long.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“BTW, Yapa, I found the youtube video from which you cut and paste all your arguments about Heisenburg etc (without attribution): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9BICp84RBA”
Though what you say about “my cut and paste” is incorrect, I am thankful to you for providing the link above. Many will benefit from it.
Really I have never seen this you tube video before. However, I quoted some of the quotations found in there from a different article and at that point I gave the source. You go to where I have mentioned and see (I think it must be in the discussion, Transformation of Buddhism……. . If you prove that I have quoted them without attributing them to the source, I will stop writing here after. I don’t steal others’ intellectual property.
Further, if you think I have to learn each and every Science lesson from the Internet like most do, I think you have made a mistake. I am a man with a formal study of Science. I have the capability to talk of many concepts in Science, without internet or even without any other references. Before seeing these things in the internet I had already learnt many of them. Therefore, I think that allegation suits you more than me.
Anyway thanks for the link.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
I would like to know your direct comments on my posts of June 18, 2010 @ 1:03 pm and June 18, 2010 @ 3:18 pm please.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Re. Heisenberg.
You still have not explained how (in your understanding) the Buddha gained insight into what Heisenberg studied some 2,500 years later. What is your explanation?
IWO, what would you or I have to do to gain similar insights into unknown things right now?
BM
when you say
QUOTE
What I have learned from this discussion:
Buddhism is a religion to millions. It is of relevance to those who believe. It may have certain good things for others too. The ‘truths’ in a religion require faith which the believers draw upon. Claims of superiority over other religions such as Christianity, Islam or any other will always be met with counter arguments.
UNQUOTE
this is very little. to the masses religion may be belief. but this is only one level.
the ‘truths’ are not static. as we grow in experience and keep learning we uncover different aspects of the same truth …. and karma is the truth of connection between different acts of a person in the same lifetime – because quite obviously this is what we can all testify to.
some habits – some likes and dislikes continue – they become our character – to become either hard or soft through the conditioning of past mental states. one does not have to be a buddhist to observe this. we also realize that with the exercise of will we can shake off bad habits – or bad karma – old actions that continued to define us from the past
do these observations require faith – or simply detached observation?
wonder if you are still with me ???
anyway this is the higher level of religion – and I have found it in all the major religions – not just buddhism
there is an investigation of tne mind – a science of the mind – or spirituality as the core of all religions
conventional science dealt with matter – not mind
today however both these investigations – that of matter and mind are coming closer – but this requires absolute openness – the type that one of the pioneers of this dialogue the Dalai lama exemplifies
DearAll;
WRT the following query of BalangodaMan and many arguments by the Agnostics
Re. Heisenberg.
You still have not explained how (in your understanding) the Buddha gained insight into what Heisenberg studied some 2,500 years later. What is your explanation?
………………
1. During the era Newtonian Science, and the people who have learnt it and whose thinking shaped on it, mocked at many things thinking that everything could be explained through that Science. Their view was that there were no alternative to Science. It was so assertive that is why it is called “deterministic”. The thinking of many people of today has been shaped by this deterministic thinking, which is based on five sensory perceptions and the intrinsic human ability of processing sensory perception to arrive at conclusions: rationality.
2. It has been clearly proved and accepted even by the Modern Science that there are things that are outside of the observables by the humans. Really the domain of Science by its definition is limited to material things. None can deny that there are things that are true and real, but remain outside the acquirable knowledge by the humans.
3. Also there can be imaginary and not real things in this domain (domain outside the rationality) that are created such as “somebody’s orbiting teapot” and “some sort of a ice cream cone” or something like that mentioned by somewhatDisgusted in the discussion.
4. In this general argument there can be true and real things and unreal things as well in the above said domain.
5. However, either these things are real or unreal there is a fact that remains unchanged. That is, none of these things can be perceived through human capability, hence through rationality and rationality based knowledge systems.
6. This clearly shows that true or not, rationality or rationality based systems (such as Newtonian Science) cannot be used to deal with them.
7. Still there may be or may not be a methodology that has been developed to investigate into such matters. (If purely talk logically)
8. However, unavailability of such a tool does not justify the use of “rationality” for the purpose (and it definitely cannot produce results.). Therefore, rationality or the arguments based on it cannot decide on such things, even to the lowest level of deciding they are real or not.
9. Further, unavailability of a proper tool yet, however, does not rule out the possibility of existence of real things in that particular domain.
In the above circumstances, what we should do to deal with such things.
There is no other way other than finding an alternative way/ways (other than “traditional” method: rationality.
This has been our position so far in general about the things that in the particular domain.
So this is applicable to karma, rebirth and nirvana too and it is useless trying to investigate them in terms of rationality and to expect to obtain results. This has been our position from the beginning and the every effort done by others proved that this position is true, not being able to go an inch further, and still in the square one.
In a deadlock like this, there is no other way other than finding an alternative way, however, exploring the shortcomings of the “traditional knowledge gaining system of humans” would be useful in finding alternative method/methods.
In addition to the limitations of five sensory sensations of humans, intrinsic sensation processing system of humans, rationality also has its shortcomings and limitations. We really know that some animals have shaper sensory organs than humans and they can sense what humans cannot.
With regard to rationality, even among humans, the capacities of rationality are different. This shows that an average person’s capacity is less than an above average person. If a person is not the most intelligent person, definitely his capacity is less than the full potential of rationality. This shows that humans cannot achieve the full potential of rationality. (I can remember Heshan has recently mentioned that human logic is limited to day to day work and they cannot use this tool for very subtle investigations. I also indicated this sometime ago saying that people have limited “parametric” thinking and if the multi parametric thinking is possible they can investigate and understand things easily.)
Further down their rationality (logic) is limited to a “Two Valued System”. Average human mind is unable to process a logical system that has more than two values. Whole “Newtonian Knowledge System” was built on the “Middle Excluded Two Valued Aristotelian Logic” and the whole system is limited to the knowledge generated through the two alternatives, available to it and hence misses the rest of the knowledge that can be gained through the other alternatives.
At the very inception I started writing in this web, I told these things but many including SomewhatDisgusted mocked at me. Heshan later agreed with me to a certain extent when, I showed that the concept of “Wave Particle Duality” was a product of “Four Valued Logic”. Further, I showed that use of “Four Valued Logic” is the reason for the beginning of the “Modern Science”. With the use of Four Valued System, Modern Science started to generate new knowledge that was alien to Newtonian Science. That is why it is called a Paradigm shift and the old “Newtonian Thinking System” was invalidated by the Modern Scientific Thinking.
Modern Science started generating new knowledge that was not possible by the old Science. Not only that this new knowledge is impossibility to old science and that view holders. However, unlike the knowledge generated though old system, some of the concepts generated through this new knowledge seemed similar to the conclusions and doctrines found in the Buddhism. That is the reason why unlike olden day Scientists, modern day scientists appreciate Buddhism, as in the cases of the youtube link provided by SomewhatDisgusted. No olden day scientist praised Buddhism because their system did not generate such knowledge, not that they were dishonest but they had no way to generate similar knowledge.
However, one similarity you can observe in Modern Science and Buddhism. Both of them do not limit their method of knowledge gaining to “Two Valued Logic” or rationality. I have been telling in this web that Buddhism used Four Value Logic to be mocked at by various people.
This shows that Modern science and Buddhism as well use a more advanced methodology than “Newtonian Science” in gaining knowledge. This particular knowledge cannot be generated through the old system and have no capacity to deal it.
Agnostics cannot capture anything outside the rational domain, how much they try, because their knowledge gaining system based on rationality cannot capture it and therefore they are critical of Buddhism despite the appreciations of many modern scientists..
If they want new knowledge what they have to do is to throw away their “Hanamitiya” and adapt to an advanced methodology of knowledge seeking. Otherwise, they will have to go forever after that he goat, to pick up that particular thing until it is fallen down.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say;
“IWO, what would you or I have to do to gain similar insights into unknown things right now?”
Really if you want please follow the Noble Eight Fold Path. However, those who have no “Sradda” cannot follow it. Sradda is a prerequisite. For details go to a practicing Buddhist monk or get some knowledge about Buddhism through reading to start with.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“In the meantime, K, R, N are still speculative items. And Buddhism is very similar to all of the other/Creator God based religions when it comes to speculative items, afterlife etc. Either you see this & refuse to admit it, or you do not see it/are unable to see it due to your commitment to Buddhism.”
You are preaching these things just like you are the all mighty god. We gave very specific reasons why karma, rebirth and nirvana should not be called speculative items. But disregarding all of them you give the final conclusion, them as speculative. A very simple way of justifying your views.
Same way you really know that creator god is disproved and nothing in Buddhism is disproved, still you equate disproved things to non disproved things. Where the hell did you find such reasoning? I think this is again a component of valuable freedom of choice. Choose your conclusions at your choice.
It is a marvelous world!
Thanks!
Ordinary Lankan,
“and karma is the truth of connection between different acts of a person in the same lifetime – because quite obviously this is what we can all testify to.”
In the above statement, I don’t know if you mean the same thing as the Yapa/OTC/Wijayapala position on this. Sounds like it though.
But I don’t get it.
Today I had the occasion to ponder the Yapa/OCT/Wijayapala position in real life. It turned out, rather inconveniently, that the fuel pump in my car was faulty. The engine suddenly cut out while I was on an important journey, in the middle of the road.
According to the roadside assistance man my misfortune was the result of a faulty fuel pump, which was due to normal wear and tear. According our friends (the Believers) my inconvenience is due to my karma, which I understand to be acts I have committed in contravention of the moral code as specified in the Buddhist teachings (BTW ‘deliberate’ acts to be specific, per OTC).
Who is right? Who am I to believe?
If I broaden my tolerance of reasoning I could entertain the idea that both are right. But whichever way I look at it there’s the inescapable problem that with the Yapa/OCT/Wijayapala position one would expect followers of the Buddhist moral code (The Noble Eight Fold Path) to possess and display a significant *monopoly* on good fortune. I simply do not see that around me – I do not see people in SL blessed with an abundance of it in contrast to other nationalities. I observe that good and bad fortune is somewhat evenly spread throughout all beings regardless of which religious persuasion, or non-religiousness they have.
If, on the other hand, your statement merely states that ‘things are caused by other things’ then (well!) we don’t need a long debate to agree on that, nor a major world religion to tell us that. On KRN, I think the point at difference we have in this discussion is (1) whether there is some judgement on moral grounds that determines our fate and (2) that that fate is inescapable even if our life ends before we suffer that fate and (3) that the fulfilment of the fate, IOW the punishment, would take place on this Earth in another life.
The problem with this is, the operation of this moral judgement appears to be ‘optional’ – for example if one can escape it by dying (I mentioned Hitler as an example). So (2) must apply otherwise the doctrine is pointless isn’t it?. So, to say that ‘we know it operates in this life’ only means that only those who choose to stick around will pay for their sins.
If we truly believe that only people who live by a specified moral code (The Noble Eight Fold Path) will have good fortune then wouldn’t we always choose to place our reliance on such people and not others? Would my car still have broken down if I had lived according to the specified Noble Eight Fold Path? Should we, for example, select our cricket team on that basis to ensure good fortune in the game? (we don’t want dropped catches and low run scorers!) Or, can the cricket selectors take a risk with those they think may have not lived according to The Noble Eight Fold Path?
Another example: If we want good fortune in our country, should we be mindful of that aspect when we choose which of our politicians should be allowed to run the country?
Ordinary Lankan, do you think there is a difference in the result whether a person lives by a Buddhist a moral code, or a Christian moral code, or a Muslim moral code, or a moral code that has no affiliation to any religion at all?
Would appreciate your views.
Yapa (& All),
Been a busy couple of days with a lot of interesting things happening (at least of interest to agnostics & secularists
, will have to post that stuff up on the web soon. In the meantime, let’s start replying to some of your Qs. I believe a few posts back you asked me to define reality, here is how I would define it – as briefly as possible:
Reality = Sum total of all that exists.
The question (main question) being discussed here is does Karma, Rebirth, Nirvana exist in the real world (reality) as actual elements that affect a person or that a person can use to affect their past/future lives, etc. or are they merely ideas that exist within a religious tradition?, & is their existence in the real world (outside of the realm of ideas) speculative (not proven, but may be at some point, though highly unlikely in my opinion).
::
Re: the following:
[Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
“In the meantime, K, R, N are still speculative items. And Buddhism is very similar to all of the other/Creator God based religions when it comes to speculative items, afterlife etc. Either you see this & refuse to admit it, or you do not see it/are unable to see it due to your commitment to Buddhism.”
You are preaching these things just like you are the all mighty god.]
Not preaching, merely stating some observations. Not a/the god. Although, it would be cool to have such powers, I can do a lot of good with them “)
“We gave very specific reasons why karma, rebirth and nirvana should not be called speculative items. But disregarding all of them you give the final conclusion, them as speculative. A very simple way of justifying your views.”
K, R, N are speculative because they cannot be demonstrated to be true in the real world, or, if it makes you feel better, at least in this point in time.
“Same way you really know that creator god is disproved and nothing in Buddhism is disproved, still you equate disproved things to non disproved things.”
This topic has been debated for centuries. Many things in ALL religions have been disproved. Nothing in Buddhism being disproved is a gigantic claim – but it is not a true claim. It is untrue because many things in Buddhism cannot be proven to be real – such as K, R, N, even the existence of the Buddha as he is described in Buddhism (being able to see past lives, etc.). Of course you may counter by saying that these things also cannot be disproved, which, to me is an empty argument – a debate device only – w/ out any significace to the real world.
We have discussed why not being able to show something is real is not the same thing as not being able to show that something is not real. Of course you convieniently ignore that because to do so supports your argument. Will re-post details of this entire discussion in an easily digestible form in the near futre (FAQs, this summer), so you can see how the agnostics have clearly defended our position & yet the believers revert to the same useless arguments time after time.
“Where the hell did you find such reasoning?”
Observing life.
“I think this is again a component of valuable freedom of choice. Choose your conclusions at your choice.”
Yes, freedom of choice, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion & freedom of religion are all related, and are very useful inventions. Choosing the most likely & valuable & useful conclusion re: a matter is one of the things that freedom of choice, etc. makes possible. Look into it, you might find it useful to think outside of 2500 years+ old & irrelevant boundaries
“It is a marvelous world!
Thanks!”
Yes, it is. And getting better all the time w/ the spread of free thought.
- S
Yapa,
Your defense of K, R, N & other aspects of Buddhism being outside the areas of knowledge accessible to reason & logic is also used by all God based religions, in East & West, to defend their belief that God is real. Read, from Existence of God wiki page, Outside of Western Thought section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God:
“Existence in absolute truth is central to Vedanta epistemology. Traditionally sense perception based approach was put into question as possibly misleading due to preconceived or superimposed ideas. But though all object-cognition can be doubted, the existence of the doubter remains a fact even in nastika traditions of mayavada schools following Adi Shankara.[13] The five eternal principles to be discussed under ontology, beginning with God or Isvara, the Ultimate Reality, cannot be established by the means of logic alone, and often require superior proof.[14] In Vaisnavism Vishnu, or his intimate ontological form of Krishna, is equated to personal absolute God of the Western traditions. Aspects of Krishna as svayam bhagavan in original Absolute Truth, sat chit ananda, are understood originating from three essential attributes of Krishna’s form, i.e., “eternal existence” or sat, related to the brahman aspect; “knowledge” or chit, to the paramatman; and “bliss” or ananda in Sanskrit, to bhagavan.[15]”
The inability of the believers in Christianity & Islam & Hinduism to prove the existence of God in a simple, real world, directly observed manner (as in – point to the place where this God entity lives, give us a photo of the entity, let us interview this entity, etc.) is identical to Buddhists being unable to prove that K, R, N are real. But, obviously proof is not necessary for believers ’cause believing is useful/valuable to their lives. Just as being agnostic about the existence of fantastical items such as God, gods, karma, nirvana, rebirth is very useful to agnostics/non-believers/free thinkers.
- S
And Buddhism is very similar to all of the other/Creator God based religions when it comes to speculative items, afterlife etc. Either you see this & refuse to admit it, or you do not see it/are unable to see it due to your commitment to Buddhism.”
Yapa has raised a good point that probably illuminates the agnostic/atheist position, perhaps in a subtle way. In accepting that one form of rebirth is acceptable, a question that naturally arises is: is this the only form of rebirth that is acceptable (valid)? There is an even more profound that arises, are there are an infinite number of valid forms of rebirth ? And then, of course, that other question of how each form compares to each other form… of course if the number of ways that rebirth could occur is infinite, then this question would, from a logical standpoint, be impossible to answer. So the atheist/agnostic, instead of wading into this logical swamp, simply rejects any notion of the afterlife/rebirth.
P.S: I should clarify what I mean by forms of rebirth/afterlife. Some examples:
1. You are reborn as an animal
2. You are reborn as a speck of dust on the Planet Mars
3. You are not reborn, you simply disappear (Buddhist Nibbana)
4. You are not “reborn” in the strict sense, you somehow find yourself in “Paradise” or “hell” or “purgatory” (Christian belief)
5. You are reborn into a parallel universe
6. You are reborn as a human (same as 1, if you consider humans as animals)
7. You are reborn as yourself? (Personal favorite)
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
Shall we start our discussion from the very beginning? Shall we start from the definitions? Shall we talk to the point and nothing else?
We have been talking about (ultimate) truths and (ultimate) realities. Before starting a discussion on anything I think we must be clear about the basic concepts/ideas of the discussion.
Now you have said that karma, rebirth and nirvana are not real. I asked what you meant reality. Then your answer was things that exist are real and later defined it as Reality = Sum total of all that exists. Thanks!
Now to understand reality it is essential to decide what “existence” means or the criterion to identify the existence of something. Tell me the acid test for identifying entities A, B, and C whether they exist or not.
For your convenience I will give you some alternatives. Please choose your answer from them.
Things that exist are
1. observable things/phenomena with five sensory organs
2. observable things/phenomena with five sensory organs and available scientific equipment
3. Things that can be explained through rationality/logic
4. other
If your answer is 4. other please explain the constituents of “other”.
Further, tell me whether can something, existence of which was disproved logically on the basis of its given characteristics be included in the category of the things tat exist.
I am thankful in advance to you for answering the above questions very specifically.
Thanks!
Yapa,
No need to restart the entire conversation (’cause there are far better ways to spend my time
, because the end result will still be the same (most likely) the agnostics do not have enough proof to accept that K, R, N are real, & the believers do not need any proof.
But, re: defining what’s real, sure, I’ll play along. Re: the following:
“For your convenience I will give you some alternatives. Please choose your answer from them.
Things that exist are
1. observable things/phenomena with five sensory organs
2. observable things/phenomena with five sensory organs and available scientific equipment
3. Things that can be explained through rationality/logic
4. other
If your answer is 4. other please explain the constituents of “other”.
Further, tell me whether can something, existence of which was disproved logically on the basis of its given characteristics be included in the category of the things tat exist.
I am thankful in advance to you for answering the above questions very specifically.”
Real things are things that actually exist, appears on the planet or the known universe, and can be observed to appear, have an effect on other things, beings that exist – or – items that can be confirmed to exist by impartial parties (not the inventor of one religion, for example). In discussing K, R, N we are talking about 2 things: 1 – the ideas, as they exist in the religion, & 2 – whether the ideas have real form – have an effect on the real world (the world that exists), or whether they are ideas/symbols/intellectual devices only. So, using your 4 options given above, for confirming whether K, R, N is real I would go with item 1 & 2 – either I should be able to observe that K, R, N are real/have form & effect in the real world, or, if the k, R, N items are too subtle to be detected by the human senses then their existence should be confirmed by special devices/machines, etc. Until the existence of K, R, N can be observed via human senses or via special machinery, & those observations can be tested by many impartial parties to confirm that what was believed to have been observed at first have in fact been observed, & until I personally can verify the observation of K, R, N in effect in the real world, those items will remain speculative/faith based/intellectual or ideas only items in Buddhism (at least for me).
And re: the “Further, tell me whether can something, existence of which was disproved logically…” let’s just stick to K, R, N before we move on to other things.
Unless of course that you agree that K, R, N cannot be proven to be real/to exist & have an effect in the real world/are beyond religious ideas – if so, then we can discuss other things that may or may not exist/be real.
- S
In the following (from above):
“Unless of course that you agree that K, R, N cannot be proven to be real/to exist & have an effect in the real world/are beyond religious ideas –…”
It should read – “…have an effect in the real world/are most likely merely religious ideas…”
- S
In case my question is ignored (again).
Is KARMA
’cause has an effect’?
or
’cause has an effect WITH an applied moral judgement’?
No one disagrees with the first.
Mr Yapa, what we are discussing is whether there is an application of some judgement in between and whether that judgement ‘is on the basis of morality/ethics and whether that basis is as prescribed by The Noble Eight Fold Path’ (and none other, eg. The Ten Commandments or those in the Qu’ran).
When the Agnostics say ‘are real things’ … is ’cause an effect’ IN REALITY influenced by, or is dictated by, this moral judgement? … or is the religion just saying so so that people are influenced to lead good lives?
If you mean it happens in REALITY then do we see that in empirical evidence around us? In other words … do people who follow Buddhism process better fortune in REALITY? Is that observable?
(in other words, trying to define ‘reality’ is irrelevant and unnecessary)
“do people who follow Buddhism process better fortune in REALITY? Is that observable?”
should read …
do people who follow Buddhism POSSESS better fortune in REALITY? Is that observable?
Balangoda Man,
“According to the roadside assistance man my misfortune was the result of a faulty fuel pump, which was due to normal wear and tear. According our friends (the Believers) my inconvenience is due to my karma, which I understand to be acts I have committed in contravention of the moral code as specified in the Buddhist teachings (BTW ‘deliberate’ acts to be specific, per OTC).”
Wrong.
Your fuel pump busted from wear and tear, as the mechanic stated. Your feeling of annoyance and inconvenience that led you to whine to us here about it was the result of your kamma.
I suppose that this phenomenon where secags (Schizo/Balangoda/SD) invent falsehoods and label it “Buddhism” must undoubtedly be a result of our kamma as well.
I see [Edited out] Wijayapala is back – perhaps taking a break from his sleep from reason
::
Anyway, for the agnostics, secularists, & related folks, couple of new items to check out:
http://www.secularsrilanka.com/discussions/sujewa/on-secularism-sri-lanka-several-related-items
- S
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “I suppose that this phenomenon where secags (Schizo/Balangoda/SD) invent falsehoods and label it “Buddhism” must undoubtedly be a result of our kamma as well.”
Yes, I quite agree. Except it’s kamma of the earthly variety, since you had no qualms about doing the same to others
What goes around, comes around! And that’s a type of kamma even a secag can subscribe to (cause & effect). We are just curious about the celestial judgement variety.
Wijayapala,
To add to SomewhatDisgusted, I have already said that we have NO argument about ’cause and effect’ – things we cause have an effect on other things that happen later. But tell us how this is influenced by following The Noble Eight Fold Path, WHILE it is (you say) NOT influenced by following the Ten Commandments or the rules written in the Qu’ran supposedly by god. Or if that’s too difficult can you tell us how ANY application of moral judgement comes into play within the operation of ’cause and effect’?
Observe that there are miserable people in Buddhist countries, as well as in Muslim countries and in Christian countries, and miserable people who have no religious leanings of any kind. If you are right I would expect to see fewer angry and miserable people in Buddhist countries. I do not see that. I saw millions of angry people in SL in the past several decades who are miserable as a consequence.
Lastly, about the car breaking down. My first thought, as I was saying to my passenger at the time, ‘ah this surely well illustrates the workings of karma that I must ask Mr Yapa to explain’. As for getting annoyed or upset – Mr Wijayapala, where have you been? I have written a fairly comprehensive piece on self-hypnosis/meditation. I have (hopefully) demonstrated how anyone (me, you, Mr Yapa) can programme ourselves to be less sensitive to the things that usually get us angry, annoyed, or frustrated. I showed how meditation, while many people still think is some divine/mystical exercise, is actually a phenomenon well known and much studied in neuro-sciences, and its powerful effect illustrated in entertainment every day all over the world.
In other words, a former mass murderer can programme himself, through self-hypnosis/meditation to feel well and happy in any circumstance. He can completely erase the internalised guilt of his crimes by these techniques.
Alternatively if you want to avoid getting angry, for the lazy, there are prescription drugs that your doctor will happily prescribe (eg. valium, prozac).
(now I can see an argument coming that ‘even if you avoid anger by taking prozac – or indeed meditation – karma will come and still bite you in the ass somehow’ – perhaps in the next life when you may not have access to prozac)
IF on the slim chance that you are saying that ‘there is cause and effect and we can eliminate any negative effect in our well-being by practising self-hypnosis (aka. meditation) – without a claim that a residual ’cause’ is passed to some unfortunate chap who will be born in the future with whom we have no connection whatever’ then at least I would agree with that. But that is not the KRN we are discussing.
Wijayapala,
Having pondered over your post in greater depth I am thinking there could be a diversion of definition as to what ‘karma’ you mean. There seems to be several meanings from you guys – the meaning seems to move depending on the direction of the discussion.
So …
Do you mean ‘karma’ = how we *cope with* things that happen to us that are brought about by factors outside our control, not caused by us in any way? (eg. my car. You say it is how I cope with the inconvenience of a car breakdown that’s a result of karma)
or
Do you mean ‘karma’ = the things that happen to us from outside *themselves* happen to us because of our bad behaviour in the past (including a past life) as judged as bad by the celestial judging mechanism (a la Mr Yapa’s extended laws of physics that only Believers can see). (eg. the car broke down because I have been a bad boy earlier, or some other dude was a bad boy in the 18th century whose luggage I seem to have inexplicably inherited. Eeek)
You seem to reject the second meaning. Please confirm.
How do Mr Yapa, OTC stand on this? (OTC, I’m assuming that the 18th century dude did his bad thing ‘deliberately’)
)
(Mr Yapa, did the car breakdown because I lacked ‘sraddha’? Or the 18th century dude lacked it? I might ask ‘or the car’ but that would be silly, but we never know with you guys
Dear Wijeyapala / Yapa,
Just read BalangodaMan’s Fuel Pump equation with Kamma (Volitional action and its effects).
Trying to explain the concept of Kamma to BalangodaMan is like trying to convey the concept of Light to the Congenitally Blind.
When discussing the Concept of Light in relation to the Congenitally Blind many theories were brought forward to show that the Congenitally Blind could be made to understand the Concept of light by it’s Heating effect etc. Ultimately the Congenitally Blind who had never had a working Retina since Birth, understood light as Heat. So what Both have the same common denominator? In the final analysis its boils down to energy and hence that is Rational.
The Congenitally Blind did not possess a working Retina to understand what Light is. Our friend BM has a similar disability and is unable to grasp the concept of Kamma (His car breaks down and he attributes it to Kamma even though the Volitional Action is missing from the equation). Though he has a working Retina his disability is elsewhere, so he goes round in circles.
Reminds me of the story about a Congenitally Blind person who wanted to know what the Colour white is. The person explaining it said that white is like a Crane (Koka). Then the blind person felt a Crane and exclaimed Oh so this is white.
Dear All,
“…and because there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases.”
That is a statement from a book called “On Agriculture” written in the FIRST Century BC. The Author was a Roman scholar called Marcus Terentius Varro (Wiki)
Could the Agnostics give a POINT BY POINT Rational explanation using the knowledge available at that time and applying the same rules, methods, Science, Logic that are to be applied to Kamma and Rebirth?
Dear All,
Please allow me to make a clarification regarding my previous post of June 24, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Marcus Terentius Varro wrote about living beings in the First Century BC, that were not seen till the 16 the century AD. If Marcus was asked to prove his statement by applying the same methods and standards that are requested to be used when discussing Rebirth and Kamma, Marcus would have failed to establish that such living organisms even existed even though they did.
Yet today, with the advancement of Science we have no trouble in establishing the fact that Microscopic Organisms INVISIBLE to the Naked Eye are REAL things that Exist in this world and according to Science, that they were the first living organisms in the world.
Agnostic methods would have resulted in rejecting Marcus’s statements as speculation.
Establishing Reality using Science or Logic is limited by Science and Logic itself.
OTC,
No!
My request for clarification of what you mean by ‘karma’ is purely on a common sense plane, and to avoid wasting everyone’s time – including those reading this thread in 10 years time.
Wijayapala, in his response to my car breakdown, refers to it as ‘how I cope with the inconvenience of a external events such as set backs’.
In other parts of this thread ‘karma’ is referred to by the Believers as ‘the occurrence of the set back itself being caused by something I had done in the past’.
These are two widely divergent meanings given to the word ‘karma’.
We could be needlessly going round in circles unless you guys please tell us, definitively, which do you mean?
I know for a fact (ok, though observation) that most people in SL regard karma as the second meaning (while Wijayapala recognises only the first meaning when he says ‘Your feeling of annoyance and inconvenience that led you to whine to us here about it was the result of your kamma’).
So, is it this … or is it that?
BalangodaMan,
Kamma has been clarified an umpteen times on this thread. Read them up and ask questions based on them (please quote the post that you are referring to as it’s difficult to find an old post on GV).
I have given what I understand by Kamma in my own posts. I have stated that I BELIEVE in the carry over of Kamma to a subsequent life (my only question regarding that is connected to a question raised by SD ie why should I be kept in the dark as to which bad or good things of my past life causes me to suffer or enjoy the fruits of Kamma in this life). I however have no doubt about Kamma in this life as the results of my Volitional Actions are Plainly visible.
Please remember that Kamma is not the cause of everything that happens. There are other causes. it is only one of the twenty-four causal conditions (paccaya), described in Buddhist Philosophy.
As I said before the Congenitally Blind will never know the REAL concept of Light. That is because they have had never experienced Light due to a Congenital Disability that prevents them from doing so. They do not have a WORKING RETINA. You tried many methods to convey the Concept of Light to them but they never understood what light was. Instead they understood it as Heat. You might rationalise by saying that both Heat and Light are electromagnetic Energy forms. ie they are both Energy. But the fact remains that they are different and that difference cannot be conveyed to the Congenitally Blind, ever.
In an earlier post I Mentioned that Marcus Terentius Varro Postulated about unseen Micro Organisms in the First Century BC. It took 17 Centuries for Science or even Common Sense to actually “SEE” these Micro Organisms. In fact those Micro Organisms were the FIRST INHABITANTS of Earth. Hence that TRUTH took over Billion years to be UNDERSTOOD by Human’s.
Inability to SEE or otherwise OBSERVE does not make a TRUTH a Falsehood. Only a Fool will think so.
Dear All;
To day we commemorate the day that marked the beginning of a unique civilisation, culture and a nation, with the introduction of the doctrine of Buddha to Sri Lanka by Maha Arahath MahindaThero. This remarkable incident took place on a Poson Full Moon day like today. The civilization he established here uniting the diverse ethnic groups under one umbrella on the common philosophy of Buddhism endowed many valuable gifts to the world. Preservation of the Buddhist doctrine to the world is the most valuable contribution of this nation. The most significant book writing project ever, writing the whole Thripitka, on ola leaves was undertaken by the successors of that great thero of the civilization he gave birth to. Buddhism would have been only history if this civilsation was not boomed in this tiny island with the blessings of Mahinda Thero.. As a nation we can be proud of this universally significant great work of our ancestors. Keeping in mind such great competencies we had as a nation in the past, we all must re-energize ourselves to be an example to the whole world. We have an unparalleled philosophy endowed to guide us for this purpose. We must be thankful to Great Mahinda Theoro for his enormous contribution and commemorate that great moment on a day like this: Poson Full Moon Day. On this great day we wish peace to all.
Thanks!
OTC & all,
The following are true at this point in time:
- K, R, N cannot be proved to be true/real (in the same way that B-Man’s car can be proved to be real/actually exist).
- the idea of K, R, N has existed for at least 2500+ years in Buddhism, plus many thousands more in earlier religious thought – most likely. and during all these years it has not been proven to be true/real.
- whether the blind can understand the concept of color (which they can, even though OTC refuses to acknowledge it), or whether micro organisms could not be observed in the 1st century are not very relevant to the K, R, N issue. All such matters point to is that the agnostic approach to K, R, N is the more useful one. Menaing – at this point in time (nor in the 2500+ previous years of Buddhism) – K, R, N cannot be proven to be true/real, thus, the possibility (strong or weak based on one’s preference) that K, R, N are either speculative items or false items or symbolic items should be accepted (or, at least, makes sense to impartial observers). Of course the believers are not motivated by facts, they are motivated by childhood conditioning, myth, desire for Buddhism to be real/as described/taught, using Buddhism for political (land & people control) purposes (thus the call for accepting Buddhism as an undisputed truth, the universal truth, etc.).
::
Also, even though K, R, N has never been proved to be real, Buddhism has been useful to many people over the past 2500+ years. So, obviously Buddhism is a useful human invention – but, Buddhism has not been able to solve many problems (or Buddhist thinking alone) that exist in this world – for that, we need open minds, & new combinations of ideas – not closing ourselves off to the BELIEF that Buddhism is the most significant idea ever & that it is flawless, & all other competing ideas, or possibly better ideas can be ignored or should be suppressed.
- S
the following from above:
“…not closing ourselves off to the BELIEF that Buddhism is the most significant idea ever & that it is flawless,…”
should read:
“…not closing ourselves off BY the BELIEF that Buddhism is the most significant idea ever & that it is flawless,…”
- S
OTC & others,
There have been a million things that people thought existed – dragons, mermaids, etc. – that turned out not to be true/not to exist. Regardless, this debate is about K, R, N being real or speculative/faith based items. So, micro organisms – how they were discovered – etc. is an entirely different topic – & it has almost no relevance to this discussion. When faced with absence of proof for a fantastic idea – such as those that exist at the core of religions, it is best to put it aside as something that is not very relevant, an idea only, speculation, & move on to more important things.
For anyone actually interested in the discovery of microorganisms, this page is a good point to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism
The theory that microorganisms caused things to happen in the larger world was supported by the facts – or could have been supported by, long before the invention of the microscope, by pointing to possible events caused by microorganisms – spoiling food, spread of illnesses after coming into contact with the ill, etc. K, R, N however leaves no such traces. Karma that carries over from a previous life or continues on after the death of an individual cannot be either proven or observed, nor can any signs that karma causes various things to happen on the planet be pointed to. Nirvana – the attainment of a state that affects karma, etc., cannot be pointed to or proven because there does not appear to be anyone who attained (outside of what the believers have been taught to believe – that an indian monk attained that mysterious state 2500+ years ago) or is able to attain such a state & of course karma, as mentioned earlier, cannot be proven to make nirvana/its usefulness valid. Rebirth is entirely speculative also, there are no signs that rebirth happens – even though the believers point to birth marks, scars, statements made by children, etc. as proof non-believers are unable to verify that rebirth is an actual event that happens in this universe.
So we are back to where things were when this conversation more or less ended many weeks ago – the believers believe in K, R, N because it makes them comfortable, it is useful for controlling people, etc. And the non-believers place K, R, N in the speculative religious items category & move on to deal with the real causes of suffering & happiness in this world.
- S
Dear Suhewa Ekanayake,
“So, micro organisms – how they were discovered – etc. is an entirely different topic – & it has almost no relevance to this discussion”
Marcus Terentius Varro Postulated about unseen Micro Organisms in the First Century BC
What he wrote then, was ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. Totally Futuristic and IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE given the state of Science and Logic prevalent then. In fact what he wrote was UNIMAGINABLE, Speculative, Unreal and needed FAITH to be accepted.
Applying your Agnostic and Rationalistic Theories and If Sujewa Ekanayake or BalangodaMan or SD were living at that time, you would have rejected what he wrote as his writings could not be proved in a lifetime. In fact it took a Minimum of 22.5 Generations (with a 75 year life expectancy) to be found to be TRUE.
Till the 16 Century A.D. Humans could not prove a Truth that had existed since LIFE BEGAN ON EARTH. That did not make The TRUTH a FALSEHOOD.
Why? Because Science did not have the capability to do so.
You have been going on the assumption that if it cannot be observed or cannot be proven by Science then that becomes speculation, Unreal and need Faith to be accepted.
You don’t accept that there has been insufficient research on the subject.
The best joke of the day
Sujewa Says
“… the blind can understand the concept of color (which they can, even though OTC refuses to acknowledge it”
Fantastic
I am talking of the CONGENITALLY BLIND Not the Blind. Hope you understand the difference as that difference is Very Great.
Why don’t you patent that and Give it to the world for free. There should be close to a billion who are blind “OPTICALLY that is.
Dear Sujewa,
My apologies for misspelling your name.
Sorry about that.
Am in a hurry and could not read all posts as I have to keep an appointment
BM
sorry I had a very busy week ….
your question QUOTE
Ordinary Lankan, do you think there is a difference in the result whether a person lives by a Buddhist a moral code, or a Christian moral code, or a Muslim moral code, or a moral code that has no affiliation to any religion at all?
UNQUOTE
Absolutely no difference. a moral code is a tool to achieve freedom and peace of mind. the highest precept in buddhism is continual mindfulness and this I feel quite strongly guides all truly great men – such as Gandhi and Mandela – they refer to this in different ways though
I have also studied the life of St Francis of Assisi – here again the simplicity and generosity and wisdom – these are very clear
these are people who USE concepts including God to achieve understanding and move into the realm of absolute reality (the realm of selflessness) which is as you know totally devoid of human pre-conceptions
this is why the buddha said to let go of everything
I dont deal here with the fuel pump issue – everything on earth is subject to wear and tear. our own bodies too. there is a natural law that affects all things – just figure it out – call it what you like – but figure it out – everything that happens is not punishment in the sense of retribution – but somethings do come back – and the main reason for that is this
WHATEVER YOU DO YOU DO TO YOUR MIND – AND IT AFFECTS YOUR MIND – SO WHEN THE MIND IS AFFECTED FOR BETTER OR WORSE IT GETS INTO PATTERNS THAT EITHER HELP YOU OR GET YOU INTO TROUBLE
does that make sense ??
buddha certainly did not brand his teachings or his concepts – but concepts have their value – there is a whole teaching on reality and concept that i should not launch into here – but buddha said – dont be an extremist – dont take sides – observe reality – use concepts to communicate – but use words with care – very practical advice
SE is very intelligent – but when he rejects KRN saying speculative categories – there is some thing cavalier about it – sujeewa it does not seem very objective after all that has been said in this column for you to pass such a harsh sentence on these concepts. in fact your choice of KRN is quite clever because they are complex ideas that need close examination and long introspection to work out. if for example you had chosen anicca, dukkha and anatta – it would have been far easier to establish these things – and these are the 3 realities of existence that the buddha taught as the universal law – and these three ideas are if i may say with humility unique to buddhism – as developed concepts
cheers
my last para should not be misunderstood as an assertion of superiority. I am just pointing out that these concepts appear in an express and developed form in Buddhism. they are only communicated in a spirit of sharing. the prayer of St Francis below about selfishness and selflessness reminds me that the sincere religious life liberates whatever the creed.
so agnosticism is NOT the exclusive preserve of objectivity and openness. those who are ‘religious’ may in fact be more open – it depends on the individual and personality.
Prayer of St Francis ———
Lord, make us instruments of your Peace.
Where there is hatred, let us sow love;
where there is injury, healing;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
Grant that we may not seek so much
to be comforted as to comfort,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
in forgiving that we are forgiven,
and in dying to our selfishness
that we are born into life eternal.
OTC & OL,
- re: micro organisms topic – there are many things that could not be observed directly in the past, but their effects were observed, & people theorized as to what the causes were. At the same time, ancient religions, holy men, etc., attributed mysterious things to the workings of their gods, spirits, etc. & claimed to offer means by which these gods & spirits could be made to behave in a way more useful to humans/the believers/the worshippers. The same happens in SL Buddhism – the priestly class & their fans/supporters control the believers by claiming to be able to affect karma, rebirth via the work done by the believers with the instructions from the priests. This is a simple, powerful, ancient mind control mechanism. It turns (or can) people into mental slaves, thus, can be very dangerous (specially in the context of an ethnic war/conflict). A good way out or a good way to liberate minds from control of religion is to point out that the grand claims made by religions are untrue/not real. So, that’s what’s going on here – K, R, N – being speculative concepts – cannot be proven to be real – & thus – Buddhism, like every other religion, is not an eternal truth or an absolute truth – it is a set of relative values, viewpoints, traditions & instructions – to be followed if useful to the followers & to be ammended & perhaps discarded when it outlives its use.
Re: OTC’s statement re: micro organisms not being proven until recently – so, are you saying that even though Buddhism is guessing at the existence of K, R, N (since no microscope yet exists that is capable of pointing out the existence of K, R, N) that people should accept K, R, N out of the off chance that K, R, N is similar to micro organisms & that K, R, N may be proven in 22+ generations? Isn’t this the same argument – the same faith based argument – for belief in all the gods that cannot be proven to exist in every religion? That people should play it safe now in order to ensure that in the future they are/were on the right side of the argument? This is similar to the fear of death & afterlife technique used by the priestly class to control ancient believers. Why shouldn’t people who need some kind of a supernatural item to believe in instead choose Thor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor to believe in – other than K, R, N – for example. Isn’t it possible that Thor actually existed in the distant past, & maybe is traveling in another part of the universe, & might return in 22+ generations? So, the agnostics position is – if K, R, N, or Thor are proved to exist – then we will take into account those facts when we choose how our lives are to be lived. In the meantime, both Thor & K, R. N are ancient religious concepts – of some symbolic use, but are optional when it comes to individuals basing their lives on them.
Re: the blind not being able to see color & light. I will have to re-post all the comments by myself, Heshan, B-Man & SD where we showed that the blind (yes OTC, from birth) can be made to understand the existence of light & color. You keep playing word games with this issue & you keep ignoring the obvious – that there is no major issue w/ in the blind community in this world re: lack of belief/proof re: the existence of light & color. Also, this is a loosely, distantly related topic. You are inaccurately comparing two things that exist – light & color – items that are acknowledged to exist by billions of people, to three speculative items/items that have never been proven to exist even to a small number of people – K, R, N.
Re: OL’s statement re: religious people being good people, etc. – sure, humans are capable of being very good (positive, useful to other humans), with or withour the use/aid/control of any of the current religions in existence or any of the past religions that may have existed. The human capacity to care about others & do work to help others precedes, in my opinion, the codification/invention of religions – which require the development of complex languages, use of symbols & rituals. I am fairly certain many humans were “good” long before we invented complex languages & ability to use complex symbols (the wheel of law, the cross, etc.) – otherwise the species probably would not have survived & become incredibly successful on this planet.
OTC – re: misspelling my name – no worries, used to it
And generally you spell it correctly.
OL – I chose K, R, N to deal with because they are, to me, obviously speculative items & most open minded believers even will not have a difficult time seeing that they are speculative/faith based items. However, Buddhism can, & have, worked well for individuals as a system of self-control, a system of ethical guidelines – even w/ out the belief in K, R, N. K, R, N are part of a system of fear based mind control devices (that uses the belief in pre-lives & after lives) that exist in Buddhism – similar to items that exist in all other religions. In a time period where there was no law & order in a modern sense, K, R, N – or at least K, R – probably was useful for ensuring that believers behaved in a certain way that made it easier to keep society organized in a certain way – they are kind of spiritual taboo devices/do this or the gods will punish you type of thing.
Alright, off to celebrate the world cup games, be back later.
Ultimately, I think honest goodness – goodness created in humans without the use of lies, deception (belief in things that do not exist, or may not exist) is more useful, valuable, & important than goodness created out of fear of a negative rebirth, punishment from God, etc. In a diverse (multiple groups of people) world such as ours, positiive thinking & behavior based on observable, existant realities are more useful in achieving greater development & peace.
- S
OTC,
Re: Micro-organisms
We have dealt with this. Here it is again.
If I tell you that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden … do you believe that UNTIL it is proved? Or do you believe it WHEN it is proved?
You see, just like the micro-organisms, millions if not billions of things were ‘discovered’ (or speculated about) since the dawn of man. Some, actually a few, turned out to have some association (some tenuous, some more direct association) with a real discovery of somethings real – such as your micro-organisms. Most are either still speculative or abandoned as imaginings of ancient people. some rejected as the oppsite has been proved, or a rational proof has been found and generally accepted.
So OTC, do you believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden?
(I can assure you that we will definitely have instruments that can measure their presence, say in 1,000 years time. Until then probably instruments to prove that there are NO fairies at the bottom of my garden will be OTC,
Re: Micro-organisms
We have dealt with this. Here it is again.
If I tell you that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden … do you believe that UNTIL it is proved? Or do you believe it WHEN it is proved?
You see, just like the micro-organisms, millions if not billions of things were ‘discovered’ (or speculated about) since the dawn of man. Some, actually a few, turned out to have some association (some tenuous, some more direct) with a real discovery of somethings real – such as your micro-organisms. Most are either still speculative or abandoned as imaginings of ancient people. some rejected as the oppsite has been proved, or a rational proof has been found and generally accepted.
So OTC, do you believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden?
(I can assure you that we will definitely have instruments that can measure their presence, say in 1,000 years time. Until then instruments to prove that there are NO fairies at the bottom of my garden will be unlikely to have been invented, probably)
Sujewa,
Good summarisation.
Just to add, for those who may have just tuned in, I think there is little challenge from most Buddhist believers that Buddhism is a religion, with all the normal aspects of a religion such as faith, ritual, customs, traditions, dogma etc.
This discussion really started when Mr Yapa objected to Buddhism as a ‘faith’ – as ‘faith’ is what other religions have (meaning … other religions = ‘faith’ = poppycock). Thus started a claim that karma, rebirth and nirvana is the absolute truth, which however apparently cannot be proved except to those who already believe.
To ALL Agnostics and Others,
Sujewa’s idea of Reality is defined in the following challenge
“prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”
Going by the above ANYTHING that cannot be proven by Science or Math or other Verifiable Method falls outside his definition of reality
I have consistently argued that his contention is wrong and have provided Real world examples of Phenomena That has no explanation that falls within his definition of proof but yet are TRUE.
The latest item that I placed before this forum falls OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF REALITY that Sujewa defines. Yet IT WAS PROVEN TO BE TRUE 22 Centuries later. That is after 2200 years.
The existence of unseen microbiological life was postulated by Jainism which is based on Mahavira’s teachings as early as 6th century BCE. Paul Dundas notes that Mahavira asserted existence of unseen microbiological creatures living in earth, water, air and fire. Jain scriptures also describe nigodas which are sub-microscopic creatures living in large clusters and having a very short life and are said to pervade each and every part of universe, even in tissues of plants and flesh of animals (Wiki)
The possibility that microorganisms exist was discussed for many centuries before their actual discovery in the 17th century. (Wiki)
What is striking is that it was an Ancient Religion called Jainism that first stipulated the Existence of UNSEEN Micro Organisms.
1. It could not be proved (Science was IMMATURE)
2. There was no Logic or Math that could prove what the Jains said.
3. There was no other Verifiable Method in existence at that Time capable of proving what the Jains said
Hence according to Sujewa’s Definition of Reality the Jain’s were talking BS.
Hence Sujewa and those who think alike have no other Logical conclusion other than to state that the Jain’s were describing UNREAL things with the Objective of Controlling the Populace and were trying to just use speculative items to introduce and sustain the Jain world view.
Five Centuries later comes a Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro who states that Micro Organisms exist. But he too had no way to meet Sujewa’s Definition of Reality.
Subsequently there were many other POSTULATIONS about Disease causing Micro Organisms but the statement reproduced from the Wiki is telling
All these early claims about the existence of microorganisms were speculative and were not based on any data or science. Microorganisms were neither proven, observed, nor correctly and accurately described until the 17th century. (Wiki)
It took over 2200 Years for Science to establish what the Jain Religion Stated about the existence of Micro Organisms.
So much for the Definition of Reality that Sujewa makes.
There was no scientific method available to prove what the Jain Religion stated and for 2200 years what they said was considered speculation. Finally when Science MATURED the TRUTH about Micro Organisms was established.
Human’s took approximately 3–4 billion years (Wiki) to discover the ORIGINAL Inhabitants of the world.
Till then according to Sujewa’s logic, they were just speculative aspects of the Jain Religion and these speculative items were used to introduce and sustain the Jain world view and to control the populace.
Sujewa says ” So, micro organisms – how they were discovered – etc. is an entirely different topic – & it has almost no relevance to this discussion.”
I hope Sujewa and the others see the relevance now as it has broken down Sujewa’s Definition of Reality and as a result, his house of Cards have crumbled without any hope of Resurrection
Dear Sujewa,
You have missed the main thrust of my argument about Light and the Congenitally Blind.
I have made no attempt to compare it to any aspect of Buddhism.
What I wanted to highlight was the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of anyone conveying that the MAIN property of Light is ILLUMINATION to the CONGENITALLY BLIND as they do not posses a WORKING RETINA which is a prerequisite in order to experience Illumination and Colour. You have been going round in circles talking about heating properties etc without touching the ILLUMINATING property of Light. Without a working eye no one can experience it. Neither can they experience Colour.
My intent was to show that the difficulty you have, explaining the Illuminating and Colour properties of Light to the Congenitally Blind is identical to the Difficulty that we have explaining Buddhism to your group.
Ah, I seem to have repeated my self. No harm in drilling it in twice. I’m sure it will still not get through …
Same question to Mr Yapa – do you believe in fairies?
Why would you NOT believe me about the fairies?
You do not believe me about the fairies but people 2,500 years ago believed what they were told about KRN with no more evidence than you have about the fairies today. How do you explain that?
You (today) believe in KRN with no more evidence than I have about the fairies. Explain? (Trust me, the fairies are very real to me!)
OTC,
[the illustration of Colour amd Light] “is identical to the Difficulty that we have explaining Buddhism to your group.”
… and at the same time you say (and you have said this several times) “I have made no attempt to compare it to any aspect of Buddhism.”
We really do have to address this problem.
You introduce a very pertinent illustration to support your assertion AND THEN you adamantly refuse the use of the same illustration to explore the subject under discussion, your claims of KRN. OTC (since you have brought up the legal system as a parallel earlier in this debate) it is like the prosecution introducing a piece of evidence to support the prosecution and refusing to let the defence use that same evidence to support the defence!
Microbes
———
OTC, please read this carefully. When Maravira said there are microbes … on what evidence did he make that claim? Now consider the parallel – what evidence do I have for claiming that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden? Absolutely none! Do I expect you and the general public to believe me? No! Why? (and I shall answer this for you) Because my saying so falls well below the standards of proof that is expected in the 21st century. Will you, or anyone, believe me on the basis of my ‘claim’ that I can see beyond normal people – that I am ‘enlightened’? No!
So, OTC, what evidence did Mahavira offer the people of his time? None, except his claim that he had an insight that normal people did not have. Did this fall within the standards of proof that was required in ancient times? Yes, apparently and evidently.
Millions, if not billions, of such claims were made by millions of people in history with the same level of proof offered by Mahavira (and your other friend Varro). These were generally believed by their audiences, indeed they were targeted towards those audiences, what was considered to be useful for them etc.
Where you are going wrong here is, you are suspending the level of proof and scrutiny expected TODAY, and you are basing your acceptance of KRN on the basis of the relatively low level of proof required in ancient times. Further, you are ignoring the knowledge gained in the past 2,500 years that better explains the phenomena that our ancient ancestors mistook to be something else. For example, our current understanding of the effect of self-hypnosis has been discussed, in particualar our openness to self-hypnotic suggestion when in transcendental meditation, particularly and popularly in relation to the perception of previous lives.
::
Sujewa’s point about Colour and Light and KRN is this. You are using as an illustration something the majority of humans experience daily and know to exist … Colour and Light. However, KRN no one has seen. Even none of the 70% of the SL population who are culturally Buddhist have seen it – they are not Buddhists because they have seen it for themselves or want to or expect to, but rather because of this process … ‘we are Buddhist, Buddhists believe in KRN and therefore we believe in KRN’. (that OTC does not take much to test among your friends and family).
Have you or Mr Yapa explained to us the BASIS on which YOU have a special insight that we (and most SLs) do not have? No! Will you? No! Can you? No!
Religon and control of the masses
———————————
OTC, you are also failing to understand Sujewa’s explanation of how, in history, religion has been a tool with which the rulers controlled the masses. I cannot think of any reasonably informed, education, thinking, even religious (!) person with a modicum of common sense who will challenge that statement – except you! How you manage to join the dots between this (universally accepted truism) and Mahavira’s claim of the existence of microbes is beyond me! (except that both sentences has the word ‘religion’ in it?)
Just my observation, but I do not think that any of the ‘founders of’ religions recognised today ever sought to *start* a religion. As I noted earlier, each had a personal and immediate need consistent with the times and place they lived in. (the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed et al). This is no different from billions of other people in history, and even now, including you and me who have our own personal agendas, conflicts, disagreements, aspirations, competition, curiosity etc. – the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed had these which drove them into their now famous roles.
It is the other people who needed to control other people, who saw the opportunity and the potential that existed that created ‘the religions’.
For example, Archimedes made a breakthrough discovery. He bacame ‘enlightened’ in that field of knowledge. If he lived in another place at that time, or at that place at some other time, he may have been hailed as someone with a special insight, a god, or someone with a special connection to a god. In other words, if someone had an interest in putting a religious ‘spin’ on his discovery that would have happened.
For example, there were many Buddhas in the region and throughout India at that time – Mahavira is one of them. His teachings and indeed his backstory is almost identical to that of Siddharta Gautama. The religion of Buddhism exists today, not because no other Buddhas existed at that time, but because the Emperor Asoka selected it, in preference to the others (just as Constantine chose Christianity, and the remaining rulers of Mecca adopted Islam). My point is, when we speak of ‘the Buddha said’ which Buddha do we mean? All we can say is ‘attributed to the Buddha’ because what is codified as Buddhism is what the leaders (religious, or otherwise) that came hundreds of years later put together in an editing job for a purpose. An example is the bible. (Note that, by the time Islam came the rulers were a little more astute. They put the spin that the Qu’ran is god’s own words, and ensured that no other religion will succeed Islam as ‘the word of god’ by saying Mahammed in his last messenger. Clever move)
OTC, let’s move forward in the dissemination of ideas please!
(how is it that you do not believe my unprovable claim of there being fairies at the bottom of my garden first-hand but you believe the unprovable claims of KRN that you have heard thousandth-hand?)
OTC,
Since you are fixed on the following path (light & color = K, R, N), let me see if I can use some of it to try to convey to you the errors that arise when the following/above path is used to debate the most likely non-existence of K,R,N. From what you wrote:
“What I wanted to highlight was the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of anyone conveying that the MAIN property of Light is ILLUMINATION to the CONGENITALLY BLIND as they do not posses a WORKING RETINA which is a prerequisite in order to experience Illumination and Colour. You have been going round in circles talking about heating properties etc without touching the ILLUMINATING property of Light. Without a working eye no one can experience it. Neither can they experience Colour.”
Let’s tkae a look at the end results. First, even though you deny it, you are likening the inability of the blind to see color to the inability of the non-believers to see that KRN are real items. So, in the end, if the blind could not understand/accept the existence of light & color, there would be a major debate between the sighted & the blind re: the existence of light & color in the real world. However, there is no such debate (that I know of, but if you’ve heard of one, let me know). But the end result re: K, R, N are different – neither the believers nor the non-believers (specially) can demonstrate to others that K, R, N are real items that exist in this world. The concept of K, R, N has been conveyed well via Buddhism, however, the inability to verify its existence in the real world – specially when taken into account w/ the Buddha’s own reported advice to not to follow things that cannot be verified (for those of us from a Buddhist background) makes K, R, N a highly debated point (as seen in these forums).
I think this is like the 5th time we’ve gone in circles re: the blind/color & K, R, N, but, again, you are ignoring some major facts:
1. Light & color are universally acknowledged to exist, their existence can be easily proved to those who are able to see, and those who are blind from birth can investigae the existence of light & color in the world via research (see how many times human records refer to light & color, the existence of photography & video & film), by talking with trusted blind people who may have had sight at some point in their lives & saw light & color.
2. K, R, N, just like the God of the Christians – is not universally acknowledged to exist, nor can the existence of both those items or groups of items be proved to a non-believer (or even a curious believer who wants to look beyond their belief).
So, even though you are likening two unlike items (light & color = K, R, N), I think I understand the point that you are trying to make. I believe you are trying to say that those with special abilities can verify K, R, N for themselves (such as the Buddha, reportedly) & others can’t, & should take the existence of K, R, N as a given/a fact even though it cannot be verified. That, to agnostics, & other non-believers, is not enough. So, I think the believers will continue to believe in K, R, N because they do not require any proof for K, R, N, and the agnostics & other non-believers will continue to not believe in K, R, N or the assertion that Buddhism is undisputed, the ultimate truth, etc. because we do not see proof for the grand claims (such as K, R, N) made by Buddhism.
(answer the following Qs when you get a chance OTC)
And, on a slightly different line of reasoning – how to you yourself, OTC, verify the existence of K, R, N to yourself? Have you been able to personally confirm that the Indian monk Gotama attained a special level or awareness or a significant mental state/something labeled Enlightenment that is of great value to us 2500 some years later? Have you been able to personally confirm that rebirth is real? Have you been able to personally confirm karma (as taught traditionally in Buddhism – affecting life after death, etc.) is real? If not, why do you believe in Buddhism & why do you argue that it is very significanct & that K, R, N are most likely real? Are you a believer because you were raised as one & you are expected to conform to the norms of your society & family or are you a believer because you freely, as an adult, & independently chose Buddhism as the correct spiritual path for you, out of many (including not having one) that are available to you?
(answer the above Qs when you get a chance OTC)
The reasons for belief are many, so are the reasons for non-belief. However, much progress has been made on Earth when people stopped accepting the religious explanations for why the things were the way they were & attempted to figure out the truth about existence on their own, attempted to solve existing problems via new thinking, away from intellecutal & reasoning limitations imposed by religions. Some of that can be very useful to Sri Lanka, thus, the agnostics are sharing our reasons as to why K, R, N may not be real & why it is not a good idea to assume that Buddhism (or any ancient religion) is the pinnacle/the ultimate achievement in human thought/no new intellectual & philosophical & spiritual work is necessary.
And, this all points back to the initial disappointment (at least mine, perhaps others too) with Buddhism in Sri Lanka. 2500 or 2000 years of it (Buddhism) in Sri Lanka left the Sinhalese significantly racist & violent around 1948 – 1956 periods & beyond – which lead to a 30 some years long civil war. Plus, Buddhism did not provide enough ideas/support for SL to develop a modern economy/get out of poverty. Thus, the value of Buddhism, in the modern world, should be (in my opinion) limited to certain areas in life (a source of spirituality for those who are so inclined). However, the Sinhalese & all in Sri Lanka being open to new ideas that have been well developed outside of Buddhism (in economics, group relations, democracy, war, individual rights, etc.) would be (i think) a useful direction for the present & the future. Thus, my agnostic objection to limiting Sri Lankan intellectual exploration at/by Buddhism.
Or, Buddhism had its chance (2000+ years) to turn SL into a paradise, & it failed. Thus, new ideas & new combinations of ideas need to be looked at in order for SL to become a prosperous country.
- s
Dear BalangodaMan,
“[the illustration of Colour amd Light] “is identical to the Difficulty that we have explaining Buddhism to your group.”
Hold your Horses what does those words within square brackets indicate?
My comparison was between the DIFFICULTY you have of explaining the CONCEPT of Light (the main property of which is Illumination) to the Congenitally Blind AND the DIFFICULTY we have explaining the CONCEPT of Kamma & Rebirth to your Group. Please don’t try to confuse the readership by making Out of Context Quotes.
You questioned me recently about Kamma June 23, 2010 @ 5:50 pm & June 25, 2010 @ 3:12 am and my reply to you is in the post of June 25, 2010 @ 11:42 am which starts thus
BalangodaMan,
Kamma has been clarified an umpteen times on this thread. Read them up and ask questions based on them (please quote the post that you are referring to as it’s difficult to find an old post on GV).
You can read the rest in the original post.
There has been no post from you on the subject since then.
You now state
“and at the same time you say (and you have said this several times) “I have made no attempt to compare it to any aspect of Buddhism.”
The best way for you to disprove ANYTHING that I have written on GV is for you to Quote an EXTRACT from my posts, within context. You have not done so. Hence please provide an EXTRACT from my posts where I have compared the Light and Colour problem to any aspect of Buddhism.
I believe what follows is my ORIGINAL post bringing up the Congenitally Blind and Colour question. It is difficult to track old posts on GV hence if you find an earlier post please correct me.
May 25, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
Dear Heshan,
………….. Proof of Rebirth cannot be made using Cognitive Science or Logic. Anyone who tries to do so is faced with the identical problem that will be faced by a person who tries to prove to the “Blind from Birth”, what the Concept of Colour is.
If I ask the Agnostics to use any method in science or logic to prove to the “Blind from Birth” that Colour is real, they will fail to do so. But to all of us with sight, the reality of colour is beyond question. This is why I challenged the Agnostics to prove that the methods that are being asked to be used in dissecting Buddhism are in fact mature enough to be used to prove or disprove Rebirth.
There is no such method available to Cognitive Science or Logic because Science is not Mature enough to deal with the subject of Rebirth. That does not prove that Rebirth is not real. It does not prove that rebirth is real either. The best answer cognitive Science or logic can give is do not know. ……….
Please note the Emphasized text. The comparison is about the Method of Proof which is Cognitive Science or Logic. It was made to emphasize the fact that though Light and colour are REAL there is no way to Convey the concept of Light and Colour to the Congenitally Blind using Cognitive Science because Cognitive Science is IMMATURE in that Field. This limitation is what I have consistently written about. The Congenitally Blind can only BELIEVE what others say but never actually EXPERIENCE Light or Colour (I am referring to the ILLUMINATING property which is commonly associated with Light and not any other)
That I was referring to the METHODS is made very clear lower down in that post (which I have emphasized in Italics and Bold).
Hence please refrain from your dishonest practices.
“When Maravira said there are microbes … on what evidence did he make that claim?”
He was an enlightened person far more futuristic than those who lived at that time. In fact he had knowledge that could not be understood by his peers but was proven true subsequently. He was a man born ahead of his time.
what evidence do I have for claiming that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden? Absolutely none! Do I expect you and the general public to believe me? No! Why? (and I shall answer this for you) Because my saying so falls well below the standards of proof that is expected in the 21st century. Will you, or anyone, believe me on the basis of my ‘claim’ that I can see beyond normal people – that I am ‘enlightened’? No!
Ah yes I can remember you claiming that your back garden Fairies were very real to you but your new admission relieves me of the task of replying to your Fairy Tale.
However on the Standard of Proof question, just note the following.
1. These Standards keep evolving but the TRUTH does not. A Truth that does not meet the Standards of Proof of the day, will, not withstanding the rejection, still REMAIN a TRUTH.
2. The Idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun did not meet the standard of proof prevalent at one time. However the TRUTH was and always has been that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
3. The existence of UNSEEN living beings was First postulated by the Jain religion and later by a Roman intellect who wrote a book on Agriculture. Although a TRUTH, It remained in the realm of Speculation for 27 Centuries
4. The man who claims to be your Father could not be proved as your Father till 1985. But since then due to MATURITY of Science you can do so. The INABILITY to PROVE your paternity did not bring the chastity of your Mother in to question prior to 1985 did it? The TRUTH was that your Father was the man he claimed to be.
What I am trying to underline here is that you cannot use Science, Logic, Maths or any other system that is IMMATURE in a specific field to Analise a subject in that field.
Admirable that you came forward to defend Sujewa’s “Standard of proof” though it is indefensible as I have pointed out.
The mistake you are doing is in believing that at the current point of time there exists a method that can dissect Buddhism. You overlook the Fact that over the years many Phenomena have been postulated that were proven to be real later but had no method of proof which met the standards required by Sujewa.
At the current point of time there is no method meeting the standards defined by Sujewa that exists to prove the real and repeatable effects of Acupuncture. No method that can explain the real results obtained by Remote Viewing.
When discussing Core Buddhist concepts the fair answer should have been may be true, may not be true, science does not know yet. There can’t be any qualifiers as Science is still IMMATURE in this field. It is a 50% probability at the current point of time. That is sufficient reason for the believers to believe and the non believers to reject. But is insufficient reason for the non believers to make a definite statement that those concepts are totally untrue because your disbelief is also based on belief and NOT ON FACT.
Instead, you display cockiness, a superiority of knowledge and a readiness to classify things that you don’t understand as unreal despite the overwhelming evidence of phenomena that were considered false at one time turning up true later with the MATURITY of Science.
Dear BM,
Correction
2. The Idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun did not meet the standard of proof prevalent at one time. However the TRUTH was and always has been that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
The above should read as
2. The Idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun did not meet the standard of proof prevalent at one time. However the TRUTH was and always has been that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
The error is regretted
OTC,
RE: the following:
“Sujewa’s idea of Reality is defined in the following challenge
“prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”
Going by the above ANYTHING that cannot be proven by Science or Math or other Verifiable Method falls outside his definition of reality…”
I think either you misunderstand the challenge or are not capable of understanding it for some reason (probably due to your strong commitment to Buddhism). Let me try to clarify.
What is reality? I would call reality the sum total of all that exists.
What exists? Many things are confirmed by many/virtually all to exist; some items that exist: humans, animals, cars, building, the computer I type on.
What then, is meant by the term existence in the real world? Things that are a part of the real world – the shared world (as opposed to the world inside a person’s mind) – and can be confirmed by others to exist in the real world – are labeled real things.
What about things that may exist, but their existence have not yet been proven? Those items can be labeled speculative.
So, in light of this, would micro organisms have been found to be real or speculative hundreds of years ago – before their existence could have been definitely proven via the microscope? Many people would have found the idea that incredibly tiny organisms caused things to happen as speculation. Many also would have observed that mysterious things (such as grapes turnin into wine) did happen & may have adjusted accordingly (or, the speculative nature of the existence of micro organisms would not have necessarily prohibited people from dealing with wine, diseases, etc.).
When you liken micro organisms to K, R, N I believe you are making a mistake. Since, as mentioned in an earlier post, the effects of K, R, N cannot be observed.
Or, we do not see enligtened people/people who have attained nirvana – behaving in a way that would indicate that they attained a mental state hinted at via Buddhism. Nor do we see any results of rebirth or karma. Micro organisms left a trace in the real world, though they (the micro organisms) could not be identified/pointer out hundreds of years ago. K, R, N does not leave a similar trace in the real world. Thus, most likely K, R, N are speculative items that exist in an ancient religion in order to, among other things, to control the behavior of the believers/followers of the religion.
- S
OTC,
Re: the following:
“When discussing Core Buddhist concepts the fair answer should have been may be true, may not be true, science does not know yet. There can’t be any qualifiers as Science is still IMMATURE in this field. It is a 50% probability at the current point of time. That is sufficient reason for the believers to believe and the non believers to reject. But is insufficient reason for the non believers to make a definite statement that those concepts are totally untrue because your disbelief is also based on belief and NOT ON FACT.”
The agnostic position is that K, R, N cannot be proven to be real. So, this could mean that at some point in the distant future that the concepts may be proven as real, or they may never be proven as real. However, that state in which K, R, N exists now definitely makes Buddhism something other than an absolute truth or an indisputable truth – not as you & Yapa & others have argued in this & the earlier thread. The danger of millions of people believing that they have the absolute truth – when it comes to religious matters – should be obvious – and this has been pointed out by SD several times. In the Sri Lankan context, if the majority of the Buddhists start to believe that their religion is the absolute, undisputed truth basically a religious war will occur – not unlike what we see world wide with Islam. So, this is why agnostics & other non-believers, & believers who see the presently speculative nature of K, R, N – & thus the speculative nature of Buddhism – need to speak up when the Yapa types start to push Buddhism as the ultimate in human knowledge, undisputed, ultimate truth. That’s why this discussion/debate has come into being.
So, if you agree that at this point in time it is not possible to prove that K, R, N are real, then you agree with one of the main arguments of the agnostics.
And, in favor of Buddhism – whether K, R, N ever are proved to be real or not, there are many ideas & practices in Buddhism that are very useful to humans – in leading a useful-to-others & peaceful life, & in dealing with death, & in dealing with the relationship between the individual & the universe (rest of reality), etc.
- S
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
What is reality? I would call reality the sum total of all that exists.
What exists? Many things are confirmed by many/virtually all to exist; some items that exist: humans, animals, cars, building, the computer I type on.
What then, is meant by the term existence in the real world? Things that are a part of the real world – the shared world (as opposed to the world inside a person’s mind) – and can be confirmed by others to exist in the real world – are labeled real things.
……………………..
Sujewa, didn’t you notice the logical fallacy that is present in your argument above? Logical fallacies always lead to wrong conclusions.
1. In your argument by saying “What is reality? I would call reality the sum total of all that exists.”
You use the concept “exist/existence” to define the concept of ‘reality’.
2. In the next part of the argument by saying “What then, is meant by the term existence in the real world? Things that are a part of the real world – the shared world (as opposed to the world inside a person’s mind) – and can be confirmed by others to exist in the real world – are labeled real things.”
You use the concept of “real/reality” to define the concept of “exist/existence”.
This fallacy is called “Circular Logic” or “begging the question”.
This means you have neither explain “reality” nor “existence”. So all of your arguments related to these concepts break down, if your understanding of reality and existence ares above.
Further, I can show that your arguments are frequented by various logical fallacies.
Thanks!
I have some observations –
in buddhism knowledge and insights are based not just on reason and intellect but also on training the heart through meditation. so buddhist knowledge of KRN has to be obtained – through meditative awareness. Otherwise you are dealing with second hand data.
this approach requires 2 pre-conditions and I mention them to enable and not disable further investigation.
1.An attitudinal basis
2.An experiential basis
(1) Requires an attitude of not knowing and humility. One must be a seeker and for this all conceptual knowledge must be thrown to the wind before you meet reality
(2) Requires a practice of non judgemental observation of the self at first and then this is extended to others and the world around you. This is meditation in action in addition to a sitting practice.
Without these two things and also without metta towards oneself and others and an attitude of patience insights will not dawn. The more selfless you become the more insights will appear to you.
Yes it would be nice if everyone could realize the truth without all this mumbo jumbo. What I mentioned above are tools – they are a tried and tested system for 25 centuries. Humans evolve and they need tools and signposts on their journey. And they can be used in a profoundly empowering way. Religions are tools and they must be used.
This does not mean there are no idiots in Buddhism. There are idiots in every religion and every school of thought. To claim any kind of superiority for any religion or school simply goes against the higher teachings. A genuine search for truth is a cooperative enterprise; not a competition.
KRN are not speculative categories. They are hard core experiential categories. When someone who is quite obviously not prepared to take the path of meditation dismisses them as speculative categories I can only shrug my shoulders and say – take your pick my friend. Go ahead and talk some more Buddhism but all that is just the theory.
Real Buddhism is based on silence and realization. It is a wordless realization. Words come after. The experience comes first. This is the first principle and it cannot be communicated. It must be experienced.
So whether sujeewa wins or yapa wins is secondary.
Yapa,
RE: June 28, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
Unable to prove that K, R, N are real things that exist in this world/have an affect in the real world to real people, you are merely playing word games.
If you do not acknowledge that there are things that are confirmed to exist – to be found in the actual/outside/shared world, & things that are merely ideas only, & have no physical existence outside of ideas – then we are not talking about the same thing when we use the words reality & existence.
However, though you may disagree in order to hold on to your desire to see/believe the speculative items that exist in Buddhism as facts/real, etc. – most people acknowledge that there is the “real world” – space & things that are confirmed to exist/have physical shape, etc., & then there is the realm of ideas – things that do not actually exist in the real world but are symbols, or concepts, only.
Anyway, keep playing your word games. They won’t keep people from seeing that K, R, N are speculative, and most likely fictional, items/ideas that exist in an ancient religion, & are not real items (or, if the word real is too difficult for you to understand in the way that it is commonly used) or that they are not things that people have to worry about/take into account when living their lives.
So, with K, R, N removed from the realm of real things, then Buddhism is merely another religion – not the absolute truth or the universal truth or whatever. Claims made by Buddhism may be true, & they may not be true. It is up to each individual to decide – some choose to become believers because the religion is comforting & useful to them, & other choose to become agnostics & or non-believers because the religion is of very limited use or no use to them.
- S
Yapa,
The following by you shows that you do not have a firm understanding of the words reality & existence as they are commonly used;
“Sujewa, didn’t you notice the logical fallacy that is present in your argument above? Logical fallacies always lead to wrong conclusions.
1. In your argument by saying “What is reality? I would call reality the sum total of all that exists.”
You use the concept “exist/existence” to define the concept of ‘reality’.
2. In the next part of the argument by saying “What then, is meant by the term existence in the real world? Things that are a part of the real world – the shared world (as opposed to the world inside a person’s mind) – and can be confirmed by others to exist in the real world – are labeled real things.”
You use the concept of “real/reality” to define the concept of “exist/existence”.”
The word reality and the word existence refer to two different items, they are not the same thing.
To clarify – a fictional character can exist within a story, though, obviously, being a fictional character, he or she would not have a physical presence in the real world/the world of the humans/as a human because the ficitonal character is an idea only.
For your benefit, here are the definitions of the words reality & existence;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/reality;
“1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2) : the totality of real things and events b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively
— in reality : in actual fact”
That word & concept exists in general usage because most humans separate things in this world, including ideas, to two categories – the real, and the not real.
So, the term or concept reality derives from the term or concept real. A reality, or a non-fictional reality, is made of items that are real – or that actually exist.
And since you are uncertain about the meaning of the word existence, let’s define that also.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence;
“1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.
Synonyms: existence, actuality, being
These nouns denote the fact or state of existing: laws in existence for centuries; an idea progressing from possibility to actuality; a point of view gradually coming into being.
Antonym: nonexistence”
So, for the purpose of this convo/debate, where the believers are asked to prove the existence (in the real world) of K, R, N, you asked how I define reality.
So, I define reality as the sum total of all that exists.
I can see how that definition can be difficult to grasp for someone who does not understand the difference between the words reality and existence.
One way to clarify things to to point out the difference between an idea and an actual person who lives on Earth. The comic book character Superman is an idea. The Superman idea is depicted on paper, & in television, but Superman is not an actual person who lives on Earth. The singer Madonna, on the other hand, is an actual person who lives on Earth. So, for common usage – Superman is primarily an idea, and Madonna is an actual person, or a real person. Superman is fictional, Madonna is real.
So, reality, & my definition of it, takes into account the above mentioned things. For the purpose of proving or disproving the existence of an item in the actual world, I defined reality as the sum total of all that exists. So, under that definition – is Superman a part of reality? Yes, but, as shown above, as an idea only, without an independent existence & being able to affect others in the real world. Is Madonna a part of reality? Yes, primarily as an actual person who exists on Earth.
So, in the same fashion – are K, R, N real things (forces or universal devices or a mental state in the case of N) or are they ideas only (used in an ancient religion to help people see the world in a certain way & to keep people behaving in a certain way)? Most likely K, R, N are ideas only (like Superman), and are not real (like Madonna or any other living person or thing).
Hope you are able to better understand the difference between the words real & existence, and the concept of reality & my definition of it.
- Sujewa
Yapa,
I think you are also mistaken about fallacies, see a commonly agreed upon definition of fallacy here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy;
“In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.”
&
Also, since you believe that my definition of reality is a circular one/begging the question, let’s clarify that concept also (from same wiki page above):
“Begging the question
Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
Example
Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.
Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.”
So, defining reality as the sum total of all that exists is neither a fallacy nor is it circular reasoning. As stated earlier, I think you believe so because 1) you cannot recognize the difference between the concept of reality and the concept of existence, or 2) you choose not to so that it will help your argument. But, let’s try to point out the difference between reality and existence.
Reality can be likened to a container, & existence or lack of existence to the presence or absence of things within that container.
For the purpose of discussing K, R, N – since the concepts deal with after lives, pre-lives, perhaps invisible universal devices, & the past & present & future, we need the broadest possible & all inclusive definition of reality – or the container.
So, to create the broadest possible definition of reality, I use the words “the sum total of all that exists” – this inculdes discovered & undiscovered/not yet discovered aspects of the universe, & ideas as well as actual living beings & actually existant functional things – cars, x-rays, etc. So, is K, R, N a part of reality? In my opinion they are ideas only, and are a part of reality as ideas. The believers, such as yourself, believe, even though that this has not been proven, that K, R, N are not just ideas only, but have life in the actual world, can affect living people, etc. K, R, N, being ideas only, are only of significance, if at all, to those who choose to believe that those ideas have an effect in the real world – the world outside the realm of ideas only. So, actual people, living people, can ignore K, R, N because they are ideas only & have no effect on our lives as independent entities/or, they do not appear to exist in the real world, but are symbolic devices (words & ideas) used to teach values by a religion (a set of ideas & practices).
- S
Mr Yapa (and OTC in many ways), it is not what you say that is alarming … it is WHY you say what you say that is alarming. This is called religious fanaticism. If we do not like it when Islamic fanatics raise havoc in the world why would we, or the rest of the world for that matter (!), tolerate it when we are driven by the same fanatic mentality?
Mr Yapa, you tend to argue a case by picking on petty peripheral discrepancies – ones quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. Sujewa, in this article, is making a distinction between two things, real and imaginary (think of two boxes). First you need to accept that two such things exist. Then you need to decide on what basis you put certain things in one category, or the other. Then classify things (put into the boxes) by that criteria. Simple.
Clearly, your criteria for deciding into which box things go is different to ours. Ok. BUT how you apply your criteria is not consistent! You put into the ‘real’ box ‘anything Buddhist’ whereas an identical concept (by some other name) in any of the other religions you put into the ‘fake’ box. Even the concept of ‘faith’ (fundamental to all religions) you choose to redefine. On being challenged on your ‘our religion is science’ message you then proceed to claim that science is imaginary/fake/irrational. Indeed, you have tried to show that rationality is irrational !!!
My god (dare I say god?) this is entertaining!
re. Colour, Light, Mahavira and microbes
OTC, I can help you no more. Sujewa has covered all the bases in his comprehensive piece. I admire the patience his karma has bestowed upon him.
Naked
———
I would just add this. If Mahavira who was also ‘enlightened’ (a Buddha) saw that being naked is necessary for the attainment of nirvana why are we wearing clothes? I do not recall a statement from Gautama Buddha contradicting that ‘enlightened’ revelation.
(I am assuming you normally wear clothes)
“So, this is why agnostics & other non-believers, & believers who see the presently speculative nature of K, R, N – & thus the speculative nature of Buddhism – need to speak up when the Yapa types start to push Buddhism as the ultimate in human knowledge, undisputed, ultimate truth. That’s why this discussion/debate has come into being.”
Sounds good. However there is nothing in the above post that disproves the phenomenon of kamma or samsara. The agnostics have yet to show evidence for their claims.
Dear Sujewa,
“What is reality?
I would call reality the sum total of all that exists.
What exists?
Many things are confirmed by many/virtually all to exist; some items that exist: humans, animals, cars, building, the computer I type on.
What then, is meant by the term existence in the real world?
Things that are a part of the real world – the shared world ( as opposed to the world inside a person’s mind ) – and can be confirmed by others to exist in the real world – are labeled real things.”
Sujewa, I have emphasized the key phrases of your clarification of June 28, 2010 @ 2:14 am that I have reproduced above.
Let’s take the first para “what is Reality”
Your definition here is correct.
You have also equated the words “Reality” and “Exists” and have made them Synonyms.
Now lets look at the second and third paras where you qualify the terms Reality & Exist to mean Palpable things (able to be seen or felt or heard).
This is where you go Wrong.
Reality is all that exists it does not depend on you being able to see it, feel it or hear it. A telling example is the FIRST inhabitants of Earth. They Existed from the TIME Life began on Earth. They were REAL from the word go. That Reality NEVER depended on the Human ability to Observe it. They were not living in someone’s mind. They were living on Earth, just as we do. It just took Billions of years to Observe them.
Another example is the Planets that were discovered when the Telescope was invented. Those Planets existed before their discovery and were very Real before they were Discovered. Even today heavenly bodies are being discovered but their existence did not commence from the time they were discovered. The Reality of their existence never depended on their discovery by Humans. There is absolutely no Logic to make such a statement.
Things are happening even at this moment many light years away from Earth. They cannot be observed in Real Time unless a method of traveling faster than the speed of Light is invented (which unfortunately is impossible according to Einstein, please correct me here) They would be discovered years from today but that they are occurring right now at this moment and are very Real cannot be denied.
Now if you can prove Scientifically or Logically or Mathematically or using any other rational method that may be at your disposal that Microbes were not Living on Earth Billions of years ago but instead were living in some poor soul’s mind till their ultimate discovery in the 16 th Century AD, then your contention that REALITY / TRUTH is dependent on the Human ability to provide proof would have been proved else that contention of yours would be proven to be ILLOGICAL, Irrational, Unscientific and hence FALSE.
Dear Sujewa,
CORRECTION
You have also equated the words “Reality” and “Exists” and have made them Synonyms.
The above sentence should read as follows
You have HOWEVER equated the words “Reality” and “Exists” and have made them Synonyms.
Regret the error
Dear Ordinary lankan;
You said “Real Buddhism is based on silence and realization. It is a wordless realization. Words come after. The experience comes first. This is the first principle and it cannot be communicated. It must be experienced”.
To me that’s exactly the difficulty here is. The “experience” that you’re mentioning here is a highly personal one that occurs purely in one’s mind. I’m not saying that all such personal experiences are of no value to us. Some personal experiences may lead to a happier or healthier life for the one who experiences them. But the issue here is whether the strong claims arising out of such personal experiences are true or real.
There are various ways in which the human mind can have these personal experiences. Some get these through meditation, chanting etc. and others get these by using mind altering drugs. Some are naturally predisposed to these experiences due to deficiencies in their brain functions. What’s common to all these personal experiences is the fact that the person concern is always fully convinced of the “reality” of his or her personal experience. However, all these experiences will remain personal as long as the others cannot see acceptable evidence that support the very strong claims such as karma and rebirth made purely on the basis of these personal experiences. This is because these claims relate to the things that are happening in the real life – not in someone’s mind alone.
Wijayapala,
“However there is nothing in the above post that disproves the phenomenon of kamma or samsara. The agnostics have yet to show evidence for their claims.”
OMG!
Ok, we have said this a dozen times already – that it is up to the people making a claim to prove it, not for those who are unconvinced to prove otherwise. We have also said that it is strange that you do not understand that.
I just had a thought.
I think that you Wijayapala et al start off from the standpoint that KRN is absolutely real. In other words, to you it has always been real, from birth. So, to you it is the Agnostics that are putting forward A NEW CLAIM (and, to you, an outrageous one at that!) … that KRN is not real but only a speculative religious idea.
So, from your viewpoint it is the Agnostics that must prove their claim.
Am I right?
(however, Wijayapala, if you look up the definition of Agnosticism you will see that an agnostic position is defined as ‘we do not know’. In this debate we are questioning the basis on which you are sure and we are not convinced by that. We’re saying you are ‘sure’ because of tribal loyalties, chilhood conditioning, superstition, culture, ethinic identity etc … not because you have verified for yourself that KRN is real, that it affects real people in the real world)
ordinary lankan said,
June 28, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
In your post above you describe the need for meditation to realise the insights that Buddhism teaches.
“so buddhist knowledge of KRN has to be obtained – through meditative awareness. Otherwise you are dealing with second hand data.”
In my 3 part post beginnning [June 18, 2010 @ 5:03 am] I describe the practice of self-hypnosis.
For 25 centuries people did not understand the mechanism that’s at the heart of the power of meditation. They knew of the emormous positive effect it had, but not what was actually happening. They mistook ‘revelations’ (such as seeing past lives) and insights as a unique window into the unknown as a mystical experience and therefore, they thought, unquestionably authentic.
Much scientific research on this phenomena was done in the 20th century (pioneered by Milton H Erickson).
Your post concurs with these aspects of self-hypnosis I wrote about…
The 2 pre-conditions you mention mean (as I said) you cannot become hypnotised or hypnotise yourself unless you are a willing participant. And on your 2nd point, the experience is controllable by the subject or the hypnotist and therefore the result is subjective – you will affirm what you want to affirm.
(you said,
“This is meditation in action in addition to a sitting practice.”
I thought I should quote that before someone brings up an earlier irrelevant distinction between ‘meditation’ and ‘self-hypnosis’. By OL’s statement above he is referring to ‘self-hypnosis’ by Patricia Carrington, Ph.D ‘s definition, not meditation by her definition)
Ordinary Lankan said,
“KRN are not speculative categories. They are hard core experiential categories. When someone who is quite obviously not prepared to take the path of meditation dismisses them as speculative categories I can only shrug my shoulders and say – take your pick my friend. Go ahead and talk some more Buddhism but all that is just the theory.”
Sure OL. I would love to hear of a way of experiencing the ‘truth’ of KRN – but not through self-delusion. Show me some hard facts, some empirical evidence. That way we can see ‘what is’ rather than ‘what we want to think is’.
When Christians pray they too experience the same thing, but they call it prayer. The active ingredient is self-hypnotic-suggestion. Hence their belief that god is real and can hear them and can and will deliver. But does he?
So why would KRN be any different?
(BTW I am much in favour of affirming what we want to affirm through self-hypnosis. We can achieve great things individually and collectively, and as a Nation through this technique. I gave the example of compassion, programming ourselves to be peaceful, remove hostility etc. – my earlier 3 Parts cover much of this. This I think is the greatest treasure we have from Buddhism that we squander.)
OTC,
Your mind is stuck in a tunnel.
Extrapolation
————-
We can observe ‘near’ galaxies. We can extrapolate from that and accept that there are far off galaxies, on the basis that the universe is vast.
The Known and the Unknown
————————-
Your example of microbes is not a good example. Neither is far off galaxies. You are taking something that we have ALREADY found to exist in reality.
A valid example is something that has NOT been proved to exist so far. Hence my example of ‘fairies at the bottom of my garden’. How would you apply your same reasoning there? You continue to evade the question …
Probability
———–
All we can say is, KRN could be real or not real. You are saying, well, because there are two possibilities there is a 50% chance that it is real! Which is similar to SomewhatDisgusted’s example – an apple could fall to the ground or shoot up in the air. Therefore there is a 50% chance that it will shoot up in the air!
I would grant you that, yes there is a tiny .00000000001% chance that KRN could be ‘a real thing that happens’. If you can show me HOW you know for sure then my % could rise.
How we know what we think we know
———————————-
THEREFORE, my preference is to direct this exploration towards ‘how you know’ … and because your answer is ‘because the Buddha knew’ the exploration leads to ‘how did the Budhha know’ and to bring in OrdinalyLankan also ‘how did people know this for 25 centuries through experiential practice’. If the answer to all this is meditation then I would discount it as probably delusional – because you can imagine anything as being real while in a hypnotic state, which will continue (for you) as ‘real’ from then on.
Dear Upul,
Very nicely put.
Welcome to the debate.
Dear All,
Looks like we may need another rebirth of this thread – so the next 1000 posts have their place. Even if actual rebirth is suspect, certainly, metaphorical rebirth has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt – if that was the intent.
My understanding of what I’ve read so far.
Yapa is trying to prove KRN through pedantic means again. Once, he was trying to say that there’s no such thing as proof. Now he says that there’s no such thing as reality. These things are true only in a strictly philosophical sense. In day to day life though, few people are going to try running headlong into a wall because “the wall does not exist in reality”. These philosophical problems are the very reason that science came into being. Science is in fact, practical philosophy.
OTC seems to be making the same point over and over again – that KRN is a possibility – something that no one denies. However, OTC consistently fails to explain the basis on which KRN is the only possibility over millions and billions of other possibilities. What is your position on this?
Also OTC, I must say you seem to be switching to an alarming new tack. You just said: “My comparison was between the DIFFICULTY you have of explaining the CONCEPT of Light (the main property of which is Illumination) to the Congenitally Blind AND the DIFFICULTY we have explaining the CONCEPT of Kamma & Rebirth to your Group.”
You have now transcended into Yapa’s plane of thinking – that since reasons cannot be presented – divine knowledge must be claimed instead. One will have to assume that the believers possess some cognitive faculties which are missing in all those who do not believe in Buddhism, hence this inability to explain? Well, that’s certainly a good path to take if your sole intent is to salvage your belief system intact. After all, one cannot reasonably argue with such a position – since reason has been eschewed in the first place.
OrdinaryLankan raises some good points – and says that KRN is an experiential reality. Although we’ve already covered this ground in this epic thread, the comprehensive scientific explanation for it has been given by BalangodaMan. I would like to know whether OrdinaryLankan acknowledges that the explanation is indeed a good one?
Sujewa, BalangodaMan – Great posts. Enjoyed reading them.
Upul – Welcome to the discussion!
Dear OrdinaryLankan,
One thing I’d add, KRN does have a definite existence, a definite existence in the minds of those who believe in it. It’s just like god is definite to those who believe him and have had divine revelations of him. Therefore, the subjective existence of KRN is undeniable.
Watch this very interesting discussion here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40&playnext_from=TL&videos=eaS7PtpCqkY
One individual is *totally* convinced of God’s existence – through personal revelation. The other person makes some very good counter arguments. But you can imagine how much that shakes the other’s “faith:.
The outstanding question OrdinaryLankan, is how you go from this subjective existence to an objective existence? I see *no path* being offered for it. In such a case, the problem BalangodaMan highlighted comes to the fore. How is one to differentiate it from self-delusion? Do you think anyone who has had a divine revelation of god is any less convinced of his existence than one who has had some cosmic revelation of KRN?
More importantly:
*If you have no means to show the objective existence of KRN, on what grounds can you claim anything beyond a subjective existence?*
In fact, I have no problems with those who are happy with letting it remain a subjective belief, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized. Your personal beliefs are your own to hold. But the question that really sparked off the debate is the following:
If an objective existence cannot be shown, then on what grounds can anyone suggest that it be the basis of governance for a country? Yapa, OTC, over to you.
BTW, I said *shown*, not *claimed*. What Yapa and OTC are doing is claiming, not showing.
Dear All,
Between Sujewa’s Post of June 28, 2010 @ 2:14 am and My replies to him of June 29, 2010 @ 3:43 am and June 29, 2010 @ 3:50 am there had been several posts by Yapa, Sujewa, Ordinary Lankan, BalangodaMan and Wijeypala. These posts were not visible on this thread at the time I wrote mine. BM and Sujewa have both raised questions which I will attempt to answer here first.
Sujewa,
You say
“However, that state in which K, R, N exists now definitely makes Buddhism something other than an absolute truth or an indisputable truth – not as you & Yapa & others have argued in this & the earlier thread.”
In the first place I have categorically stated that I chose to BELIEVE In the “carry over” of the results of Volitional Action in this birth to a subsequent one. As you know Sujewa I do not have to believe if I can prove it as an absolute truth. I can’t do that as the current state of Science is not mature enough in that field to do so. If I can prove it to be true I wont have any need to Believe as I would KNOW it instead.
Hence Sujewa you need to stop projecting your ingrained ideas and convictions on others and carefully read and understand what we have written before starting to throw unfounded accusations at all and sundry.
“So, if you agree that at this point in time it is not possible to prove that K, R, N are real, then you agree with one of the main arguments of the agnostics.”
My response above should make it clear to you that I do agree that GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF SCIENCE it is not possible to prove KRN but there is a large body of evidence to indicate that KRN could be real and insufficient evidence to discard KRN as Unreal. Hence your conclusion about my agreement with the so called Main Argument of the Agnostics is an absolute fantasy. I have dealt with your definition of Reality in several posts but the few recent ones have shown how ILLOGICAL your definition is.
Hence what I stated in my statement that
“When discussing Core Buddhist concepts the fair answer should have been may be true, may not be true, science does not know yet. There can’t be any qualifiers as Science is still IMMATURE in this field. It is a 50% probability at the current point of time. That is sufficient reason for the believers to believe and the non believers to reject. But is insufficient reason for the non believers to make a definite statement that those concepts are totally untrue because your disbelief is also based on belief and NOT ON FACT.”
still holds True.
Yapa,
Good post
Ordinary Lankan,
Good Post but BM would say this is Self Hypnotism
“Meditation and self-hypnosis do not necessarily show the same kinds of physiological change either …. researchers have shown that hypnotized subjects usually have an activated brain-wave pattern, which is no different from ordinary wakefulness. The only
time hypnotized persons show wave patterns similar to those seen during meditation is when they are given specific suggestions to enter a meditation-like state. The relationship between meditation and hypnosis is not entirely solved” (Patricia Carrington, Ph.D.
Author of “The Book of Meditation”)
BalangodaMan,
“Mr Yapa (and OTC in many ways), it is not what you say that is alarming … it is WHY you say what you say that is alarming.”
The questions I pose BM is to expose the fallacies in your arguments. I have consistently shown that the tools you chose and ask others to chose do not have the cutting edge to dissect Buddhism. There is insufficient Scientific Research that has even attempted to understand the core concepts of Buddhism. I have shown where science have failed to even explain some phenomena that are KNOWN to be real let alone suspected to be real. I have shown that many things that were thought unreal were later found to be real sometimes Billions of years later. The results of Volitional Action are very real in the current life. Please list Volitional Actions that do not bring a result in this life for the information of all.
“This is called religious fanaticism.”
So you expect Buddhists to read your unfounded critiques and allow you to preach whatever you want without Questioning you?
Why are you afraid of questions?
“Even the concept of ‘faith’ (fundamental to all religions) you choose to redefine.”
You are making a FUNDAMENTAL mistake.
Faith and Belief may be synonyms but they are not interchangeable all the time. Especially when you are talking about Religion.
Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer
e.g. my belief that I had caught all the errors.
Faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof
e.g. I have an unshakable faith in God.
(Merriam Webster’s Dictionary)
You cannot find “FAITH” which means CERTITUDE in a Philosophy that invites CRITICISM of itself.
“Colour, Light, Mahavira and microbes OTC, I can help you no more.”
Did not ask for your help and no one has answered the questions raised. Instead attempts have been made to circumvent them by side stepping and patting each others backs.
“Naked
———
I would just add this. If Mahavira who was also ‘enlightened’ (a Buddha) saw that being naked is necessary for the attainment of Nirvana why are we wearing clothes? I do not recall a statement from Gautama Buddha contradicting that ‘enlightened’ revelation.
(I am assuming you normally wear clothes)
Mahavira was of course enlightened to make such a FUTURISTIC claim about the existence of Microbes 22 centuries before they were actually found. I am not an expert on Jainism so cannot comment on it much. But Jainism is supposed to preach an extreme
form of “Ahimsa”
Buddhism is not Jainism, hence your question has no relevance to a Buddhist and appears to be very juvenile indeed.
Like you I was born without a thread of clothing covering me. However I do not fabricate things and attribute it to others falsely.
Hence, though I do wear clothes to cover my nakedness, I don’t need any special covering to protect my integrity as unlike you I am not naked there.
Wijayapala
“However there is nothing in the above post that disproves the phenomenon of kamma or samsara. The agnostics have yet to show evidence for their claims.”
Absolutely, but according to their logic they don’t need to, only we have to.
Dear OTC,
RE: “Now if you can prove Scientifically or Logically or Mathematically or using any other rational method that may be at your disposal that Microbes were not Living on Earth Billions of years ago but instead were living in some poor soul’s mind till their ultimate discovery in the 16 th Century AD, then your contention that REALITY / TRUTH is dependent on the Human ability to provide proof would have been proved else that contention of yours would be proven to be ILLOGICAL, Irrational, Unscientific and hence FALSE.”
You are a pummeling a strawman to death. Please show me one person here who has claimed that KRN is false. What was claimed was that it is *unscientific to believe in its existence* without proof. There is nothing unscientific about contemplating a possibility. In fact, I think it’s quite enjoyable when reputed scientists speculate on multi-verses, alien life etc. I myself would happily give me 2 cents. But show me a single reputed scientist who claims that their speculation is true and urges us all to govern ourselves on the basis that it’s true, as you’re doing right now. That’s what makes your position untenable – not because you think KRN is a possibility.
Yes a good debate …
Upul you refer to something happening in real life – not someone’s mind alone …. as if the latter is somewhat beneath notice
the point is that what happens within our consciousness is also part of life – and a very important part because as we understand it – the mind precedes, guides and directs all behaviour.
what you refer to is ‘objectively verifiable proof’. but the subjective and objective domains are connected and are one reality. the attempt to browbeat the subjective domain with the objective is a result of scientific domination of our lives and thinking.
this is one of the problems of our age. there are 3 spheres of cultural values. the sphere of art (I – self expression), morality (we – collective rules) and science (it – objective truths). all three are valid spheres of human activity – and can be called the beautiful, good and true. and each sphere has its own language and truths. the idea that only science holds what is true can be damaging to human evolution. human beings and societies evolve with the help of all 3 spheres and if you get one sphere to dominate the result is separation and violence.
there are connections though. meditation is a science of the mind just as conventional science is a science of matter. in the US they are putting tibetan lamas into labs and looking at physically verifiable changes to the brain and so on.
just for the purpose of this debate i would not ever claim that something I have realized within must be upheld as true and valid for all people in this country. that would be the same kind of domination that i pointed out earlier. the spirit of buddhism is to use your realizations to guide your own life and to guide the lives of a few other fellow seekers who may be interested in the path.
that is the buddhism i know.
so i am not inclined to take you into a lab and ‘prove’ that karma exists. although certain scientific findings have already been made – see dalai lama’s collaboration with Daniel goleman on destructive emotions – these are ultimately for people who are serious about taking something useful for their own lives. buddhism is for helping – not for legislation. we deal with reality and not with concepts. buddhism is a journey from concept to reality – and i am afraid it is a personal journey.
i am not in the least interested in pushing my way of life to others – i am only interested in helping and sometimes honest dialogue. i will do a second post also below – again in a humble spirit of sharing
Our consciousness is so limited, so narrow that we seldom get a glimpse of our whole environment. When we are at home we cease to be connected to our neighbours and neighbourhood; when driving we cease to be aware of everything other than where we want to go and getting there with the least number of stoppages. We don’t let life in. The reason is very clear. We are self centred and our whole being is appropriated towards these self defined and self satisfying goals.
So to meditate we must drop the self. It is not another self-driven task. In meditation we let life in and allow life to teach us. We take ourselves off the driving seat and give ourselves a passenger seat to simply sit and watch.
Ideas about hypnosis are new to me. I have now meditated for about 10 years and the issues that BM has raised are not issues that were ever relevant to me. In mainstream meditation hypnosis is not what we do. What we do is more direct and we call it the simple and direct experience of what is, moment by moment. Meditation takes a lot of doing and perseverance. Here again please do not misunderstand. I know that this approach is not for everyone and different people have different ways of seeking the truth. This is mine and I am happy to follow a well trodden path. I also make my own path ultimately because every personal journey is a fresh one.
I am sharing what I know. Do I want to ‘prove’ this to anyone? Frankly, no. And this makes me a strange participant in this thread perhaps … but I am interested in sharing – just to be helpful and sometimes to suggest that there may be other avenues to explore.
some things are clear …. hopefully?
but TISL – this is Sri Lanka
there are things we want to control – because we keep them at arms length
but the moment we get closer to them the need for control also vanishes
the only way to influence buddhists is to come into a relationship of profound sympathy and understanding with them – the way Fr. Marcelline Jayakody, Fr. Mchael Rodrigo and Fr Aloysius Peiris did.
your way is fine for a forum like this – but in the world outside its a different ball game …. think about this
I wish you all well
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Will you please tell me whether the arguments of Sujewa pointed out in my last posts fall into a circular logical fallacy ? I would like to know your honest opinion.
Thanks!
Wijayapala, OTC, OL,
Wijayapala,
Re: “Sounds good. However there is nothing in the above post that disproves the phenomenon of kamma or samsara.”
Karma & Samsara are ideas, they are not phenomenon (unless you are saying that by karma you mean actions have results or that by samsara you mean eathly life, etc.). In the traditional Buddhist world view Karma includes the carry over of positive & negative actions from one birth to the next, & Samsara is “SaṃsÄra (sanskrit: संसार) is the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth (i.e. reincarnation) within Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön, Jainism, Sikhism, Vaishnavism and other Indian religions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra)”. As we see from this discussion – neither the existence of rebirth, nor karma, or nirvana (the device by which one overcomes rebirth according to Buddhism) has been or can be proven as real things – thus, they are ideas, not phenomenon (“A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα – phenomena) is any observable occurrence.[1] In popular usage, a phenomenon often refers to an extraordinary event. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however commonplace it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton’s observations of the moon’s orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei’s observations of the motion of a pendulum.[2] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon). So, ideas that may or may not be real/true (or have an earthly presence & effect) cannot be disproved because they are, at this point, ideas only. Similar to someone who believes in the old Norse gods saying “prove that the god Thor will not return to earth in the year 5000″ – such a fantastic claim/challenge, being speculation, cannot be proven or disproven – which is the same situation with the fantastic Buddhist ideas such as karma, rebirth, nirvana, etc.
::
OTC,
Re: the reality/existence sub discussion – I think we mostly have some misunderstandings as to how the words are used. My definition of reality includes things that may not have been discovered by humans yet (sum total of all that exists), but may exist, or be a physical part, in/of this universe. All of existence – or – to be more clear – all things that exist/let’s say have a presence in the universe, galaxies, space-time, & the human timeline of discovery of things are two separate items. So, some aspect of Earth that may not be discovered for another 50,000 years is a part of my definition of reality – since that item, though it may not be discovered yet, has an actual presence in what we call the real world.
Anyway, another way to make this discussion re: reality/existence more relevant is to frame my original question/challenge in the following way; can it be shown that K, R, N have an effect – directly – on humans that are alive on Earth? I do not think so, because K, R, N are ideas only (most likely), & not things that have an actual presence in the world of the humans. Basically another way of saying that K, R, N are not real as described in & believed by Buddhism, but religious ideas only.
Note: obviously K, R, N exists as ideas in the minds of believers, & in those who have read or heard about Buddhism, in books, etc. Just as dragons or bigfoot or ghosts exist as ideas in the minds of people. However, neither K, R, N nor dragons/ghosts can be proved to exist outside the realm of human imagination & mind. Thus, my conclusion that K, R, N are most likely symbolic devices developed or used in Buddhism to teach, control the believers. That those items – K, R, N – do not have an independent existence in the universe outside of the realm of ideas. Or that, most likely, people are not reborn, that evil or good actions that one does in this life does not follow one to another life because there is, most likely, no other life, and that nirvana – a state/achievement believed to free one from rebirth is not a real thing, as rebirth most likely does not exist, there is no need for a mental device that frees one from rebirth (a most likely non-existent thing).
Anyway, here’s a definition of reality & a definition of real from me that does not use the word existence:
Reality = The combined total of all things – including ideas, physical objects, invisible matter, sub-atomic matter, discovered & yet to be discovered things.
Real or what is real or actual = Confirmed to be a part of the world or the universe in a described fashion. A fast car, for example, is a real thing. Karma, for example, is most likely not real.
So, K, R, N is a part of Reality as an idea. And those items are not a part of the Real world as described in Buddhism (no rebirth, no karma that carries over from another life, no nirvana & no need for nirvana since there is no rebirth) – as far as I can tell. The agnostic stance – “as far as I can tell” – is because the universe & Earth & human life has not been fully explored yet.
Hope that clears things up, let me know if it does not.
::
Re: benefits of meditation & following the Eight Fold Path regardless of K, R, N being real (this one is for OL),
There is no argument that meditation, following the EFP, & other positive Buddhist practices are of use to people. However, this does not mean that Buddhism is the only or even the best way to get people to become calm, peaceful people who can coorperate with others. Nor does it mean that Buddhism is a vastly important truth that should be elevated above all other religions, permanently attached to constitutions, cannot be left behind, keeping people imprisoned like fundie Islam, etc. Should Sri Lankans have the freedom to reject Buddhism if they do not find it useful anymore? That is one of the ideas/questions related to this discussion. Should intellectual & spiritual freedom, including freedom from religion be developed in Sri Lanka, made available to Sri Lankans, to the same degree that it is available in many parts of the developed world? And would that, such a development, be useful to Sri Lanka in the long run? I think so. Thus we have this debate/argument.
- S
My apologies for successive posts –
BM
I have tried to understand your view on meditation. my response is this. Sure. there can be all kinds of meditation including hypnosis – but that would be hypnosis – not meditation. if you are saying all meditation is hypnosis I would only suggest that you keep investigating this and maybe check with practitioners of meditation.
I follow a simple statement that – “the highest meditation is the mind without pretension”
whatever your mind IS at any given moment you are THAT – and that is the truth. You can be angry, lustful, sad, happy etc etc. meditation is to place a clear mirror against the mind – and see it as it is.
so this is demystified to the extent that i can – there is no exclusivity – but the main hurdle is honesty. if you can be honest with yourself you can be a meditator – and if you can observe yourself even for a moment and see that passing feeling or thought or emotion – then you have meditated
I said before that every religion and school has idiots. even meditation has idiots and people can deceive themselves – OH YES. but that would not justify your equation of meditation with hypnosis.
self deception according to Buddha is our main technique in samsara. Nobody can teach us that …..
B-Man, SD, & other non-believers,
Let’s invent an agnostic replacement for Buddhism & other religions, to be used in SL – as an intellectual excercise (sp?) – (& maybe more, who knows
?).
Basically, what is a better way to teach people to view themselves, others, the world in a positive light AND to get SL to become highly developed & competetive (sp?) w/ the most developed countries in the world – & also out of debt, out of poverty, & for it to be peaceful generally & very capable of war when need be.
::
So, we need to explain or have an answer to human existence.
For myself, not knowing how we began is fine for now, investigating how we began, using reason – not myth – is the way to go forward.
Also, re: life after death – not knowing if there is such a thing is fine for me.
So, let’s create some sort of a reality based starting off point for non-believers in SL who want to improve themselves, the country, & the world. What is a better approach than Buddhism or the other religions? Let’s come up with, as a summer project, one or several such alternative.
Once we get some rough ideas down, maybe we can look at turning it into a book/a website, etc.
Also, as Buddhism & all other religions are human ideas, & we are human also, we can barrow freely from any set of human ideas (all human ideas are a part of the intellectual heritage of each human, in my view) that have come before in constructing this new set of positive/hopefully useful human ideas/methods/approaches.
::
Once we come up with draft 1, I am sure the believers will help us trouble-shoot it
- S
Off the Cuff said,
June 29, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
Your quote from Patricia Carrington, Ph.D.Author of “The Book of Meditation” is way off the mark.
The important thing is not the semantics – but the proven fact is that when we’re in some mental states (that includes most activities where we are tranquil or in hightened emotion) we are susceptible to suggestion, either by our own design or that of others. Therefore, the perception of anything during such experience is unreliable. This includes seeing god and communicating with god. If your experience of KRN when in meditation is ‘real to you’ so is the experience of god that other people experience while in similar states.
::
“The results of Volitional Action are very real in the current life. Please list Volitional Actions that do not bring a result in this life for the information of all.”
Adolf Hitler was mentioned at least 3 times.
I can also list a few people I know personally who (in my opinion) have been perfect examples of ‘great human beings’ who are unfortunately in sad circumstances with no end in sight.
Do you need any more? Do you not know any such people yourself? (how many people do you actually know?)
::
re. Mahavira
“Buddhism is not Jainism, hence your question has no relevance to a Buddhist and appears to be very juvenile indeed.”
No OTC! My question was, why do you regard Mahavira Buddha as ‘less enlightened’ than the Gautama Buddha?
(You missed the point about ‘nakedness’. Mahavira and his followers went naked as a necessity)
::
You said,
“Absolutely, but according to their logic they don’t need to, only we have to.”
Yes.
(the reason has been explained more than twenty times)
::
To add to SD’s point about the impracticality of running a country on religious grounds, and with apologies to Sujewa’s friend on the video … OTC, what does it matter to you and the country what I chose to do on a Full Moon Day?
::
OL,
“just for the purpose of this debate i would not ever claim that something I have realized within must be upheld as true and valid for all people in this country.”
Right on. Somehow your earlier post didn’t seem to make that clear. Glad to see that clarified.
OL
”
that is the buddhism i know.
so i am not inclined to take you into a lab and ‘prove’ that karma exists. although certain scientific findings have already been made – see dalai lama’s collaboration with Daniel goleman on destructive emotions – these are ultimately for people who are serious about taking something useful for their own lives. buddhism is for helping – not for legislation. we deal with reality and not with concepts. buddhism is a journey from concept to reality – and i am afraid it is a personal journey.”
It is also the Buddhism I know.
I think that paragraph puts into perspective the reason I came into this discussion in the first place.
I learned meditation in a western country (from a teacher who actually turned out to be an SL with an unusual name). I use it to good advantage. I thought the people in SL will be helped enormously by practising it. I was disappointed that not many did. Not even the people who called themselves staunched Buddhists. The Buddhists I know in SL did not gain their certainty of KRN through meditation. That is clear.
So the Buddhism you know, and the Buddhism I know, is not the Buddhism we are discussing here. It is not the Buddhism that exists in SL. It is hard to imagine that we would have had a 25 year ethnic war (involving hatred as it must) if 70% of the population practice Buddhism in the form that we recognise.
“In mainstream meditation hypnosis is not what we do.”
The intention, as you describe, may be to quietly sit and contemplate useful positive things. However, when directing our thoughts to ‘one thing’ tends to stop the ‘internal chatter’ in our minds and makes access to the subconscious more available. Self-hypnosis may not be the intention but the powerful results that are demonstrated by yogis/mystics derive from the altered state that the subconscious receives while in hypnotoc trance (such as not feeling pain, daring to do things that most of us cannot even think about due to currently-programmed fear).
“if you are saying all meditation is hypnosis …”
No, as described in the para above.
“even meditation has idiots and people can deceive themselves – OH YES. but that would not justify your equation of meditation with hypnosis.”
I think I understand. Your terminology ‘meditation’ is reserved for when the practice is used for a good purpose. The same practice used for purposes of entertainment, ‘growing rich while you sleep’ (a book I have), becoming more competitive, enhancing your sporting skill is better referred to as NLP. However, the fact still remains that the subject is subject to suggestion, no?
It might help if you can explain how, through meditation, one can see the truth of KRN. Or confirm that, if the truth of KRN is observed by the subject during meditation then it must be delusional/self-deception?
Thanking you in advance.
“Karma & Samsara are ideas, they are not phenomenon (unless you are saying that by karma you mean actions have results or that by samsara you mean eathly life, etc.).”
Sounds good, but there still is no scientific evidence in the above description to disprove either kamma or samsara. The agnostic position remains speculation or faith, at best.
“I think that you Wijayapala et al start off from the standpoint that KRN is absolutely real. In other words, to you it has always been real, from birth. So, to you it is the Agnostics that are putting forward A NEW CLAIM (and, to you, an outrageous one at that!) … that KRN is not real but only a speculative religious idea.”
Sounds good. However, this does not constitute credible evidence that kamma/samsara are not real phenomena, and therefore does not equate the agnostic position with a scientific position.
OTC,
Re: the following (and, at this point, regardless of the facts, you are going to believe what you want to believe, but, to clarify – for perhaps the benefit of others who are less impressed by K, R, N concepts):
“Hence what I stated in my statement that
“When discussing Core Buddhist concepts the fair answer should have been may be true, may not be true, science does not know yet.”
Re: K, R, N – neither science, nor ordinary observation, nor experience, nor the hard core Buddhist believers themselves can point out how K, R, N – as described by Buddhism – are real – how they affect human beings who are alive on this planet (in an independent manner, outside of believers acting out based on their belief in the K, R, N concepts).
“There can’t be any qualifiers as Science is still IMMATURE in this field. It is a 50% probability at the current point of time.”
Something speculative, something that has never been proven to be real/actual being discovered to be real does not equal a 50% probability – as SD has pointed out many times earlier. A coin with two heads, when tossed up, has about a 50% probability of either side/face of the coin landing facing up. However – things that are observable/known to exist – such as, let’s say, an agreement between two individuals to behave in a mutually beneficial manner, vs. a speculative item such as Karma or Thor or a fire breathing dragon both do not have a 50% probability of being real/actual. There is a 100% certainty that an agreement between two living people is a real/actual thing, & it is unknown that, to which degree, percentage, that K, R, N may be actual/real things. The probability that K, R, N are real is definitely not 50% – as far as I can tell. It may be impossible to assign an exact number to the probability that K, R, N are real. But, if a number had to be assigned to symbolically express what I think the likelihood that K, R, N are real, I would say less than 1% chance. About the same amount of probability that I would assign for the actual/real existence of the gods of Christianity, Islam, etc.
“That is sufficient reason for the believers to believe and the non believers to reject. But is insufficient reason for the non believers to make a definite statement that those concepts are totally untrue because your disbelief is also based on belief and NOT ON FACT.”
still holds True.”
I do not think the agnostics on this forum have said that K, R, N are totally untrue – because we do not know for certain. However, my opinion is, based on observing life, that, most likely, K, R, N are untrue/are fictional devises/symbolic devices (of use for controlling people’s behavior) & do not have a real/independent existence outside the realm of ideas/Buddhist ideas. Thus, do not need to be taken into account when a person decides how to live on this planet (aside from cultural considerations when doing business with Buddhists, Hindus, etc.).
- S
OTC,
Re:
“Reality is all that exists (my statement) it does not depend on you being able to see it, feel it or hear it. A telling example is the FIRST inhabitants of Earth. They Existed from the TIME Life began on Earth. They were REAL from the word go. That Reality NEVER depended on the Human ability to Observe it. They were not living in someone’s mind. They were living on Earth, just as we do. It just took Billions of years to Observe them (your statement).”
In my definition of reality I did not say that anyone needs to observe that something exists or has presence on earth or elsewhere in order for that thing to be a part of reality. This is a distinction that you are adding to my definition of reality. My definition of reality (or all that exists, has actual form in the world, universe, etc.) includes real things that may not have been discovered yet.
“Another example is the Planets that were discovered when the Telescope was invented. Those Planets existed before their discovery and were very Real before they were Discovered. Even today heavenly bodies are being discovered but their existence did not commence from the time they were discovered. The Reality of their existence never depended on their discovery by Humans. There is absolutely no Logic to make such a statement.”
This entire “discovery by humans” bit is something that 1) you are adding to my definition of reality, & then 2) you are arguing against in order to invalidate my definition of reality/all that exists. Again, see above, discovery by humans is not necessary in order for something to exist.
“Things are happening even at this moment many light years away from Earth. They cannot be observed in Real Time unless a method of traveling faster than the speed of Light is invented (which unfortunately is impossible according to Einstein, please correct me here) They would be discovered years from today but that they are occurring right now at this moment and are very Real cannot be denied.”
No one is denying that there is still much to discover about the real world. So, you are having an argument with yourself in order to impress yourself & or the other believers.
“Now if you can prove Scientifically or Logically or Mathematically or using any other rational method that may be at your disposal that Microbes were not Living on Earth Billions of years ago but instead were living in some poor soul’s mind till their ultimate discovery in the 16 th Century AD, then your contention that REALITY / TRUTH is dependent on the Human ability to provide proof would have been proved else that contention of yours would be proven to be ILLOGICAL, Irrational, Unscientific and hence FALSE.”
Again, you are attempting to say that I said something that I did not say. As mentioned many times before, the discovery of the existence of microbes is irrelevant to proving that fantastic, most likely speculative religious items such as K, R, N are real. As mentioned several times above, microbes left a trace on the observable world – wine turning into grapes, etc. K, R, N does not – but are ideas that are used to support/justify the Buddhist world view/control people/serve as an organizational foundation for a society.
So, you are back to your old argument. Which is: K, R, N cannot be proven as true, but, many other things that were once thought as fiction/speculative turned out to be true. So, you, & other believers – such as Christians & Muslims, are pinning your hopes on the slim possibility that K, R, N, God, etc. – the speculative concepts at the core of religions – turn out to be, or will be discovered to be, true/real in the future. The agnostic position (or at least mine) is that there is not enough evidence around to take those religious concepts too seriously – that they are very distant & slim possibilities. That there are far more simple ways to improve the world, life among humans, society – such as working off of observable, proven things, education, business development, law & order, justice, charitable work, intellectual freedom – including freedom from religions & the ancient taboos & limitations imposed on human thought & action via ancient religions. And the observable methods are more valuable because they do not involve a kind of deception/lies – making kids, & those w/ out access to education & time & resources to develop their reasoning abilities, etc., believe that God is real, that K, R. N is real, etc.
- S
OL,
RE:
“some things are clear …. hopefully?
but TISL – this is Sri Lanka
there are things we want to control – because we keep them at arms length
but the moment we get closer to them the need for control also vanishes
the only way to influence buddhists is to come into a relationship of profound sympathy and understanding with them – the way Fr. Marcelline Jayakody, Fr. Mchael Rodrigo and Fr Aloysius Peiris did.
your way is fine for a forum like this – but in the world outside its a different ball game …. think about this
I wish you all well”
All things (or at least most things – w/ in a human scale of time) change. Sri Lanka today is not Sri Lanka 5 years ago – in very significant ways (no LTTE/civil war for example). Sri Lanka today is not Sri Lanka 100 years ago, in very significant ways (back then it was a British colony, for example). In the same fashion, if work is done to change/improve things in SL now, w/ in 5 years, or w/ in 100 years, you may see results/changes.
Here’s one of my favorite quotes:
“do things and things will get done”
Not sure about the source of that quote. But it is relevant to this discussion I think. Neither the existence of poverty, or mind/behavior control using Buddhism, is guaranteed to last in SL or elsewhere for that matter – if work is done to change those conditions.
- S
OL,
Re:
“Yes it would be nice if everyone could realize the truth without all this mumbo jumbo. What I mentioned above are tools – they are a tried and tested system for 25 centuries. Humans evolve and they need tools and signposts on their journey. And they can be used in a profoundly empowering way. Religions are tools and they must be used.”
Religion as a creative device, or religion as a mind & behavior control device in order to organize a society in a certain fashion – yes, I agree those are actual aspects of religion, or why religion exists & how religions are primarily used.
However, when any religion – whether it be Buddhism, Christianity, Islam or religious-like things (perhaps Communism?) claims that it has the best path for organizing & running human society/human life, then people will want to take a closer look at those claims.
The track record of religions alone to bring about progress & development in this world is not a great one. In the same way, atheistic certainty & violence motivated from it can lead to disaster (or at least death for many believers, which can be a loss for a given society). So, religions, when properly identified of their value & use – have their uses – such as transmitting a set of values & expectations to the next generation, but, they are only (religions are) a small part of the human experience, & intellectual heritage, or tools available to humans in order to make our lives better. So, people who see/agree with this view, such as the agnostics on this forum, campaign for greater intellectual freedom by opposing grand & unproven/unprovable claims made by religions/the believers.
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“But show me a single reputed scientist who claims that their speculation is true and urges us all to govern ourselves on the basis that it’s true, as you’re doing right now. That’s what makes your position untenable”
SD, please reread my posts and show me where I have URGED you or anyone else to embrace KRN just because I chose to believe in it.
Here is an extract from my post to you of May 31, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
Your question was
“And now we once again come to the same key question. What are these convincing reasons that cause you to accept these things as real?”
This was my answer
Action and result in this life needs no proof. In Buddhism what is important is Action with volition. Such volitional action can be good or bad. Man made laws recognise volitional bad actions, the results of which are observable. Volitional good actions gives observable good results too. What is uncertain is the carry over of the result to a possible future birth. Based on what is observable we believe the unobservable to be possible. The doctrine of Kamma provides a believable explanation to the vast diversity of the world hence we chose to believe in it. You have chosen not to do so, that’s your right.
Now please tell me what you understand from the last sentence in my reply above?
Have I not recognised your right to reject KRN?
Is that my UNTENABLE position?
You have also asked me the following question
“However, OTC consistently fails to explain the basis on which KRN is the only possibility over millions and billions of other possibilities. What is your position on this?”
SD of all people you should have known better than to make frivolous accusations.
Since you have already reread the above extract from my 30 day old post, please let me know why you keep asking me for my reasons again and again? I don’t believe you have amnesia (or use Shillboot).
I have given my reasons a long time back (I believe much before the post quoted above). Now could you start listing the billions of reasons (starting from the most compelling) why I should not believe in KRN and become an Agnostic?
Dear OTC,
RE: “SD, please reread my posts and show me where I have URGED you or anyone else to embrace KRN just because I chose to believe in it”
That’s correct. You’ve always acknowledged everyone’s right to choose their beliefs and that’s commendable. However, the reason I said this was, you also say the Buddhism should not be separated from the state, which is indirectly asking us to accept its truth. After all, why should unproven beliefs be the basis of governance for a country? That’s what my criticism was based on.
RE: “What is uncertain is the carry over of the result to a possible future birth. Based on what is observable we believe the unobservable to be possible.”
This is not a convincing argument. BalangodaMan has already highlighted the flaw in it. It takes something simple like cause and effect, and then makes a leap into a completely unrelated supernatural phenomenon. The argument is not made to sound plausible by saying that the unobservable is possible. There are billions of possibilities that are unobservable. If you look at it carefully, this argument is composed of *unrelated items* that only superficially sound correct. On closer analysis, the argument is completely disjunct and is equal to saying: “here’s something unprovable X. But I choose to believe it because some unrelated phenomenon Y is true”.
The bottom line OTC, is that there *is* a leap of faith that’s required. It is *not* a defensible leap of faith. It’s better to really think about that in depth.
RE: “Now could you start listing the billions of reasons (starting from the most compelling) why I should not believe in KRN and become an Agnostic?”
Again OTC, like Wijayapala, you seem to be mixed up about on whose shoulder the burden of proof rests. I don’t need to defend a position! I just don’t know.
Secondly, this entire thread has given ample reasons for not just the problems with KRN, but that things are better explained by other phenomena. So it’s frankly disturbing that you should ask this question, which means that you have not been following the discussion at all?
Since you insisted on Shilboot, I will give you an argument raised by a Shilboot monk. In line with your argument for KRN, give me reason not to believe in it (while you are at it, give me reason not to believe in aliens, multi-verses, fairies and deistic gods as well)
Monk’s argument:
“Shilboot believes in the existence of parallel universes. Only now, scientists have begun to even consider this phenomenon a possibility, but Shilboot envisioned this in 10,000 BC. Shilboot also says that the minds of beings in this universe are subtly interlinked. The actions and thoughts in one mind propagate and affect the actions and thoughts of another mind, perhaps in another universe, and these effects may ripple across several minds and rebound back to the original thinker, to complete a holy shilboot circle. A similar notion has only recently been discovered by scientists and they call it quantum entanglement.
When a shilboot circle is complete, depending on whether it forms an overall positive energy or a negative energy, a deep resonance may occur, and all beings in the circle may be affected positively or negatively. This accounts extremely well for why some peoples’ lives seem to be inextricably connected to each other.
Bad thoughts result in bad energy being spread, so in Shilboot, it’s not just action, even thinking it is enough to screw you and others around you, placing even greater constraints on the piety of the practicing Shilbootist. We see that this too is quite true. When a person has bad thoughts, it affects the mood and thinking of those around him/her, and therefore, this is proof that Shilboot circles exist and span multiple universes. The only way to stablize the universe, is by always thinking good thoughts. Good thoughts are aided by smoking the igna-rance leaf, all of which form a consistent philosophy.
Overall, Shilboot cannot be disproven, and there are strong reasons to believe it’s quite likely, therefore I choose to believe in it.”
Ok. OTC. Given the arguments above, would you consider Shilboot to be any less plausible than KRN?
Wijayapala
RE: “However, this does not constitute credible evidence that kamma/samsara are not real phenomena, and therefore does not equate the agnostic position with a scientific position.”
Not at all. But that does not make fairyology, pastafarianism or deistic gods any less unscientific either.
See Wijayapala, you are not taking an honest intellectual position here. All you’re doing is trying to exploit a philosophical loophole and somehow validate your belief, not considering whether it’s genuinely consistent.
You ignore or fail to address all the arguments raised so far that pose challenges to your belief. For example, you posted an argument recently about luminous beings eating stuff with their hands. Flaws were pointed out. You skipped the issue altogether.
BalangodaMan has laid our an excellent case for why KRN can be explained in terms of self-hypnosis. Again, the entire issue has been skipped altogether.
Your response is to raise an argument that has already been adequately addressed. If your aim is merely to exploit a logical loophole and salvage your belief, then knock yourself out. We’ve already granted that the loophole exists and that it can validate a belief in *practically anything*. If you wish to make an honest contribution to the discussion, which I’m sure you can, then address the points. Better yet, why not explain to us on what basis you personally believe in this, and how you have resolved any philosophical issues.
Dear Yapa,
RE: “Will you please tell me whether the arguments of Sujewa pointed out in my last posts fall into a circular logical fallacy ? I would like to know your honest opinion.”
See Yapa, I would answer that question, if it were *relevant* to the discussion. You are simply nit picking on a single statement and *ignoring the entirety* of his argument. You have been consistently doing this throughout this discussion. I am sorry, but I cannot waste anyone’s time by entertaining such diversionary tactics.
What is the relevance of being pedantic about reality or proof to convincing others that KRN are real elements in this world? If Einstein were asked to convince someone about the theory of relativity, is he going to argue that there’s no such thing as proof? or that there’s no such thing as reality? Refrain from these diversionary tactics please and stick to the central argument. How about giving us that point by point proof, convincing set of reasons that shows that KRN is real (and please, not a proof with which you can show that even Santa is real)
Shilboot
————
SD, excellent exposition of the shilbootist position on repositioning of cause-effect of volitional acts when done deliberately. I asked earlier whether the scientists at Cern are studying this with their Huge apparatus.
KRN and identity
——————–
SD’s exposition of Shilboot has reminded me of the lack of answer to, arguably, the ONE question that would invalidate all arguments about KRN.
Let me explain. In Shilboot philosophy, the person doing the bad stuff is not the person who suffers the consequences, it is some other person who is in some way cosmically linked, but may be in some far off galaxy in another time even. What is the fairness in this, you may ask. Why should Mr Wong in China suffer for a little bit of bad that Mr Jones in some far off galaxy has done?
Similarly, just as ‘why is Mr Wong responsible for Mr Jones’s acts’, why (in Buddhism) is some other person living in some other land, other time, responsible for my karma?
At least in Hinduism this is explained by the common identity these two people are supposed to have from one birth to the next. In Buddhism, it is said over and over, that there is NO common identity. Indeed, it is stated that what you are today is not what you were yesterday.
So how does this work?
(asked before but never seems have been addressed)
To me it seems like a show-stopper type of issue that would invalidate KRN as impossible, no?
Dear SomewhatDisgusted/All;
You said followings referring to me.
1. Now he says that there’s no such thing as reality. These things are true only in a .strictly philosophical sense. In day to day life though, few people are going to try running headlong into a wall because “the wall does not exist in reality”.
2. If Einstein were asked to convince someone about the theory of relativity, is he going to argue that there’s no such thing as proof? or that there’s no such thing as reality? Refrain from these diversionary tactics please and stick to the central argument.
……………….
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE SAID THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REALITY?
Why are you really attributing things that I have never said? Why are you really creating faults for me? Is it because it is difficult to find faulty things in what I really say?
Really tell me who is using diversionary tactics?
I can understand Sujewa’s and BalangodaMan’s behaviour,but not yours. I cannot expect such behaviour from a competent person. Worst thing is taking wrong sides with knowledge. You must be able to ascertain things objectively. If you refrain from seeing right things just because it is coming from somewhere you don’t like, take the sides of who are affiliated to you, then god will have to save your students, if you really are a scholar.
Really you know that what I referred to you in my last post fall into a circular logic. You cannot deny it. That is why you gave that slippery answer to my question. You really know of Sujewa’s arguments made so far related to “reality/real” and “existence/exist” have been broken down with his “begging the Question” arguments. To help and protect your friends, what you do is covering up this significant breakthrough and slinging mud on created faults at me.
ON THE BASIS OF THIS FALLACY, ALL SUJEWA’S ARGUMENTS MADE SO FAR HAS NO ANY VALIDITY AND THEY ARE ONLY HEAPS OF VALUELESS WORDS PRODUCED, MAY BE DUE TO HE HAS NO ANY OTHER PRODUCTIVE THING TO DO.
This really happens when your arguments are based on a logical fallacy. Now I assertively say that all Sujewa has written so far related to “reality” and “existence” is nothing more than nonsense. His undisciplined haphazard methods, with his superficial knowledge have no capacity to understand or analyze any deep subjects. Still his articles are interesting and enjoyable to you. It is strange!
For the information of all, my question posed to you and your crafty answer is given below.
Dear Yapa,
RE: “Will you please tell me whether the arguments of Sujewa pointed out in my last posts fall into a circular logical fallacy ? I would like to know your honest opinion.”
See Yapa, I would answer that question, if it were *relevant* to the discussion. You are simply nit picking on a single statement and *ignoring the entirety* of his argument. You have been consistently doing this throughout this discussion. I am sorry, but I cannot waste anyone’s time by entertaining such diversionary tactics.
What is the relevance of being pedantic about reality or proof to convincing others that KRN are real elements in this world? If Einstein were asked to convince someone about the theory of relativity, is he going to argue that there’s no such thing as proof? or that there’s no such thing as reality? Refrain from these diversionary tactics please and stick to the central argument. How about giving us that point by point proof, convincing set of reasons that shows that KRN is real (and please, not a proof with which you can show that even Santa is real)
……………
My question was wrt to the post of June 28, 2010 @ 10:16 pm, addressed to our friend Sujewa Ekanayake.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say:
“After all, why should unproven beliefs be the basis of governance for a country? That’s what my criticism was based on.”
……………
You always praise and preach Democratic principles as golden rules of politics. You know modern principles of democracy have been built on the base of “STATE OF NATURE” of Thomas Hobbes.
Is this a proven belief? Can you please show us how it is proved?
Is this your position? Unproven beliefs are valid for democracy, and not for others? Is it because, it is coming from the west?
True we must accept whatever our western masters say without questioning , and must reject every thing with a slightest doubt, if they are local.
Is this not the slave mentality?
Thanks!
Dear All;
Most of the wrong conclusions arrived at by Sujewa Ekanayake, BalangodaMan without knowledge and by SomewhatDisgusted, I presume with reasonable knowledge in their arguments in the discussion are due to various logical fallacies.
Please identify them.
http://www.google.lk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFallacy&ei=Z2ArTPz8FpKmrQfLvqXdBw&usg=AFQjCNG6O_ZyJoeYNj9zV25KOlVRI5fFnQ
Thanks!
Dear All;
Please see how the fallacy of “Proof by verbosity” is frequented in Sujewa Ekanayake’s and BalangodaMan’s writing.
Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization and Straw man are often seen fallacies of SomewhatDisgusted’s arguments.
However, you cannot say other fallacies are less frequent in their writing. Their strength is the general difficulty of diagnosing the fallacies.
Beware of fallacies.
Thanks!
Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;
You say;
Also, since you believe that my definition of reality is a circular one/begging the question, let’s clarify that concept also (from same wiki page above):
“Begging the question
Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
Example
Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.
Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.”
So, defining reality as the sum total of all that exists is neither a fallacy nor is it circular reasoning. As stated earlier, I think you believe so because 1) you cannot recognize the difference between the concept of reality and the concept of existence, or 2) you choose not to so that it will help your argument. But, let’s try to point out the difference between reality and existence.
………………
This is called “Yanne koheda’ malle pol” fallacy.
Please get it translated into English, if you now cannot now understand your original language.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
“That’s correct. You’ve always acknowledged everyone’s right to choose their beliefs and that’s commendable. However, the reason I said this was, you also say the Buddhism should not be separated from the state, which is indirectly asking us to accept its truth. After all, why should unproven beliefs be the basis of governance for a country? That’s what my criticism was based on.”
You should have made that clear. Then I would have answered you. The readers of this forum would not know why you made the accusation that you did. How could they, when even I did not know what that was all about. Thank you for clearing the air.
I have not advocated KRN to be a basis of Government but I believe that I commented about the use of Buddhist Values of Governance known as the Dasa Raja Darma in response to one of yours (my post of May 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am).
Here they are
The 10 principles enunciated by the Buddha are as follows.
They remain equally true today as it was 2600 years ago (and before) and will remain so for all time since truth has no time bar.
1. Dana – Charitableness
2. Parithyaga – Self Sacrifice
3. Sila – Virtue
4. Thapasa – The Ruler must lead a life of simplicity
5. lrju – Uprightness
6. Murdu – Soft, Gentle or pliable
7. Avihimsa – Bears no harm to anyone
8. Akrodaya – Absence of enmity
9. Kanthi – Forbearance
10. Avirodita – Non-conflict
If you look at it objectively without rejecting it just because the source has Buddhist connections I doubt that the Buddhist system of governance would cause anyone any harm at anytime (I am writing about what the Buddha taught not about corruptions of it).
Can you realistically object to any one of them?
Can you claim that any of the above “FOISTS” KRN on anyone?
“Your response is to raise an argument that has already been adequately addressed. If your aim is merely to exploit a logical loophole and salvage your belief, then knock yourself out. We’ve already granted that the loophole exists and that it can validate a belief in *practically anything*. If you wish to make an honest contribution to the discussion, which I’m sure you can, then address the points. Better yet, why not explain to us on what basis you personally believe in this, and how you have resolved any philosophical issues.”
Sounds good. However, there continues to be a lack of evidence for the agnostics to validate their claim that there is no kamma or samsara.
Commenting on my recent post in which I stated that the “personal mental realisations” such as KRN have not been proven so far as “real-life” truths , Ordinary Srilankan said:
“the point is that what happens within our consciousness is also part of life – and a very important part because as we understand it – the mind precedes, guides and directs all behaviour”.
Of course, there is no argument about the fact that what happens within our minds is part of our life. In deed they are. Dreams that arise in our minds for instance are part of our life. No one would dispute that. But the central issue under discussion in this thread (if I understand right) is whether the strong claims made on the basis of some such personal “mental happenings”, e.g. KRN, can be considered as “actual happenings” in our real lives. Mind you, these claims supposedly relate to actual real-life happenings such as law of karma.
If I say that I had a dream that I will become the President of the USA next month by virtue of conducting a special puja, no one will take that claim seriously. That’s not only because it’s highly improbable but also because it’s a claim involving a real-life happening that could be verified by all. My claim will just be a harmless joke at the very best. However, I wouldn’t consider the claims made in KRN concepts to be that harmless because we are conditioned by our religious upbringing to treat these ones not as harmless dreams but as real-life certainities.
In most countries, there are consumer protection laws that prevent sellers of goods or services from making unproven or misleading claims about their products. Unfortunately, we freely allow religions to make such unsubstantiated claims. Some of us would simply ignore these claims but they are not as harmless to the human society as my dream because people in fact “invest” a lot of real-life money and/or time to “buy” whatever is promised, may be a better after-life, a guarantee of reaching nirvana or whatever.
I’m not saying that we should prevent people from buying whatever they desire. My point is, the people should not be promised of any outcomes which are beyond reasonable proof. If what is being offered is just a mental construct which has no real-life proof, that should also be told so that “buyer” will be fully informed of what’s offered.
Just to give an example, let us take the act of dana (sharing), I’ll support a claim that it’s a very good thing to do because it has “observable” benefits to the giver, the receiver and the society as a whole if done sensibly . Beyond those observable benefits, I haven’t seen any evidence to support claims such as “you will get thousand-fold in return in your next life” or “dana to sangha has far greater merits than feeding a hungry stranger”.
Unfortunately, we are exposed to these unsubstantiated claims when we are most vulnerable and helpless, i.e. when we are small kids. Isn’t this one of the worst forms of child abuse? Wouldn’t the world be a better and more peaceful place if this abuse doesn’t take place?
Dear Readers:
The question of how something can be generated from nothing is very interesting. In fact, it is the basis for another question: can all of reality be extracted from the mind? In other words, is “reality” simply a perception of the mind? One interesting answer to the question that I found is this: that in fact, we cannot directly verify the existence of an object based on the form alone (since the form is constantly changing) – what we can verify is the dependency that said object has to another object. In this way, all objects are somehow connected. This idea is easy to understand from the point of view of mathematics. Consider a single number like “two”. Two is a number between two other numbers – one and three. If one and three did not exist, there would be little use for two. So the value of two is in relation to the unique position it occupies between two other numbers. What is important is not the existence of two but this positional arrangement it has. Perhaps what the believers are trying to say in this thread is that it is essentially irrelevant whether or not karma/reincarnation can be verified; what is more important are the dependent relationships which they point to. For example, you cannot verify the existence of a non-entity. But if this non-entity gives rise to actual entities, then the dependent relationships are clearly seen. Consider the example below of the empty set. It is a subset of every set, but this is “true” in a vacuous sense (F—> T). But what about the set containing the empty set? This set is not empty – it contains 1 element. Hence, the number “1″ has been generated. Similarly, 2, 3…. n can also be generated. Now, what remains is how negative integers (-1, -2, -3….n) can be generated, as well as numbers like 3.14 (pi), but those are special cases.
”
The Kadampa school of Buddhist philosophy claims that all phenomena are ultimately empty of inherent existence and do not exist as things in themselves. All phenomena exist solely in dependence on other phenomena, which are themselves empty and dependently related to other phenomena and so on. No matter how deeply or far back we search, no phenomenon can ever be found which is fundamental or a ‘thing-in-itself’. Neither the observer nor any observed phenomenon exist independently, but are inextricably intertwined. This viewpoint is known as dependent relationship.
These ideas are remarkably similar to the theory of the origins of mathematics first proposed by the mathematician John von Neumann, who was one of the founders of computer science. The theory relies on simple maipulations of sets.
A set is a collection of things. An empty set is a collection of nothing at all. An empty set can be thought of as nothing with the potential to become something (that is to be become a set with at least one member).
Von Neumann [VON NEUMANN 1923] proposed that all numbers could be bootstrapped out of the empty set by the operations of the mind.
The mind observes the empty set. The mind’s act of observation causes the appearance another set – the set of empty sets. The set of empty sets is not empty, because it contains one non-thing – the empty set. The mind has thus generated the number 1 by producing the set containing the empty set.
Now the mind perceives the empty set and the set containing the empty set, so there are two non-things. The mind has generated the number 2 out of emptiness. And so it goes on all the way up.
So, the three levels of dependent relationship postulated by Kadampa Buddhist philosophy are apparent even at the very deepest level of mathematics.
* Numbers have causes – the algorithms that perform the operations on the sets.
* Numbers have parts and aspects. The number 1 is defined as the set which contains the empty set and so on.
* And in the final analysis the entire number system has been generated by the play of mind on emptiness, in the complete absence of the need to refer to any material thing, or things, which are being counted. ”
http://kwelos.tripod.com/emptyset.htm
Slight clarification: while dependency makes perfect sense for numbers, I am not sure how far the argument can be made for so-called “reality” and “existence.”
Dear Wijayapala
Re: However, there continues to be a lack of evidence for the agnostics to validate their claim that there is no kamma or samsara.
And the agnostics never made any such claim, so unfortunately enough, repeated bashing of this strawman will not validate your belief. We do not reject the possibility of KRN, nor multi-verses, aliens, fairies or even Shilboot. We just don’t know. It’s the religious people who seem to know. So all we are asking is, can you justify your claims?
Dear Yapa,
You said: “ON THE BASIS OF THIS FALLACY, ALL SUJEWA’S ARGUMENTS MADE SO FAR HAS NO ANY VALIDITY AND THEY ARE ONLY HEAPS OF VALUELESS WORDS PRODUCED, MAY BE DUE TO HE HAS NO ANY OTHER PRODUCTIVE THING TO DO.”
See Yapa, that is also a fallacy. Even if one thing a person says is wrong, that does not invalidate all the rest of his arguments. After all, how many logical fallacies have you committed so far? Should we not dismiss you then? Did you not attempt to dismiss me also because I made a mistake with ethanol extraction?
Similarly, you’ve trying to simply dismiss Sujewa’s valid arguments without really addressing them. As I said earlier, I will not support any such attempt. That is not the way a discussion works.
RE: “PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE SAID THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REALITY?”
Yapa, you are once again making a very simplistic and literal interpretation of things. Who in their right minds would say there’s no such thing as reality, so should you even bother with such a question? What i meant should have been obvious to anyone, that just in the way you tried to argue that there’s no such thing as proof, you are now trying to say that reality is difficult to define and therefore cannot be discussed. This too, is a fallacy. The diversionary tactic is in trying to use such irrelevant issues to somehow claim validity for KRN. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.
See once again, after all that complaining, you side-stepped the central question I asked in that previous post:
How about giving us that point by point proof/convincing set of reasons that shows that KRN is real (and please, not a proof with which you can show that even Santa is real)
What you’re doing can be described in a way as pious fraud. http://www.skepdic.com/piousfraud.html
You think that being honest about this issue will somehow be a disservice to Buddhism and everyone will run away from Buddhism. Yapa, the disservice is in not being honest about it. It convinces the rest of the world that the Buddhists too are as blind as other religious believers, and that religion is a dangerous delusion all around.
Dear Upul,
Nice post. These are precisely the questions we should be asking ourselves.
Dear OTC,
Re: Can you realistically object to any one of them?
No. These are excellent.
Let me ask you a question though, if the Buddha had not told you about these dasa raja dhamma, would you not have realized them yourself? Similarly, are Buddhists the only people who realize these things as virtues? Wouldn’t some other human being, in some other part of the world, automatically recognize these as virtues through their innate moral intuition? Or can Buddhists claim a monopoly on these virtues?
If not, why should *Buddhism* be connected to the state when the the Dasa Raja Dhamma can be independently derived anyway?
Re: “Can you claim that any of the above “FOISTS” KRN on anyone?”
Yes.
See OTC, if you say the Dasa Raja Dhamma be made a part of the state, that would make a lot of sense. Those are universal values, and I’d be happy to take the conveniently packaged 10 rules presented in Buddhism and try to live up to that ideal, even if none of our rulers seem likely to even come close.
But when you say, Buddhism should be part of the state, that necessarily means that KRN tags along, unless you’re talking about a new form of Buddhism sans KRN?
The end result OTC, would be similar to what happens with Buddhism in general anyway, at least, as it is followed by the mainstream today. Monks feed you sensible sounding stuff, like cause & effect in this life, and then shove the fantastic claim that it affects the next life as well down your throat, before you’ve even realized it. There is a huge logical disconnect here, and that’s what should not be ignored.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted:
You say;
RE: “PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE SAID THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REALITY?”
Yapa, you are once again making a very simplistic and literal interpretation of things. Who in their right minds would say there’s no such thing as reality, so should you even bother with such a question?
………………
Now you are changing the tune. Do you now say you were not in right mind when you said the following?
“Yapa is trying to prove KRN through pedantic means again. Once, he was trying to say that there’s no such thing as proof. Now he says that there’s no such thing as reality.”
………………………
Again you say;
You said: “ON THE BASIS OF THIS FALLACY, ALL SUJEWA’S ARGUMENTS MADE SO FAR HAS NO ANY VALIDITY AND THEY ARE ONLY HEAPS OF VALUELESS WORDS PRODUCED, MAY BE DUE TO HE HAS NO ANY OTHER PRODUCTIVE THING TO DO.”
See Yapa, that is also a fallacy. Even if one thing a person says is wrong, that does not invalidate all the rest of his arguments. After all, how many logical fallacies have you committed so far? Should we not dismiss you then? Did you not attempt to dismiss me also because I made a mistake with ethanol extraction?
……………………
You have taken a part of my idea and trying to say it is also a fallacy. Still I challenge you to prove that it is a fallacy.
Further, if you say I have committed fallacies please show me where I have done so.
This has been a practice of yours to attribute false things to disgrace others. You have done this several times to Off the Cuff and to me. Back up your allegation with evidence.
You level this false allegation to counter the gravity of the fallacies committed by your friends and you. That will not happen. If you or your friends challenge me to show fallacies committed by them or by you I will show many. Same way I challenge you to show my fallacies. You can just dismiss me as said by you by doing it. This is your chance. Please dismiss me.
With regard to ethanol extraction, it was not a fallacy. It happened because you tried to preach the readers something really you are not aware of. There also I did not try to dismiss you. I tried to point out the error, but you were adamant on your wrong point. However, an error does not dismiss a person. But when the base is proved to be a fallacy, the whole lot of arguments built on it, I don’t have to tell you, totally break down. So the whole lot of arguments of Sujewa Ekanayake based on or related to “real/reality” and “exist/existence” has totally broken down and has no validity and I call all of them as nonsense. Similarly, if you challenge, I can show you many fallacies of yours and BalangodaMan, though their bases are not broad as Sujewa’s. Almost all the arguments in the discussion were based on the concepts of “reality” and “existence”. When this broad base is entangled in a fallacy, almost all the arguments of anybody in the discussion break down. This is what happened to Sujewa. The foundation of his mansion is destroyed.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted, now you cannot fix his mansion with crafty attempts. He himself hit his own wicket. Sujewa is clean out.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted:
Here is another lie of yours to cover up your poverty of ideas.
You say:
“Yapa, you are once again making a very simplistic and literal interpretation of things. Who in their right minds would say there’s no such thing as reality, so should you even bother with such a question? What i meant should have been obvious to anyone, that just in the way you tried to argue that there’s no such thing as proof, you are now trying to say that reality is difficult to define and therefore cannot be discussed.”
Show me where I have said that there is no such thing as proof? I have never said so.
These are mean and silly methods to counter arguments.
This is strange.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted:
You say:
“you are now trying to say that reality is difficult to define and therefore cannot be discussed. This too, is a fallacy. The diversionary tactic is in trying to use such irrelevant issues to somehow claim validity for KRN. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.”
………………….
This is again a home made straw man of yours. I have never said reality is difficult to define and therefore cannot be discussed.
Further, I have never connected the issue of fallacy to karma, rebirth or nirvana. Please show me if I did so.
Really what I did was showing that Sujewa had no clear idea about “reality” “existence” as per the definition of circular fallacy/begging the question and therefore his arguments had no validity.
This is what wikipedia says about the fallacy.
………………………………………….
Begging the question
* Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
o Example
Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.
o Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.
………………………………..
Do you or any of your friends claim that my position,all Sujewa’s arguments based on above two concepts broke down, is wrong?
Again you say;
“You think that being honest about this issue will somehow be a disservice to Buddhism and everyone will run away from Buddhism. Yapa, the disservice is in not being honest about it. It convinces the rest of the world that the Buddhists too are as blind”
…………..
Being honest! After telling this much of lies?
Honest man, your post is a series of deliberate lies!
Thanks!
BM
it is not easy keeping up with this thread – pl write to khanthi1818@yahoo.com – and we can discuss the points on meditation hypnosis one to one
as my expereience of meditation has not included hypnosis – this I am pretty sure of – and you have some exp of hypnosis we could probably compare notes
metta is a clear case of suggestion as opposed to samatha and vipassana – but this is only initially – wishing onself and others happiness turns out to be not a thought but a deep emotion – and ultimately the acknowledgement of human warmth which we call compassion that is within our physical heart and the great space we call mind that envelopes it ….
but again it will be easier to take this up over e mail
thanks
on a separate point whether something realized in the subjective domain can be taken into the objective and public domain the answer is yes.
first we observe, help, teach and guide ourselves – then we observe, help, teach and guide others …
but this is a natural and organic growth – every intelligent human being does it … but for grand examples study the buddha and Gandhi
it is quite a different matter when you try to impose rules on others that you dont keep yourself … that is where you have to resort to violence
you must embody the values you want to promote – then you can build on your subjective discoveries
this is how a culture is created and how it grows – it is the enlightened individual who builds communities and institutions – our culture died after polonnaruva – thereafter it has been pure imitation – we now have a mix of local and foreign imitation – the real thing has to be re-discovered
I am a great believer in non violence in moving from the personal to the public domain – it is a raising of the collective consciousness -
A good example for circular fallacy:
Question: Who is A?
Answer: B’s son.
Question: Then who is B?
Answer: A’s father.
You will never know either A or B by these answers.
Aren’t Sujewa’s answers similar?
Q: What is reality?
A: Sum total of that exists
Q: then what is exist/existence?
A: Which are in the real world.
Can anybody understand “reality” or “existence” by his answers? Do you think he has written heaps of posts on them with an understanding? If he had no clear idea about them how can anybody reasonably believe that what he has written are correct? He has written on something he did not know. Am I wrong to call them “nonsense”?
A competent English typist would have written more essays than him during the period of the discussion.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
Thanks for the article and the link. Your ability to see things objectively over your own religious beliefs is appreciated.
Thanks!
“And the agnostics never made any such claim, so unfortunately enough, repeated bashing of this strawman will not validate your belief. We do not reject the possibility of KRN, nor multi-verses, aliens, fairies or even Shilboot. We just don’t know. It’s the religious people who seem to know.”
Sounds good. Unfortunately, multi-verses or aliens do not comprise a factual or scientific refutation of kamma or samsara.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted,
While agreeing with the Dasa Raja Darma you say
“Let me ask you a question though, if the Buddha had not told you about these dasa raja dhamma, would you not have realized them yourself? ”
Depends on the Environment we grow up in. Since my environment had Buddhist values I may have reasoned them out for myself but I doubt that anyone living in an environment where any of the above are not recognized as fundamental values would.
“Similarly, are Buddhists the only people who realize these things as virtues? ”
Has anyone said so? I know I haven’t. Could you provide an extract from a believer’s post that claims so, instead of making unsubstantiated statements?
“Wouldn’t some other human being, in some other part of the world, automatically recognize these as virtues through their innate moral intuition? ”
You are assuming a lot. What made you think that the innate moral values that you refer to were universally recognised throughout the world? Slavery, Cannibalism, Pillaging other countries were the norm in some sections of the world.
Of course some other Human could have come up with such a set of rules and again Gravity may have been discovered by some other Human other than Sir Issac Newton as well. And the list goes on.
“Or can Buddhists claim a monopoly on these virtues? ”
I can’t remember anyone making such a claim but if you do Please provide references to the Posts by the believers to prove your point. Making insinuations is not good enough.
“If not, why should *Buddhism* be connected to the state when the the Dasa Raja Dhamma can be independently derived anyway? ”
Anything can be independently derived provided one has the brains to do it. But you have not answered the Central issue of my answer to you, which of the ten rules of Buddhist Governance FOISTS the Core Concepts of Buddhism on anyone?
Please identify each of the Ten Rules and explain why you consider it to be FOISTING the Core Buddhist Concepts (KRN) on the subjects being ruled.
“But when you say, Buddhism should be part of the state, that necessarily means that KRN tags along, unless you’re talking about a new form of Buddhism sans KRN?
I believe you are going on a fishing trip.
Please explain how KRN becomes a part of the 10 rules of governance.
BTW I was talking of Buddhist Governance not Buddhism. Buddhist Governance has no relationship to KRN. If you think there is let’s see your logic.
I have stated that Buddhism being in the Constitution does not violate any other religion as under the Constitutional Clause NOTHING CAN BE DONE which violates religious freedom.
I have stated that Buddhism has been a part of governance since it’s introduction. My posts questioned how anyone could realistically change a system that has existed for over 2600 years in a country with 70% Buddhists, peacefully, when even the British had to accept the Status Quo when signing the Kandyan Treaty. If as you say I have been arguing for anything other than the above please provide extracts without making insinuations.
“Monks feed you sensible sounding stuff, like cause & effect in this life, and then shove the fantastic claim that it affects the next life as well down your throat, before you’ve even realized it. There is a huge logical disconnect here, and that’s what should not be ignored.”
You are again assuming that Buddhists can’t think for themselves. Fortunately they can. There are many things that the Monks say that I and the other believers who write here reject. At the same time there are many things that the Buddha said that have a ring of truth one of them is Dukkha which I explained to you in an earlier post.
SD you cant ask anyone who says he BELIEVES in something for proof. There is no proof otherwise there is no need for belief, as then, that person would KNOW it as a fact.
Dear Upul,
You say
“Of course, there is no argument about the fact that what happens within our minds is part of our life. In deed they are. Dreams that arise in our minds for instance are part of our life. No one would dispute that. ”
I believe you have misunderstood Ordinary Lankan. It is not just about dreams.
If you want to go from point A to point B the decision to do so arises FIRST in your Mind. The Mind precedes EVERY volitional action any living thing makes.
” But the central issue under discussion in this thread (if I understand right) is whether the strong claims made on the basis of some such personal “mental happenings”, e.g. KRN, can be considered as “actual happenings” in our real lives.”
Can you name anything that you do that does not have a MENTAL Origin? Hence if there is a need to control what you do with volition where should you start?
“Mind you, these claims supposedly relate to actual real-life happenings such as law of karma.”
Can you please explain what you mean by the “Law of Karma”?
Re: the following by Wijayapala;
“Sounds good. However, there continues to be a lack of evidence for the agnostics to validate their claim that there is no kamma or samsara.”
Fictional (most likely) things cannot be proven as real. Thus, K, R, N – the original core concepts of this discussion – remain speculative & or possibly fictitious or symbolic-only items/ideas – not “real” things or things that the living have to worry about (unless they want to, as a hobby, as a sentimental/feel good thing, out of cultural obligations, familial obligations, to calm their fears about death, etc. So, believing in K, R, N – as well as beliving in any religion at all – whole or in part – is optional for humans.
Also, Wijayapala is unable to understand the agnostic position – we do not claim that there is no K, R, N, or Thor, or the Bigfoot, or any other fantastic item that is believed out there – we are saying (at least re: K, R, N) that K, R, N are most likely speculative/symbolic items – ideas only – used in an ancient religion to teach values, control the believers, etc. – and not real things that exist independently in the world, that have an effect on humans. And since no Buddhist or any other person is able to prove that K, R, N are real, Buddhism remains a religion, & not an absolute truth, or an undisputed truth, etc., but merely a set of human ideas that are useful to some people.
- S
Dear SomewhatDisgusted:
You say’
Re: However, there continues to be a lack of evidence for the agnostics to validate their claim that there is no kamma or samsara.
And the agnostics never made any such claim, so unfortunately enough, repeated bashing of this strawman will not validate your belief. We do not reject the possibility of KRN, nor multi-verses, aliens, fairies or even Shilboot. We just don’t know. It’s the religious people who seem to know. So all we are asking is, can you justify your claims?
……………………………….
Did any of claim that karma, rebirth and nirvana can be proved to you by the methods demanded by you? No one has done so. If your arbitrary position is that you should not prove something you did not claim possible to be proved, why are you asking others to prove something they did not claim possible to prove?
But not sticking to that adamant position we opened it to be discussed and offered and facilitated you the ways to understand them, while you were rigidly opposing even to touching your arbitrary position.
We have repeatedly told you all that Buddha himself had said that these things cannot be fully understood by average minds with normal knowledge acquiring methods. We repeatedly proved this position by showing many examples which are not perceivable by average humans, but really exist. Further, we clearly explained and offered the prescribed path to understand them with one by one steps.
Now if you want to say these are not real, what you have to do is to show that, these things cannot be realized by following that prescribed path. You can show that the path is wrong by investigating it. But you all, are afraid of taking this step to disprove the position of Buddhism. Buddhism claims just one path, not many. Why don’t you test the authenticity of that path if you want to disprove the claims by the Buddhists on karma, rebirth and nirvana? This is a simple scientific method. Not going in circles please carry on to disprove them with this simple methodology. You not only can say they are speculative but also you can say that they are untrue. It is advantageous for your position.
Please engage in this simple scientific exercise.
Thanks!
OTC,
There are some problems w/ the 10 Principles when it comes to governing a modern democracy that exists among a host of other nations of various levels of development, willingness to use force, the existence of non-state aligned religious warrior movements such as the Taliban, etc. Here are some problems I see, but perhaps there are modern interpertations to the ancient values that can be of use to Buddhism influenced rulers or elected officials:
“1. Dana – Charitableness”
That’s pretty good. A President, for example, can encourage charitable giving, etc. – would be good for those who need the help.
“2. Parithyaga – Self Sacrifice”
This is dependent on the type of self-sacrifice – for example – in modern warfare the leader of the nation is not sent out to the battlefield, so, there is no direct willingness to self-sacrifice there (nor should there be, that’s why we’ve got generals). I can see how in the days of ancient kings, it may have been valuable to have the king appear willing to sacrifice himself.
3. Sila – Virtue
Pretty good, I’d go with that.
4. Thapasa – The Ruler must lead a life of simplicity
This one I cannot agree with. Also, people are not really directly ruled anymore, it is more of a give & take in well developed democracies – between the elected temporary leaders & the wishes of the general populace. Anyway, I personally don’t care if an elected leader leads a life of simplicity -as long as they get their job done well.
5. lrju – Uprightness
Sure, sounds good.
6. Murdu – Soft, Gentle or pliable
This is not mandatory in a modern leader. May not even be a good image to possess – some situations call for leaders who appear/seem tough.
7. Avihimsa – Bears no harm to anyone
This one also makes no sense for modern political leadership. The leaders should be ready/willing to stop the enemies of the people/the nation/humanity in general, etc.
8. Akrodaya – Absence of enmity
That’s a pretty good idea.
9. Kanthi – Forbearance
That’s a good one.
10. Avirodita – Non-conflict
Sometimes conflict is necessary (such as when a leader has to think about stopping Hitler, etc.). So, #10 is not required for a modern leader.
Anyway, most of the items are useful for a modern leader. On top of those, there are probably thousands of other thing a modern political leader needs – positive ones – the ability to inspire people, the willingness to hold people accountable, the ability to engage with a multi-ethnic, multi-religious populations (including those who reject the ideas of ethnicity/race & religions), etc.
- S
Yapa,
Beware of being unable to tell the difference between real things and symbolic things, due to religious brain-washing or political religiousness, or being uncomfortable with new ideas/languages/outsiders, etc.
And, by the way, in case you’ve forgotten, K, R, N still remains speculative.
Also, since you are having a difficult time telling the words reality and existence apart, both terms can be defined without using the other, so, for your benefit:
Reality – the totality of all things – including those things that have a significant presence in the world/among humans, and those things that only live as ideas (such as K, R, N) in people’s minds or in books, & those things that have not yet been discovered.
Existence – The state of being – or, if that is too difficult to understand – in a human context – to exist – or one of the most significant way to exist – is to be alive, not dead.
Hope that helps.
Thanks!
- S
Yapa,
RE: “True we must accept whatever our western masters say without questioning , and must reject every thing with a slightest doubt, if they are local.”
Buddhism is not local to Sri Lanka, it is an Indian import. It probably gets in the way of native SL philosophy development.
The days of Western Masters are over, ended back in 1948, read up on your SL history. The fact that you approach the “West” from a Slave-Master/Ruled-Rulers viewpoint says a lot about which decade you think you are living in (1810 maybe?
Living in the past is not sound strategy, try to live in the present with the future in mind, the past is primarily a concern for the dead.
Also, being able to acknowledge reality – things that are proven to be present or absent – is a universal skill (present all over the world), long before the concept of East & West was invented by the European colonists & long before you learned it & bought into it, made it a part of your personality. Also, check a world map, much of Europe & Asia share the same land mass – more proof that West & East are primarily historical/political concepts – like race or the caste system, optional beliefs.
- S
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
RE: “but again it will be easier to take this up over e mail
Unfortunately, that would not benefit the rest of us who are also interested in finding out what these differences are. So it would be great if you could continue the discussion here somehow. Perhaps we need a new topic?
RE: “on a separate point whether something realized in the subjective domain can be taken into the objective and public domain the answer is yes.”
I think you might have misunderstood my question. The issue was, KRN is believed subjectively. But we have no way to separate it from delusion unless there is a path to *objectively* verify it. The problem is, there is *no such path* on offer. How do you resolve this dilemma?
Dear Wijayapala,
“Unfortunately, multi-verses or aliens do not comprise a factual or scientific refutation of kamma or samsara.
Correct. You can’t prove a negative. This is the logical loophole you are relying on and if that works for KRN, it works for Tooth Fairies too.
Dear Yapa,
You are asking me to point out the logical fallacies in your statements? Seriously? Yapa, you know that shovel you’re holding? Please put it down and stop digging your own grave. Let’s start with this very last post of yours. You say that *all* of Sujewa’s arguments are null and void because of some supposed mistake in *one* of his arguments. Don’t you see the fallacy right there?
If that’s not enough, just go back to my first reply on this thread. It again addresses another faulty bit of reasoning on your part.
Once again, I’m getting caught to your diversionary tactics. Stick to the central theme please and refrain from derailing the discussion through ad-hominem attacks. Trying to paint the others as dishonest villains (or decadent imperialists) and thereby thinking you invalidate their arguments is *also a fallacy*.
Dear OTC,
Sujewa has given a good analysis of the Dasa Raja Dharma. I guess even that has some debatable points!
Still, let’s go on the assumption that they are acceptable for the moment, and continue from there.
RE: “Depends on the Environment we grow up in. Since my environment had Buddhist values I may have reasoned them out for myself but I doubt that anyone living in an environment where any of the above are not recognized as fundamental values would”
See, you are insulting yourself and others by saying that. You’re saying that no one would have the intelligence to think of this independently and derive these values, without the Buddha having said so. Can you show me one value that a reasonable thinking person might not have derived? So what’s the unique connection between these values and Buddhism?
And secondly, isn’t it possible to show that many other Non-Buddhist countries practice the Dasa Rajama Dharma far better than we do in Sri Lanka today?
RE: “Has anyone said so? I know I haven’t. Could you provide an extract from a believer’s post that claims so, instead of making unsubstantiated statements?”
I was not saying you said so, I was asking a question. But then again, your latest post that you might have not realized these values had you been a non-Buddhist, pretty much implies it doesn’t it?
RE: “You are assuming a lot. What made you think that the innate moral values that you refer to were universally recognised throughout the world? Slavery, Cannibalism, Pillaging other countries were the norm in some sections of the world.”
Ula thibeema (impaling), grinding little children with mortar and pestle, were pretty standard in our part of the world, till quite recently. Caste systems were standard. There are specific mentalities that account for the emergence of such behaviour. Even now, many Sri Lankans can’t see beyond racist mentalities. So your argument just isn’t correct. It’s *as our knowledge grew and we recognized the errors of our ways* that we grew out of it. Here in Sri Lanka, there are still many things for us to outgrow!
The bottom line is this. Most societies recognize the importance of these value *towards their in-group*. What they don’t do is to extend those ideas to the *out-group*.
Societies which did not have such innate moral values, would have died out a long time ago. The history of humanity has been a history of coorperation and that necessarily entails the recognition of certain fundamental values. Ask any evolutionary biologist or sociologist.
That does not in any way mean that Buddhism should not get credit for espousing these ideas, as have other philosophers in the past. But that doesn’t mean that therefore, we must necessarily be “Buddhist” before we can learn to value or derive these ideas.
RE: “Making insinuations is not good enough.”
OTC, you are off on a tangent. This not an insinuation. This is a question. A valid question at that, because it is necessary to show that Buddhism cannot claim a monopoloy for espousing things like the “Dasa Raja Dharma”.
RE: “which of the ten rules of Buddhist Governance FOISTS the Core Concepts of Buddhism on anyone?”
My point is this. You do not *need Buddhism* to incorporate Dasa Raja Dharma. Why not extract the dasa raja dharma from Buddhism (or independently derive it), add democracy, anti-caste systems, equality etc. and create visi raaja dharma, and incorporate that instead? Why should you try to incorporate Buddhism as a whole, including KRN, into the constitution? Isn’t that foisting your belief?
RE: “I have stated that Buddhism being in the Constitution does not violate any other religion as under the Constitutional Clause NOTHING CAN BE DONE which violates religious freedom.”
Why should Buddhism be in the constitution in the first place?
RE: “My posts questioned how anyone could realistically change a system that has existed for over 2600 years in a country with 70% Buddhists,”
This an argument from majoritarianism, which is precisely the problem in this country. We have outgrown these ideas into a world where the rights of all human beings are recognized and no particular race/religion claims ownership of the country. Ergo, no particular race or religion needs to have symbolic superiority of any kind. I believe this is Burning Issue’s argument as well, and I quite agree! The only problem I do see is, we are too tribal to be fair-minded enough to let go of it right now. We need bogeymen like Christian evangelicals to continue to *validate* us hanging onto these things.
RE: “SD you cant ask anyone who says he BELIEVES in something for proof. There is no proof otherwise there is no need for belief, as then, that person would KNOW it as a fact.”
Sure. The problem is not with that. But if you believe without being able to provide convincing reasons, then I think it’s only fair that:
1. Others need not take those beliefs seriously. Please feel free to believe them in your private life unhindered and unchallenged, but if you or anyone else wishes to incorporate religions into constitutions or claim superiority (I know you haven’t, but others have) etc. then it is reasonable that you be asked to provide proof.
2. If you ask that children be brainwashed into these ideas since childhood through school for example, then it is reasonable that it be challenged, as to why a young, vulnerable child’s head is being filled with unsubstantiated information, at an age where their eager minds are *unable to differentiate the truth from belief*.
These are all issues that must be given serious thought and debated.
RE: “There are many things that the Monks say that I and the other believers who write here reject.”
Might I ask what are these things that you reject? Do you reject Yama Maha Pelahara? Teleportation? Karma = justice? Rebirth?
RE: “At the same time there are many things that the Buddha said that have a ring of truth one of them is Dukkha which I explained to you in an earlier post.”
Having a ring of truth and being the truth are too different things. This is the distinction that Buddhists lose when everyone around them believes in the same ideas without debating them and why they often explain Buddhism to others as *the truth*. That’s why it’s important to challenge the ideas we hold dear. Unfortunately, what studies show is that, when some believers challenge their beliefs, they usually rationalize the belief even further and come away even more convinced, still for no good reason whatsoever.
OTC,
You post of July 2, 2010 @ 2:14 am … you contradict yourself in successive sentences.
You seem to have been taught that the rest of the world were barbarians (slavery, cannibalism etc). If you’re trying to make is a distinction between SL and the rest of the world this is simply not true. If you believe this Buddhism has done nothing for you. People in different times in history had different ways of dealing with things that were appropriate in those times. SL too. There were good things and bad things. Good people and bad people. Times of war and times of peace. Equally there were reformers and traditionalists. ‘Slavery’ exists even today. Much more in economies like SL today. You are a victim of propaganda.
Trust me, any of our fellow human cousins knew the concept of virtue/virtuous (as partiallycodified in Dasa Raja Darma) from far earlier times than 2,600 years.
Promoting virtue in a society can be done without bringing (any particular) religion into it.
I think what you can’t get your head round is the idea that religion can, and should, be removed from government, as you can’t get your head round the idea that all religions have concepts of virtue, and that giving prominence to any one religion in state matters is not a good thing, not even a tenable thing going forward as more people will take what is useful to them from all religions and discard the chaff these ‘brand identities’ will vanish.
2010 AD.
——–
Countries as not led and governed in the way they were 2,600 years ago. Period.
The role of the leader is not the same. In a democracy WE (read that again please … WE!) are the leaders. The ‘politicians’ do a JOB for US. They are the servants of the people. That’s the design anyway. If you or the people do not understand that, and uplod that fundamental proncipla, democracy does not and cannot work, except superficially.
::
“Law of Karma”?
—————–
you asked Upul,
“Can you name anything that you do that does not have a MENTAL Origin?”
Waaaaaaay off the point. Despite what you may yourself want to define karma as, most people AND THE SUBJECT OF THIS DISCUSSION is about ‘what we are subject to from EXTERNAL celestial forces as a result of our past actions’ (eg. my car breaking down). The Agnostics are saying that there is no rational argument for supposing that these external forces are a result of (or even connected to) what someone ELSE may have done, deliberately, in some other place some other time.
I would ask … please address that OTC. But I know you do not recognise this ‘popular’ interpretation of karma.
Mr Yapa,
I repeat SD’s statement.
““You think that being honest about this issue will somehow be a disservice to Buddhism and everyone will run away from Buddhism. Yapa, the disservice is in not being honest about it. It convinces the rest of the world that the Buddhists too are as blind””
Mr Yapa, you are still not convinced that Christian-believers and Muslim-believers adamantly hang on to their beliefs for the same reason as you have?
(Note: this refers not to WHAT they believe in but WHY they believe in what they believe. The same!)
::
re. Sujewa
“Can anybody understand “reality” or “existence” by his answers?”
Mr Yapa, this discussion is not about Sujewa’s answer, but about whether KRN actually affect us. So, wherever living beings happen to be in the real world is the ‘reality/existence’ for the purpose of this debate.
See also my post on ‘Meditation is Self-Hyponosis – Part 4 – Transcending the Material World’ (TBA)
::
“Did any of claim that karma, rebirth and nirvana can be proved to you by the methods demanded by you?”
No Sir. Any methods that YOU can choose.
You next steps are..
choose method(s)
give us steps to reproduce (or direct us to someone reliable who uses a reliable method who can verify)
NOTE: we have dismissed meditation (though useful in many ways) as an unreliable source for understanding KRN. This I can personally confirm from experience)
job done.
SomewhatDisgusted ;
Re; your post of July 2, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
You just name what I have said as fallacies. Please show how they become fallacies. Please tell me to which fallacy they fall into.
You should reason out what you say.
If you ask me I will explain yours and your friends’ fallacies in detail. Most of those writing are full of fallacies and hence has no much validity, than just heaps of words.
Thanks!
Yapa,
Re: July 1, 2010 @ 11:05 pm (where you claim to not understand definitions of reality & existence)
If you can’t recognize the difference between real things & imaginary (most likely) things, or acknowledge that there is existence & non-existence, then you probably cannot fully understand a lot that has been discussed here – including religious responses re: existence & non-believer counter responses. Take some time off & learn about the concept of reality & then come back & try to show that K, R, N is a part of the real world (other than a set of ideas only).
Here are some places for you to start:
- Wiki page Reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
From the page: “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.”
- Wiki page Existence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
From the page: “In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them. In academic philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, being contrasted with essence, which specifies different forms of existence as well as different identity conditions for objects and properties. Philosophers investigate questions such as “What exists?” “How do we know?” “To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?” “What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions?”"
No wonder you are having a difficult time defending the possible existence of K, R, N in the real world – it appears that you are operating under the view that the real world is some type of an illusion, thus not as important as the speculative religious ideas that you were taught to believe/accept as facts as a child, or mental images & sensations that you experience when meditating, or dreaming, or fantasizing about nirvana.
Anyway, good luck in learning about the real world – about what actually exists, and what is speculative. In a few years perhaps, when you understand the difference between real & speculative, feel free to come back & try to argue that K, R, N are real things/things that affect the living directly/independently.
- S
Yapa,
Re: the following:
“Did any of claim that karma, rebirth and nirvana can be proved to you by the methods demanded by you?”
No methods appear to exist to prove that K, R, N are real things. If there were any, you would have told us about them a long time ago. Now you are just upset that we have shown that Buddhism is merely a religion, a set of ideas – with speculative items at it’s core – & not an undispted turth.
“No one has done so. If your arbitrary position is that you should not prove something you did not claim possible to be proved, why are you asking others to prove something they did not claim possible to prove?”
Because you have said that Buddhism is something more than a religion, that it is the undisputed truth, etc. If you are convienitely forgetting that you said these things (as you often do), I can point you once again to that post I made with the Yapa quotes.
“But not sticking to that adamant position we opened it to be discussed and offered and facilitated you the ways to understand them, while you were rigidly opposing even to touching your arbitrary position.”
The believer position is that K, R, N may be real, but cannot be proven at this time. Fine, that’s just another way of saying what the agnostics are saying – we do not know if K, R, N are real – but, my own personal view is that K, R, N are most likely not real, but are religious ideas only.
“We have repeatedly told you all that Buddha himself had said that these things cannot be fully understood by average minds with normal knowledge acquiring methods.”
We are not certain about exactly what Buddha said. Or if Buddha aka the Indian monk Gotama existed as described in SL Buddhism over the past centuries & even now. So it is not surpring that, you, someone who cannot see the difference between real & speculative, would completely buy into speculative ideas taught by Buddhism.
“We repeatedly proved this position by showing many examples which are not perceivable by average humans, but really exist. Further, we clearly explained and offered the prescribed path to understand them with one by one steps.”
We understand the concept of K, R, N – but they are merely religious ideas – not real things that affect the living (or the dead, most likely). This discussion is not about whether there are mysterious & hard to understand items in the world (there are), this discussion is about whether K, R, N are real or speculative.
“Now if you want to say these are not real, what you have to do is to show that, these things cannot be realized by following that prescribed path.”
The agnostic position is that K, R, N is most likely not real. Believing in Buddhism, bowing down to statues, feeding monks, meditating, following the Eight Fold Path to the letter, etc., obviously have not provided proof for the existence of K, R, N. If you are actually a Buddhist – or a follower of the path reportedly taught by the Buddha, then tell us how K, R, N is real. Oh, right, you can’t. So you have to point to other things, & then try to claim that you do not understand the difference between reality & speculative things, etc.
” You can show that the path is wrong by investigating it.”
I’ve investigated the path for years. It does not lead to proof for existence of K, R, N. It can, however, lead to a set of values, calming self down via meditation, and the maintanance of a priestly class that is used for controling the believers.
“But you all, are afraid of taking this step to disprove the position of Buddhism. Buddhism claims just one path, not many. Why don’t you test the authenticity of that path if you want to disprove the claims by the Buddhists on karma, rebirth and nirvana?”
Again, we have taken the path, and, as mentioned many times earlier, & as you are convienitely ignoring because it does not support your argument – the path/Buddhism – does not lead to proof for K, R, N. Because K, R, N are ideas only (most likely), not real things that affect the living independently.
“This is a simple scientific method. Not going in circles please carry on to disprove them with this simple methodology. You not only can say they are speculative but also you can say that they are untrue. It is advantageous for your position.”
It is clear that K, R, N are speculative – as stated by both the believers (in one way or another) & non-believers here. The agnostics are not going in circles, that’s what the believers do, because they are unable to accept the fact that K, R, N are speculative & leave it at that.
“Please engage in this simple scientific exercise.”
Already done – by probably all the agnostics here, & millions of Buddhists & x-Buddhists world wide. Does not lead to proof for the existence of K, R, N in the real world. Thus, K, R, N remains speculative items of an ancient religion.
- S
Yapa,
Re: the following (misquotes via placement & fabrications, & dishonest claims re: not understanding):
“Aren’t Sujewa’s answers similar?
Q: What is reality?
A: Sum total of that exists
Q: then what is exist/existence?
A: Which are in the real world.”
Let’s try this again, for like the 5th time
There are three ideas that you are hinting at, most likely.
1. Reality.
2. The difference between real & speculative.
3. Existence.
Reality is the total of all things.
Real (in common usage) = things that can be verified to be presnt in the world, as described. For example – a car is a real thing. K, R, N are speculative things because the way that they are said to function in Buddhism cannot be demonstrated to be a part of the real world. Speculative = things that are believed to be real, or are believed to be possible, but cannot be proved as real.
Existence = for this purpose & general use, something that exists appears in the real world, or is present in the real world, as described. For example – K, R, N appears in the real world as ideas only. Thus, K, R, N exists in the real world as ideas only. They do not appear to exist in the real world as things that affect the living directly, but only via actions of those who believe in K, R, N.
“Can anybody understand “reality” or “existence” by his answers?”
Yes, many people can, apparently – see that Wiki page re: Reality that I pointed you to. Definition of reality there is similar to my own definition used here.
“Do you think he has written heaps of posts on them with an understanding?”
The heaps of posts have been primarily about K, R, N. What I & the agnostics & probably most others who are able to think independently/outside of control of Buddhism can understand is that K, R, N are speculative items that exist within an ancient religion.
“If he had no clear idea about them how can anybody reasonably believe that what he has written are correct?”
People can look around & judge for themselves. Unlike what is taught in Buddhism re: K, R, N.
“He has written on something he did not know. Am I wrong to call them “nonsense”?”
Yes. Because you are merely engaging in a diversionary excercise – talking with yourself for the benefit of you & other believers – because you cannot show that K, R, N are real.
::
Alright, & thus, K, R, N still remains speculative.
::
- S
Ordinary Lankan,
Meditation and Self-Hypnosis
————————–
Sujewa is right. We would be doing this discussion a great dis-service if we take a discussion about our own experiences of meditation/self-hypnosis offline.
It would appear that the nature of the meditation-experience is rather pivotal in this debate. And as far as I can tell, you and I (only?) appear to have personal and sustained experience over many decades in this field (since Mr Yapa and Co have declined to contribute personal experience of this in this thread so far I assume they are not regular practitioners of meditation, transcendental or otherwise. I await a vehement rebuttal however).
Dear All,
I thought of sharing this excellent debate between non-believers and the religious. If you don’t have the time to watch the whole debate, I highly recommend the opening speech by Sam Harris. If that won’t convince you that “beliefs” need serious re-evaluation, I don’t know what will.
Sam’s opening speech is from 10:48 onwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hnqo4_X7PE
As BalangodaMan said, the key question is not “what” is believed, but “why” it’s believed.
Sujewa,
Excellent replies to Yapa. I wish I had your patience.
Yapa,
Sigh. Diverting the topic again are we? How about providing that itemized list of reasons or declare honestly, that you have *no reasons* on offer.
Germany
——–
I am a big of the German nation. A few minutes ago Germany beat Argentina decisively in the World Cup quarter final 4-0 (to my delight I might add).
This calls for a revival of the challenge to OTC’s statement that ‘karma works in this life definitely’ and for which he asked for any evidence that contradicts that.
Some examples were given.
I am still waiting for a response to my observation that Hitler escaped karma in this life, contrary to OTC’s pronouncement. In addition to that, the German people of 1930-45 democratically voted in this despot, by their ‘own volition’ (to use OTC’s hackneyed phrase) however, as far I can see, Germany and its people have had nothing but prosperity ever since. Including this afternoon.
(As far as is known, the German people have not suddenly taken up Buddhist practices since 1945)
So what gives, OTC?
How would karma operate where an entire nation effectively commits hostility and aggression towards a weaker minority?
(I think it was Mr Yapa who claimed the intellectual coherence of the doctrine of KRN in one of his posts. Can you resolve this Mr Yapa?)
SD,
Thanks for the link.
I would recommend Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith.
“Also, check a world map, much of Europe & Asia share the same land mass – more proof that West & East are primarily historical/political concepts – like race or the caste system, optional beliefs.”
Sounds good. However, West & East or Europe & Asia do not comprise a refutation- scientific or otherwise- of the reality of kamma or samsara.
“I am still waiting for a response to my observation that Hitler escaped karma in this life, contrary to OTC’s pronouncement. In addition to that, the German people of 1930-45 democratically voted in this despot, by their ‘own volition’ (to use OTC’s hackneyed phrase) however, as far I can see, Germany and its people have had nothing but prosperity ever since.”
Sounds good. Putting aside the obvious that neither Hitler nor the phenomenon of German National Socialism comprises even a modicum of evidence against kamma or samsara, it is not established that Hitler escaped kamma in his known life as we do not know his mental states following his actions that resulted in the deaths of millions. I can say with a fair amount of confidence that anyone who commits suicide most likely did not enjoy very pleasant mental states prior to the act!
As for the election of 1933 (the last one until the defeat of the Third Reich), the NSDAP won a plurality of seats but not an outright majority. Hitler came to power largely through the short-sighted and opportunistic decisions of the President Paul von Hindenburg and the German Nationalists led by Hugenberg who formed a coalition with the Nazis and supported the Enabling Act that made Hitler the Fuehrer.
The Germans most certainly paid the price during the war that killed over a million civilians and over 5 million military personnel, not to mention after the war when the eastern part became controlled by the USSR.
Wijayapala,
Re: “Sounds good. However, West & East or Europe & Asia do not comprise a refutation- scientific or otherwise- of the reality of kamma or samsara.”
Karma is a set of ideas, speculative items that exist within Buddhism – not real things that affect the living, as far as we can tell.
Samsara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra is also a speculative idea that exists w/in Buddhism, does not appear to be a part of the real world in any significant (affecting the living or the dead) way.
You believe that K & S, also R & N are real because it makes you feel comfortable – or for some other reason that makes people believe in speculative ideas that exist in religions.
- S
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “I can say with a fair amount of confidence that anyone who commits suicide most likely did not enjoy very pleasant mental states prior to the act!”
I quite agree. But that’s about all we can say about it. Going on ahead to speculate about a next life (which is what KRN is all about), especially when we cannot distinguish whether it’s purely a mental construct or whether it does indeed have physical effects – why is such a notion being entertained with this degree of certainty?
RE: “The Germans most certainly paid the price during the war that killed over a million civilians and over 5 million military personnel, not to mention after the war when the eastern part became controlled by the USSR.”
So is Karma a form of justice or not? This is implied by this answer although at other times, you have implied that it is not. I would appreciate a clear answer because that’s a crucial issue.
Wijayapala,
I have noted WHAT you believe but you have not explained WHY you believe what you believe. The discussion has moved on to this some time ago.
Will appreciate some insight into this from your point of view.
Wijayapala,
Whilst your response to my question on Hitler and the German nation may be 100% factually accurate it fails to address the important issue that I raise. Consequently the failure of logic (of KRN) that I raised is still valid.
Let me explain.
While Hitler may well have agonised over the matter prompting his suicide so do anyone else in turmoil and despair. To what extent though? I know of several people who probably suffered even more than Hitler who had done nothing wrong in their lives, certainly not in the same league as ‘Der Fuhrer’. Furthermore, Hitler might well have sneered at the prospect of escaping punishment (in this life) by his exit, on his own terms as he did. Hence my observation that ‘if karma is definite in this life (as OTC says) then it is optional’ which I think defeats the object and contradicts itself (definite? escapable?). And if Mr Yapa is right in that it is fundamental to the mechanics of the laws of physics then it would appear that we can circumvent such laws by our own free will, as Hitler showed in a brilliant flash of pioneering spirit. (try doing that with a falling apple).
The German people: (First, let me stress again that I happen to like German people)
My ghast has never been so flabbered by you choosing to point out that Hitler came to power not by the full and 100% backing of the German people, evidently to show that it is a bad example for understanding the workings of karma WRT the people of Germany. Given that we are trying to understand what OTC means by ‘volitional’ this I think is a good example as it scrapes upon the fringe of the boundary of culpability. Then what is a good example? The over-whelming support of the SL people in the tactics of the last stages of the war in 2009? Did I see any street protests – by the German people in 1939-45 or indeed the SL people in 2009?
So, in your books, Germany being divided was karmic retribution? But isn’t that the result, or the kind of result, you would expect to get in a modern civilised world anyway? Meaning, instead of the operation of Mr Yapa’s Universally True Laws of Karmic Quantum Physics?
You can test this yourself by pitching this in another time in history. Genghis Khan cut through Central Asia and I cannot see what punishment he got for his babarism. Did the Universally True karmic mechanism strike him down with a bolt of lightning? No! At best he cut himself shaving. Was there a UN to bring him to task? No!
You see Wijayapala, we are not saying that Genghis Khan may not have cut himself shaving. We are saying, if he did cut himself shaving then it is (more likely to be) because of his carelessness (like my car being a little less roadworthy that day) than because of his treatment of other human beings as recorded by the cosmic karmic scorekeeping system coming to get its cut (if you pardon the pun).
SD asked Wijayapala,
“So is Karma a form of justice or not? This is implied by this answer although at other times, you have implied that it is not”
‘swot I asked earlier also.
Is the ‘karma’ we are discussing here the ‘inescapable celestial justice system’ that most people regard it to be OR is ‘karma’ a technique of mental/emotional state management in order to deal with the negative effect of unavoidable external bad luck we all have that’s outside our control?
(if it is the latter, I can show you how to eliminate all negative/unpleasant emotions/feelings you may have from having done very bad things in your life so far. This you can achieve with some good hypnotherapy, or self induced if you are too embarrassed to involve another person in it. You will re-programme yourself to believe that what you have done is a good thing, for yourself and all of mankind if you like, in other words, lie to yourself but you will internalise that lie into your subconscious. You will totally believe it without a shadow of doubt. Again, this is a religion-agnostic technique. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the teachings of the Buddha covered using these mind training techniques to ‘erase’ past sins and not be affected by them – and easily escape karma that way. So if you mean the latter meaning it simply will not work!)
Clarification
“So if you mean the latter meaning it simply will not work!”
By that I mean, if karma is about ‘how you feel’ then it is ‘optional’ for the reasons I have described.
BalangodaMan’s post also got me thinking about issue with regard to volitional acts. It’s well known to science that there are sociopaths who are unable to form empathetic reactions to other human beings. This is a form of mental illness. It’s not all that different from the standard loon you get at Angoda. So what about the actions of such mentally unsound people? Aren’t these volitional acts? Is the Karmic system designed to differentiate between mentally sound and unsound people? Or is it severely punishing deranged individuals for a physical problem with their brain function? Or are the Buddhists claiming that mentally unsound people are so not because of brain chemistry, but because of mind-body dualism?
SD
mind and body is inter-dependent – and this dualism is at the root of insecurity which can descend to levels of insanity
when this happens there is a corresponding change in the physical components of the body as well.
have you seen experiments carried out by a japanese man with water?
all this is connected – so you are separating consciousness from physical aspects – they are inter-dependent
why not look at karma differently from christian judgement – the angry God thing cannot be compared with karma which is a natural law with natural consequences – there is no judging – it happens – whether we like it or not and whether it accords or not with our ideas of right and wrong
just saw your post …. cheers
I would be very happy by the way to share some meditative experiences and relate this to the workings of karma
and that would perhaps amount to making something subjective public and perhaps capable of being understood by rational people
shall revert
Ordinary Lankan,
“there is no judging – it happens”
We have a problem here. If there is a differentiation between ‘deliberate acts’ and ‘excusable acts’ (which is what I understand from our believer friends here) then there is, by definition, a judgement, don’t you agree? (there doesn’t have to be a god who judges sitting in judgement but the process/mechanism itself IS the judge, whether you call it karma or god. same idea. there is a ‘test’ on moral grounds).
UNLESS (and please clarify) your concept of karma is simply ’cause and effect’. Then, of course, a billiard ball striking another billiard ball at a particular angle will cause the second billiard ball to move in a particular direction and velocity. We learned this in applied maths at school.
The leap of faith is where (some of you) translate the same billiard ball thing to matters of ‘personal intention and acts’. I cannot see how, for example, if I tell a lie that I would necessarily suffer a bad consequence from that alone as a rule.
I may feel guilty if that lie led to bad consequences, but (as I said) that negative emotion can be erased if I want to (as described. So if that’s karma then it is optional).
So, before we even ask the question HOW we can’t even SEE that it happens. SD’s question applies also – what if the bad thing is done by a person who cannot help it because of personal limitations/illness? The stock answer I got as a child was ‘it is because of his karma that he is mad/blind/poor etc’.
An aside: I feel the need to bullet point the absurdities mentioned in this thread and the other one. One of them was, if as a society we believe in karma why do we put people in jail also?
“You believe that K & S, also R & N are real because it makes you feel comfortable – or for some other reason that makes people believe in speculative ideas that exist in religions.”
Sounds good. However, one’s comfort level or the speculative ideas of secular agnostics do not qualify as scientific evidence to refute either kamma or samsara. It is a shame to see the secular agnostics rely on their faith than science or reason.
“Going on ahead to speculate about a next life (which is what KRN is all about), especially when we cannot distinguish whether it’s purely a mental construct or whether it does indeed have physical effects – why is such a notion being entertained with this degree of certainty?”
Simple- because the secular agnostics have consistently failed to provide scientific evidence against kamma or samsara. Doesn’t that sound good?
“So is Karma a form of justice or not? This is implied by this answer although at other times, you have implied that it is not. I would appreciate a clear answer because that’s a crucial issue.”
Answering this question would not provide any information to fill the agnostics’ lack of evidence against kamma or samsara (i.e. it wouldn’t sound good). However to humour you, justice is a human construct which may or may not correlate with kamma. For example, one may experience a feeling of justice (if it can be called a feeling) seeing Prabakaran’s corpse on television, but that feeling has little if any direct relationship with Prabakaran’s kamma that led to the nature of his demise. After all, an LTTE supporter would not experience that feeling of justice but rather outrage or grief or something like that. Both feelings are the result of the experiencer’s kamma.
“My ghast has never been so flabbered by you choosing to point out that Hitler came to power not by the full and 100% backing of the German people, evidently to show that it is a bad example for understanding the workings of karma WRT the people of Germany.”
But it is a bad example. Kamma applies to individuals (or rather individual streams of consciousness), not groups.
“We are saying, if he did cut himself shaving then it is (more likely to be) because of his carelessness (like my car being a little less roadworthy that day)”
I had thought I clearly explained that kamma did not manifest in your car breaking down but rather in the self-pity you experienced that induced you to share the experience with us. You have much to learn!
Dear Sujewa, BalangodaMan
Here’s a very interesting speech by Sam Harris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KG5s_-Khvg
I think he does make a good point about being labelled and also about spirituality in general.
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
I would like to emphasize, if it’s hasn’t been made clear already, that no one is questioning a person’s quest for truth or happiness. The only thing that’s being questioned, are unwarranted assumptions, beliefs held as truths in the absence of reason and evidence and those beliefs subsequently being foisted upon others, young and old, without further investigation.
In this regard, Buddhism as a personal quest for truth, and a path to find mental peace and understanding, is not what’s being rejected. It’s wrong to think that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater and that is not a position I’ve ever advocated. There are many things in Buddhism that we can use to positively improve our lives.
But to think that we should ignore modern knowledge, and dogmatically stick to concepts which do not make sense and which are better explained in terms of more current knowledge, that’s what’s being questioned. To question assumptions which are held as truths when there are no clear reasons to assume they are true is what this debate has been all about. I hope that has been clear throughout? Would welcome your opinion.
“mind and body is inter-dependent – and this dualism is at the root of insecurity which can descend to levels of insanity”
This appears to be an assumption. Is there a rationale for this? We’ve found mind-altering drugs that can partially cure insanity and allow a mentally disturbed person to function quite well. Such drugs were not available in 600BC when the Buddha was formulating his philosophy. Therefore, the Buddha’s views on the subject would probably have been quite different, had he been alive today.
RE: “have you seen experiments carried out by a japanese man with water?”
No. What’s that about?
RE: “all this is connected – so you are separating consciousness from physical aspects – they are inter-dependent”
I’m personally not doing this and I think few people would. The placebo effect is a good example where the mind affects the body.
RE: “karma which is a natural law with natural consequences – there is no judging – it happens”
I think that’s at least a scientific question – one we can investigate further. Except that many here talk about it as a form of justice. The counter-argument has been that Karma as a concept of justice automatically invalidates itself – it becomes an utterly immoral concept to punish one human being for the crimes of another, when the only connection between the two is nothing other than a fleeting thought at the point of death (Anatta).
But the concept of Karma really runs into difficulties, even as a natural law, with the following question: how are human standards of morality affecting the physical world around us? How can Karma be a natural law when morality is not a natural law, but an agreed upon covenant?
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
RE: “I would be very happy by the way to share some meditative experiences and relate this to the workings of karma”
Be happy to hear and learn about them.
Dear BalangodaMan,
I just remembered, what IS the explanation for water flowing upstream in the Dambulla river?
Wijayapala,
RE: “Simple- because the secular agnostics have consistently failed to provide scientific evidence against kamma or samsara.”
And I think you know very well that’s a misconstrual of the argument. The idea that you don’t seem to have reflected upon is that any of us dismissing the argument by saying “sounds good. but where’s the proof?” is a fundamentally different position from those who are making a positive assertion. If the only response you have to that is a display of annoyance, that’s because you lack an answer.
Secondly, I would ask you again, show me one person who has *denied* the existence of KRN, which means that you are attacking a strawman. The question is, on what basis do you profess certainty? I know you’ll say there’s no certainty. If there’s no certainty, why do you not stop your belief at a personal level, but go on to systematically indoctrinate children and constitutionalize the belief? Could we have an honest answer to that question?
I’d never argue against a search for truth. But I think it’s quite reasonable to ask that solid reasons be provided if one operates on the belief that these assumptions are in fact, truths.
“But it is a bad example. Kamma applies to individuals (or rather individual streams of consciousness), not groups”
Before we continue, the first observation is that these are once again truth claims without any backing evidence.
Secondly, if I understood you correctly, you are trying to say that the kamma manifests itself, not in the workings of the physical world, but only in the volitional actions of the individual? In other words, decisions and thoughts arising from the “stream of consciousness” are the primary drivers of kamma? Is that correct? And at the moment of death, the end state of this stream of consciousness (the last thoughts??), simply continue onwards in a new physical body? Have I understood it correctly?
SD,
“I just remembered, what IS the explanation for water flowing upstream in the Dambulla river?”
(in the roof of the cave I thought)
I don’t know. But if the believers claim it to be some divine mechanism then I would like to know how divine action fits into Buddhism (along with how water that’s blessed by the monks sprinkled in the atmosphere by helicopters is supposed to produce rain by divine action. Who is the divine?).
Wijayapala,
You have misunderstood the point about justice.
I shall try again.
Question: Why do we try people in the courts if we believe in karma? If we believe in the truth of one then having the other (as well) is unjust, don’t you think?
Or are you saying that, if we punish/restore people through the justice system, criminal or civil, then karma will compensate for this? Can that be ‘seen to be done’ (as any justice system in a civilised society requires)?
(can you answer that without diversionary tactics?)
The Four Concepts of Karma
————————–
I see why we go round in circles on this.
It seems to me that Mr Yapa, OTC and Wijayapala, and OL have four different definitions of karma. The Agnostics are (rather unfairly) addressing the resulting absurdities towards any one of them. We then get an answer that does not meet the question even slightly (like the one just now from Wijayapala regarding justice).
Mr Yapa : karma = quantum physics. There is no point in addressing any of the others with this as none of them have subscribed to Mr Yapa’s quantum physics pronouncements. Even he has dropped it!
OTC : karma = volitional acts. No point in addressing any of the others about how matters of ‘free will’, ‘accident’, grey areas of white lies, personal limitations/illness/madness etc. come into play. ‘Volitional’ is purely an OTCism.
Wijayapala : karma = how you feel about things, not external circumstances and not things that happen to you outside your control. Nothing that a regular dose of vallium/prozac or hypnotherapy cannot cure, or indeed confession on Sunday, or some nicey things like forgiveness, random acts of kindness, charity , having good people around you etc.
OL : karma = how your mind is conditioned, not a religious concept. (along with me) I think believes that how you feel in any circumstances can be engineered through personal effort involving conditioning the mind (pls correct me if I’m wrong). ie, karma is optional.
No wonder we can’t get any straight answers.
A new challenge. Can each of you state to what extent, or not, you endorse the version of karma that the other three promote?
Authority
————-
Is there a proper authority of Buddhist Theology that is unequivocal about what is what? Some ‘body’ that can resolve these questions definitively?
If there isn’t there should be one. It is such a body we should be directing these questions to. Otherwise it is a ‘make up whatever you like depending on who or what you wish to oppose including western conspiracies’ religion like we have encountered so far in these threads.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
You say;
“The idea that you don’t seem to have reflected upon is that any of us dismissing the argument by saying “sounds good. but where’s the proof?” is a fundamentally different position from those who are making a positive assertion. If the only response you have to that is a display of annoyance, that’s because you lack an answer.”
Do you mean to say any of the responses of Sujewa Ekanayake and BalangodaMan are better than the the response of wijayapala above. All of their responses are substandard and always go out of point and full of errors and fallacies. They don’t have any discipline that should posses to engage in a deep discussion, not even basic knowledge of what is discussed. Further, I don’t know whether you have forgotten that “Sounds Good” was invented by your friend Sujewa at the beginning to Bulldoze sound arguments in a slippery manner. Then din’t you notice that “it was not sound” to be respond that way?.
You are doing a massive harm by pushing and promoting incompetent people to disrepute/insult deep and respected things with superficial and haphazard arguments. You are promoting all sort of silly arguments against Buddhism, even without a slight evaluation of the respected doctrines of Buddhism. You repeatedly refuse to acquire Knowledge, but continuously promoting haphazard ideas against Buddhism. Do you think this is at least ethically correct? To criticize something you don’t know, with the use of something you are not familiar of, without having any knowledge of subtle tools of rationality, knowing nothing about the most modern notions of the world, not having a slightest knowledge of the development on Modern Science and the massive impact of it on philosophy and modern thinking, having no slightest knowledge of the paradigm shift that over through the outdated thinking which had shaped thinking of your generation, without any shame you use these outdated tools to analyze and insult and destroy deep philosophies and social norms based on them. Analyzing/criticizing them with a reasonable and appropriate tools should be appreciated and encouraged. But this nonsense, criticizing and disreputing things with silly and superficial arguments are not acceptable.
Before starting to destroy something you must thoroughly asses and be sure of that it should be destroyed. You have no second chance to assess after destroying it. You cannot re establish it if you later find that what you did was wrong. I am sure you are engaged in that wrong process. Don’t destroy valuable things for your mental pleasure of winning arguments. You have a responsibility towards society. The buffalo in the china shop attitude should be shelved.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
RE: “Before starting to destroy something you must thoroughly asses and be sure of that it should be destroyed.”
There is no attempt to destroy anything. If it is such a great truth, think of this as a stellar opportunity to make a good case for it. A truth should be able to stand on its own merit, whether or not an ignorant, outdated, unethical bull in a china shop criticizes it or not. Intelligent people will understand your arguments and reject any buffoonery. If you cannot make a good case for this truth, then you are hanging onto it for unjustifiable reasons, as nothing more than dogma. Is that why you are trying to curb criticism instead?
Dear Yapa,
RE: “Do you mean to say any of the responses of Sujewa Ekanayake and BalangodaMan are better than the the response of wijayapala above.”
No. You have not understood the point. I don’t think you’ve ever desired to.
(In that sense at least, you are certainly “free of desire”. Free of desire to know the truth that is)
Yapa,
RE: “Before starting to destroy something you must thoroughly asses and be sure of that it should be destroyed.”
Buddhism on Earth cannot be destroyed (or, at least, to me, it does not look possible). It is a set of ideas/a religion that a lot of people find useful – and, as a religion – it will continue to be around. However, there are many uses of Buddhism that are counter productive or against individual development, further development of SL, the world, etc. And, as it was always the case on Earth, many people will not agree with Buddhism – or key aspects of it. That’s just something that faith based Buddhists will have to accept.
“You have no second chance to assess after destroying it.”
Not correct – 1. Buddhism cannot be destroyed (see above), 2. Forgotten religions or cultural practices can be re-established – see the neo-pagan movement, etc.
“You cannot re establish it if you later find that what you did was wrong. I am sure you are engaged in that wrong process.”
Your certainty is based on the fact that the agnostics do not agree with you on several key items that exist within Buddhism, nothing more. And, you or other believers are unable to show that the agnostics are wrong re: K, R, N.
“Don’t destroy valuable things for your mental pleasure of winning arguments.”
A valuable thing is not being destroyed. A valuable thing – intellectual & religious freedom – including the choice to not believe in speculative ideas – is further strengthened.
“You have a responsibility towards society.”
Yes, we are carrying out the responsibility towards improving society by pointing out unsound ideas that are used for controlling people.
“The buffalo in the china shop attitude should be shelved.”
None of the agnostics who regularly discuss things here have such an attitude. You (& sometimes the other believers) do display such an attitude sometimes – w/ accusations of the agnostics being a part of a decadent capitalist conspiracy, etc.
- S
“The question is, on what basis do you profess certainty? I know you’ll say there’s no certainty. If there’s no certainty, why do you not stop your belief at a personal level, but go on to systematically indoctrinate children and constitutionalize the belief? Could we have an honest answer to that question?”
…………………………..
Profess certainty?
Certainty is a word belongs to outdated world outlook.
Most of the things people think “certain” are really not certain. Even very simple material “certainties” really are not certain. This fact is described by the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; however, you need not to know this principle to know that many things people consider as certainties are really not certainties. Most of them are conventions only. A set of people agree on something and they think it is a certainty. It is certain only on that agreement, on the convention, on that covenant only. Most of the things don’t have an absolute certainty.
I will try to explain this in a simple way.
1. Are you certain that your blood is red?
(i). for normal people blood is red is a certainty.
(ii). for colour blind person it is not red.
(iii). foe a bee it is more red colour than us. It can see red colours that we cannot see in blood. Therefore for bees the colour they see is different from red colour we see in blood.
(iv). for a dog everything is black and white.
(v). for cats blood is grey.
As all humans see blood as same colour “red” we have come to the common agreement that blood is red. But if we communicate with dogs, cats and bees the will definitely dispute our position.
Ignoring the views of all dogs, all bees and all cats it is correct for us to say “blood is red”. It is only a human convention only true for humans.
This way, anything we perceive through eye is only true for humans. They are not absolute truths and “no one can be certain” about what he sees.
So certainty of vision is only a myth in a deeper sense.
(2). Are you certain of what you hear?
Consider about a situation you hear nothing. Then you will say that you are certain that you hear nothing and complete silence prevail there. Can say this with certainty, even if you hear nothing?
Not at all. You will be in a complete silent environment while your dog is enjoying music lying down next to your legs. We all know dogs can hear dog whistles, while we hear nothing.
So the knowledge we gain through our audibility has no certainty.
(3). Are you sure about what you smell?
Not at all.
Consider the following situation.
Consider about a drop of bee honey in your room ten feet away from you. you will not smell it. But you will be able to see a line of ants coming from nowhere in a few minutes. If we say there is no smell all the human beings will agree, but not a single ant. This is only a human agreement. Only a human convention.
None can be certain about what you smell.
(4). Can you trust your tongue?
Cover the eyes and the nose of a friend so that he cannot see and smell. Put a piece of carrot (vegetable) in to his mouth and ask him to identify it by its taste. Usually people cannot identify only by the taste. Humans cannot distinguish many things through the sensation of taste. Most of the time for taste along a slice of onion and a slice of beet root has no difference.
So can you be certain on the the knowledge provided by your tongue?
Again, not at all.
(5). How about touch/sensation?
Take hot water, cold water and lukewarm water in three bowls. Keep one of your hand in the warm water and the other on the cold water for some time. Take the hands out and put them together in the lukewarm water. You will feel cold in the hand that was in the hot water and hot in the hand that was in the hot water.
That means your left hand and right hand give two different signals to you about the same thing. Can you be certain about the knowledge you gain through your touch?
Not at all is the answer.
Now the human knowledge is a processed set of five sensory perceptions mentioned above. Then can you be certain about any piece of human knowledge?
A rose a dog sees is not the rose we see. A cat sees a grey rose and a bee sees a scarlet rose. Same thing is different for humans, bees, dogs and cats. All the humans will agree that it is a rose with the common characteristics, but bees, dogs and cats will vehemently object to it. They will call you deliberate liars. Here rose is a rose only by human agreement, only by human covenant, only by human convention. It is a different thing for cats, entirely different thing for dogs and something else for bees and it is not the human rose for them.
This means for average humans what they perceive about something is not the reality or they cannot perceive “as it is”. We only take the perception to represent the reality. As the human perception is common to all humans, though not real, we agree upon the common perception and we think it a truth/reality/certainty. But this certainty is only true for humans; it is a human certainty, not an absolute certainty. For bees, dogs and cats it is not a certainty.
Really human knowledge is only a set of agreements, a set of covenants, and a set of conventions. What people think as truth is really a conventional truth. They are not truths for dogs, cats and bees. They are not absolute truths. Therefore people cannot be certain about things in absolute terms. Really people cannot talk of certainties. Humans cannot be certain about anything. They can talk of agreed upon or conventional certainties only. Human knowledge is only a set of conventions. Certainty is really an alien word for humans in a broder sense.
This is the situation of the certainty for material (mundane) things.
In Buddhism we talk about absolute truths (Paramartha sathya) even spread into transcendental things.
Average humans are not capable of perceiving even the material truths (realities), they form conventional truth (realities) about them. How and what these foolish guys can claim about certainties of paramarthya sathyas (absolute truths), in mundane things like karma, rebirth and nirvana when they cannot perceive the absolute truths even in material things?
(Sensory perception or the knowledge based on it is not capable of discussing the realities or absolute truths. That is the reason why Lord Buddha had to show a different path that does not entirely depend on the capabilities/actions of the five senses to realize the ultimate truth. The people who demand to see realities through human knowledge will not realize it just as a cat cannot see a red rose)
Sabbe puthak jana unmanthaka! (These pruthak jana in particular)
Thanks!
Mr Yapa, I skipped through the entirety of your thesis on ‘certainty’.
Why?
Because it is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?
Because Sujewa is not talking about any ‘certainty’ at all! He is referring to the word often used by OTC and others such as ‘definitely’ (search the owrd ‘definitely in this and the other thread and see what comes up) in the context of the actual workings of KRN in the world in which we live (as opposed to any other world . That is, the one is which we live, breathe, eat and sleep. Not one that we conjure up in our own minds to calm it, to rejuvenate it, to entertain it though various popular mental techniques).
Your lecture on ‘certainty’ is, I have no doubt, accurate. You should make it clear in the title that it is directed towards OTC.
Agnostics are not ‘certain’ about anything (that’s what ‘agnostic’ means), except those things that can be physically or intellectually verified by them. You have given a splendid promo for agnosticism in your post. OTC/Wijayapala, you listening?
Mr Yapa,
There you go again bringing out the violins!
There are religions based on faith.
These involve cherished beliefs.
Nobody has an interest in messing with these cherished beliefs or faith.
However, when you try to *convert* a religion, which has many cherished faith based beliefs and dogma, into a scientifically provable *fact* then it becomes a subject for intellectual scrutiny.
When you try to *convert* a faith based religion into a political movement it becomes a subject for intellectual scrutiny. A democracy MUST have that (a willingness, ability and freedom to discuss) for a country/society to function as a democracy.
Furthermore, different people are drawn to different selected aspects of religion, the one of their birth and/or all religions. In our case, it is evident from this and the other thread that the wisdom contained in the Kalama Sutra is taken on board very much by the Agnostics. There is a conflict between this advice and the dogmatism that you display. (who said there are no conflicts in Buddhism?)
The Kalama Sutra is about the advice the Buddha gave to the people of Kalama when they said that other monks/Buddhas have been telling them different things. In the modern age these different things are many – from Christianity, Islam to hundreds of other ‘truths’, religious and otherwise. How does one choose? The Buddha gave his answer. The agnostics have shown that that advice takes precedence over any other religious teaching, including popular or documented Buddhist teachings.
To follow the advice in the Kalama Sutra our job is to inquire. To ask. Your job is to provide the answers. If we are not satisfied with your answers … we simply do not believe. We would look elsewhere for our truths, and we do.
What you are saying (amidst the strains of the violins) is ‘we must not ask/scrutinise’. Actually, YOU should ask too! Otherwise it becomes … not a religion by conviction, but a religion by compulsion, ….. or even a religion by conscription!
Mr Yapa,
Scientific inquiry, truths, facts: these we know from scrutiny, analysis, destructive experimentation, blowing up of myths.
Politics is murky, dirty, made up of lying with conviction and faking sincerity.
Mixing Faith with Science and Politics is like taking my innocent young niece to the local drinking house where all the drunks, druggies and pimps hang out looking out for prime meat to exploit.
Buddhism is a religion, just as is Christianity, and Islam and many others. All religions have the same ingredients, in different flavours. A faith is a faith and often the basis of cherished traditions. No religion has a monopoly on truth. There is no place in the modern world for professing the supremacy of any one religion, as indeed any race or creed. Religion has a part to play for many people, equally regardless of which religion. However, the divisive aspect of religion are best left behind in history. Fortunately, *education* will ensure that it is, unless we deny some sections of humankind the right to education, access to knowledge, the internet. They are doing that in China. Let’s hope that in a hundred years time people are not subjected to unverifiable beliefs against their will, that they will not swallow anything and everything they are fed on the belief that it would be a sin not to.
Amen!
Yapa,
Re: “Certainty is a word belongs to outdated world outlook.”
If you believed that, then you would be an agnostic, not a believer (as you seem to be certain that K, R, N are real, along with other fantastic/questionable aspects of Buddhism). Looks like you will say just about anything to justify your belief that Buddhism is, even though it cannot be proven, some kind of an absolute truth & not just merely another human religion. No such acrobatics are necessary, people have the right & freedom to believe in whatever religion they want, as long as they do not try to force it upon non-believers or other belivers via elevating it to an undisputed truth, or making it unacceptable to discuss some of the grand claims made by the religion, attempting to re-make SL into an entirely Buddhist island, etc. The agnostics are perfectly comfortable with your choice to believe in uproven & unprovable ancient mystical things like Buddhism, as long as intellectual freedom & freedom of religion & freedom from religion are protected for all.
- S
“A democracy MUST have that (a willingness, ability and freedom to discuss) for a country/society to function as a democracy.”
Pooh! Democracy is the absolute political truth for these ignorants. They don’t know that it is a biased political ideology for some section of the world, that brought misery to many others. Don’t you do an intellectual scrutiny about democracy? Why? What is the reason for you to prescribe democracy? What made you to come to the conclusion mentioned above without so called intellectual scrutiny?
Do you think you need not to have an intellectual scrutiny for the things taught to you by your masters? I have pointed out that modern democracy is based on unproved axiom of “state of nature” of Thomas Hobbs. Your big boss of the discussion is silent about it.
You and your boss are talking and capable of talking only on day to day matters with basic tools of knowledge meant for it. You all have not the capacity for more than that. You are the person who questioned whether the reason for break down of your petrol pump was the kamma? That shallow and that silly are your arguments.
As wijayapala said you have much to learn!
Ignorance is a blessing for many. They can be talkative about anything without any fear and slightest hesitation, even though they had never heard of them. In that line of thinking ignorance is bliss for you.
Thanks!
Yapa,
W/ statements such as the following, you are opening up another massive headache for the believers:
“This means for average humans what they perceive about something is not the reality or they cannot perceive “as it is”. We only take the perception to represent the reality. As the human perception is common to all humans, though not real, we agree upon the common perception and we think it a truth/reality/certainty. But this certainty is only true for humans; it is a human certainty, not an absolute certainty. For bees, dogs and cats it is not a certainty.”
If I wanted to, as an agnostic, I could ask – Well, since your belief is based on what you claim to be a non-average human perception or understanding, then prove to us that the Buddha was indeed non-average or above average (or non human even, which is another conclusion that a person can make about your belief in Buddhism, from your statement) or could see proof for K, R, N. But I won’t (at least not at the moment
. Anyway, defending your choice to believe in an ancient religion because you believe it is an absolute turth (& not a relative truth, agreed upon by humans) or a non-human invention will lead to non-believers asking for proof re: every questionable aspect of the religion. I figured you were content with K, R, N being shown to be speculative, but maybe not, maybe you need other aspects of the religon closely examined too.
- S
Yapa,
RE: “Pooh! Democracy is the absolute political truth for these ignorants. They don’t know that it is a biased political ideology for some section of the world, that brought misery to many others.”
Plenty of Buddhist Kingdoms and Christian Kindgoms and Muslim Kindgoms and Hindu Kingdoms have benefitted just some sections of the world & have brough misery to others. Democracy with freedom of religon/freedom from religion is, out of the many kinds of governance that have been tried out on this planet, seems to be one of the most popular at the moment, and, appears to lead to good results (productivity, out of debt, etc.) that theocratic non-democratic kingdoms cannot match.
Anyway, if you are unhappy with modern democracies, or non-religious democracies, then perhaps your ideal form of govenment is a Buddhist theocracy, read about one such set up below, does not sound like a good place to live for most modern/contemporary people:
From Wiki’s Theocracy page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy:
“Buddhism
Unified religious rule in Tibet began in 1642, when the Fifth Dalai Lama allied with the military power of the Mongol Gushri Khan to consolidate the political power and control centered around his office as head of the Gelug school.[10] Prior to 1642, particular monasteries and monks had held considerable power throughout Tibet, but had not achieved anything approaching complete control, though power continued to be held in a diffuse, feudal system after the ascension of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Power in Tibet was held by a number of traditional elites, including members of the nobility, the heads of the major Buddhist sects (including their various tulkus), and various large and influential monastic communities.[11] Tibet during this period existed as a feudal theocracy, with a large class of serfs (consisting largely of non-noble Buddhist laymen) working on estates owned by monastic leaders and members of the secular aristocracy.[12]
Political power was sometimes used by monastic leaders to suppress rival religious schools through the confiscation of property and direct violence.[10][12] Social mobility was somewhat possible through the attainment of a monastic education, or recognition as a reincarnated teacher, but such institutions were dominated by the traditional elites and governed by political intrigue.[11] Non-Buddhists in Tibet were members of an outcast underclass.[11]”
Anyway, days of theocracies (Buddhist or otherwise) are over (except in the underdeveloped Muslim world primarily). Learn to love democracy Yapa, or invent a better system.
And, by the way, in case you think you are succeeding in diverting from the main focus of this article & discussion, let me remind you that K, R, N still remains speculative. The ability of people to improve their countries using modern democratic methods, however, is not speculative, there is plenty of proof for that (start with reading about post-WWII switch to democracy in Japan, also the German’s rescuing democracy from Hitler & the like – non-democratic military dictators – after WWII). Democracy is the wave of the present, & most likely the future:
“Currently, there are 123 countries that are democratic (up from 40 in 1972).[48][citation needed] As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society.”
From Wiki’s Democracy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
- S
OL,
Re: “the angry God thing cannot be compared with karma which is a natural law with natural consequences”
Both the angry God concept, and the idea that there is such a thing as karma & that it transcends individual lives (re-birth, another speculative item) are religious ideas only, and not natural laws with natural consequences. Unless you are re-defining the word karma into something else other than what it was defined by the Buddha/according to what has been taught in Buddhism for centuries;
From BuddhaNet/Theory of Karma: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm;
“Is one bound to reap all that one has sown in just proportion?
The Buddha provides an answer:
“If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow.” (Anguttara Nikaya)
Although it is stated in the Dhammapada that “not in the sky, nor in mid-ocean, or entering a mountain cave is found that place on earth where one may escape from (the consequences of) an evil deed”, yet one is not bound to pay all the past arrears of one’s Karma. If such were the case emancipation would be impossibility. Eternal recurrence would be the unfortunate result.”
So, from that answer attributed to the Buddha, it seems pretty clear that he believed in the existence of karma – or results of actions & thoughts/having to account for evil deeds – that continued from one life to another, past the point of death of one being. I see no reason to believe that this is the truth, or this is how the universe works, and the theory of karma in Buddhism is as fantastic & speculative to me as the theory/belief in an angry God who punishes those who do not follow the commandments.
- S
“The idea that you don’t seem to have reflected upon is that any of us dismissing the argument by saying “sounds good. but where’s the proof?” is a fundamentally different position from those who are making a positive assertion.”
Sounds good. However, the secular agnostics continue to rely on strawman arguments by insisting that Buddhists consider kamma to be an indisputable fact and demanding scientific evidence, even though they simultaneously insist that they themselves are not bound by the requirement for scientific evidence to disprove kamma.
“Before we continue, the first observation is that these are once again truth claims without any backing evidence.”
Sounds good, but this observation lacks any definitive evidence to disprove either kamma or samsara. Sorry.
“Secondly, if I understood you correctly, you are trying to say that the kamma manifests itself, not in the workings of the physical world, but only in the volitional actions of the individual? In other words, decisions and thoughts arising from the “stream of consciousness” are the primary drivers of kamma? Is that correct? And at the moment of death, the end state of this stream of consciousness (the last thoughts??), simply continue onwards in a new physical body? Have I understood it correctly?”
Sounds good. However, I was not able to find any evidence in the above queries of the manifestation of kamma, volitional actions, stream of consciousness etc. that conclusively disproves kamma or samsara.
Oops I forgot something:
“Secondly, I would ask you again, show me one person who has *denied* the existence of KRN, which means that you are attacking a strawman.”
Sounds good. However, I could not find anything in the above sentence to prove that I am attacking a strawman, versus mocking a rather simple-minded yet pretentious specimen of secular agnosticism here who is far better at spewing pseudo-scientific theories than processing information that comes his way.
“The only thing that’s being questioned, are unwarranted assumptions, beliefs held as truths in the absence of reason and evidence and those beliefs subsequently being foisted upon others, young and old, without further investigation.”
Is secular agnosticism thus being questioned? Sounds good!
“But to think that we should ignore modern knowledge, and dogmatically stick to concepts which do not make sense and which are better explained in terms of more current knowledge, that’s what’s being questioned.”
Sounds good, but the secular agnostics have yet to present any credible alternative to kamma and samsara that has been confirmed by scientific evidence.
“We’ve found mind-altering drugs that can partially cure insanity and allow a mentally disturbed person to function quite well.”
Sounds good, but the secular agnostics have not demonstrated with scientific minds that such drugs directly impact the mind, as opposed to directly affecting the physical parts of the body that are associated with mental states.
“Question: Why do we try people in the courts if we believe in karma? If we believe in the truth of one then having the other (as well) is unjust, don’t you think?”
Sounds good. However, the secular agnostics still have not demonstrated the ability to distinguish between a system that is made by man for the purpose of maintaining social order, and a psycho-physical phenomenon that does not rely on subjective notions of morality but rather the objective characteristics of mental states (“volition”) that precede action and in turn influence mental states in reaction to experiencing phenomena. Rather than relying on scientific evidence, the secular agnostics are bound by their preconceptions.
“It seems to me that Mr Yapa, OTC and Wijayapala, and OL have four different definitions of karma.”
Sounds good, but the secular agnostics have not made any actual distinction between the ways that the above Buddhists have described kamma, and have instead invented their own definitions based on half-witted interpretations and labeled them on the unfortunate Buddhists. To demonstrate by turning the tables:
BalangodaMan: secular agnosticism = wishy-washy ambiguities representing an inability to make a point. A way to complain to the world about the miseries of automobile repair.
SomewhatDisgusted: secular agnosticism = a method of arguing with non-agnostics using strawman arguments, including accusing the non-agnostics of using strawman arguments.
Sujewa Ekanayake: secular agnosticism = a replacement for Buddhism; the ideal national religion of SL with Sujewa E. himself as Pope/Prophet of Secularism. A means for individuals to think freely within the confines of an organisation.
“The agnostics have shown that that advice takes precedence over any other religious teaching, including popular or documented Buddhist teachings.”
Sounds good. However I have seen no scientific evidence proving that the agnostics have taken the Buddha’s advice more or less that the agnostics are intellectually capable of challenging the teachings that they find inconvenient.
“Buddhism is a religion, just as is Christianity, and Islam and many others. All religions have the same ingredients, in different flavours.”
You are nothing more than a parrot. We have disproved this position, tactics of you and your bunch is to ignore what have been convinced by the other party, rejecting thing without reasons arbitrarily and just narrating out of the point nonsense.
You have not understood even a bit put forward by other parties. Noise of your own trumpet disrupts what others tell,reaching your ears. You are repeating the same despite all the facts forwarded.
The fault is not yours, it is the fault of that fake scholar who willfully promote incompetents to insult and disrepute Buddhism.
He is engaged in the process of “inflating kabbas” or in Sinhala “kabbo form karanawa” , He should stop this unethical practice. He should not direct Montessori children to assess the answer scripts of his undergraduates. In the way things are happening none can be sure that he will not do it too. You and Sujewa are only puppets pulled by that fake scholar. You are only in a round of shopping for him. You have been sent on a ride by him. In Sinhala “SomewhatDisgusted podi evun kade yawala”. You don’t know what you are really doing.
Thanks!
Thanks!
“Mr Yapa, I skipped through the entirety of your thesis on ‘certainty’.”
It is good for your physical and mental health. You will not be able digest it.
As has been the practice of your gang, ignore and preach the outdated nonsense repeatedly ignoring the arguments put forward. Blow you simple tune over and over again, so that others cannot tell a word. Pour meaningless heaps of words so that others cannot keep pace with. Put forward the quantity as a weapon against quality. Use “verbosity” or talkativeness to combat facts. Hit below the belt. You all are very smart in fighting and chopping other’s ideas. Carry on your good work. Ask SD to pull the string if you feel like lazy.
Interesting work! I enjoyed them, just the way your boss SD did.
Thanks!
‘No religion has a monopoly on truth. There is no place in the modern world for professing the supremacy of any one religion, as indeed any race or creed.’
Why just narrating? Disprove my arguments and establish your position over it. You and Sujewa have never had such a tradition to answer arguments with sound arguments rather than just arbitrarily rejecting what others say, as you are the authority for everything. If possible I challenge you to show a single post by you or Sujewa, that used sound counter arguments to reject others positions.
I also challenge you and Sujewa to adapt to the tradition of talking to the point with sound arguments rather than combating opposite ideas with your verbosity tactics, diarrhea of words as wijayapala had correctly identified. Come face to face, to the point, talk specifically and break the points in an ethical manner taking the responsibility of what you say and properly answering the argumentsof the opposition. We don’t expect the type of your arguments of “petrol pump breakdown and karma”. With clownish arguments you can convince people like SD, not anybody else.
Thanks!
Yapa,
Your arguments (along with Wijayapala’s & OTC’s) in favor of the existence of karma, rebirth, & nirvana as real things on this planet (outside the realm of mere ideas in Buddhism) have been “disproved” – or have been pointed out to be unsound/based on belief only & not facts/only the deep desire to see Buddhist concepts as real – over and over again by the agnostics during the last two months. Either you have a very short memory or you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious (probably due to fear of karmic punishment or some other other-worldly or maybe even this world based negative outcome) – that K, R, N cannot be proved as real to non-believers, that they are only taken seriously (& even then, only sometimes) by belivers only. Anyway, if you need to be shown, yet again, the speculative nature of K, R, N – and how they are not some universal & undisputed truth, but merely aspects of an ancient human religion (a way to structure & control society, a way to deal with unknown fears, etc.) – go ahead & re-post your arguments, I’ll be glad to re-post some of the arguments in favor of the view that K, R, N are speculative items only, not real things that have an independent life outside the realm of Buddhist ideas & affect the living.
(i see this thread going on & on, as the believers refuse to end the debate by acknowledging that K, R, N are speculative. sounds good to me – the longer this debate continues here perhaps greater will be the numbers of people that will eventually be saved from religious faith based mind & behavior control
::
Also, re: Yapa’s objection to democracy;
Both modern democracies & ancient Buddhist monarchies (sp?) are merely methods people have invented to attempt to maintain order & law in their societies. In both systems, the rulers govern with the consent of the governed, except, in well managed democracies it is relatively easy to replace the rulers (elections every few years), &, the rulers have to seek consent from a larger number of the governed in democracies. Monarchies seem like a primitive form of modern democracies – both systems get the job done (when they work well), but one – the democracies – have more checks & balances that limit the amount of damage the rulers/elected leaders can inflict on the governed, & more people seem to prosper under/in well managed liberal democracies. Anyway, modern democracies were invented & became popular in this world, most likely, due to the relative ineffectivness (by comparison) of monarchies, including theocratic monarchies. All forms of government are human inventions, whether supported by other world obsessed or speculative ideas (such as K, R, N) obsessed faith based groups (religious orders) or not. The believers may or may not find the following link interesting, it is a story from Buddhism where the point made is regarding the earthly/human inventiveness at the core of government systems that may eventually be defended/justified with appeal to religions/myth/gods/by the priestly class, etc; Aganna Sutta wiki page – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta (& or, also try:
, even though better alternatives have been invented (modern liberal democracies w/ checks & balances, religious freedom). Anyway, here’s a useful quote from the link above:
http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no10/1929/)
Anyway, flash forward 2500+ years, & now we have believers of a once revolutionary (most likely) social movement (Buddhism) arguing for justification for theocratic rule (probably, never know with Yapa
“The Monarchy is also formed voluntarily, and the people elect the most righteous and capable person, which implied the Democracy concept. The Monarch accepts a ‘share of rice’ as his reward to rectify the social order, which is the origin of voluntary reward which evolves into the taxation concept. However, the Buddha states that the Monarch is regarded worthy not because of his divine right but due to his righteousness in deeds. [2]”
Or, in a modern, post-invention of democracy sense, whether a government is properly aligned with Buddhism is less important than a government dealing justly & fairly with all of the governed – Buddhists & non-Buddhists alike. The best from of government that may ensure such an outcome, in my opinion, is a well regulated democracy – with deep respect for intellectual & religious freedom, & not a theocracy of any kind (Buddhist or other).
- S
Mr Yapa,
Your dismissal of the advice contained in the Kalama Sutra is shocking.
This is perhaps the most important teaching in Buddhism that the entire world can use (see below).
Here is one instance of what happened when a group of young men failed to apply that wisdom only recently.
7/7
—–
5 years ago this very day, on 7 July 2005, five young Muslim men went doggedly by what their religious books said and blew themselves up along with 52 commuters in London. Why did they think that they will be rewarded for that act of murder like the religious books promised? Because all those around them confirmed it, including their religious teachers. Did they try to verify it by asking outside the Muslim community? No. Did they ask a Buddhist? No. If you were asked by one of these men if they would definitely go to paradise if they did this cowardly act what would you have said?
You see, Mr Yapa, ‘verifying for yourself’ as the Buddha adviced does not mean asking all your friends and relatives (of the same faith/religion) whether the religious books are telling the ‘truth’. It requires widening your field of vision. Asking those who do not believe why they do not believe, and trying to understand them. Yes, if you have been brought up in an insular community it will be painful to question the source of your emotional security (I’m sure the Buddha knew that too). But to follow the advice in the Kalama Sutra it is necessary.
Mr Yapa, I suggest that, if you were to apply the wisdom of the Kalama Sutra in this debate you would ask ‘how so?’, ‘tell me more?’, ‘can you please explain that?’ and make your own contribution to the direction of the inquiry – rather than stonewalling (like Wijayapala) and responding with insults, and indeed claiming being insulted by anyone else following the advice contained in the Kalama Sutra.
This discussion thread is a challenge to the ‘my god is better than your god’ type of disagreement. It was started by Sujewa to stem the tendency in relation to Buddhism. In Buddhism there CAN BE NO ‘my god is better than your god’ because of the Kalama Sutra, which I reproduce below.
Kalama Sutra
————
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another’s seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.”
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
(comment by Bikkhu Bodhi in ‘A Look at the Kalama Sutra’ 1988) … the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker’s kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.
(my comment) By this advice the Buddha is teaching us all to be Agnostic until empirical evidence give us reason to hold something as beneficial.
Mr Yapa,
Democracy and Education
——————————-
Let me clarify the *context* in which I introduced the word democracy in my post.
(again, you have taken *democracy* into a discussion of its own, opposing it, prompting a response in support of it, as per your usual tangential tendency. Miles away)
Let me explain again.
In SL we give every man and woman an equal say in how the country is run. By that we expect everyone to apply their *individual judgement* in casting their vote, *without coercion*.
Education plays a big part in ensuring that this process works. Firstly, unless the people can read and discuss with others the important matters they cannot come to an informed decision. Secondly, if there are restrictions on what they can read and discuss they cannot do so either. Thirdly, the existence of ‘an emotional hold’ on people by religious leaders would tend to amount to coercion.
My aim was to highlight that *education* is necessary for the country anyway (including, for ‘democracy to work’ as above).
Then here is my point. If people have free access to knowledge, unbiased, unrestricted, and if they are trained to apply critical judgement (as part of education) then, in time, they will choose a religion of choice, or choose no religion at all. Therefore, there will be fewer believers in SL, and fewer people who think that Buddhism is the only world view. This is an inevitability, as seen in well-educated societies in the world (whether you like it nor not, many Christians have become Muslim and Buddhist by this process in the West, and non-Christian believers).
If Mr Yapa regards this as ‘destroying’ then my question was … how does Mr Yapa plan on curbing the country’s intellectual progress? By banning education?
I think Sujewa and SD have already stated this … if you wish to retain a majority of any religion in a country (ie. protect the status quo) you will either (1) need to ban education or (2) accept that people will be ‘culturally’ Buddhist only – not believers (like cultural Christians in the West do not describe themselves as Christians).
(aside: I don’t know if SD or Sujewa are aware of this. From 1966 to 1971 in SL we had a calendar that was out of sync with the rest of the world! Why? Because the government came to power having played a religious card and this is how it ‘delivered’ to the voters. The voters were delighted! From 1966 to June 1971 our weekends were based on the phases of the Moon, not Saturday and Sunday (they were called Poya and Pre-Poya). So not all weeks had 7 days and when we were at work the rest of the world were having their weekend – typically only 3 days a week when international trade/commerce was possible. For this and other reasons too (I expect) the country became bankrupt. Thus began a bad period for SL, attempted overthrow of government, insurgency of 1971. Speaking to young people in SL I get the feeling this episode it not that well known, erased from our recent history)
This is an example of how voters are persuaded to abandon reason in favour of coercion from religious quarters. So it is no longer a one-person-one-vote but a massive block vote! That is not the purpose of democracy.
Just one last point on education. Just as religion is used to control the masses so is the tactic of denying education to the masses/the poor. But this is another discussion for another thread.
Mr Yapa,
“We don’t expect the type of your arguments of “petrol pump breakdown and karma”.
What is karma?
—————
Ask any 100 SL believers the reason why the car broke down and at least 95 will say it is as a result of karma. Do you agree?
You may disagree and you might put it down to a western conspiracy, but that is what the majority of the people of SL understand as ‘karma’.
Wijayapala,
Karma and Justice System
——————————
I have still not got through to you what I mean about karma and justice.
As we have a criminal justice system (and also civil law), doesn’t the existence of such a man-made system indicate that we, as a society, do not expect the operation of karma to *comprehensively* punish the doer of bad things *as most people in SL expect that karma would*?
Craving
———
Similarly, in a majority Buddhist society how can we justify allowing the people to be tempted and teased into wanting more and more of things that give pleasure, by advertising, if the majority of people see the root cause of unhappiness (unsatisfactoriness) as craving, as taught in the Second Noble Truth?
I am not trying to pin-point contradictions here (as there are such in all religions), simply asking the question whether the ‘belief’ in these ideas is actual or whether (as is evident from behaviour) it is instead a feature of tribal loyalty, peer-pressure, and a belief that it would be a sin not to be loyal to such beliefs despite their impracticalities?
The challenge that I face is unique and I have spent the last few days thinking about it. As some of you may have figured out – I am not competitive and only wish to be of some help in this matter.
There are some points which are basic and they need emphasis at the very outset.
1. In meditation we do seek reality – and a direct relationship with it SANS WORDS. The words and concepts that our great guide the Buddha taught are labels, and sign posts for us to make sense of what we experience. They are tools – means and also methods. That is why we cannot refer to them as absolutes in any way. As individuals we are free to use them as we think fit.
2. Hence my understanding of karma and indeed other Buddhist concepts have a particular – and not general significance. They are how OL in July 2010 have expressed them and in relation to a particular conversation and need.
3. Even when we use the utterances of the Buddha this contextual approach is very important. He tailored his advice to the intellectual and moral level of the individual. He did not make general utterances. In fact his very first such utterance – I am awake – left the listener quite bemused and he probably learned from that to work harder at his communication. In the Mahayana tradition they say that Buddhahood was not completed until he decided to teach because it was then that his wisdom was joined by compassion. And his long ministry was an act of compassion and the heart of this compassion was skilful means – adapting his teachings and teaching methods to suit and help the listeners. I have noted earlier that this latter skilful means aspect could be developed more in sri lanka.
4. Because when we turn to meditation we are already conditioned by ordinary words to which we have added Buddhist words and concepts it takes a long and sustained effort to achieve a measure of freedom from words. We are taught not to proliferate words as this is a characteristic human habit. Not only with words but with everything we love to increase. MORE, MORE and MORE is a good slogan for the civilisation we inhabit now. There is a lot of quantity but in our search for happiness we seek quality.
5. So the very decision to meditate is to seek a different kind of knowledge – one that is not accessible through the acquisition of mere knowledge. In our anxiety to acquire more and more we can amass a whole lot of knowledge but not wisdom.
6. There can of course be other ways of attaining wisdom. Generally humans obtain wisdom through their ordinary experiences of gain and loss, happiness and frustration, sickness and death etc. This is an indirect way of becoming wise. In meditation the search and methodology is deliberate and crafted by a whole lineage for this purpose.
7. The catch is letting go. A foreigner who was here exclaimed: all my life I was told to acquire more and more knowledge for success and happiness. Now I am told to give it all up. So for the conditioned mind this is not easy.
That should do as an intro
“Ask any 100 SL believers the reason why the car broke down and at least 95 will say it is as a result of karma. Do you agree?”
…………………..
We are not talking about what people believe or think. We have been talking about the Buddhist doctrine. We never said what SL believers believe are true or represent Buddhist doctrine. You cannot substitute Buddhist doctrine by what people believe or think. Don’t you understand this simple fact?
Please refrain from forming nonsense arguments. We cannot waste our time answering nonesense.
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
RE:
“Sujewa Ekanayake: secular agnosticism = a replacement for Buddhism; the ideal national religion of SL with Sujewa E. himself as Pope/Prophet of Secularism. A means for individuals to think freely within the confines of an organisation.”
Completely wrong yet again (not surprising, the believers tend to see/hear only what they want, & not what is actually said/written). Anyway, let me clarify for the 50th time or so;
Agnosticism – need not be attached to secular or religious only. There have been plenty of religious agnostics in the world. Some argue that even the Buddha Gotama was a hindu agnostic, as he reportedly advised people not to worry too much about the universal superstructures taught in hindusim (gods,
eternity, caste system, etc.) but instead to worry about getting rid of suffering via one’s own efforts/in the present life. Similarly, there are many believers of all faiths who doubt many of the fantastic & historical claims made by their religions, thus – Buddhist Agnosticism, Christian Agnosticism, etc. exists in Sri Lanka – and with greater educational opportunities (broadly speaking, coming into contact with effective & non-faith based world views), the number of Buddhist Agnostics (people who come from a Buddhist background but doubt the fantastic claims made by historical Buddhism) in SL will probably grow in the coming years.
Re: the concept of a National Religion = No such thing is needed. Let the government worry about making good laws & enforcing them, eliminating corruption, maintaining a capable military, ending underdevelopment, protecting individual freedoms – including freedom of religion/from religion. Individuals will decide if they want to follow a religion or not, and which ones to follow, & how to follow it. Government sponsored & promoted religion can lead to very unhealthy things, as the next level of development in that direction tends to become theocratic (for an example of how f’d up theocracies can become, take a look at Iran, Taliban era Afghanistan, etc.)
Re: organized secularism = Can be useful when faced with threats to individual freedom (intellectual, religious) from organized religions.
So, in the future, most likely the majority religion in SL will still be Buddhism, but w/ greater economic development & security (no war), there may also be greater intellectual & religious freedom there (people will easily be able to choose what religion they want to follow, including none at all).
- S
B-Man,
Did not know the following that you mentioned, an interesting fact, sad also re: how the combination of useless ideas from organized religion & government involvement in promoting them can mess with people’s lives & cause misery/poverty:
“(aside: I don’t know if SD or Sujewa are aware of this. From 1966 to 1971 in SL we had a calendar that was out of sync with the rest of the world! Why? Because the government came to power having played a religious card and this is how it ‘delivered’ to the voters. The voters were delighted! From 1966 to June 1971 our weekends were based on the phases of the Moon, not Saturday and Sunday (they were called Poya and Pre-Poya). So not all weeks had 7 days and when we were at work the rest of the world were having their weekend – typically only 3 days a week when international trade/commerce was possible. For this and other reasons too (I expect) the country became bankrupt. Thus began a bad period for SL, attempted overthrow of government, insurgency of 1971. Speaking to young people in SL I get the feeling this episode it not that well known, erased from our recent history)”
- S
Big Boss SD’s practice/tactic has been to be absent when some difficult questions are asked, and to send his babyish accomplices to face them as “Billi Boys”. They don’t know head or tails but run forward to face dangers like senseless robots.
Recently, I posted two posts addressed specifically to him, only his accomplices came forward with answers, he is waiting until they are forgotten. Skipping what he is incapable to answer is one of his fowl tactics.
My posts of July 6, 2010 @ 9:44 pm and June 30, 2010 @ 8:12 pm were specifically addressed to him on the queries he raised.
Why he is silent about them? He can disprove my arguments? Why not?
Thanks!
“UNLESS (and please clarify) your concept of karma is simply ’cause and effect’. Then, of course, a billiard ball striking another billiard ball at a particular angle will cause the second billiard ball to move in a particular direction and velocity. We learned this in applied maths at school.”
See nothing penetrates through this man’s skull into his little brain. Either this man has a disability of understand or cannot read English though he can write heaps. May be over 25 times in this discussion karma was defined as volitional action or in similar terms. Still this dud, collision of billiard balls is karma, breaking his petrol pump is karma.
He doesn’t take any effort or have not the capability to understand even the basic definitions in what others say.
He knows only to blow his own trumpet. Listening to others’ perspective is alien to him. Seems to have an inborn disability.
Thanks!
“Similarly, in a majority Buddhist society how can we justify allowing the people to be tempted and teased into wanting more and more of things that give pleasure, by advertising, if the majority of people see the root cause of unhappiness (unsatisfactoriness) as craving, as taught in the Second Noble Truth?”
See this man’s inability to think of alternatives? For him the notion “wanting more and more of things that give pleasure” is an absolute truth.
This only one of the notions of pleasure. The view of the Buddhism is the opposite. One can reject one of the views only if the other is absolutely true. Can you say that wanting more or consuming more or utilizing more as western economics says guarantee pleasure or satisfaction.
Not at all. According to western Economics people have unlimited necessities and once one necessity is satisfied another necessity comes forward. The world has a limited resources and therefore it cannot cater for the peoples’ (unlimited necessities). This is the main problem the western Economics faces. It has a problem that has no solution. Western Economic cannot guarantee, what it prescribes for pleasure.
On the other hand if consumption (or more and more things) give the pleasure, the wealthiest man should be the happiest man. Is it so? Really there is always no direct relationship between more and more things and pleasure/happiness.
On the other hand, your pleasure is limited to pleasure gained through consumption. It is only one form of happiness. Buddhism speaks of many subtle forms of pleasure/ happiness.
The worm in the bitter gourd knows only the sweetness of it. That gourd is his world, he has no knowledge of the outside world and sweet fruits it has.
Nibble your gourd and insult others!
Thanks!
“The agnostics are perfectly comfortable with your choice to believe in uproven & unprovable ancient mystical things like Buddhism, as long as intellectual freedom & freedom of religion & freedom from religion are protected for all.”
See the other dud, he is brave to call Buddhism an ancient mystical thing,disregarding every explanation given so far. This is senseless guy who listen only to his whistle. Duds are not sensitive to the environment. Even if sky falls down he repeats what he said when he was five years old. His brains is not subject to changes. His brains remains unchanged despite age and the reactions of the environment.
Sort of people needs sympathy.
Thanks!
Sujeewa
I think Barack Obama said it well when he said
dont judge Islam by what it is not …
so can we stop blaming religion for human stupidity? it is as futile as blaming
politics
business
police
NGO’s
etc etc
these things dont exist – right? only human who work them – and work them badly sometimes
so lets get to the real causes – they are human – the result of not utilizing the resources we have (including our religious and cultural resources) PROPERLY
we need all the resources we have – and we need to use them properly
Thanks!
(not Yapa)
Ordinary Lankan,
“(including our religious and cultural resources) we need all the resources we have – and we need to use them properly”
I endorse that wholeheartedly!
In fact, I came into this debate when it was discussing why a nation that has a majority religion that is world renown for peace, calm and compassion displays so much hatred (see the discussion at that time). If you read my first posts it was to appeal for a closer adherence to the good and strong points that is associated with Buddhism the world over. Many people get much good from it.
It is our passport to acceptability in the International community, after the strife of the past 30 years, to show that we can *and do* uphold those values, particularly when the going gets tough, when it gets difficult.
Then came some absurdities. The claim that karma, rebith, nirvana is the aboslute truth, rather than a religious construct. That no ‘faith’ is required to believe that (quantum physics was quoted!), that it is somewhat superior to other religions in that regard. Such a position is un-Buddhist in my view (the Kalama Sutra was quoted repeatedly by the Agnostics) and untenable in a multi-cultural society. If unchecked,it would bring Buddhism into the same league as Islam in that respect.
OL, all we have here is a difference of opinion as to what ‘using our resources properly’ means.
I happen to support the idea that all religions are similar, are good in areas where they are similar, and not good in the areas they are dissimilar – and are particularly divisive when they try to differentiate themselves from the other religions and other ways of thinking. (divisive is not good)
Yapa,
Keep talking nonsense in circle, while K, R, N still remains speculative.
- S
Sujewa,
Poya Day Calendar (1966-1971)
——————————
Yes! It’s interesting that no one under 40 knows about this!
Full Moon and the other 3 phases of the Moon were also ‘Poya Days’, ie. the New Moon and the Half Moons – was the new Sundays. The day before that was like a Saturday, called ‘Pre-Poya’. Our school timetable was not Monday, Tuesday … but 1st day, 2nd day. Every few weeks we had a 6th day in an 8 day week. This was the calendar for the whole country, not just for religious people. We soon got used to it, but the commercial sector was chaotic. Remember we had no TV, not much communication with the rest of the world for ordinary people so it didn’t really matter that we were not part of the world in those days.
This went on for 5 years!
Now try and work out what would make a country make such an extreme move, and for what benefit????!!! Would we do such a thing today? It *could* happen again …
(The country went back to Sat-Sun in June 1971suddenly)
Having to split this comment into several posts ..
Part 1 of 3
Having followed this debate since it started on the ‘Akon’ thread, I think one of the reasons it seems to go in circles is because there is some confusion about the parameters of the discussion. The Believers have been approaching the discussion from the point of view of the Buddhist doctrine as expounded by the Buddha and recorded in the Pali Canon. However, the SecAgs seem to focus on examples of Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka – in particular BalangodaMan has made statements about Buddhists offering flowers and ‘praying’ to the Buddha, about the reasons for offering dana to the Sangha and most recently this statement that ‘ask 100 SL believers the reason why the car broke down and at least 95 will say it is as a result of karma.’ I couldn’t find any posts where other SecAgs disagreed with these statements BalangodaMan’s statements so I will assume that their understanding of Buddhism agrees with BalangodaMan’s positions. However, the problem is that these are not valid arguments for disproving karma, or saying that Buddhism is the same as other religions, because the arguments are based on misconceptions about the Buddha’s teaching. In order for this debate to actually get anywhere, it would be best if we limited ourselves to the Buddha’s teachings as described in the Pali Canon, and commentaries on the canon, rather than unscientific evidence about what x% of Sri Lankan Buddhists might say.
Part 2 of 3
So, what was the Buddha’s teaching about Kamma? It was that Kamma is an intentional action which is performed by a living being (Nibbedhika Sutta: “I tell you O monks, intention is Kamma. Intending one does kamma [action] by way of body, speech and mind”). In the same sutta, the Buddha explains that these intentional actions have results, which can (1) manifest immediately, (2) manifest later [i.e later in this life], or (3) after this [i.e. in a future life]. At various points in this debate SecAgs have stated that they accept the first two of these ways in which the results of intentional actions manifest themselves and that the only doubt is about the results that manifest in a future life. However, by going on to confuse kamma with the movements of inanimate objects such as billiard balls and car engines, I am not convinced that they have made an effort to understand the Buddha’s teachings on this topic at all!
Now, the Buddhist doctrine of intentional actions having immediate results and results later in this life are verifiable. Whenever we say something, do something or even think something with intention, there is always some result that affects us. For example, at a very gross level, when we perform an act of generosity there is the immediate result of feeling good about helping and the longer term result that makes us more open to opportunities to be generous in the future. Additionally, this change within us affects how others treat us and relate to us, which is also a result that can manifest immediately and later in this life.
The sticking point is about how to verify the third manifestation of the results of kamma using direct knowledge and experience. Before we can investigate how the results of intentional actions could manifest in a future life, we must first decide whether the notion of a future life, and cycles of birth and death (samsara) are even a possibility. Some of the posts of SecAgs have suggested that samsara is only about birth and death of humans, so it is important to note that the Buddhist concept of samsara is a cycle of birth and death that includes all living beings. Getting back to investigating future life, would anyone dispute that living beings have come into existence and died in the past, and that this is also going to happen in the future? Given that there will be living beings in the future, the next step is to see if we can establish any kind of connection between a being living today and one that will be born in the future. One way to do this would require that we first understand how consciousness arises in a living being and then determine if the actions of a being from the past can affect that consciousness. Modern day physicists and philosophers seem willing to seriously entertain the possibility that consciousness is a quantum-level phenomenon that can be interconnected across space-time via mechanisms such as quantum entanglement (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOvpF4tKTRU and http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html). So, is it fair to say that the Buddha’s teachings are pure speculation?
RE: the post of July 7, 2010 @ 12:57 pm,
Why now these Agnostics quote Buddhist doctrines in answering our questions? Why they don’t use precious Agnostic Doctrines instead? They can use some Agnostic Suttas instead of using Kalama Sutta.
Agnosticism is an attractive fashion of the people, especially of those who are suffering from inferiority complex, due to the non acceptance of migrants of our countries to their societies as equal citizens. These second class citizens use various tactics to please those societies to climb onto those social strata. Criticizing our own cultures and embracing what ever useless concept of theirs is an effective and popular methodology, which please theses culture-less masters. Agnosticism is a good ladder for this purpose. Sulman Ruzdi, Arundathi Roy and many other people criticized, harmed their cultures and embraced western nuts and they were successful in their endeavor.
There is another apparent reason for this behaviour. Many who lived in a foreign country for a couple of years developed a mentality to show that they are not ones in our society. They want to be special. Housemaids came back from Middle East, I can remember wearing the worn off night gowns of their “mamas” for wedding ceremonies. When “Colombo people” go to their own villages back, they want to mix some English words with Sinhala, while talking to their uneducated grand parents, though they run away when somebody talks to them in English in Colombo. So, Agnosticism is also a good fashionable clothe for those migrated to west without much skills and education to be par with the high class society or the swollen headed educated lot here. Any bloody superficial garbage coming from west is a fashionable garment to our nitwits. They bark at deep philosophies to gain a rotten piece of meat in their begging bowl.
What a gang of clowns!
Thanks!
Ordinary Lankan,
Re: “so can we stop blaming religion for human stupidity?”
I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but, humans – some of them, do some very evil things, and sometime they justify these actions through their interpertations of previously invented religious ideas. However, new sets of ideas are invented & put together – religious or otherwise (or have been in the past, & most likely will continue to happen in the future) that cuts down (or attempts to minimize) the evil interpertations & actions carried out by one generation (or members of one generation). That’s usually how it goes – no one set of ideas (including religions) is perfect or eternal or absolutely useful in every circumstance.
- S
Part 3 of 3
BalangodaMan has repeatedly stated that meditation is self-hypnosis which can be used to convince oneself of anything. I read some of the literature on Milton Erickson’s work and NLP and it seems that a common feature of self-hypnosis is that there is a conscious act of suggestion either during the meditative trance or before it (in the case of self-hypnosis). I would contend that this is very different from the Vipassana Meditation practice described by the Buddha. Vipassana Meditation does not involve self-suggestion of a desired outcome, it simply requires that the practitioner observe what is going on in his body and mind. I would be interested to find out if BalangodaMan has practised Vipassana Meditation or read any literature on it. The book “Mindfulness in Plain English” by Ven. Henapola Gunaratana is a good introduction.
Sorry for the long post but hopefully some of it is useful to the discussion at hand.
– Arosha
Finally, I would point out that I agree with the SecAgs position that governance of a country should not be based on imposing a single religion on everyone. Whilst it does seem that some of Sri Lanka’s politicians are taking this approach, this is another example of people misinterpreting the Buddha’s teachings and using them to further their own ends. I don’t think Mr. Yapa, Wijayapala or Ordinary Lankan are trying to defend the practices of our politicians. My view is that the government must respect the people’s constitutional right to practise the religion of their choice. However, if practitioners of certain religions are supported by wealthy and powerful co-religionists (e.g., US Evangelical Christians or Middle-Eastern Muslims), is it not fair that the state offer some protection to the religion that doesn’t have such patronage? Also, I don’t see any advantage in saying that those in government should just ignore Buddhist teachings, such as the Buddha’s advice on reflection before acting (Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta) or the importance of metta, mudita, karuna and upekkha, just because they didn’t come from a scientist. The sad reality is that our leaders (and people!) have been ignoring these teachings for a long time, which has led to many of the problems we are facing today.
Dear Wijayapala,
Finally, an argument that we can have a reasoned discussion on.
RE “….and a psycho-physical phenomenon that does not rely on subjective notions of morality but rather the objective characteristics of mental states (“volition”) that precede action and in turn influence mental states in reaction to experiencing phenomena”
You operate under the assumption that volition is an objective characteristic. That volition precedes action. This has not been established at all. For example, most of our autonomous systems require no volition, yet it results in action. Secondly, there are some who think that volition is an emergent phenomenon. i.e. We think there’s volition, but it’s an illusion. Indeed, there’s credible evidence to suggest that this may indeed be the case. There are others like you who think that action precedes volition. The jury is still out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
RE: “Rather than relying on scientific evidence, the secular agnostics are bound by their preconceptions.”
As you can see above, we are not the only ones who are bound by preconceptions.
RE: “Sounds good, but the secular agnostics have not made any actual distinction between the ways that the above Buddhists have described kamma, and have instead invented their own definitions based on half-witted interpretations and labeled them on the unfortunate Buddhists.”
That’s fair criticism, except that on multiple occasions, when you were asked to clarify your own position, you did not do so. Secondly, there’s a bigger issue at stake here.
See Wijayapala, when it suits your purpose, you use a specialized interpretation of Buddhism, one to which none of the agnostics have really opposed, as a basis for argument. However, you then go on to use that interpretation to advocate that Buddhism be in the constitution and it be protected by militant means etc., while completely ingoring the fact that actual mainstream interpretation is poles apart. So is it us who are switching interpretations, or is it you?
As I’ve said to the point of nausea, what you believe in your personal life *is your own business*. I’m not really bothered by it, although we can take it up for intellectual discussion if necessary. But if you wish to involve state and religion (which uses mainstream opinion to your advantage), then we must discuss it on the basis of its mainstream effect. Is that unreasonable?
Lastly, I would say that it does not appear that we can take up KRN for intellectual discussion either, for the simple reason that you simply *ignore* all arguments to the contrary and selectively consider only data which confirm your own worldview. For example, I’m still waiting for a discussion on the issues pointed out with luminous beings eating stuff with their hands. Still waiting for why self-hyponsis does not provide a credible explanation for meditation, amongst other issues which have been blithely skipped over.
Just for comparisons sake, you are *welcome* to point out a single issue that the agnostics have failed to provide an answer to. At the very least, we will admit to not knowing. How can you have an honest intellectual discussion when one party completely eschews the concept while pretending it’s the other which is doing so?
You say: “However, the secular agnostics continue to rely on strawman arguments by insisting that Buddhists consider kamma to be an indisputable fact and demanding scientific evidence….”
If you do not hold this to be your position, then please make a clear statement in this regard. As long as there’s no clear statement, the Yapa’s of this world will continue to assert that these are absolute truths, beyond all dispute and then go on to insist that Buddhism be made a part of the state.
Dear Lankan Thinker,
A refreshing introduction of reason and well focused argument to this debate.
The Practice vs the Theory
—————————
Just to remind ourselves that we have already pointed out the parameters of the subject matter some months ago on this and the Akon thread.
For example, the Believers are focused on *what the teachings say*, of which there can be no dispute as it is found in the Pali Canons – it is not a point of difference in this debate.
The SecAgs are – whilst acknowledging the written scriptures as being of enormous academic and historic value, as well as being a deep insight into cognitive psychology well before its time and useful to many – are solely focused on *the effect religion, all religions, have on modern society*, going forward in what will soon be one multi-cultural global community.
To this end, the relevance of Buddhism in this debate is to the extent that it *involves society today and influences its behaviour*. Therefore, from the SecAgs viewpoint, the relevant area of focus is the Buddhism *as popularly understood and practiced by the majority of the people in SL*. Not particularly the theoretical (which can be another discussion among academics, theologians).
Let me illustrate this.
This debate started with the objection to a statue in 2 secs of a promotional pop video. The question asked was, is intolerence a typical Buddhist failing? In my books it is not. Whilst according to the teachings a practitioner of the method will NOT be affected in the slightest by the appearance of the statue for a brief moment (or even continuously) the question this debate raised was … does this episode indicate that the proper practice of Buddhism should be promoted stronger in SL? That is, should there be a shifting of purpose from the ritualistic, dogmatic, and divisive (mostly influenced by negative aspects of other religions) to useful, empowering and peacemaking purposes – in line with the well-known teachings commonly attributed to the Buddha?
The arguments put forward by the Believers, particularly the manner and language in which they were put forward, further indicated that there is a problem to be addressed. That there is a gap between the teachings, the methods and its practice.
It then becomes increasingly clear that, as long as popular myths and religio-political agendas exist people will be denied access to the useful teachings, both within Buddhism and elsewhere. It is ironic that, in my experience, Buddhists in the West who have embraced the teachings out of choice display greater ease in deriving benefits from it than those for whom it is a cultural and emotional pre-requisite.
I still maintain that if the useful teachings and methods (such as meditation) were practiced by the majority in SL, or even some of the majority, then we would not have had the difficulties we have had in SL in the past 50 years.
Dear Lankan Thinker,
Thanks for your well though out post. This is precisely the kind of post that can drive this discussion forward, instead of circles.
RE: “…I think one of the reasons it seems to go in circles is because there is some confusion about the parameters of the discussion. The Believers have been approaching the discussion from the point of view of the Buddhist doctrine as expounded by the Buddha and recorded in the Pali Canon. However, the SecAgs seem to focus on examples of Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka…”
I agree. This is at least part of the reason. However, please note that several attempts have been made to better define the parameters of this discussion: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/#comment-18467
The reason we seem to be consistently failing, is because two key issues are being conflated
1. Buddhism as an intellectual concept
2. Buddhism as a mainstream concept and its relation to politics
The reply I posted to Wijayapala a moment ago explains why we are forced to argue on mainstream interpretations of Buddhism and why using intellectual Buddhism to “rationalize” it and then switching to mainstream Buddhism to “preserve” it, just won’t do. I just saw that BalangodaMan had posted a better explanation.
RE: “However, the problem is that these are not valid arguments for disproving karma, or saying that Buddhism is the same as other religions, because the arguments are based on misconceptions about the Buddha’s teaching.”
It’s very important to understand that no one is trying to *disprove* kamma. At the end of the day, all ideas need serious consideration and should never be dismissed offhand. However, what is required is a healthy dose of skepticism. That’s what’s absent in the discourse of the typical believer – an openness to opposing ideas. The believers seem to operate entirely under the assumption that their beliefs are true, when they argue for militancy in order to preserve Buddhism or think it’s a good idea to indoctrinate children with it. When questioned however, they say it’s only a “belief”, when little or no effort seems to have been invested into actually dissecting these ideas and contemplating opposing ideas.
Why else would the so called ignorant, secag, non-believers be raising difficult issues with Buddhism that the believers are unable to answer or even contemplate, because they run counter to their entrenched world view? Is that not the very definition of being close minded? Skepticism is our only guard against hermetically sealing our minds. Where is the skepticism and the willingness to entertain the notion: “what if not everything in Buddhism is true”? Why do many of the believers seem intellectually impotent when it comes to seriously entertaining that view?
This is why someone like you, or Ordinary Lankan, who seems to be quite willing to evaluate alternative concepts, is an entirely different Buddhist to those who do not bother to do so. If you read BalangodaMan’s initial argument in the Akon thread, you’ll see that this was the very point he was making – being Buddhists as scrupulously honest truth seekers instead of as dogmatic, fanatical, “defenders of the faith”.
Anyway, this is just a quick reply. I would like to address the rest of the issues in your posts in greater detail later. Running a bit short of time at the moment.
cheers!
Dear Lankan Thinker,
I would add a 3rd item to the list
1. Buddhism as an intellectual concept
2. Buddhism as a mainstream concept and its relation to politics
3. Buddhism as an emotionally vested concept
For example, if someone were to criticize the theory of evolution and point out severe flaws in it, would you have an angry reaction to it? Would you be in denial? On the contrary, you’d probably be quite fascinated and give it some serious consideration wouldn’t you? We’re not emotionally vested enough in it that we would have a problem with entertaining an entirely different notion, if that position too makes sense. Our world view does not suddenly become devoid of meaning in its absence. But is the alternate world view devoid of KRN not self-consistent, if not far more so?
Now, consider the reaction to the proposition that certain elements in Buddhism may not be true, which is a purely intellectual exercise and entirely plausible. What is the explanation for this severely hostile reaction?
Are these reactions any different from a person who’s hearing that God is a fiction? So how is one to have an intellectual discussion on a topic to which the response is an emotional one?
In a way, that’s what separates religion from philosophy, how emotionally vested you are in the concept, which does not allow for a genuinely reasoned response.
Yapa,
Re: all of the nonsense that starts with the following:
“Why now these Agnostics quote Buddhist doctrines in answering our questions? Why they don’t use precious Agnostic Doctrines instead? They can use some Agnostic Suttas instead of using Kalama Sutta.
Agnosticism is an attractive fashion of the people, especially of those who are suffering from inferiority complex, due to the non acceptance of migrants of our countries to their societies as equal citizens. These second class citizens use various tactics to please those societies to climb onto those social strata….”
1. All human knowledge, including Buddhism, is obviously human knowledge (as in, most likely they were created, invented by humans), so, all knowledge is accessible to, & is a part of the intellectual heritage of, any & all humans. Even though your debased notion of Buddhism puts a line around what you identify as Buddhism & claim it as a material thing for some believers only, I (& most likely other agnostics) do not – Buddhism, along with Christianity, or how to fix a car – are all merely sets of information – to be used when needed, improved upon when needed.
2. It is clear that you have a fear & or a hatred of the West. Even though, during the past 60+ years, the West has given millions of $s & other assistance to help improve SL. So, this is a personal failure of yours that you’ll just have to live with & die with. You are unable to recognize good in this world & appreciate those who help you. Obviously Buddhism or any other ethical system has not been able to help you with getting rid of your irrational hatred of outsiders, people who change, etc. Most likely such positive changes are beyond your capability at this point in time – unfortunately for you.
3. The above 2 items have very little to do with the fact that K, R, N are still speculative items that exist w/ in Buddhism. As you have failed to show otherwise.
- S
I think we are on the verge of breaking WordPress again due to the number of comments on this thread
Both BalangodaMan and SD have clarified the SecAgs position on the scope of Buddhism that this discussion is focussing on. In BalangodaMan’s words, “the relevant area of focus is the Buddhism *as popularly understood and practiced by the majority of the people in SL*”
If this is the focus, I don’t think I can comment any further since I don’t presume to know what the majority of people in Sri Lanka accept and practice as Buddhism. I have noticed that Sri Lankan Buddhist, particularly the younger generation, have rediscovered the importance of meditation in Buddhist practice. This is also reflected in the teachings one hears from Buddhist monks on the radio and television. I see this as a positive sign, however I have no basis to say that this will become the majority practice.
Re: your comment to Wijayapala about volition – I wanted to point out that Buddhists do not believe that autonomic functions such as breathing and blood circulation, are volitional actions. The experiment about the causal relationship between volition and action is interesting, but has a serious limitation of being dependent on the subject’s ability to be aware of volition. It would be interesting to get a person who practises mindfulness meditation to try this experiment. However, even without this – the experiment does not show that volition is a subjective phenomenon, only that our awareness of volition is subjective.
Re: what is Buddhism & what isn’t (re: a point made by Lankan Thinker),
For the purpose of this discussion, as Buddhism I identify; 1) What various sets of believers/Buddhist practitioners identify as Buddhism world wide (records of which are available on the internet), 2) What I was personally taught as Buddhism by Buddhist monks, other Buddhists, 3) What is said to be recorded in the Pali cannon (all I can go by are English translations & commentary), 4) Philosophical work & religious development related to Buddhism, including Zen, modern Western Buddhist ideas, 5) History of Buddhism – how various concepts & practices have changed over the years, & how some concepts have not (info available via books & web).
All of the following leads to, for me, the following definitions of Karma, Rebirth, Nirvana as they have been/are used in Buddhism.
1. Rebirth – there is a strong relationship between a person that lives & dies on Earth at a given point in time and another person who is born at a different point of time. A speculative idea that cannot or has not been proven.
2. Karma – a universal device that, according to Buddhism, individuals can affect by their actions and thoughts. A speculative idea that cannot or has not been proven. Related to Rebirth (according to Buddhism karma affects rebirth) – another speculative idea – as stated above.
3. Nirvana – a mental state reportedly achieved by the Indian monk Gotama aka the historical Buddha of our age some 2500+ years ago. This mental state – even though it is neither well described in ancient Buddhist chronicles as far as I know, nor has it been claimed to be achieved by any modern practitioners of Buddhism (thus, making it possible to investigate it further) – supposedly frees an individual from the cycle of birth and death – another speculative item (which includes the concept of rebirth). There is no available evidence to verify that nirvana is a real mental state or an achievement that is possible on Earth for living humans, & that this speculative idea affects or is related to the other two speculative ideas mentioned above – Karma & Rebirth.
Related:
1. Is Buddhism still valuable & useful even if K, R, N cannot be proved to be true/real? Yes, as a religion, Buddhism is useful for training people to see the world in a certain responsible manner. It is also useful for controlling large numbers of people – as all state sponsored religions on Earth have been for centuries.
2. Invention of the freedom of religion & intellectual freedom concepts & how these relate to Buddhism: Being able to think outside of recommended religious guidelines for thought & being able to take a critical look at ancient religions (as well as modern religions or modern ways of doing things) have served many individuals & countries well. The world moved into a new phase of development with the Enlightenment – where people started using human reason to attempt to solve human problems – & not reliance on Gods, or mysterious & speculative universal devices such as karma. Thus, as this point in time, 2010 CE – intellectual freedom, freedom or religion & freedom from religion are more important, in my view, than the ancient religions. These concepts also support the choice of any individual to follow any religion, including Buddhism.
3. Buddhism & a multi-religious, multi-ethnic country (such as SL). The best way to go forward, in my opinion, for a multi-ethnic & multi-religious county is to allow, protect & promote freedom of religion, freedom from religion, & intellectual freedom. With the state/the government having no special preference for any one religion (this does not mean that Buddhist historical sites or Hindu historical sites cannot be preserved, money spent on such activitites by the government, etc. – as they are a part of SL history, they should be preserved if people find those sites valuable). Such an approach would both guarantee the future growth of Buddhism & other religions, & would also guarantee that any positive ideas & practices that can come from thinking outside religiously imposed limitations (secular thought & invention) also benefit SL.
- S
Lankan Thinker,
The BIGGEST reason to question Buddhism – it’s relative usefulness, it’s effectiveness – is to look at how, after 2000+ or whatever years of it in Sri Lanka – the state the country/the people were in at point of Independence (1948) and in the following years (which brought about constant conflict between the majority Sinhala-Buddhists & the minority Tamils (Hindu, Chiristian). If 2000+ years of Buddhism is not capable of turning the Sinhalese & by extension rest of the island (heavily affected by how the Sinhalese behave – due to their/our? large numbers) into a peaceful & productive place, then, perhaps, other ways of looking at the world, conducting human affairs should be looked at. I think the solution for SL is the combination of positive secular ideas & Buddhism – or, Buddhism existing inside a country that upholds intellectual freedom, freedom from religion/freedom of religion, individual rights, etc. One of the main obstacles to competition & development in SL,when it comes to SL & the rest of the world, is that Buddhism nor SL society does not (or has not yet) adequately incorporated post-Enlightenment ideas such as the concept of individual rights, freedom of thought, using reason & verifiable means to solve human problems, etc. So, sooner or later, once the people in SL get tired of endless cycles of misery that comes from previously used political practices (supported by some or many Buddhists) an SL Enlightenment will most likely happen. Where Buddhism is recognized as a religion only, & not the solution to all problems that face SL, & the search for new solutions & new methods, incorporating best ideas from the world into SL, will be encouraged – instead of what we see here – which is retreating into ancient mystical beliefs instead of dealing with the new inventions in human thought & ways of doing things that have been created since Buddhism was invented.
There is no simple or one answer to this – but all who push Buddhism as the answer for Sri Lanka – should ask yourselves this:
- After 2000+ years of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, why has Sri Lanka not become one of the best places to live on Earth? Why has it not become one of the most creative & productive & poverty-free countries on Earth? Why has it suffered from over 30+ years of war/civil war even though Buddhism is said to be a religion of peace?
*
(of course you know my answer to these questions, Buddhism alone is not sufficient enough to propel an entire 20+ million ppl country into being one of the best on the planet at this point in time, for that, newer ideas & approaches need to be incorporated & used)
*
As far as I can see, Buddhism failed in Sri Lanka, and failed the Sinhalese. So, it is wise to look at new methods to solve old problems, transform SL into a well developed country, & also improve the quality of life for those in the Greater Sri Lanka (SL + Diaspora world wide).
- S
Dear Lankan Thinker,
Volition, Free Will and Fate
———————————–
A discussion on these ideas should have preceded a discussion on KRN, in my view.
Better late that never …
I remember exploring this with a group of friends when in secondary school. Someone said it is ‘fate’ that will decide what grades we get in our exams. The consenses was that our karma determines our fate, and hence our grades. That fitted in well with what we had been taught in our Buddhism class.
Then someone asked, so what’s the point in studying? What if I study hard? We all agreed that if we studied hard we would do better – that our grades are not really cast is stone – ‘somewhat cast in stone but we can rectify it by making the effort’.
Taking it a step further, one of us observed … wouldn’t that mean karma can be circumvented by corrective/avoidance action taken by us? In other words, doesn’t it mean that ‘free will’ (empowered and enterprising action taken by ourselves) can overcome our destiny as determined by our karma?
Having pondered over this for quite some time in the end we came to the suspicion that ‘free will’ may not actually exist, only a perception of it exists – that it is our karma that makes us ‘want to’ go and study rather than go play cricket down the lane, and thereby make our destiny come true. Meaning ‘free will’ could be only an illusion.
Did we learn anything? Well actually not very much (!) though it was an interesting discussion – better than pouring over physics and chemistry books!.
What we DID learn in this philosophical exploration (from learning not-very-much!) is that in the end there are things we simply cannot know. As above, whether studying hard would make a difference to the outcome already determined by our destiny/fate. Another example, what makes us select the winning lottery numbers? It is fate? What make us pick those particular numbers? Or, we see that our usual lottery numbers have come up in the draw … but what made us not remember to buy a ticket that week? (oops!) Is it something we did previously (good or bad, volitional or not) that had a hand in it? We cannot know that, nor can we know if there is any connection at all between these things. At least we cannot know this ‘as humans’ even if there is such a connection on a (higher?) plane that exists beyond our comprehension.
The car breakdown story has been mentioned a lot. It has a relevance here.
I had the choice of getting the car checked for reliability at any time in the past weeks, however other things often take priority. Did I fail to get it checked because of … what? Was it fate? Was it my excercise of free will that made me become preoccupied with other things, perhaps less important things, perhaps more, that made me forget? In short, of all the possibilities, known and unknown, could there have been a direct causal connection between some prior (immoral volitional?) act on my part and my oversight in not getting my car seen to so the breakdown could have been avoided?
‘Free will’ may well be a perception only. A mirage. But we have no way of knowing. In matters such as this I feel it is more honest to say ‘we don’t know’ or ‘we simply cannot know’ than pretend that we can. That is why I consider myself to be ‘agnostic’ in realtion to such matters.
If I ask ‘when I toss this coin which way will it fall?’ There are three possible answers.
1. It will fall Heads
2. It will fall Tails
3. We don’t know
Which answer is correct 100% of the time?
Welcome Lankan Thinker!
Just for those who may be a little less patient and wish – ‘oh can he cut the crap and get to the point’ I want to give the sequence in which I will go. First I will deal with the access to meditation – because there is a way to approach it. I mentioned about the attitudinal and experiential basis and that without it – if we are simply going to apply logic and our undoubted powers of reasoning then we will miss what Buddhism is telling us – and I promise you that it has something valuable – on karma as well. So first the access – then meditation itself and finally I will deal with karma.
One other point about the middle way.
In this dialogue one unhelpful tendency has been to affirm or deny karma as an absolute. The written language can objectify things and also distort them. In this way God has been objectified and rendered absolute and in sri lanka where the tripitaka was first codified in the Buddhist world concepts like karma, nirvana etc have all been solidified. So we have a historical background of verbal domination which needs to be shaken off.
When concepts are written down – when a way of life becomes a religion of the book – it is easy to ascribe a sort of external authority to these concepts – which in reality are simply desire driven projections of the uncritical religious mind. Buddha actually taught his disciples to experience and realize the 3 characteristics of phenomena – transience (impermanence), instability (suffering) and selflessness (absence of an unchanging core) within. Buddha himself – as a human being was subject to these three things and in fact there is nothing that falls outside these three laws. When this is the Buddhist worldview it is not possible to affirm anything as an absolute. Everything evolves and this process does not even stop after enlightenment. So to affirm or deny that something exists is to go to extremes and ignore the solid experiential basis of Buddhism.
To realize the truth is not to just think of something or abstract that truth and hold it as something apart. To truly realize the truth is to live it and if you don’t live it then you have not realized the truth sufficiently.
By the way – take another look at the very first two posts by citizen and Chula – they are saying the same thing… but the stampede swept their important points aside.
We are still on the access to meditation – will come back tomorrow with meditation itself – it is useful to note that in meditation we deactivate the thinking mind – as much as possible and seek a more authentic base of knowledge – the deep knowledge of the heart and this physical self. It is a descent rather than an ascent – and it is getting into the heart of the problem than looking somewhere elsewhere for a solution. It is looking for a way IN rather than looking for a way out. So I would add to the categories below – a 4th and this is certainly not the least.
1.Buddhism as an intellectual concept
2.Buddhism as a mainstream concept and its relation to politics
3.Buddhism as an emotionally vested concept
4.Buddhism as guided experience (praxis) and a way of life (meditation in action)
Certainty of the Improbable
————————-
In my last post I asked …
If I ask ‘when I toss this coin which way will it fall?’ There are three possible answers.
1. It will fall Heads
2. It will fall Tails
3. We don’t know
Which answer is correct 100% of the time?
Thinking about this, the position of the Believers reminds me that there is a 4th possible answer.
4. It will fall on its edge
To me this is the most improbable. IMO this answer would be correct 0% of the time, as would an even more improbable answer that (no 5) the coin would defy gravity and shoot off into space.
Needless to say, neither 4 nor 5 have ever been proven to happen, except in cartoons.
The question therefore is, why would anyone attach a 100% certainty to the most improbable outcome (ie. never seen) in preference to the outcome/answer that is always seen – the honest answer that ‘we simple do not know’?
Ordinary Lankan,
“In this dialogue one unhelpful tendency has been to affirm or deny karma as an absolute. The written language can objectify things and also distort them. In this way God has been objectified and rendered absolute and in sri lanka where the tripitaka was first codified in the Buddhist world concepts like karma, nirvana etc have all been solidified. So we have a historical background of verbal domination which needs to be shaken off.”
I am not certain that this is wise in all or even many cases when it comes to things that are important for living. By this I mean “shaking off” written language, or well constructed thoughts, or analysis (which requires carefully identifying what is being analyzed, which requires careful thought/language/written language). Escaping into non-verbal or non-verbalized experience – such as joy that one may experience while dancing, or the rush of energy one may experience while running in a race, etc. may be adequate for certain limited past time/leisure activities, but I think regular living, & the process of attempting to transform self into a better/more effective person (by the standards of this world, not speculative religious aims) require careful thinking, planning, updating plans, etc. So, other than the relaxation usage that may result from escaping into a non-verbal meditative experience (which is similar to watching a movie or just hanging out somewhere & watching the sunset or something), I do not think meditation alone will help anyone with most of the goals of Buddhism or even most positive, non-religious, secular/regular life goals. Unless you are saying that K, R, N are simply symbols, & not real things (other than symbols) & that the most important thing about Buddhism is meditation. That is a valid view, but, meditation alone will not help a practitioner improve himself or a community improve itself – for that you need ethics, criticism & self-criticism, reflection, dialogue, debate, devising of methods that may aid in following a useful set of behavior guidelines (such as the Eight Fold Path). Or, it may be possible for an incredibly evil person to be a great meditator, & without the ethical & intellectual guidelines that accompany religions, the person may continue to live an evil life – even though they are very good at the type of meditation that you describe. Anyway, meditation is one thing, K, R, N is/are another – for the purpose of this discussion. The agnostic position is that K, R, N are not real (outside being a set of ideas only). As far as meditation goes, in my opinion it can be useful for calming oneself down, which probably has positive health effects. But as far as dealing with whether what one is being taught by monks is accurate, that requires the full engagement of the critical/thinking faculties, & not escaping from active thought into a passive non-verbal meditative state.
- S
Dear Sujewa
I think I can understand your perspective perfectly. You are speaking for yourself from a nice balanced and rational position. This is precisely the perspective that has failed in Sri lanka. I am not in the either/or mode at all. You are privileging reason over emotions. I am not privileging emotions over reason. i am saying we must start with a full engagement with our heart and emotions before we start thinking, rationalizing and justifying.
Our difference boils down to a very important point and this can only be tested by our own experience. What comes first in our experience? The heart or mind? feelings or thought?
It is in meditation that we discover that the reaction of the heart precedes the mental appropriation of experience. a little later I will give a minute description of the evolution of sensory contact to an active thought.
I am fully prepared to give reason its due. but lets see what it is based on.
our country paid the price of ignoring the emotions that drove sinhala nationalism by simply relying on the elitist secular nationalism of DS. we must now engage these raw and elemantal emotions because they must be related to before we can reason our way out of this mess.
The ground of our being is not the seat of reason. It is our primordial emotions. We cannot patch over and plaster these things and carry on – we must search inside. We must engage directly with the ego instead of letting our ego take us on its self centred path to self destruction.
Sujewa and Ordinary Lankan,
There is a commonality that joins both your positions and I am tempted to write a piece explaining my view right now. But I’m a bit busy in the next few days so it will have to wait a while.
OL, there are parallels between your experience and mine in meditation (by whatever name called), both positive. Equally I’m fully supportive of SecAg. And I believe the outcome you desire for SL is similar to that of Sujewa’s, SD’s and mine, and I expect Lankan Thinker too.
I am encouraged that this thread will begin to climb upwards from the recent ‘low’, from intellectual lack to intellectual lakhs (!)
OL,
Re: “You are speaking for yourself from a nice balanced and rational position. This is precisely the perspective that has failed in Sri lanka.”
Was such a balanced, rational position ever really advocated or taught or widely used in Sri Lanka (thus far, since 1948, let’s say up to mid-2009, end of the civil war)? I think widespread education, security (economic & from militant groups), significantly low levels of corruption in public & private sectors are necessary before a majority of the people are able to approach problem solving from a balanced & rational position. Anyway, all that requires being able to tell myth from reality apart, from being able to tell religious “truths” from actual truths apart. Thus, the increase in secular, critical thought re: SL history, & the religious outlook (specially negative effects of approaching the world with the belief that one’s religion is the most important piece of information out there or the highest truth) will assist, I think, in helping more people approach the solving of old problems in SL with better mental tools, w/ a higher potential degree of eventual success. This topic (how can SL get out of underdevelopment, ensure future peace,, etc.) is beyond the focus of this article – as to whether K, R, N are real or not – but obviously how we choose to determine what is real & what is myth or speculative does factor in to the bigger topic mentioned.
Remember, religion is ultimately a dishonest & risky tool for controlling people. In order to control people via religion you have to sell them on the lie that the religion tells the truth – which is impossible to do since at the core of all major religions, including Buddhism – lies speculative, cannot be proven to be true items. So, though it may be easier on the short run to control people via the use of religion, on the long run, it can & most likely will create significant problems. Better to deal with the known facts, verifiable truths, & try to improve things in a more honest way. This way also ensures that a country will not be held captive by a priestly class (or a combination of a small ruling class & a priestly class – as most ancient monarchies have been, & as many countries still are). The benefits of promoting the use of reason, observation, verifiable truths, choices that strengthen individual rights & liberties are many – and can lead to the creation of great places/nations to live in.
- S
Dear Lankan Thinker,
RE: ” One way to do this would require that we first understand how consciousness arises in a living being and then determine if the actions of a being from the past can affect that consciousness.”
How the consciousness works is not completely understood at the moment. This is a fact. However, that does not mean that any arbitrary claim about conciousness automatically becomes fact either, which seems to be a position that some have adopted. i.e. Because it is unknown, therefore, what the Buddha said must be true.
I think you would agree that such logic is clearly faulty. We cannot say that there’s a mind-body dualism any more than we can say for certain there isn’t one. As matters stand right now, there are perhaps stronger reasons to believe that there is no mind-body dualism. I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
I specifically recommend the “argument from brain damage” and the “argument from biological development”. Regarding the second argument, our evolutionary history does not suggest any point at which consciousness suddenly invaded the body or indeed even a *necessity* for it. But still, all this is pure speculation, and we don’t have the facts to make a conclusive decision.
However, it’s important that we are not fooled into thinking that this somehow validates the Buddhist world view. The Buddhists are left with far more explaining to do. Not only is mind-body dualism itself suspect, what evidence is there to suggest that through meditation, one can actually understand the fundamental nature of the universe? What has the Buddha said, that would be simply impossible for anyone other than an omniscient being to fathom?
I don’t say this to insult or denigrate the achievement of the Buddha. But blind worship without reason is not a virtue either. It is entirely plausible that, while the Buddha was correct about many things, that he may have been entirely incorrect about KRN. (perhaps under a hypnotic self-imagined construct, already established as highly likely) He may have, unknowingly, confirmed to himself, a prevailing worldview at the time, in his attempt to fathom the nature of the universe. On what grounds would a Buddhist eliminate this possibility? Is that not a far more likely possibility than him achieving omniscience? Is there any statement of his that could not have originated from a normal mind at that period in time? i.e. A modern physics equation?
Last but not least, what about all the *misses*? The faults in the Agganna sutta have been clearly outlined. Out of that Sutta, about 10% could be vaguely, with the greatest stretch of the imagination, be considered to refer to a big bang or something. But that’s *only* if you selectively ignore the 90% that’s completely off the mark and directly contradictory to evolutionary theory. We human beings are pattern seeking mammals. We are always eager to see patterns which confirm our worldview, which is why we see animals in clouds and ghosts in rustling leaves. We already know how prone we are to such things, yet why do we not apply the same reasoning to our beliefs?
Dear Lankan Thinker,
RE: “Modern day physicists and philosophers seem willing to seriously entertain the possibility that consciousness is a quantum-level phenomenon that can be interconnected across space-time via mechanisms such as quantum entanglement (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOvpF4tKTRU and http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html). So, is it fair to say that the Buddha’s teachings are pure speculation?”
Mind-body dualism is not a uniquely Buddhist construct. I would argue that it’s a fairly common construct given how often we feel that the mind is external to the body. In any case, validating mind-body dualism in no way validates KRN, because it *simply does not follow*. The argument would be of the form: since Buddha was right about some thing X then he must be right about Y and Z too – a clear logical fallacy.
Secondly, regarding your argument about quantum entanglement. I raised a hypothetical argument here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/comment-page-22/#comment-21082
If we take this imaginary religion named “shilboot”, on what grounds would you refute it? Can we not connect quantum entanglement to that too, as has been demonstrated?
I think this is once again falling into the trap of pattern seeking. We are trying to find reasons to validate our beliefs, often reasons which are completely unrelated. So what if conciousness is a quantum level phenomenon? Would that not validate the statements of *all the people in the past* espousing mind-body dualism? Why choose only the Buddha out of all those people?
My point is this. I think it’s quite absurd that we should believe that the philosophies of the iron age will always trump our understanding 2600 years later. Any human being alive today has more access to information at his/her fingertips than the Buddha did in his entire lifetime. All he had to go on were contemplative, self-reflective ideas, and that clearly shows in the corpus of his work. In his time, there was simply no concept of neuroscience. No concept of evolution. Indeed, not even a concept that the world was round. We should bear that in mind before we simply accept *everything* said by an intelligent human being 2600 years ago. Why do we do this? Should we accept Plato’s statements wholesale? Should we accept Epicurus? What about Jesus? Why is there this uncritical acceptance of the Buddha’s word?
I would argue that it’s completely cultural. It has been drilled into our heads than the Buddha is an omniscient being and we are simply seeking out ways to confirm that “truth”.
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts on my previous posts. I would like to clarify that I am not advocating that people should have blind belief in what is taught by Buddhist monks and/or found in the pali canon. However, at the same time I think that skepticism and questioning must be informed by knowledge and understanding. Therefore I don’t think it is reasonable to say that K, R, N are purely speculative without having made some attempt to gain knowledge of the method described to gain direct understanding of these concepts and applying that method first. My argument is that to understand K, R, N, one must gain insight into the nature of consciousness and that the method proposed by the Buddha for doing this is mindfulness meditation.
BalangodaMan has taken the view that *all* meditation is self-hypnosis and therefore rejected all forms of meditation as being a method to understand consciousness. I think this is an example of skepticism based on incorrect knowledge and understanding. Having done some mindfulness meditation, I submit that it does not have the characteristics of the self-hypnosis described by BalangodaMan and therefore it is necessary to investigate this further before concluding that K,R,N is a self-imagined construct. My own meditation practice hasn’t revealed the truth of K,R,N to me but at the same time I am honest enough to admit that my practice has been quite limited and sporadic. As I explained in my previous posts, my observation of the relationship between some actions and resulting mental states have given me confidence that there is some link between these phenomena. But as far kamma that extends to past life, I have no problem with saying that ‘I don’t know’. However, is our inability / unwillingness to apply the method of investigation with sufficient rigour a reason to say that the conclusions of those who applied this method are most likely invalid?
Sujewa stated that “meditation alone will not help a practitioner improve himself or a community improve itself” as a reason to be skeptical of the value of Buddhism in modern society. I would argue that Buddhism is not about meditation alone – in fact the practice of Buddhism as described in the Noble Eightfold Path includes morality/ethics (sila), meditation (samadhi) and reflection/investigation (panna). Indeed, I don’t see how the factors Sujewa lists (ethics, criticism & self-criticism, reflection, dialogue, debate) are in conflict with Buddhism as described in the pali cannon and explained by Buddhist scholars who have experiential knowledge of following the Noble Eightfold Path. I would argue that rather than distancing itself from the discipline taught in the Noble Eightfold Path, humanity should be striving to practice it more diligently.
Sujewa also argues that critical reflection / discussion should be with the “full engagement of the critical/thinking faculties” and suggests that meditation is somehow an escape into a passive non-verbal state. I feel this view misunderstands the purpose of meditation, which is to gain experiential understanding of the nature of our consciousness. Without this knowledge, how can one have an informed discussion / critical reflection on the Buddha’s teaching on matters such as Kamma, Rebirth and Nirvana? For this reason I agree with the importance given by Ordinary Lankan to experiential knowledge and hope he continues with his exposition on his meditation experience.
Lankan Thinker,
“BalangodaMan has taken the view that *all* meditation is self-hypnosis and therefore rejected all forms of meditation as being a method to understand consciousness.”
Not so. To clarify, my contention is that *some* forms of meditation either involve going into a trance-like state or unintentionally leads to a trance like state. When it does, the subject is susceptible to hypnotic suggestion, by intent or otherwise. Therefore, the resulting change is one at the basic level of subconscious programming as observable during hypnosis.
I am interested in understanding how we differentiate the above (my experience) from the experience described by both Ordinary Lankan and yourself in mindfulness meditation. This I think is the key to the matter regarding meditation/self-hypnosis in this discussion.
My entry to meditation was from a teacher (who unexpectedly turned out to be originally from Sri Lanka). However, by then I had already learned, and already had had startling results from self-hypnosis techniques from two years earlier. So I have to declare that possible bias on my part. (Further, my father who practised meditation, taught me as a child that it is not a religious activity, that it is self-hypnosis put into a practical useful purpose. So I could be biased by that too)
Meditation – Part 4
——————–
Here is a short piece on my experience. Firstly, my teacher was teaching ‘meditation technique’ within a generic Eastern spiritual context, not branded as ‘Buddhist’ though the decor I remember was traditional saffron/orange. This could be a long way off from the meditation you mean.
We sat in a quiet room. I closed my eyes and relaxed, feeling my limbs get heavy as I realeased the tension in my body. He was speaking in a calm voice and took me through some steps which I already recognised from my existing knowledge of self-hypnosis. I was soon in a trance state. This was familiar territory for me. I was now feeling more and more detached from my physical self, from the world around me although I could hear his voice clearly. He gently made me imagine floating up in the air and this came very naturally to me. Up towards the ceiling and beyond looking down at the ground, and even further into the upper atmosphere and away into space watching the Earth further and further away. Still this was familiar to me, although this particular space travel fantasy experience was new to me. We stopped when we had got to way beyond our galaxy to the edge of the universe – I say ‘we’ because although my eyes were closed my teacher’s voice was still with me and had taken the form of some ‘god like/imaginary friend like’ person. By the way, there was no mantra.
The key point about where I was, in my perception, all I could be certain about in that state was my consciousness – not the consciousness I normally have day to day when I relate to the material world (reality as we normally know it) but a deeper, inner, ‘real’ me. And in this state it was like ‘reality does not, or does not need to exist’. I think, in that state if someone tried to persuade me that the ‘real world’ exists in reality, including ‘me’ as I have known all my life as a real person, I might have found it hard to believe. Also I could have made ‘reality’ anything I wanted it to be, for instance, I could have been seeing life as an elephant or Superman or an ant, or even a tree, or someone who lived in the past or the future. Like a fantasy which actually was very calming and blissful. My teacher was directing me to positive thoughts all the time though I was already doing this.
After about 10 mins (I had lost all concept of time, it could have been a 100 years!) I was ‘persuaded’ to return by a reversal of the journey with a countdown from 10 to 1 and I opened my eyes.
I booked a few more lessons when my teacher took me further into ‘my real self’.
The point about this is (1) it was very refreshing (for my mind) (2) it was non-religious (3) I became generally better at things I was struggling with (4) I became increaingly less affected by things that would normally bother me in the ‘real world’ possibly because I have become acquinted with a ‘more real’ reality and the reality I knew is now ‘less real’ (5) it was no different from the self-hypnosis techniques I already knew, though now with a teacher.
The key point about this expererience is, from this excercise I can see how the subject becomes completely confident about his understanding of the ‘state of his being’ – who he really is, unconstrained by material world (physical world) definitions. So, who I am in real life (say, a beggar, a disabled person, a king) becomes the unreal, the immaterial. I may be completely wrong but I understood this to be what is known as ‘mindfulness’, becoming deeply/genuinely aware of the real person, as opposed to the ‘role’ that the real world life has cast you in.
I want to see for myself how the Buddhist process/meaning differs from this. Any help welcomed.
(also you can see how a perception of past lives, KRN can come about from this experience)
If I get to Part 5 it will be about how my meditation experience influenced how I feel about ‘Peace and Conflict’, particularly the the ones in SL in recent times – ethnic, religious, political.
BalangodaMan,
Fantastic post. This is the kind of detached, calm, self-scrutiny that anyone wanting to get at the truth would be interested in. It’s only through such honest, objective analysis of such experiences that we can establish a shared understanding of these phenomena.
As a side note, I would point out that Sam Harris too had spent up to 2 years of his life with meditation masters, practising about 16 hours a day. This is just for those who think that “westerners” are not interested in finding out the truth or reject everything offhand. We are all deeply interested in the truth, provided that it is discussed sensibly. All parties need to be committed to understanding it, being fully aware of one’s own biases, as BalangodaMan has done.
Many thanks for sharing your experiences, it has vastly improved my own understanding. I look forward to part 5!
I found that by clicking against a poster on the side I could get here …
different routes to the truth I suppose …
Like the way the debate is moving – and I would like to pin point the buddhist contribution to public policy and the form it should take –
compassion must really be the true basis of public and social policy – when the Fabian Society worked for over half a century to establish the British welfare state after WWII – they were establishing a compassionate foundation – this provides the most substantive basis for consensus – and this is a strong contribution that true religions must make.
so meditation is an inside out process – objective fact becomes subjective experience due to our acquired conditioning – we learn in meditation to de-condition the mind – to de programme it and remove the accretions that had got attached through what we feel is many lifetimes of mindless living
next point is that we proceed from bad karma to good karma and finally NO karma as we realize the truth of selflessness. so at the mundane level people will learn not to acquire bad karma and then store good karma – this can also be a selfish pursuit as we know. meditation is really the bridge out of karma –
with karma we created a little world for our ego – this small self – by letting go of karma we rejoin the big world with our big selves – a journey from heena manaya to abhimanaya to use our terms
SD,
Re. Meditation (my experience) Part 4: Glad it was useful.
Analysis
———
A little reflection on this post and the previous one on the self-hypnotic technique I learned two years earlier (1994 and 1992 BTW).
For me, the experience was identical in that in both cases I was in trance. Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on Mindfulness
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism))
the section titled “Examples from contemplative and daily life” describes almost word for word the process (script) that Paul McKenna uses in his hypnotic CDs – removing the constant mental chatter, letting go of thoughts, being aware of what’s happening around you but being detached from it, being aware of what’s happening within you etc. He uses these instructions when he talks you into trance, and it helps focus on what’s required.
It would help if we can establish definitively whether getting into trance is central to, and necessary for, mindfulness meditation? Can LT and OL comment?
A note on specifics
———————
SD, I’m sure you have figured out that the particular method used by my teacher (using a journey into the edge of the universe) is in itself not significant. In all probability, he has a bunch of different ones he uses for different people – I guess I looked like someone who will easily identify with an astronautical adventure. It could well have been a relaxing afternoon on a quiet beach on a warm day – Anything on which we can go into trance and detach ourselves from the physical and get completely immersed/absorbed into our ‘inner self’.
Note 2: when you have learned the technique you can practice it at any time. Even when walking, with eyes wide open. Not when operating machinery though! So it is not necesary to sit in a lotus position (no, I don’t mean sitting as if in a racing car!). It is not necessary to have a mantra, or count beads, though both these help the process of ‘concentrating on one thing’ in order to go into trance. However, there is a significance in touching a finger with your thumb (it’s called anchoring. look it up).
As you can see, this practice has come a long way since discovered by ancient people in possibly every culture (though they may have called it different things, gaving it different interpretations, mostly religious), and it is used in medical practice today in many different ways (described in the above Wikipedia entry), and of course in popular self-improvement programmes in the past 40 years (Paul McKenna is one, The Silva Method, books by Chopra, Zukav, Tolle put their own spin on it, and my favourite ‘Get Rich While You Sleep’!).
Repeating my warning (disclaimer!) – do not do this when in a negative frame of mind, or if having mental problems, depression etc. I’m sure these techniques would help a lot but safer under supervision in that case.
Lankan Thinker,
RE: “Therefore I don’t think it is reasonable to say that K, R, N are purely speculative without having made some attempt to gain knowledge of the method described to gain direct understanding of these concepts and applying that method first.”
Based on my readings of history (since the introduction of the Buddhist K, R, N concepts 2500+ years ago, significant proof of effects that can be attributed to K, R, N do not apppear in historical records that I’ve encountered), and my direct experience (not able to see rebirth or karma in action in the world, also not seeing any Enlightened people/people who’ve attained Nirvana), K, R, N appears to be speculative or appear to be a set of ideas that are used for teaching & maintaining a way of looking at the world and living in the world (also, for many Sinhalese in Sri Lanka – part of a community/national organizational tool, identity building & maintanance tool, for centuries).
However, I am not arguing that K, R, N ideas are without value. They have value/use for humans just as the idea of heaven & hell have value/use, or any sets of ideas that prevent people from doing some horrible things (such as the concept of a creator god who punishes the wicked) have value.
However, truth – of the what actually exists/what is real & affects the living & the use of those facts to control human behavior/encourage positive human behavior – is more important & valuable, in the long run, than fantastic stories/fictional or speculative devices that “trick” people into behaving a certain way, I think.
Following the Eight Fold Path or any other set of behavioral guidelines that promote responsible living (of which there are many, in virtualy all cultures, and also individuals can construct their own) is a great idea. However, belief in speculative items such as K, R, N are not necessary for that.
Re: “Sujewa also argues that critical reflection / discussion should be with the “full engagement of the critical/thinking faculties” and suggests that meditation is somehow an escape into a passive non-verbal state. I feel this view misunderstands the purpose of meditation, which is to gain experiential understanding of the nature of our consciousness. Without this knowledge, how can one have an informed discussion / critical reflection on the Buddha’s teaching on matters such as Kamma, Rebirth and Nirvana?”
First, I think meditation, though it can be of use to some people, is not essential for living a good life or a productive life. Also, I am not certain that meditation somehow offers any more experiential understanding of the nature of our conciouness than any other activity that we do – such as driving or watching a movie – all three activites use our consciousness – and all in different ways – I don’t see how one way (mediation) is more important than the other two. Also, the discussion here has not been about Buddha’s teaching on K, R, N (various interpertations of the teachings, was such and such actually taught?, etc.) but about whether K, R, N are a set of ideas only (most likely) or are real things that exist in the world and affect the living (outside the realm of ideas & outside the range of influence of believers who are motivated by the ideas).
So, to clarify – there is the idea of the thing – let’s say a giraffe, and there are people who like to talk about giraffes – let’s say a Wilderness Tour Guide, and then there is the actual animal – the giraffe itself. So, someone who has never heard of the idea of the giraffe nor have heard of or heard from the Wilderness Tour Guide may still directly experience the fact that giraffes exist by running into one. So, in the same way – the idea of K, R, N is well established – these are well known, well recorded ideas. The idea of the Buddha, including the possibility that he was a real person, is also well established, well recorded. However, almost no one, or none that can be verified by a non-believer, have directly encountered K, R, N. Which leads me to conclude the following; the giraffe is both an idea and a real thing, but K, R, N are most likely ideas only – used to teach a worldview and a way to live in this world.
So, the giraffe is real, but K, R, N are speculative (but still of use even if they are ideas only).
::
This discussion also brings up a couple of other interesting ideas/questions;
1 – could, at some early point in time, Buddhism have existed simply as a school of philosophy (material, earth bound, useful to this life only, not based on speculative things philosophy) and not an other world focused/lfe after death concerned religion (such as Christianity, Islam, or modern Buddhism)?
2 – Is Buddhism still useful if K, R, N are proven to be speculative? Or if it is proven that the Buddha never existed as a single person – that Buddhism is a set of accumilated wisdom – authored by many teachers over many years, centuries even?
(my answer is “yes” to both questions, of course
- S
OL,
Re:
“so meditation is an inside out process”
All thought, planning, etc. are inside out processes (if you follow through with the planning).
“– objective fact becomes subjective experience due to our acquired conditioning – we learn in meditation to de-condition the mind –”
I think meditation just gives the mind a break from normal activity.
“to de programme it and remove the accretions that had got attached through what we feel is many lifetimes of mindless living”
This idea of lifetimes of mindless living is purely speculative. As we know, rebirth cannot be proven, and, meaningfulness or meaninglessness of life is a matter of human perspective, there is no clear answer re: this matter offered by life.
“next point is that we proceed from bad karma to good karma and finally NO karma as we realize the truth of selflessness.”
This all depends on what you mean by karma & whether you believe karma exists.
“so at the mundane level people will learn not to acquire bad karma and then store good karma – this can also be a selfish pursuit as we know. meditation is really the bridge out of karma – ”
Many nonsensical religious terms & ideas (or stuff that makes sense only as symbols), but it probably means well
“with karma we created a little world for our ego – this small self – by letting go of karma we rejoin the big world with our big selves – a journey from heena manaya to abhimanaya to use our terms”
I am not sure how this is some kind of a special religious thing – any learning, any education, any acquisition of new knowledge usually helps people grow. Anyway, probably makes sense (what you say using the religious term karma, etc.) to the believers
Anyway, though I do not see a lot of value in meditation (beyond relaxation, lowering stress, etc.) or following Buddhism (an ancient set of ideas with very limited use & with speculative items at its core), if it helps you lead a peaceful life, I am all for it* OL
(* and by “it” i mean OL following Buddhism, meditation, etc.)
- S
Dear Sujewa
you say –
“I think meditation just gives the mind a break from normal activity.”
the key words are “I think” –
unless you listen to those who have meditated and are going to be open to their experiences – and in this thread BM and I have done that – we will be pitting what you “think” against our experience – cannot proceed. I have made this point over and over again – in prose and in verse …
just for the information of everyone – I dont really call myself a buddhist the way you label me … that I dont find helpful – I have USED buddhism and find meditation a true guide – but I find many other religions and also non religious thinkers like Da Vinci quoted below of great help.
the thoughts put down below take you further into meditation – if ONLY you would pause to let something different into your heart. Btw – I have found in reading Gandhi and Churchill that the latter simply could not relate to the former. western style thinkers find it difficult to accept introspective Indian style meditative approaches to self-discovery. so I believe – remember i believe when I say i believe – not when you say it
that you follow the western approach – which is simply different – not really inferior to the Indian style. In some ways this thread has perhaps showed you to be somewhat stubborn in a Churchillian way … just leave some room to doubt your own conclusions – and I will do likewise
In meditation we shift from reactive to pro-active mode. A shift from reaction to action. It is NOT, as viewed from outside a shift from action to non action.
And meditation operates from thought moment to thought moment. It follows that what we refer to as life is just one moment in time. The appearance of continuity obscures the reality of rise and fall. We are in fact born and we die every moment. This is the conclusion from a minute observation of the stream of physical events and mental events that we call our self. The self turns out to be a momentary bubble. This is scientific observation – except that in the process of observation the observer becomes merged in the same reality to disappear altogether. There is no thinker – just the thought. No actor – just the action.
Karma is the extraneous force applied through our ignorance. It takes the form of craving or aversion and strings a set of loose beads into one circle. It is an integral part of our mental energy that keeps grasping from moment to moment. Ignorance and the false imagining of a solid self that continues from moment to moment is what ensures our bondage. When we realize that there is no self the beads are freed and we are free to live from moment to moment without the burden of this heavy self.
Then why did Prabhakaran die the way he did? He was responsible for many killings so we may not be able to pin point that it is karma for x killing or y. We need to find the reason – or karma within his own consciousness. It follows that one of the key components of karma is our own consciousness. It is not the only factor. Pl remember the doctrine of dependent origination where events are shaped by a combination of events. But within that combination the course of action and behaviour of P himself was decisive. In my view he was the key determinant of the way he died. Others we know die of traffic accidents due to no fault of their own. Here again you must apply the teaching of dependent origination. Karma works thru a combination of conditions – the previous actions of the individual have a force that may be more or less. There is an interactive aspect as well. I am only trying to set out some principles – a full explanation requires study and meditation – a process that at least some agnostics are not prepared to undertake themselves. At this point we get stuck and must agree to disagree.
Obsessive desire and hatred is a refusal to let go of what has ceased to be in fact. It is a refusal to die with what has died and be reborn again. This holding on is a conflict with the way things rise and fall in actual life. It is a conflict that is normalized by our habitual pattern of clinging to a personalized existence with its self driven and self defined objectives. We thus try to hold on to our sense of self, our relations, our time, job, house etc etc when these things don’t exist except on a moment to moment basis with absolutely no guarantee of continuity. This is why Leonardo Da Vinci said “to learn to live – is to learn to die.
Ajahn Chah – the great Thai meditation master summed up the dharma with the following questions – WHY DO YOU EAT? HOW DO YOU EAT? HOW DO YOU FEEL WHEN YOU EAT TOO MUCH?
This applies to both food for the mind and food for the body. If we don’t observe moderation – if we either make it too little or too much we suffer. Samsara is basically that – either too little or too much. I know you dont buy into suffering – but feelings of happiness and suffeting are both subject to the 3 laws
transience – instability and breaking up – no self
as i said I am not a flag carrying buddhist – but these three insights are unique to the Buddha in that they formed the core of his teachings – the concepts are very useful – if you would like to gain something from B.
but you are so confident you have nothing much to learn from us ….
all the very best – dont know how I got here today – but thanks I learned a lot here -
Dear Ordinary Lankan,
Excellent piece. I think that’s precisely the kind of philosophy that anyone can contemplate seriously. However, please notice that your explanation made *no use whatsoever* of grand claims without reasonable evidence. i.e. Physical rebirth, cosmic karma etc. Your entire post was a sensible piece with sensible reasons to think that way. Unfortunately, most of this debate has been about insensible claims with insufficient reason.
RE: “western style thinkers find it difficult to accept introspective Indian style meditative approaches to self-discovery.”
I simply do not agree with this east west dichotomy. There are things that makes sense, and things that don’t. There are many people who will accept these things if sensible reasons are provided to investigate them.
For example, watch this video by Sam Harris, where he provides a stellar defence of exactly the kind of meditative experience you talk of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox1aN3Bbi-s&feature=related
As I mentioned earlier, this guy spent several years meditating for 18 hours or so a day and talks about the transcendence of self in much the same way as you do.
The point is, talking about these kinds of things do not and *should not* require us accepting things in the absence of evidence and reason. Yet this is precisely what most Buddhists do. I would like to see more people following these different paths to understanding and awareness and all of us having an honest and open discussion about it. I would personally like to see more scientific studies into the nature of these meditative experiences. However, I do not think it necessary to humour those who make cosmic scale claims and believe in dogma with a shameless level of gullibility and a complete absence of reason, and who still expect to be taken seriously for it. Such thinking only gets in the way of finding truth and meaning because they think it’s already been found and there’s nothing more to do.
I hope you have a better understanding of my own position on this.
Once again, thanks for a very nice and thoughtful post.
(Sent yesterday but lost in the ether! Since then watched Sam Harris speaking on similar lines – SD’s link)
Ordinary Lankan,
In my view, the experience of meditation is not unique to any particular culture. But in history different cultures interpreted it differently. Even today it is given a religious spin by all religions, in their own individual ways. And non-religious people like me interpret the experience as I have.
However, the physical world is actually real to most of us. No amount of ‘escaping from reality’ is going to ‘change’ reality (all I can do is change how I perceive reality from the ground up, for me). When I open my eyes I still have taxes to pay, go to work etc.
So, while I recommend it to all I do not recommend it as an alternative to reality – only as a means of helping make a better job of it.
But I can see how a person taking up this avenue ‘for the purpose of escape’ finds the submersion into ‘nothingness’ exactly what he seeks (‘nothingness’ = my interpretation through my experience). It is perfect for a forest monk, for instance.
There are realists and there are dreamers. Both are planted firmly in the world of their choosing.
Where we have a conflict, when there is one, is when we (some of us) use the ‘dreamer’ philosophy to explain things that a realist can explain more reliably (or what a dreamer can explain when a realist cannot, and vice versa). Or the religious-political front that uses the dreamer’s experiential conclusions to drive a realist’s agenda in the real world, with real people dealing with physical things.
So OL, you and Sujewa are actually not in opposition – as long as it is remembered what ‘world’ is being discussed – the real one in the physical sense (Sujewa), or the real one that lives somewhere inside us (yourself), in our minds or the ‘universe’ as it’s called these days in New Age spirituality.
OL,
RE: “Then why did Prabhakaran die the way he did?”
Prabhakaran died the way he did because, after 25+ years of war, the SL gov/military finally developed the capability to capture & kill him. Very simple. There are far more, hmmm, what’s a good term to use here – perhaps less evil by human behavioral standards warriors who have died in far worse ways in the history of human warfare – karma or any other speculative device most likely does not have anything to do with how a warrior dies in battle or because of warfare.
A good way to illustrate this point is to ask why 3 year olds who have not done any evil activity die of hunger in various parts of the world. The believers may write off such deaths to karmic influence. But I would say that 3 year olds die of hunger because they do not have enough food, the society that they live in is not capable of producing, or importing, & managing the food supply well. And once those skills are mastered, then kids won’t die of hunger in those communities – very simple – no need to pin the blame on speculative religious devices such as karma.
I do not know if this is a real “Eastern” proverb, but I think I heard it on a TV show ones (attributed to “the East”): “do things & things will get done”
So, whether killing a military dictator or feeding a starving child, both require just the mastery of skills necessary to accomplish the job, not meditating or praying to ancient wise men (unless of course such activity is tied to developing the skills necessary to do what needs to get done).
- S
OL,
Re:
“but you are so confident you have nothing much to learn from us ….”
I never said anything like that. All I’ve been saying (primarily) is that K, R, N are speculative devices – & thus, basing your life on them is optional. Also, I am not sure who the “us” is that you are referring to – Buddhists? Sri Lankans? – I’ve learned a lot from both & work with both groups (or individuals that belong to both groups) & will most likely will continue to do so.
Re: the east vs. west stuff:
I do not believe in the east/west division. Humans are humans, most adapt to their time & place, some don’t, & some change things about their time & place to benefit themselves & others better – happens all over the world – not something unique to “the east” or “the west”. As I’ve said before, I do not see a significant different between the east & the west – some things have been better in the “east” at some points in time, & other things have been better in the “west” in some points of time – at this point in time both the “east” & the “west” largely follow – or try to follow – democracy & capitalism related developments, & struggle with changes, individual vs. groups conflicts, etc (except in Muslim gov areas, which are dealing with theocracy vs. development struggles). Any differences between “east” & “west” are mostly cosmetic, & are there largely because some people choose them/benefit from them or do not yet know how to change things for the better – a temporary situation.
- S