Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Is there a way forward?
Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen and dear friends
I want to start my talk by bringing to the fore the experiences of another, which was seen as an intractable conflict – the apartheid struggle in South Africa.
In 1984, Mandela single handedly launched negotiations with the Afrikaner government. His reasons were simple and unambiguous.
There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence — against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenseless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate.
He knew that for lasting peace he had to focus on what he had in common with those who were persecuting him.
Mandela said: We need to make peace with our enemies and not with our friends.
I strongly feel that this applies to all communities of people living in any country.
Are there any experiences that we can learn from this story of one of the world’s greatest moral leaders?
I think there is a lot to learn. Some of the major lessons that can be drawn out from the experiences of the South African struggle are:
Never let go of your dreams
Be courteous even to your enemies
Talk with those you are in strife with
You can negotiate with even the most intractable and difficult people
Don’t indulge in ‘them versus us’ thinking
I think this story also shows us the direction towards peace and national reconciliation in Sri Lanka.
———————————————————————————
It is in this political light I wish to address the material realties facing the inhabitants of the island.
At the outset can I state that I am not addressing you as a Sinhalese, but as a fellow human being regardless of whether you are Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, Burgher or member of any other community.
The Current Context
On 19 May 2009, President of Sri Lanka claimed military victory over the LTTE.
Given this victory was achieved through a brutal military onslaught; it seemed to have engendered immediate hopes of an era of reconciliation.
Many overseas countries including the United States commended the military defeat of separatism and went onto praise the Sri Lankan government for moving towards peace and making efforts to rebuild the country.
Though 240,000 internally displaced people have been allowed to resettle, many of them are still struggling to seek out a living.
More than 60,000 of them are still held in detention camps behind barbed wire.
In the north and the east, the government is said to have placed heavy emphasis on the development of infrastructure.
It is good to develop the economic sustainability of the people, living there under difficult intricate circumstances, yet we are aware that there may well be other agendas driving this infrastructural push.
Reports coming out of the country do not reflect a genuine desire or commitment for reconciliation by the government and their supporters.
The focus of the ordinary people living in war ravaged areas seems to be on the need to address the problems of the thousands who have lost their lives and limbs in the course of the war and to help their families to cope with the disaster of separation and loss.
Provision of employment opportunities and development of their livelihood have become major issues affecting their day to day survival.
Peace and reconciliation
Sri Lankan society is fractured along many fault lines.
It is not surprising to hear about various manifestations of racism within the Sri Lankan social fabric, which I consider as expressions of social exclusion.
A policy based on social inclusion has to fulsomely deal with not only such manifestations of racism, but also with poverty.
To my mind, any analysis of peace and reconciliation should commence with an analysis of economic injustice.
The government states that it aims to provide the benefits of peace in the form of a dividend to all its citizens with economic development spread throughout the island.
However, the economic picture seems much bleaker than the government admits.
The latest report I read was about the recommencement of blanket registration of Tamils by Police in many parts of Colombo where a sizeable Tamil community lives.
These harsh and arbitrary measures, 14 months after the end of the war, have created a sense of insecurity and injustice.
It is a move away from any serious effort towards peace and reconciliation.
Social exclusion and social inclusion
The measures the government has adopted do not seem to include a policy calculus with a genuine desire to address the issues that led to the ongoing conflict.
Over the years, a system of government has been built in Sri Lanka in which there is no accountability and transparency.
Security considerations and military operations are given the highest priority curtailing individual and group rights of all people in Sri Lanka.
Social exclusion in Sri Lanka can be partly defined as the living experience of the Tamil community because of the comprehensive policy calculus implemented for shutting them out of the socio-economic, political and cultural systems of the mainstream society.
Such measures caused and will continue to cause economic, social, political and cultural disadvantage.
The National question
The failure of successive governments to address social exclusion brought about alienation of communities and resulted in military conflicts both in the south and the north.
Both Sinhala and Tamil youth passionately contested these issues and sought alternative ‘other’ responses and failed miserably more than once.
If these tragedies are not to be repeated then the scope of formal equality defined in the laws, the constitution, and the human rights codes in Sri Lanka must proclaim the equality of all citizens living in Sri Lanka.
Citizens should be equally entitled to certain rights typically associated with a democracy.
The war between the government and the LTTE brought about a whole new set of tragic issues of helplessness, death and destruction to life and property.
Nevertheless, the desire for a fair and just political solution and peace with justice for those who are socially excluded has not come to an end.
The whole society including the political parties, their leaderships, communities of people and their leaders are divided on the issue of a political solution to the national question.
The standard prescription has been to find a structure of power sharing through devolution and regional autonomy.
Power sharing will weaken both the social forces that favour internal subjugation as well as those favouring separation.
This can only succeed in an environment of a strong leadership committed to power sharing arrangements.
Such an environment requires the building of a culture that treats the other with dignity, respect and fairness.
The three decades long separatist armed conflict and five decades long and ongoing political conflict were based on social exclusion and discriminatory measures adopted against the Tamil community.
The government does not seem to be pursuing a path to develop its long-promised political settlement to this issue.
The government seems not interested even in acknowledging or implementing what is already incorporated within the country’s Constitution.
Though such measures may not provide the Tamil community with what they have been asking for, the 13th amendment, if fully implemented may represent a certain measure of regional devolution.
Since the recently concluded Presidential and parliamentary elections, the government and President do not seem to have any urgency to provide a commitment or leadership to implementing at least a measure of regional autonomy.
Nationalist claims
The current political conflict cannot be oversimplified to a simple linear equation between development and peace.
While the effects of the war such as death, destruction, injury, displacement and underdevelopment were mainly borne by the Tamil and Muslim communities living in the north and east, the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims in the south were also affected by the war and the resultant economic hardships.
As there is no memory of peaceful co-existence within the post-1983 Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim generations, it is not surprising that they look upon each other with hostility.
In my view, their thoughts are fathomed not by any rational analysis, but by the omnipresent rhetoric of historical and deep-rooted ethnic and religious differences.
This rhetoric has made these relationships more and more hostile towards reconciliation.
The political elite of the island who have made use of and are still making use of those historical, deep rooted ethno-linguistic and religious differences to consolidate their economic, social and family privileges and interests has done extremely well in ruining the harmonious relations the society enjoyed before.
The failure of the socio-economic and cultural systems in Sri Lanka needs to be understood in this context.
On the one hand, despite the political attempts to resolve the conflict through peace talks and cease-fires on more than one occasion, I believe that certain sections of the security forces assisted by certain ultra-nationalist forces ruthlessly undermined such efforts.
On the other hand, the LTTE never intended to abandon their goal of a separate independent state comprising the north and east of the island.
The Sinhala majority population wanted to annihilate such an attempt at any cost.
Muslims claim that they are entitled to their traditional land in the east.
They claim that they were subjected to targeted violence and ethnic cleansing by the LTTE.
Most of the rural Sinhalese only came to know the conflict through the loss of life and injury of their kith and kin enlisted in the armed forces or killed or maimed as a result of bombings.
The relationships among the ordinary Muslim, Tamil and Sinhala people have been seriously damaged by the armed conflict.
During and after the election of President Rajapaksa’s government, the alienation amongst the diverse communities of people has reached a crescendo.
So the opposition to achieving reconciliation through power sharing also has reached a climax.
Yet, the Sinhala people including Sinhala Diaspora also stands divided not only by their political affiliations but also by the issues related to their religion, caste, gender, language, class and individual and collective experiences.
The Tamil people including Tamil Diaspora also seem to have deep fractures.
However, I am not here to talk about those divisions; except to note that after the military defeat of the LTTE, these fissures seem to have become more apparent and overt.
It is also evident that the majority of Tamils living in the north and east and the majority of Tamil Diaspora still seem to insist on a rights based approach to a fair, just and equitable treatment.
Recent reports indicate that death squads are still operating in the island.
Incidentally, the subjects of these death squads do not extend to the family, friends and fellow travelers of the ruling elite.
What a coincidence?
The country’s highest court discarded the vital role international human rights law and international human rights bodies played and need to play in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka.
The pledges the Sri Lanka government made to the United Nations are yet to be realized.
Yet, the UNHCR sees vast improvements in the island’s human rights situation.
Coincidently, the United Nation’s effort to investigate alleged war crimes by the parties to the conflict seems to have been sabotaged by the very government that the UN says, has improved its human rights record!
The international pressure exerted on the Sri Lankan political leadership through diplomatic and economic measures does not seem to have worked, mainly due to the military collaboration between the Sri Lankan government and a diversity of regimes ranging from capitalist to socialist and communist and also those in between.
The government’s economic partnership with regimes like China, Iran and Venezuela will reduce Sri Lanka’s economic dependence on Europe and the USA.
These are some of the features I can see in the local and global relationships relevant to Sri Lanka.
Is there a way forward?
The current socio-political and economic environment in the island does only provide an extremely narrow space to achieve peace and reconciliation among the communities of people, to develop a fair and just framework to address the national question.
This is because we have reached the lowest ebb in terms of relationship with each other.
Therefore, in the short term I cannot imagine achieving peace and reconciliation through the development of a framework based on fairness and justice.
This less than optimistic situation leads to certain pointers.
To achieve reconciliation, I strongly believe that we, the diaspora who are originally from Sri Lanka, may have a better chance and opportunity for mutual interaction; though even in that space, such interaction seems extremely limited.
Before the end of the military aspect of the conflict, the Diaspora was bogged down in extreme positions with no interaction or consultation with each other.
The Diaspora on its own need not try and impose a political agenda on the Tamil people living in Sri Lanka without genuinely consulting their wishes and expectations.
For decades, they have been kept down due to social exclusion practiced within and without, and also due to the armed conflict.
Nevertheless, as far as I am aware currently there is no such process afoot.
A principled human rights based approach could commence with arrangements to build a common movement to bring justice towards victims who have been subjected to a diversity of injustice and to redress the issues that led to three decades long armed conflict.
What I emphasize here is that trust building between the peoples need to start by making certain compromises that need to be worked out through political dialogue and negotiations with each other.
This raises the pertinent question: can such compromises be made under the current circumstances of human rights violations in the island?
As the short term objective of the ruling elite seems to be consolidation of their political power for safeguarding their economic, social and family interests and privileges, a principled or rights based approach to resolve the issues of Tamil people cannot be expected to materialize from the elite.
Furthermore, the current national and international political environment is not conducive for any armed opposition.
Yet, I believe that there is still space for non-violent political activities to build a strong and wide opposition movement.
For this to progress, engagement with diverse organizations that have been campaigning for protection of human and democratic rights of the people of Sri Lanka is necessary and essential.
Such organizations may include political parties and organizations, trade unions and non-governmental organizations.
If such political action does not materialize, rebuilding the fragmented social relationships in Sri Lanka will get much harder with each passing day.
For an agenda based on social inclusion to have an effect, we need to have space to discuss the many varieties of social oppression and exclusion prevalent in Sri Lanka and in the Diaspora.
There is no way we can move straight from a society based on social exclusion to a society based on social inclusion, because such a transition is not possible without a thorough social conversation and analysis.
Such a conversation and analysis require parallel efforts of critical examination of hierarchies of social oppression.
It also requires promotion of a program of transition to combine together the variety of unrelated and dissimilar movements that struggle against oppression, inequality and injustice.
Such social movements could be bound together by a kind of inclusion that would lead to the creation of a more just and equitable society.
For this to occur, consultative, participative, democratized, open consensus building is necessary.
Thus, a conversation on social inclusion can provide a coherent critical examination of the multiple forms of social and economic injustices and the concomitant institutional policy and program calculus.
So I believe the way forward for peace and reconciliation lies in exploring the potential for rebuilding inclusive relationships among the diversity of people through the existing and available dialogue and interaction mechanisms within communities both local and diasporic.
There should be attempts to expand such possibilities to create more space for dialogue and interaction.
However, such dialogue and interaction require a different and alternate understanding of socio-economic and cultural space, citizenship rights and necessary pre-conditions for social cohesion and inclusion.
This requires challenging the dominant Sinhala and Tamil discourse of social exclusion and stressing the politics of difference that needs to put issues of inequality and social and economic justice at the heart of the issue of social inclusion.
It is in this light I appeal to those who value democracy, freedom and liberty to actively show that they oppose the repressive political culture in Sri Lanka.
They need to exert pressure on the state to negotiate towards a meaningful and just power-sharing arrangement.
Sinhala and Tamil expatriates that helped perpetuate the conflict need to make a positive contribution to its resolution by engaging in dialogue within their community and with other communities.
They need to become drivers of this paradigm shift by creating a new reality through their interactions with each other.
This is not without historical precedent. It happened in South Africa and it can happen in Sri Lanka.
Thank you.
[Authors note: This was a speech delivered recently by me in Melbourne, Australia]
1,132 Comments
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Too little too late, Where were you all these years when Tamil wrere being killed, displaced and driven out of the country. May be you were in honey moon with the government. The situation now is something , I thing, We can control becouse the elites are trying to copy the tigers and tamilnadu style of governance.
Yes there is (are), There are many ways forward (it is also possible to go backward) but how do we find the right one?. How do we convey the message, so that Ravi does not feel the way he does. How do we appeal to him as well as to nationalists.?
Only the dialog will bring us towards a solution that will benefit all. It will be a long time coming but Yes we can.
True, as Margerata says, we need to find the right path while also taking into consideration the reality and the need to neutralize the continued apprehensiveness of persons such as Ravi.
We have had years and years of committees, discussions, conferences, papers, what-have-you to analyze and to find ways to address the Tamil grievances. It is high-time we tell the Tamils and the internationals our present thinking based on all those discussions how we propose to address those grievances and apprehensions to enable life for Ravi as a shared owner in this country, if we truthfully want the integrity and Sovereignty of this single nation maintained, as we claim.
Getting to square-one one more time to start committees and discussions doesn’t convince any body, not even the Sinhalese, that there is genuine appreciation of the Tamil issue or that there is genuine will to find the “correct” path for resolution and reconciliation. Playing for more time will only push the nation back again to chaos, one way or another.
Dear Lionel,
As you summarize the success in “attempts to expand such possibilities to create more space for dialogue and interaction (among the different local and Diasporic communities)” will indeed be the determinant of SL’s future – its prospects for domestic stability and prosperity as well as its international standing as a democracy.
However, one needs to learn to walk before starting to run. What will be the best way to bring in harmony so that productive interaction and dialogue among the communities can be promoted?
May I suggest that it is up to the Sinhala community, particularly, the Diasporic community, to help with the baby steps.
If the two extreme opinionated groups among our Diaspora, namely, the rational Sinhalese who support fair justice, believe in the democratic rights of the Tamils and the need for autonomy, and the group in the other camp of patriotic Buddhist nationalists, as well as all those holding positions within this wide spectrum, could organize and convince each other via forums, debates, dialogues, interactions etc, and come to a unified, mutually acceptable reference points for reconciliation, may be then we could persuade the Tamil Diaspora to join in the dialogue and interaction with some tangible expectations and understanding. Else, your proposal for community wide dialogue and interaction may just end up being a pie-in-the-sky? If we can’t even come to a common understanding among our own disparate Diaspora, disparate on this issue, how could we anticipate to interact effectively or productively with the confused, angered, defeated and apprehensive Tamil Diaspora?
initially reconstruction of infrastructures in north n east is to be done! when it is done, job creation in those area comes first.
then only those ppl will start to think about so called power sharing that is most needed by outsiders.
seems govt knows it priorities so it has no rush! after power sharing.
suppose federal status would be given to north n east, then will those who now living in uk/canada/aus come n start living here?
any solution should be formulated to address grievances of those who living still there in north n east with all da hardship.
more tourist hotels should be opened for aussi/canadian ppl who visit island occasionally n teach us how to change the constitution
Chalk and cheese. Who in Sri Lanka in playing Mandela, which is the ANC, and who represents the minority apartheid regime? The ANC’s struggle was for ‘ majority rule’. The struggle ended in a negotiated transition. Sri Lanka’s was a full-on war. Better find ‘ best practices ‘ from elsewhere: Justice Weeramantry already started the ball rolling in the right direction.
While these are lofty thoughts, no doubt. And wise words no one can dispute. But what is probable should be attempted first before going ahead with the possible. The present charged climate on the subject needs to be cooled first for any progress towards possible reconciliation.
Basically it is in the interest of any government to build trust among all sections of population. Then only any attempt at reconciliation will be meaningful. That does not require any Mandela to be born. Democratic polity should be able to do it. So instead of playing politics on national issues, political parties should build a consensus on course of action to tackle them. Unfortunately it is not happening.
Common man, you carry on, no one will teach you anything, you can do whatever you want. Or build concensus.
How about these steps:-
a) Remove the emergency and related laws. Now the LTTE is decimated, and normal laws suffice.
b) Implement the 13th and 17th amendments, and see how things are. If there are loopholes, discuss in parliament.
c) Implement tamil and english as official and link languages.
d) Allow all IDPs to return to their homes.
e) Either prosecute all political prisoners soon, or let them go home.
Anyone against?
Ravi>
rule is simple!
ie. discipline, development n then democracy
u want last one first?!
Never let go of your dreams
Be courteous even to your enemies
Talk with those you are in strife with
You can negotiate with even the most intractable and difficult people
Don’t indulge in ‘them versus us’ thinking
Lionel Bopage, thank you.
But we’re heading in the opposite direction:
http://www.caffe.lk/NGOs_stung_by_sudden_new_restrictions-5-2214.html
NGOs stung by sudden new restrictions, 18 July 2010: ”The government from the end of June 2010 has introduced new restrictions on movement to the Wanni by staff of UN agencies, NGOs and INGOs. …. Since the change, however, defence ministry authorization is required for each trip and staff member. Given the large number of trips and staff members involved, this would mean endless time-wasting at the ministry of defence for no explicit reason. ”
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/06/vanni_northern_sri_lanka_where.html#more
Vanni, northern Sri Lanka, where war has never ended, 1 June 2010:
”The area is still actually in the hands of the military, which allowed the return of the population but force them to live in absolute poverty. The military blocks any attempts to improve their lives, but does not stop abuse and violence.”
So far Tamil parliamentarians(except those few who agreed to be taken by the army to the ”chosen” camps) haven’t seen allowed in to see the IDPs in the camps !!
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/26/vanni-in-the-year-after-war-tears-of-despair-and-fear/
Vanni in the year after war: Tears of despair and fear, Ruki, 26 May 2010:
‘’On most roads inside the Vanni, whether on the A9 or interior roads, I felt as if we were travelling within a military camp. Military camps and check posts were along all the roads. ….
One of the initial sources of livelihood when people went back to villages in the Vanni were the small tea shops that they set up along the A9 road and other roads.
But these were overshadowed by the bigger, better looking and better equipped “Janaavanhalas” (People’s restaurants) put up by the military. Each and every time I go along the A9 there appeared to be more military run restaurants than before. In the small Paranthan junction, there were around 10 such restaurants, run by various divisions, brigades of the military.”
By the way, where is Prageeth Eknaligoda?
Dear Col R Hariharn,
I have read some your articles; it is good that you remain focused on Sri Lanka. As you know that the Tamils of Sri Lankan origin around the world appear disillusioned totally; the Transnational government is an emotionally-charged reaction rather than one based on pragmatism.
What do you suggest that the Tamils should do given the current political climate in Sri Lanka coupled with international implications, the war crimes investigation?
The TNA appear confused too; how should they position themselves in order to get what is best for the minorities?
Most importantly, is the GOSL genuinely interested in finding a lasting solution for the crises?
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/jaffna-after-the-war-observations-by-a-visitor/
Jaffna after the war: Observations by a visitor, Leela Issac, 7 May 2010:
*”… A lot of building material (from China) has been unloaded on either side of the road between Murugandy and Mankulam. We stopped to ask one of the soldiers, whether there was a plan to build houses for the displaced. ‘No’ he said, it was China’s donation towards an army cantonment. The government plans to put up an army camp just like the one at Panagoda…. On the A9 road every hundred meters there is a bunker and every mile or so a major military base…”
Promoting peace and reconciliation??
Dear Mr. Hariharan,
It is strange that while rightly or wrongly characterizing the article/blog suggestions as “lofty thoughts”, you then follow it up summarizing your recommendation as “political parties should build a consensus on course of action to tackle them.” Do you not see the irony?
It seems your suggestion is again to push the issue back to the situation for another round of meaningless “All Party” discussions and committees that will just buy time, but produce nothing in the end. I think, having vanquished the “undemocratic” enemy, the Sinhala population should first find consensus among them – among the nationalist politicians who see just a single Buddhist Sinhala nation and the liberals who see merits of regional autonomy and international integration. Perhaps if these two distinct majority segments could first find common grounds towards the future of the country and declare their vision jointly, perhaps then the rest of the groups (ethnic, political or otherwise) will have a better sense of what to expect and how to work towards national consensus. Expecting nationwide consensus while the two critical segments of the majority are unable to find common ground among themselves seems not merely lofty, but possibly worse.
Sri Lanka as a democracy, Survived through 30 years war and 2 insurrections before that.
I have been 4 time since the war ends, met many people as I could in North, East and south. Our People are optimistic lot.
It is true politician are not keeping up with the demand of people but that is all over the world.
Intellectuals and many politicians, pondering negatives are not going to help anyone.. Sri Lanka, compare to any country after war certainly doing better .
Please light the candle instead of cursing the darkness.
Reconciliation, to be meaningful and workable, should have the right mindset. It is the mind that determines the good and the evil, hatred and anger,war and peace, greed and selfishness..
Reconciliation is not mere absence of war. The mind has to be changed to approach people with love and not with anger, hatred and bitterness. This is a spiritual truth.
Forgiveness arises when the correct mindset of love enters any person. This spiritual condition is not being attempted. In South Africa it is the spirituality of people that made reconciliation possible and Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu gave the leadership.
What SL faces is more of a spiritual decay. Right spirituality has to be restored. Reconciliation cannot come by law and legislation.
Throw away the political leaders and put spirituality to be practiced before any attempt for meaningful reconcil,iation and peace..
Dear Dr. Nadesan,
Firstly I would like to say that I am a big fan of your novel Vannathikulam which I read in the English translation (I could not find a Tamil original). I would like to thank you for your efforts to bridge the gap between Sinhalese and Tamils. I also must apologize that we (Sinhalese) have not been as constructive as we could be.
I would like to hear your views on war crimes investigations in SL. On the one hand it is argued that such an investigation is necessary because true reconciliation will be impossible without it (which I do not dispute). The counterargument is that our main focus should be rebuilding Tamil society in SL, making sure the people have access to food, water, and housing and that they will regain their livelihoods, and then taking steps to implement Tamil as an official language.
Please share your views on this subject. Thank you.
One must commend the way that Dr. Noel Nadesan and Mr. Wijayapala have posted in this thread. Having been an outside observer and reading all posts with great seriousness, I find the debates often times very polarized in this forum. Any little issue here becomes a Sinhala vs. Tamil problem. Thankfully, these 2 gentlemen have been very mature and hopefully all discussions continue that way.
Coming back to peace and reconciliation in SL, I am optimistic that things will be better, much better in the future. Hopefully, both communities will come together in understanding one another than ever before now that LTTE is history. The problems however in near short-term would be how to make sure that people in NE get back with their lives, particularly their professions be it agriculture, fishing or anything. Also important would be getting the children back to schools and of course get all the IDPs settled back in their homes. But, all these would be tough tasks and need great effort. On the positive side, I saw the other day (in youtube I guess) videos of how child soldiers of LTTE are being rehabilitated. I am sure more and more folks are getting back to normal life (although in a distressed way), and it is better than what it was a year ago.
The problem is, being the biggest victims of the war the people from NE, mostly Tamils, would be very skeptical and reluctant of how to move forward or what their options are. And I am not aware of any good leaders on the Tamil side who can provide hope for the Tamils in SL. I am skeptical about the intentions of folks like Col Karuna, Douglass Devananda and even Sampanthan, although Anandasangaree seems good to me. In any case, somehow the Tamils would need to put their past behind, reconcile and move on. It is important how to move forward positively and peacefully, while at the same time expressing your concerns appropriately. And, it is not clear what kind of President Rajapakse will end up being for Tamils. Hopefully, he will be pragmatic and engage in some meaningful inclusion or powersharing of some sort as to get Tamil folks along with Sinhalese.
So, for things to get better it would take a few years. But hopefully, things would be for good for everyone.
Dr D J sounds good to me on this thread, thing can only get better in my opinion.
Krish, thank you for your kind words.
“And I am not aware of any good leaders on the Tamil side who can provide hope for the Tamils in SL. I am skeptical about the intentions of folks like Col Karuna, Douglass Devananda and even Sampanthan, although Anandasangaree seems good to me.”
The good thing about democracy is that people usually get the leaders that they deserve. I was crushed when Anandasangaree lost the elections and further disappointed when the govt sidelined him in favor of KP to pursue reconstruction.
Coming back to peace and reconciliation in SL, I am optimistic that things will be better, much better in the future. Hopefully, both communities will come together in understanding one another than ever before now that LTTE is history. – It is good to be optimistic. However, I live in Sri Lanka and see a lot of Sinhala nationalism/ racism around. Too much of it. Therefore, I cannot see how both communities can come together. I feel the ethnic divide has worsened after the war.
Niranjan,
I always advocated that the GOSL should create right conditions for the communities to reconcile. Since you live in Sri Lanka, what aspects do you think that the GOSL can improve/introduce in order to achieve just that?
I feel that the MR is in a quandary that, if he takes away the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism/chauvinism out of the equation, it is impossible to eradicate racism all together, then he is jeopardizing his political platform. I think that MR will keep alive the Sinhala Buddhist Triumphalism over the vanquished LTTE for their own survival. What do you think?
Burning Issue,
This is just a question, but do you feel that a good step to reconciliation would be for the GOSL to acknowledge that Sri Lankan Tamils are culturally and linguistically distinct from Tamil Nadu Tamils and are unique to Sri Lanka? I personally feel that this is a huge step towards peace. Unfortunately, most of my fellow Sinhalese people seem to have no idea about Sri Lankan Tamils being very different from Tamil Nadu Tamils. I have heard many Sinhalese people often remark how the Tamil spoken by Sri Lankan Tamils is no different from the Tamil spoken by Tamil Nadu tamils, and at the most, the age of the northern dialect is probably no more than 350 years old(no doubt, due to “scholars” like Nalin De Silva.)–which is funny to me, because many linguists say the Jaffna dialect is the oldest Tamil dialect in existence!!!
Dear niranjan ;
“I live in Sri Lanka and see a lot of Sinhala nationalism/ racism around. Too much of it.”
Haven’t you ever come across Tamil nationalism/racism in this country? Then what are 50/50 demand, homeland demand and the acts of LTTE? Why did LTTE chased away Muslims and Sinhalese from North? Why did they kill thousands of civilians in South with suicide bombers? Why didn’t Tamils voice against them? Destruction of Anuradapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms by Tamils in the past you think done in good faith to make this country a beautiful multi-ethnic rainbow?
Do you think Sinhala nationalism/racism is the first cause?
I never ever understand your kind of reasoning.
Thanks!
Hi Burning_Issue,
I wrote to you on the APRC and moving away from democracy threads.
Here is an article about Buddhist triumphalism in the East:
http://www.nation.lk/2010/08/01/newsfe2.htm
Sambodhi Viharaya, a Buddhist shrine situated close to Arugam Bay lagoon was flattened to the ground using bulldozers by a gang that descended on the place under Police protection. When the Security Task Force (STF) personnel in a camp situated near the temple had protested the destruction of the temple, Police had told them that the temple buildings were being demolished on a court order. However, further inquiries revealed that no such court order had been obtained by those responsible for demolishing the temple buildings. The Sambodhi Viharaya was located on a scenic spot between the Arugam Bay shoreline and the lagoon, an ideal location for a tourist hotel. The person behind the demolition of the Buddhist temple is a Colombo businessman, a son of a high ranking Police officer who is planning to put up a tourist hotel who received the prompt assistance of the local Police, informed local sources said.
Dear Yapa,
Most demonstrations of tamil nationalism exist abroad, not so much in Sri Lanka. And yes, Sinhalese nationalism/supremacy, IS the PRIMARY root cause of this war. You bring up the destruction of the polonnaruwa/anuradhupara kingdoms as if those were actions based on race, which they were not–these things were battles between kingdoms, they had nothing to do with race or ethnicity. I don’t understand why other Sinhalese people bring up the chola invasions, destruction of various kingdoms, etc., as examples of the enmity and ” long history” of the bad blood between Sinhalese and Tamils. This ” bad blood” is of relatively recent creation.
The homeland demand was never really believed in by the tamil people until the mid-1970′s–before that, they were for federalism(althought various politicians may have jumped on the eelam bandwagon even before that). What has happened in the past 50 or so years is that the minorities have been brought down to size(read: made to feel like they are minorities due to their numbers). The practice of Sinhalese majoritarianism has done more to ruin the island of Sri Lanka than any ” Tamil homeland” claim.
Niranjan – While I understand and comprehend what you are saying, chauvinism is present all over the world. I come from India and can assure you that virtually in every single state there is some form of chauvinism, regionalism and separatism. So, I am not surprised it is there in some parts of Srilanka as well. But, my point is this. After 30 longs years of war that is finally over, one has to look forward to peace although it is not going to be easy. Mutual suspicion and questioning the other side’s intentions are all going to be there, but things would gradually improve. That is what my optimism is all about. Alternatively, may I ask you what steps should the Government of Srilanka do to make minorities like Tamils safer in a post-LTTE situation? I am interested in your perspectives regarding this.
Huh – How exactly are SL Tamils distinct culturally and linguistically different from Indian Tamils? The fundamental differences that I see are:
1. They belong to different countries for about 60 years now. That is, Indian Tamils (Tamilians) are Indians, while SL Tamils belong to Sri lanka.
2. There are subtle differences in the way the language is spoken between these 2 Tamil communities. For example, SL Tamils speak more pure Tamil than do their Indian counterparts. In India, languages mix at such an amazing speed that purity of most languages are lost, which is probably not the case with languages in SL (Sinhala or Tamil).
May be, the Sinhala folks don’t comprehend these tiny differences, but I am not sure on what basis you say that these 2 Tamil groups are different, especially linguistically, when they speak the same language. I would like to see your response.
Dear Krish,
What you say…about these SL Tamils and TN Tamils being culturally very similar…may be true, if you are thinking only of northern tamils. But then, what about Eastern Tamils(more specifically, Batticaloa and downwards) or even the Negombo Tamils? These Tamils have cultural traditions that are from Kerala, not Tamil Nadu. Their language is, in some ways, very different from the Tamil spoken in Tamil Nadu, since many of the ” Tamil” immigrants to the East Coast were not from Tamil Nadu but Northern Kerala(read: malabar region. Although much of the population in the north has some kind of Kerala lineage, it is probably much moreso in the East). Many of their traditions and the traditions of the Tamil-speaking muslims in the area are more related to kerala rather than Tamil Nadu. Also, although this is probably not the most significant difference, the cuisine of Sri Lankan Tamils has more in common with Kerala and Sinhalese cuisine than Tamil Nadu, in some instances. You can read about this more in ” Crucible of Conflict” by Dennis McGilvray(its even on google books so you might be able to sneak a few pages in) or this article here:
http://www.lankalibrary.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2121&start=0
Dr. Nadesan
“I have been 4 time since the war ends, met many people as I could in North, East and south. Our People are optimistic lot.
It is true politician are not keeping up with the demand of people but that is all over the world.
Intellectuals and many politicians, pondering negatives are not going to help anyone.. Sri Lanka, compare to any country after war certainly doing better .
Please light the candle instead of cursing the darkness.” –
My sentiments exactly and you hit the nail on the head!!! If i may – In addition to the optimism shown by our people.. (Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, Burger etc..) the vibrancy is palpable… and you are quite right when you say “intellectuals and politicians pondering negatives are not going to help any one”… Some people cannot see the wood for the trees…therefore they focus on the negatives and exclude the positives probably because it sits well with their own preconceived notions!!! Nevertheless, the country is moving forward… but lot more to be done…and our people are resilient … as my favorite Arabian proverb goes… “dogs may bark but the caravan moves on” this is an apt description for Sri Lanka today..
Wijayapala,
Thanks for reminding me about your posts. I traveled back to UK over the last weekend; I will be on vacation till end of August. However, I read your posts; some of the questions that you posed, it seems, involving the LTTE; were designed to provoke me somewhat!
I have made it clear on numerous occasions that, I never supported the LTTE for what they were. However, once they killed off all their Tamil opponents and declared them as the sole representatives of the Tamils; it rendered those Tamils who supported for a united state solution in a big quandary. Such people, including me, wanted the LTTE to go, but at the same time feared for the security of the Tamils, if it had been vanquished completely. As it is now, the Tamils are at complete mercy of the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinistic regime. If there is no international microscope on the country, the pace of subjugation would be alarming!
I therefore think that, I am not the person whom you should ask to justify for LTTE’s actions! However, the point is that, the aspects that brought about the LTTE into prominence are still very much alive with vengeance.
I support a Common Sri Lanka identity – feel that, projecting the Sinhala and Buddhism in the constitution make such a concept a casualty!
I support a provincial based power devolution
I support both the Sinhala and Tamil as national languages nation-wide making it easier for people to live anywhere they wish.
I support promoting English as a medium for political debates eschewing ambiguity in common forums. This may be a difficult thing to achieve in the short-term but it is certainly possible in the long-term.
I would like the GOSL to pass a law to make Racism as a criminal offence; it should also stipulate as to what aspects constitute racism. Political parties should be made legally accountable for its members actions on adverse race relations.
Though I sympathize with the notion that no political party should be founded on ethnic basis, but do not support banning them. It is incumbent on the government to create conditions for peoples from all ethnic divides to rise above their ethnicity.
I take your point about the Buddhist Vihara and the business man! However, just imagine, if the business man was a Tamil, what would have been the reactions? Would the STF just protest or would swing into action?
Huh,
I think that you raised a serious point; I do believe that, the Sri Lankan Tamils are culturally and linguistically somewhat different from their TN counterparts. To start with, the Sri Lankan Tamils are more mixed; we have Sinhala, Malayalie, Telungu, Vaddha etc blood making us somewhat distinct from the Tamils around the world. This distinction was well observed throughout the period since the Indian Tamils came to work in SL plantations. It was the Sinhala Only that brought the Tamils unite!
What would happen, if the GOSL were “to acknowledge that Sri Lankan Tamils are culturally and linguistically distinct from Tamil Nadu Tamils and are unique to Sri Lanka” – I feel that, it would certainly put a wedge into the Tamil collective thinking. If it is carefully handled, it would bring the Sri Lankan Tamils closer to the Common Sri Lankan identity. If this is handled along with a right constitution, it would certainly have a very positive move towards the Sinhala/Tamil relations. However, the casualty would be the Indian origin Tamils who have been serving the country with their sweat for centuries!
Dear Huh;
I expected answers from niranjan to my queries, which were transpired from a comment made by him. You have acted on his behalf, however, have not answered main queries I raised. My primary objection to niranjan was his arbitrary branding of Sinhalese as the only root cause that prevents reconciliation process in this country being racists and chauvinists. With his god like power and authority he immunizes other communities in this country from all the sins. I questioned this prejudiced attitude. How can one conclude that Sinhalese are a pack of sinners while Tamils are a group of honorable saints? Such biased notions won’t help reconciliation but would arouse Sinhalease against it. Any reconciliation process should be based on reasonable and fair notions, not on popular and marketable ideas or on the whistle sounds from the gallery.
You say
“You bring up the destruction of the polonnaruwa/anuradhupara kingdoms as if those were actions based on race, which they were not–these things were battles between kingdoms, they had nothing to do with race or ethnicity.”
They are battles between kingdoms?
What kingdoms?
You must have forgotten where the Chola kingdom was situated. It was in India. Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms were destroyed by foreign invasions of Dravidians who came from India, there were no Dravidian kingdoms in Sri Lanka at that time. These are the myths planted by educated Tamils of this country in the innocent Tamil youths which paved to the present calamity of this country.
However, as a responsible person I think niranjan would defend his position.
Thanks!
Dear Huh;
You say
“The practice of Sinhalese majoritarianism has done more to ruin the island of Sri Lanka than any ” Tamil homeland” claim.”
I think you are trying to make people laugh!
Thanks!
I think niranjan’s intention is to become a white sheep in the herd, by painting other sheep in black.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
I meant to say rulers, not kingdoms. you mention that there were no dravidian kingdoms in sri lanka when there were invasions. So what? Even with the invasions, there were no tensions recorded between the sinhalese people and the tamil people. There were plenty of Tamil Buddhists who fled from Tamil Nadu to come to Sri Lanka to practice and study Buddhism, at the risk of seeing their religion dying off in Tamil Nadu–they came as peaceful settlers to the island and there were not tensions between the these people. And WHY are the chola invasions relevant at all to the problem faced today? It is immaterial. You are right that it would be unfair to put ALL the blame on Sinhalese politicians and sinhalese majoritarianism, but the point is this has been the root cause of the war, not the LTTE.
Huh – Your point is well-taken from the cuisine and the origins part. Yes, I have come across many folks from Eastern SL who speak a different flavour/accent of Tamil as compared to Indian Tamils. It is interesting that you raised the point about Kerala/Malabar origins of SL Tamils. From a pure linguistic standpoint, Malayalam and Tamil used to be one language about 1500 or even 1400 years ago, in both spoken and written form. But eventually, Malayalam slowly started to evolve as a differnt language, although it still is a mutually-comprehensible language of Tamil. That is, sometimes I see a Keralite and Tamilian speaking in their respective languages, while still comprehending what the other person says word for word. Coming back to Indian vs SL Tamils, while I can concede they are different culturally, I am unable understand the linguistic part of it.
Burning_Issue – This is regarding your point on how SL Tamils are more mixed than their Indian counterparts. The mixing part is equally true about Indian Tamils as well. Only difference is, Indian Tamils have not mixed with Sinhalese or Veddahs, as they are living in India. Otherwise, many Indian Tamils are a mix of Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, Tulu and what not! Also, for about 100-150 years Tamil Nadu was ruled by Telugu kingdoms, followed by Marathi kingdoms and then came the British. And during those invasions high numbers of Telugu folks moved to TamilNadu and mixed with locals. And I am not even talking about the other groups like Konkanis, Gujarathis, Marwaris, Sindhis, Punjabis, UPites, Biharis, Bengalis etc residing and mixing with Tamilians in TN. Yes, I agree with some of your distinctions but mixing part, probably not.
Dear Huh and Krish,
I encourage this interest in Tamil culture, and I entirely agree that we Sinhalese are very ignorant on this topic. Probably the first thing we have to appreciate is that the Tamils have a lot more internal diversity than we do, partially but not entirely because there are more of them and they are spread across a wider area. Actually the diversity among Jaffna Tamils alone is comparable with the diversity of all Sinhalese islandwide! So the #1 mistake we make is assuming that all Tamils are the same.
One thing I’ve found interesting is that SL Tamils generally do not know much about Tamil nadu, and vice versa (most Sinhalese would have a very hard understanding this, given the belief that TN is the “Tamil homeland”)! SL Tamils who go to TN usually spend most of their time in Madras where the language has a lot of Telugu and other influence, and then they assume that ALL Indian Tamils speak like that which is not true. The dialect spoken in southern Tamil Nadu around Madurai or Trichy can be considered “pure” Tamil (whatever that means) in that it hasn’t got mixed up too much with other languages.
SL Tamil language is not precisely “older,” it simply developed in isolation much like how Theravada Buddhism developed in SL in relative isolation. It may be somewhat closer to the older language but like SL “Theravada” Buddhism it developed new traits never found in TN. There are some words and grammatical usages which date to imperial Chola or Pandya times, but there are other things the Sri Lankans have forgotten which the Indians have kept (like the “zh” sound which Tamilnet is trying to revive as Sri Lankans usually pronounce it like “l”).
Dissecting “Sri Lankan” Tamil (meaning the dialects found in SL but not in India), we can make a basic distinction between Jaffna and Batticaloa Tamil. Both have certain pronunciation and usages which show a similarity to Malayalam (which evolved from the old western dialect of Tamil) or Coimbatore Tamil, where the ‘r’ is pronounced like ‘d’ or ‘t’ sometimes. Jaffna Tamil has a few similarities to the dialect in Thirnelveli and Ramnad in TN, but overall Batticaloa Tamil is closer to Indian Tamil than Jaffna Tamil is.
McGilvray’s book has some interesting material but unfortunately he is not a historian and does not appear to be familiar with the wider history of SL and TN. The Mahavamsa for example claims that Kalinga Magha was not Tamil but by the appellation claims that he came from Telugu-speaking land. He was also a Virasaiva which matches McGilvray’s claims of Virasaiva sects in Eastern Province. Magha’s army came from Kerala and they ruled the East from Polonnaruwa, before being driven to Jaffna. As McGilvray pointed out, the Mukkuva warrior caste found in the East is also found in Kerala, although there is also a Mukkuva (Mukkulator) family of castes in southern Tamil Nadu which had a more feudal orientation like our Mukkuvas.
Magha is important historically because he was arguably the founder of Tamil civilization in SL, even though he was not Tamil himself and did not found a dynasty. The Jaffna chronicles not only recognize this but equate him with our own Vijaya (which is a quite apt comparison, given that both had invaded SL from roughly the same part of India, although milennia apart, and Vijaya may not have been a historical person). Whereas the Mahavamsa describes Magha as a destroyer and Saiva fanatic, the Jaffna and Batticaloa chronicles bestow great honor upon him.
Dear Yapa,
You make good arguments about LTTE terrorism but then you ruin them by adding irrelevant history from ancient times and blaming the Tamil people instead of just the LTTE and its supporters:
“Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms were destroyed by foreign invasions of Dravidians who came from India, there were no Dravidian kingdoms in Sri Lanka at that time.”
Polonnaruwa was created by the Cholas as their Sri Lankan capital, and contrary to what you claim it was not “destroyed” by “Dravidians” (if you vaguely mean S. Indians in a racialist way) but rather because the Polonnaruwa civilization was overly-centralized (unlike the Anuradhapura civilization) and therefore could not be reestablished even when the Dambadeniya kings retook the city. At least this is the argument made by Profs Paranavitana and Liyanagamage.
The modern pro-devolutionists might be interested to hear that prior to Parakramabahu I, power was decentralized from Rajarata to Mayarata and Ruhuna, so whenever anybody conquered Anuradhapura there was a surviving administration somewhere else in the island that could be transplanted back to the north after the invasion was defeated. The Polonnaruwa kings did not follow this model and when they were driven to Dambadeniya by Magha, they had no backup administrative structure which was necessary to maintain the labor-intensive hydraulic civilization.
Huh is correct that the invasions in ancient times were primarily between kingdoms and not ethnic groups. There were Sinhalese who fought against Dutugemunu and Tamils who fought for Vijayabahu to drive out the Cholas. I am sure the latter would appreciate how you had forgotten them.
The LTTE cannot be compared to Cholas or Pandyas because unlike the latter the LTTE originated in Sri Lanka and all of the Tigers were born in SL (with some exceptions like Adele Balasingham). The LTTE was not an “invasion.” Also the Cholas or Pandyas did not murder anyone in the name of “Tamil homeland”; they simply were doing what Vijaya did centuries before.
Dear Huh;
I have nothing against peaceful Tamil settlers in Sri Lanka who came from India and settled down here. But it does not negate the fact that many Tamils came as invaders and engaged in acts of violence in this country. As a whole their behaviour have not been a peaceful one in this country. The damage done by them has been immense throughout the history. Non- violence has not been their mode of assimilation in this country. Still not. Demand and violence were preferred modes. Educated Tamils try to make theories to justify such behaviour. Really, Tamils have been enjoying the majority benefits of this country under colonial rulers and under the influence of huge Tamil population in Tamilnadu. This fact has been clearly visible by the the ethnic profile of the government jobs at the time we got our independence and the comparative educational benefits Tamils were enjoying in this country. This historical error should not be continued. Tamils must be prepared to get their due share, not less, not more.
Still I am awaiting niranjan’s justification.
Thanks!
Dear Huh;
You say;
“So what? Even with the invasions, there were no tensions recorded between the sinhalese people and the tamil people.”
In that case it must have been a enjoyable experience (invasion) for Sinhalese, to have their houses, temples, libraries,cultivations and kingdoms destroyed.
Do you think so, Huh.
Thanks!
Dear Burning_Issue,
“I take your point about the Buddhist Vihara and the business man! However, just imagine, if the business man was a Tamil, what would have been the reactions? Would the STF just protest or would swing into action?”
If a Tamil had the right connections, he could get away with anything. Karuna murdered 600 policemen in 1990 and now he’s a Cabinet Minister. KP who was busily trying to rebuild the LTTE right up until he was caught is now an honored guest of the Rajapakshas and has been granted the task of reconstruction, over long-time anti-LTTE activists like Anandasangaree.
As long as this sort of system exists, I’m afraid I can’t accept your surface prognosis of a “Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinistic regime.” The rot goes far deeper than that.
“Such people, including me, wanted the LTTE to go, but at the same time feared for the security of the Tamils, if it had been vanquished completely. As it is now, the Tamils are at complete mercy of the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinistic regime. If there is no international microscope on the country, the pace of subjugation would be alarming! ”
I suppose I cannot blame you too much; after all that is pretty much what many Sinhalese say about the Rajapakshas. You see Sinhalese and Tamils are very much alike!
Dear Burning Issue and Wijayapala:
Thanks! Wijyapala, you’re information is impressive. It’s funny how sooo many fellow Sinhalese people I know think that SL Tamils ally themselves with Tamil Nadu and are a threat to the ” Sinhalese” civilization. I really do think that there should be some kind of recognition–through the government–that SL Tamils are distinct from the Tamils of Tamil Nadu, in the same way that the French Canadians in Quebec are considered a distinct group from the French in France.
Dear Wijayapala,
I do not understand your argument that history is irrelevant in the present issue in Sri Lanka. I am not a person who believe present is a result of present itself and has no any relationship to past. I trust on the modern decision making tools such as trend analysis, extrapolation and interpolation etc. etc. and believe that present has a bearing on past and therefore I have no confidence on solutions made without taking the history into the account. Can you tell me the rationale behind your belief that the history should be forgotten in finding a solution to this issue? (I don’t think it is a stylish “self evident truth” as some people offer when they don’t have reasonable facts to offer but want to knock down the opposition.)
I really believe that the colonialists and the people who got undue advantage/favours from them would like to forget the past. How do you reasonably ask who suffered from them to forget it? It is good for European Americans, Canadians and Australians to forget the past of those countries and offer the natives “equality”, but do you think it has done justice to natives? Do you think the profound principles of western democracy done them the justice? What we should try to do is not to satisfy a set of man made political principles but to seek justice.
The mode of solution many Tamils expect in here has not changed much from their solution from the very inception. Their intentions in this country have been erosive to the aspirations of the Sinhalese people. Their mode of settlement here has been based on either force (invasion) or the persuasion/influence with the help of a stronger party. Dravidian invasions that brought mass destruction to the Sinhalese people throughout the history and the persuasions during the periods of Dutch and British in the history and the international pressure exerted on Sinhalese people aftermath of eelam war are examples. They do not expect things through negotiations with the Sinhalese people. Their friends always are outsiders like Dutch, British, Norwegians, Indians, South Africans and never Sinhalese. Can you sow me a few occasions Dravidians offered friendly relations to Sinhalese from the very inception their influence felt in Sri Lanka?
They will have to change this hijacking attitude towards Sinhalese. They will have to stop pinpointing Sinhalese for each and every single wrong. Though some educated Sinhalese people may form some mild theories based on a few parameters of the issue to make a hasty peace solution, Sinhalese people sense the whole and their attitude is formed accordingly, not on the intellectual theories formed on a part of parameters by Sinhalese intellectual like you with good and innocent intentions.
I like hard realities than soft cardboard houses. Despite all the good theories, Sinhalese people will not trust the Tamils until they start looking at Sinhalese with genuine intentions. Attitudes are not formed on great theories but on how people sense the particular situation. Tamils should give up wrong tactics and should settle for a negotiated settlement, with a win win situation, not with win defeat mentality.
I think I tried to be honest.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala,
I want to answer some of the misconceptions (in my view) you have stated in your post addressed to me. I understand your good intention to be nice to the Tamils who read the articles of this thread, but I think we can be more nice to them telling them the truth.
1. It may be true that Polonnaruwa could not be re-established as the capital due to the overly-centralization. But Polonnaruwa was abandoned as the capital due to the invasion and the massive destruction by Kalikga Magha. You cannot refuse that fact. If you go and see the Palace of King Parakarmabahu, you still can see the melted clay and the roof tiles fallen down after it was set fire by Magha.
Do you want to hand over the fault of abandoning of Polonnaruwa to lapses of Sinhalese administration, and give amnesty to Dravidians to be nice to Tamils?
2. You say “Huh is correct that the invasions in ancient times were primarily between kingdoms and not ethnic groups”, but I don’t understand that “Undara Demalaya”. We should not make invasions mild by saying they are “between” kingdoms. These invasions are only by Dravidians (kingdoms) not by Sinhalese kingdoms. Your (and Huh’s) expression prevent differentiating the invader and the subject. Further, I don’t under how those two kingdoms do not explicitly represent two different ethnic groups and hence your conclusion “invasions are not “between” ethnic groups”.
Such arguments are not familiar to me. (But I understand your good and innocent intention)
3. You say “There were Sinhalese who fought against Dutugemunu and Tamils who fought for Vijayabahu to drive out the Cholas. I am sure the latter would appreciate how you had forgotten them.”
There were Tamils who fought against LTTE and Sinhalese who supported the LTTE. That cannot be attributed to any good quality of those people and both parties might treat them as traitors as well, just as Tamils consider Karuna as a traitor and Sinhalese treat “Sinhala Tigers” as traitors.
4. You say “The LTTE cannot be compared to Cholas or Pandyas because unlike the latter the LTTE originated in Sri Lanka and all of the Tigers were born in SL”
In all other respects they are not different. I think that is the only difference.
5. You say “Also the Cholas or Pandyas did not murder anyone in the name of “Tamil homeland”; they simply were doing what Vijaya did centuries before.”
They might have used a different term for “Tamil homeland”, most probably a Tamil term, but I cannot understand how simply you equate Chola and Pandya invasions to what Wijaya did.
I think it is a fundamental error in decision making process when you forget the differences while looking at the similarities. I think you really know the differences between them. If you really feel you don’t know please feel free to just mention it. I will explain them in detail.
I like your being nice to Tamils, but it should not adversely affect others.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala – Thanks for your encouragement on my discussion with Huh, but I am not sure how much should the linguist differences hijack a thread on reconciliation in SL. Besides, this is a SL forum exclusively for Srilankan issues and I am from India. I guess I should limit myself. Few minor observations before that. The Tamil spoken in Madurai (not Trichy) is usually claimed to be pure, although there is no real logic attached to it. None of the spoken forms in Tamil Nadu is closer to written Tamil (Malayalam is just the same in written and spoken forms for example). You are also right about how SL Tamil developed in isolation and very brilliantly mentioned Telugu. When neighbouring Andhra Pradesh was formed as a separate homeland for Telugu speaking folks in 1956, one of their demands was Madras (Chennai) be a part of the new state due to Telugu majority in Madras at that time. That said, your knowledge of Tamil folks and language is just amazing. All that I can I know about Sinhala language is a few lines that I can speak that I can probably use if I ever visited SL. Needless to say, it would be great to visit your wonderful country for its beauty and wonderful people. Your tone of arguments in an inclusive manner, let alone your knowledge is very humbling.
By the way, I am saddened to learn that the SL Govt. headed by Mahinda Rajapkase would go to bed with Karuna and KP, but not with anti-LTTE folks like Anandasangaree.
Hi Yapa
“I understand your good intention to be nice to the Tamils who read the articles of this thread, but I think we can be more nice to them telling them the truth.”
I do not think that Belle or Prof Heshan would say I am “nice” to Tamils. Maybe even Burning_Issue would not say the same either. I have tried to be honest with them just as I’m being honest with you.
“They will have to change this hijacking attitude towards Sinhalese. They will have to stop pinpointing Sinhalese for each and every single wrong.”
Do you think it is ok for us to pinpoint Tamils for each and every single wrong?
I think the difference between you and me is that I am not afraid of Tamils whereas you give the impression that you are frightened. I am not really bothered if Tamils talk rubbish about me or Sinhalese in general (although it is highly important to listen when they explain how they’ve suffered at the hands of Sinhalese). Whatever happened a gazillion years ago, Tamils today hardly pose any kind of threat to Sinhalese. So I criticize Sinhalese who have an irrational paranoid fear of Tamils.
“I do not understand your argument that history is irrelevant in the present issue in Sri Lanka.”
I am not saying that history in general is irrelevant; the history of the last 200 years and especially the last 60 years are highly relevant and must be explored thoroughly. My problem is with people trying to apply events that took place literally THOUSANDS of years ago to the present. Things are simply too different.
“Can you sow me a few occasions Dravidians offered friendly relations to Sinhalese from the very inception their influence felt in Sri Lanka?”
1) Vijaya and his 700 supporters receiving “Dravidian” wives from Madurai.
2) King Gajabahu’s friendship with “Dravidian” King Senguttuvancheran.
3) “Dravidian” merchants making donations to viharas in early Anuradhapura era as proven by inscriptions.
4) “Dravidian” hamudurus Buddhaghosha and Dhammapala translating Sinhala commentaries into Pali, and “Dravidian” Kanchipuram serving as a center of Buddhism.
5) First Sinhala grammar Sadat Sangarava was probably inspired by the “Dravidian” Buddhist text Viracoliyam.
“But Polonnaruwa was abandoned as the capital due to the invasion and the massive destruction by Kalikga Magha. You cannot refuse that fact. If you go and see the Palace of King Parakarmabahu, you still can see the melted clay and the roof tiles fallen down after it was set fire by Magha.”
You seem to have ignored my point that Polonnaruwa itself was built by the “Dravidians.” Should we blame them for destroying Polonnaruwa without giving them credit for building it in the first place?
“Do you want to hand over the fault of abandoning of Polonnaruwa to lapses of Sinhalese administration, and give amnesty to Dravidians to be nice to Tamils?”
It is not the simple abandoning of Polonnaruwa but the entire collapse of Rajarata that can be blamed on “Sinhalese” administration (more like the administration of the Polonnaruwa kings as the Anuradhapura kings ensured the survival of Rajarata for 15 centuries even after being defeated by invaders).
“Further, I don’t under how those two kingdoms do not explicitly represent two different ethnic groups and hence your conclusion “invasions are not “between” ethnic groups”.”
When the Cholas and Pandyans conquered SL, they did not wipe out the Sinhala population because their wars were not against the Sinhala people. That would have been an “ethnic” war similar to how the recent war was fought.
The only Tamil king I could really compare to Prabakaran would probably be Sankili who also persecuted Tamil Catholics in Mannar.
3. You say “There were Sinhalese who fought against Dutugemunu and Tamils who fought for Vijayabahu to drive out the Cholas. I am sure the latter would appreciate how you had forgotten them.”
“There were Tamils who fought against LTTE and Sinhalese who supported the LTTE.’
If there were pro-LTTE Sinhalese, then why are you blaming the Tamils for everything?
I can’t think of a single Tamil ally of any of the ancient Sinhala kings who received the position after murdering 600 of the king’s supporters in cold blood. Can you?
4. You say “The LTTE cannot be compared to Cholas or Pandyas because unlike the latter the LTTE originated in Sri Lanka and all of the Tigers were born in SL”
“In all other respects they are not different. I think that is the only difference.”
Other than speaking the same language and using tiger as symbol, could you kindly explain using FACTS the similarities between ancient Cholas/Pandyas and the LTTE?
Which Chola/Pandya king attacked Buddhist pilgrims at the Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura?
5. You say “Also the Cholas or Pandyas did not murder anyone in the name of “Tamil homeland”; they simply were doing what Vijaya did centuries before.”
“They might have used a different term for “Tamil homeland”, most probably a Tamil term, but I cannot understand how simply you equate Chola and Pandya invasions to what Wijaya did.”
I am not interested at all in what the Cholas/Pandyans might have done or the terms that they probably have used- our current discussion involves HISTORY *not speculation or fantasy-thinking.* (I too like hard realities than soft cardboard houses). If you have evidence that the Cholas or Pandyans were Tamil ethno-nationalists then you have to present it.
I admit it is difficult to discuss Vijaya because he may not have been even a real person. However, he is somewhat comparable to “Dravidian” invaders because he literally INVADED SL and destroyed the preexisting Yakkha civilization, according to the Mahavamsa (although the Cholas/Pandyas obviously did not destroy Sinhala civilization). Sinhala folk/village tradition is actually much harder on Vijaya, basically labeling him a coward and genocidal murderer while depicting the Yakkhas as innocent victims.
If you really insist that King Dutugemunu’s efforts are relevant for today, then please answer the following questions:
1) How come Dutugemunu did not have the same jumbo Cabinet and countless “advisers” that King Mahinda has today.
2) Whom among Dutugemunu’s 10 warriors could be best compared to Mervyn Silva or Duminda Silva.
3) How were Sinhalese and Tamils able to communicate with each other back then when they cannot speak each other’s languages today.
4) How come hamudurus back then did not become legislators the way that JHU does today.
5) Who in Dutugemunu’s time held a fake hunger strike to tell the UN/intl community to get lost.
Krish,
I did not realize you are Indian. Welcome to this Sri Lankan forum.
“Thanks for your encouragement on my discussion with Huh, but I am not sure how much should the linguist differences hijack a thread on reconciliation in SL.”
It is relevant because the main barrier to reconciliation is ignorance. It is difficult for me to explain the ignorance in Sinhala minds because you are not Sinhala, and many non-Sinhalese make a major mistake in *assuming* that Sinhalese know what they know.
One example of this ignorance is the lack of knowledge of Tamil language. As I hinted to yapa, there is some evidence that Sinhala people in precolonial times had more knowledge of Tamil language than modern Sinhalese who only know their own language. This lack of knowledge contributes to the false notion that all the Tamils are the same and they’re organized into a vast anti-Sinhala conspiracy. See to you this might seem utterly ridiculous (and it is) but this is how many Sinhala people think unfortunately.
“When neighbouring Andhra Pradesh was formed as a separate homeland for Telugu speaking folks in 1956, one of their demands was Madras (Chennai) be a part of the new state due to Telugu majority in Madras at that time.”
Yes, and the Andhraites were placated after they received Tirupati. Many of the great Tamil nationalists in India did not have Tamil origins. Even that clown V. Gopalasamy’s ancestry is from Andhra Pradesh (unfortunately for AP). I heard a rumor that Karunanidhi’s origins are also Telugu but his wife Dayalu Ammal’s name is definitely not Tamil.
We have a similar phenomenon. Some of the worst anti-Tamil racists had Tamil or S. Indian origins.
“By the way, I am saddened to learn that the SL Govt. headed by Mahinda Rajapkase would go to bed with Karuna and KP, but not with anti-LTTE folks like Anandasangaree.”
Well you also have to consider that Anandasangaree won very few votes in the last election; the TNA got more votes than anyone else and the Rajapakshas have used the TNA’s pro-LTTE history as an excuse not to work with them. Mahinda is not genuinely angry with the TNA (otherwise he would have worked much closer with anti-TNA Sangaree) but it’s all a gimmick to do nothing.
If Anandasangaree had won more votes, it may have been harder for the Rajapakshas to ignore him. I see Sangaree as the only leader who had a chance of bringing about Sinhala-Tamil reconciliation.
Dear Vijayapala,
“As long as this sort of system exists, I’m afraid I can’t accept your surface prognosis of a “Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinistic regime.” The rot goes far deeper than that.”
I have read in one of the articles written by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke, not sure whether it appeared might have been on these forums or I read it on Lanka Daily Mirror, where he was arguing that the likes of Douglas D and Karuna need to be well looked after as without their assistance it would have been harder to defeat the LTTE. Since KP is now assisting the MR regime countering the International Network of the LTTE, it is conceivable to conclude that he is being looked after! Yes, Karuna killed 600 policemen; counter justification that I hear from the Sinhala is that, he was just following orders. Since, he switched sides and has been helping the regime; he has managed to save far more deaths in the long-run. How do you counter this argument? So, my assessment about the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinistic regime is unflustered.
However, it is highly probable that, MR himself not a Chauvinists, but he knows that, maintaining his regime is very much dependent on nurturing the Sinhala Buddhist fear-psychosis thus he projects him as their survivor and he will keep the Demilas at their place! If my assessment is deemed as surface prognosis, I am afraid many academics, Sri Lankans and foreigners alike, have got it wrong!
Dear Vijayapala,
You said to Yapa:
“I do not think that Belle or Prof Heshan would say I am “nice” to Tamils. Maybe even Burning_Issue would not say the same either. I have tried to be honest with them just as I’m being honest with you.”
I tell you on record; you are the first Sinhala I have ever debated with, who places the Sri Lankan history in true perspective. I am not a historian but apply common sense when people talk about events that took place in many millennia ago. Unless, people support their historical claims with archaeological evidences to substantiate, there will be no basis for their claims. It is indisputable that one cannot put Timescale to the Tamil/Sinhala presence in Sri Lanka but not one group can claim exclusivity to section/s or to the whole country.
My beef with you is on the point of the Constitution; I strongly believe that projecting Sinhala Buddhism on the Constitution has far reaching consequences and it seriously impediments the quest of fashioning a common Sri Lankan identity. You on the other hand argue that it does not; you seem to support a situation where the Sinhala Buddhists can be educated to treat the other as equal while maintaining the status-qua.
Please tell me if the Sinhala are not Dravidians, who are they?
Dear Burning_Issue
“However, it is highly probable that, MR himself not a Chauvinists, but he knows that, maintaining his regime is very much dependent on nurturing the Sinhala Buddhist fear-psychosis thus he projects him as their survivor and he will keep the Demilas at their place!”
Although I agree with the fear-psychosis part I don’t see how it’s specifically a “Sinhala Buddhist” fear-psychosis. And I don’t see how it will work in the long run when there aren’t anymore suicide bombings.
“If my assessment is deemed as surface prognosis, I am afraid many academics, Sri Lankans and foreigners alike, have got it wrong!”
The same academics who said that the LTTE could never be defeated?
“you seem to support a situation where the Sinhala Buddhists can be educated to treat the other as equal while maintaining the status-qua. ”
Well I have to admit the possibility that we’re too stupid to be educated in this way, which in that case I don’t think changing the constitution would help anything. Stupidity can defeat even the best-designed system.
Well for what it’s worth, I have absolutely no beef with you at all, and actually I feel privileged that I met you here.
“Please tell me if the Sinhala are not Dravidians, who are they?”
Ok first of all there’s a big problem with this term “Dravidian.” It is a language family not an ethnic or racial group. I can understand misguided Sinhalese using this term to describe non-Sinhala brown people but not you!
Dear Wijayapala – Another array of amazingly informative posts from you. What impresses me the most is your neutrality and depth of knowledge. It is such a pleasure to read your posts.
Coming to your points on knowledge of Sinhalese folks about Tamils in modern times, I guess that applies equally to Tamilians of India as well. For example, most people in Tamil Nadu still don’t have a good idea about Sinhala language or culture or Theravada Buddhism, let alone knowing who Veddahs are. So, this lack of knowledge is there everywhere. From Srilanka’s side, the war has contributed to a great extent for people from different regions getting along with one another. That proabaly contritutes to lack of understanding of other’s culture. Tomorrow, if TamilNadu and AP were to go to war with one another, people might be seggregated along linguistic lines I guess. On a related note, one prominently missing feature of India’s multi-lingual spectrum is sadly the absence of a language like Sinhala within its borders. You see India has a huge chunk of Bangla speaking folks, Urdu speaking Muslims, Nepalis in North/NE parts. With most of it’s neighbours India has got a common language except Srilanka. Hopefully, in the future Indians get to know more about Sinhala as a language and also the Theravada Buddhism as practised in SL more in depth.
I also agree with your responses to yapa and Burning_Issue. They tend to look at it from one perspective, not from the other side. Such viewpoints are not bad by themselves, but don’t contribute much to a debate, especially for reconciliatory purposes and finding common grounds.
About the origins of politicians from Tamil Nadu, yes, Vaiko (V. Gopalaswamy) has always been an open supporter of LTTE and is basically of Telugu origin. Ofcourse, there are politicians like Ramadoss, Thirumavalavan etc who are proper Tamilians who have openly supported LTTE. Karunanidhi is rumoured to be a Teluguite, although not sure about the proof. Well, MG Ramachandran was born in Kandy and was a Keralite. Jayalalitha has her roots in Karnataka state. So, a big chunk of politicians in TN are not Tamils themselves by origin. Ofcourse, in TN they also have this debate as to whether Brahmins are Aryans or Dravidians. And many such funny things.
By the way, I always considered Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe to be the most liberal and centrist of all SL politicians. Is he that popular anymore? He seemed to be less polarizing of all SL leaders in recent times.
Dear Burning_Issue;
You say;
“Please tell me if the Sinhala are not Dravidians, who are they?”
You must have heard the story of the “King’s Clothe”., which is known among Sinhalese as “seethambara Pataya”. In that story all the wives, ministers and noble men of the king’s court appreciated the beauty and the all the good and fine qualities embedded in the king’s new cloth. But only a small child among the crowd was able to identify that really there was no clothe at all and the king was walking around among the people, naked.
When people are used to serious things, usually they loss the sense of simple things. Sinhala folk has a saying for that, Pandithayata e-dande yanna berilu”. (please get this translated)
Do you want to understand the difference between Sinhala and Tamils? There is a simple criterion even a simpleton can utilize. If you really cannot think of one, please tell me, I will let you know.
Dear Burning_Issue, We should find solutions not by not rejecting hard realities, but by accepting them and making attempts to bridge them. Really there are two different ethnicity known as as Sinhalese and Tamils, it is a reality not a myth. Existence of differences are not a big obstacle in find solutions, but neglecting such realities is a big barrier. It is like ostriche’s rejecting the cyclone after hiding his head under sand. This very act might bring the end to the ostrich, if the intensity of the cyclone is high enough.
Dear Burning_Issue, we must build our houses on hard realities, not on soft quick sand. We must bravely face realities.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
“Do you want to understand the difference between Sinhala and Tamils? There is a simple criterion even a simpleton can utilize. If you really cannot think of one, please tell me, I will let you know.”
Very interesting indeed! My question to Wijayapala was about Dravidian’s’ historic connotations in terms of how peoples of Sri Lanka evolved to its present stage; it is not just about simple differences that you refer to. When people speak a language as their mother language does not necessarily mean that they belong to a particular racial stock!
“Dear Burning_Issue, we must build our houses on hard realities, not on soft quick sand. We must bravely face realities.”
Sure; I am with you on this! Lets analysis as to what are the realities first. You will need to do this without being nice to me, a Tamil from Jaffna!
Dear Wijayapala,
“Although I agree with the fear-psychosis part I don’t see how it’s specifically a “Sinhala Buddhist” fear-psychosis. And I don’t see how it will work in the long run when there aren’t anymore suicide bombings.”
I am afraid that it has been working ever since the independence; pandering to the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has always worked. One marked deference that I see now is that, RW has not opted to pandering to that Phenomenon even after losing 4 elections and at being pressured to vacate his position. I hope that, it will instil a positive trend towards better politics in the future.
“The same academics who said that the LTTE could never be defeated?”
Do you think that, it would have been possible to defeat the LTTE by observing the International norms that the academics would have expected the GOSL to adhere to? It was only possible that GOSL conducted itself as if they were an unelected body unscrupulously prosecuting the war to its bitter conclusion. Certainly, the absence of the LTTE has created a golden opportunity to build a just nation; but the question is that, whether the human catastrophe is justifiable in the Sri Lankan context or in the Sinhala Buddhist hegemonic perspective; only time will tell as to how the things will pan out. If Sri Lanka is blessed with the likes of Wijayapalas, SomewhatDisgusted, Balangodaman, Offthecuff etc, the end will justify the means, but I doubt that Sri Lanka would emerge as a nation of Sri Lankans!
“Well I have to admit the possibility that we’re too stupid to be educated in this way, which in that case I don’t think changing the constitution would help anything. Stupidity can defeat even the best-designed system.”
A secular constitution would send a serious intend on the part of the GOSL that it is promoting a Common Sri Lankan Identity. This would be the thing that would galvanise all as true Sri Lankans; please make no mistake about it.
It is a privilege to meet you too; hopefully, one day we will meet in person.
Burning_Issue,
“Do you think that, it would have been possible to defeat the LTTE by observing the International norms that the academics would have expected the GOSL to adhere to?”
Super response!
Belle,
Your conceding that International norms were exceeded to defeat the LTTE by it self is the critical point. The norms were set for a purpose – that civility, fairness and long-term prospects should not be undermined, even when confronted with the need to eliminate terror, evil or what-have-you.
Thus, we need to asses if we actually threw the “baby with the bath water” – in getting rid of LTTE, has the country also lost it’s long cherished civility, the enviable democracy, and the fundamental protection of human rights, not only for the minority, but even for the majority.
Do any of the following give you a hint as to which direction we are headed: 70% budget within a single family control; raw-newcomer off-spring has absolute control across-board, never mind the seniority and maturity of decades-long politicians; Government official gets tied to a tree in a punishment reflective of tribal or aboriginal practices; Defense Secretary orders Police as to who they can and cannot protect; the entire Western world that we looked up to has turned unequivocally critical of our behavior and we are choosing to bed with countries that we have shunned in the past for their lack of civility. These are just a few of the most recent developments. You have any concerns?
Krish,
“By the way, I always considered Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe to be the most liberal and centrist of all SL politicians. Is he that popular anymore?”
Ranil is probably one of the worst SL leaders of all time (although the absolute worst was his uncle Pres. JR Jayawardene). SL is currently in a quasi-monarchy because there is no effective opposition. There is no effective opposition because Ranil is in charge and won’t let go. Nobody will ever support the UNP because Ranil is perceived as selling the country out to the LTTE.
Ranil is hardly a liberal although he’s very good at giving that impression. He was in Uncle JR’s Cabinet in 1983 and probably played a role in the massacre of Tamils. In the 1990s he undermined Chandrika’s efforts to implement devolution twice. I never understood how the Tamils have been able to overlook these things.
“On a related note, one prominently missing feature of India’s multi-lingual spectrum is sadly the absence of a language like Sinhala within its borders.”
It is precisely this factor that is the core of Sinhala nationalism- that you cannot really find anything Sinhala outside of SL.
“I also agree with your responses to yapa and Burning_Issue. They tend to look at it from one perspective, not from the other side.”
Actually Burning_Issue is a great person to have a discussion with. He is a very good listener and above he demonstrated that he understands my views while disagreeing with them. What is so bad about that?
Hi Burning Issue,
“I am afraid that it has been working ever since the independence; pandering to the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has always worked.”
Not in 1994-5 when Chandrika was elected. Not in 2001 when Ranil was elected. In both cases the LTTE took advantage of them and discredited them. There should be no surprise that the people elected Mahinda.
How did Tamil politics work since independence? Was it any different?
“One marked deference that I see now is that, RW has not opted to pandering to that Phenomenon even after losing 4 elections and at being pressured to vacate his position. I hope that, it will instil a positive trend towards better politics in the future.”
I hardly think so. Ranil’s refusal to step down despite being a perpetual loser means that there will be no effective opposition in SL. That means Mahinda will remain “King.”
“Do you think that, it would have been possible to defeat the LTTE by observing the International norms that the academics would have expected the GOSL to adhere to?”
As I recall, the academic types never came up with a single way of dealing with the LTTE to end the conflict. They had their golden opportunity from 2002 to 2004. What happened??
Are you really surprised given how things turned out that the electorate rejected the “smart” academics in favor of the “idiot” Rajapakshas who finished the task that they could not???
Earlier I said Sinhala mentality of supporting Rajapakshas isn’t very different from the Tamil mentality of supporting Prabakaran. Maybe one day we will rue the day that Mahinda was elected the way things turn out. But there is one important difference between Mahinda and Prabakaran: Mahinda delivered on his promise of killing Prabakaran and ending the war, while Prabakaran only got killed and accomplished NOTHING for the Tamils after such a long conflict. That is why I have little patience for talk that the LTTE was protecting the Tamils from Sinhala hegemony- obviously it failed completely!
“but the question is that, whether the human catastrophe is justifiable in the Sri Lankan context or in the Sinhala Buddhist hegemonic perspective; only time will tell as to how the things will pan out.”
I agree that it may be too early to tell, but the way I see it the human catastrophe was inevitable as long as the LTTE was around. It would have happened in May 2009 or 20 years later with Tamil society further ruined by continued war. If you disagree then please tell me what was the other way out.
Over the last 25 years, Sinhala hegemonism was defeated not once but TWICE: in 1987 when the Indians halted Operation Liberation, and in 2002 when Ranil signed the CFA. So how/why did the war continue??
“A secular constitution would send a serious intend on the part of the GOSL that it is promoting a Common Sri Lankan Identity. This would be the thing that would galvanise all as true Sri Lankans”
What is a “true Sri Lankan?”
Another thing Burning Issue, see how yapa responded to you but ignored me??? Clearly he has a much higher regard for your opinions than mine despite this Sinhala hegemony. So what are you complaining about.
“Do you think that, it would have been possible to defeat the LTTE by observing the International norms that the academics would have expected the GOSL to adhere to?”
The norms you refer to are the Geneva Conventions, of which S. Lanka is a signatory. So one could argue that in breaching the norms, S. Lanka violated its own contractual obligations. However, there is a more subtle point. Could it be the case that S. Lanka was simply not militarily capable of taking on the LTTE, while simultaneously abiding by the GC? Ask yourself, why does NATO, for example, not arbitrarily attack and occupy hospitals and schools in Afghanistan? Keep in mind that Gothabaya is on record for saying even hospitals are valid targets, as per UTHR and other sources. In fact, when you compare the NATO invasion/occupation of Afghanistan with the SL war, the differences between a modernized army (e.g. European nations which have sent troops to NATO) and a relatively primitive one (Sri Lankan Army) abound. I don’t want to go into detail, but let me point out three major things: (I) Al-Qaeda/Taliban is a better financed, better trained, better equipped guerilla group than the LTTE, (II) the terrain of Afghanistan/Pakistan is much more complicated than that of SL, and (III) the geopolitics involved in the Afghan conflict are more complicated than that of the SL one. Despite all three of these e things, we find the following to also be true: NATO has suffered few casualties, NATO does not rely on draconian “emergency regulation/PTA” type laws to terrorize the population into submission (or else by randomly shelling them such as was common during the final phases of the SL war), NATO troops do not enjoy the privilege of judicial immunity, NATO does not try to cover-up/deny extrajudicial killings by its members but actually investigates them, and NATO is able to secure its bases with ease (remember the Elephant Pass, Kilinochi, and Mullaithivu debacles?).
Let’s face it: SL is a poor country that simply threw all its resources into the war at the last minute and by sheer force extracted a favorable outcome. NATO forces, with their arsenal of far superior weapons, could do this too. But there is a methodology to modern warfare. I am no expert, but one of the rules must be to minimize casualties on your side. Now, for political expediency, it is also important to minimize civilian casualties on the opposing side. It can be statistically proved that most of the civilians who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by Muslim militants. So you have to admit that the Western nations have done a fairly good job of sticking to the two rules I just mentioned. But all of this comes back to capability… the better the technology you have, the easier it is to train your soldiers and stick to the two rules. The USA destroyed Saddam’s army through the air….whereas in SL, whatever the local media may have told you/kept hidden from you, the SLA suffered heavy casualties right to the end.
*It can be statistically proven
Dear wijayapala;
“Another thing Burning Issue, see how yapa responded to you but ignored me??? Clearly he has a much higher regard for your opinions than mine despite this Sinhala hegemony. So what are you complaining about.”
Frankly speaking I have nothing against Tamils in this country and I know most of the Tamil people I have met are gentlemen than I should say than most of the Sinhalese. They are more dedicated, hardworking and down to earth people. I like their ways and I have never hurt their feelings in personal. I like them rather I love them and they love me too. If they come know that these comments in the forum are of mine I think they will not believe their eyes.
Really what I don’t like is not Tamils. I like them, I respect them and appreciate their contribution to this country too. But I cannot tolerate their extremist ideology formed recently with the view to break this country. I never tolerate it even with all the good qualities of the Tamils. Though I love them in personal basis, I hate them as a whole until they shed that destructive attitude.
I am not inhuman. I love humans, but believe that others too should love humans and it should be bubbling love.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
Good comment saying you have Tamil friends you love. There is honesty in your comment which I much respect.
But have you ever wondered how these people whom you love, get along well with, hardworking gentlemen in your assessment, who also love you in return, got into their thick skulls this extremist ideology of separating the country? Sure, part of it is brain-washing, part of it is just criminal intent and a lot of it came from meddling foreing policy of the Indian government, but isn’t our post-independence political establishment also a wee bit guilty of offering fertile ground for the rise of this separatist call?
If we loved these people, should we not find civilized ways — within our political process — of persuading them to change their views and be part of a united Sri Lanka in which everyone has a chance of being a good guy (with the exception perhaps of the chap who tied the government official to a tree)? Or should we opt for efficient ways of sending these Tamil gentlemen you love away from here — Heaven/Hell/Toronto/India?
Yapa,
You say that you find Tamils to be “gentlemen”, “dedicated, ” “hardworking”, “down to earth” and that they have “good qualities”, but you hate their “extremist ideology”. This sounds contradictory to me. If they hold an “extremist” ideology, how can they be considered to be nice people (as you claim)? Isn’t there a relationship between a person’s character and the type of ideologies they hold? I understand “extremist” ideologies to mean that one has ideas that may involve violence or harm to others. So how can one be a “gentleman” and hold such ideologies?
Either you are not sincere in saying they are nice, or they really have the good qualities you highlighted but their ideology is not “extremist” as you think.
Or maybe you need to figure out what factors make such nice people (according to you) take up such an “extremist” ideology.
Dear Travelling Academic;
“But have you ever wondered how these people whom you love, get along well with, hardworking gentlemen in your assessment, who also love you in return, got into their thick skulls this extremist ideology of separating the country? Sure, part of it is brain-washing, part of it is just criminal intent and a lot of it came from meddling foreing policy of the Indian government, but isn’t our post-independence political establishment also a wee bit guilty of offering fertile ground for the rise of this separatist call?”
Above comment of yours I think represents almost the totality of my opinion about this issue. Both parties are not without faults and not without merits. According to my belief what we should now do is finding a way to analyze our own faults and appreciate the merits of the other party, and not the other way round. We should formulate our strategies keeping that in mind with loving kindness towards the other party. At present the scenario is not that. We are engaged in strategies of hatred by shrewdly fabricating stories to undermine each other. I am also in that flow as I feel there must be some people to counter such fabricated lies about us and hence engaged in the same process that the other party is doing. If this is going to continue, there will not be an end to this. All of us in the both parties can continue this “game” forever not letting others to win, ultimately having no winner. I also cannot come out of it, I think because finding faults of others generate hatred and hatred regenerate hatred. Therefore I think rather than improving our hatred making skills, such as writing “marvelous articles” against others, we should try to improve our honesty, genuineness, kindness towards each other even in a simple place like this forum. We all should not spend our energies to fabricate, highlight, dig out,create, generate faults of others, really the opposite is the order of the day in these forums with our mighty contributions. We must have a liking to put off this kindling fire. We should start it from our hearts. We also must understand that there must be two hands to clap and must be more focused on our responsibilities than our rights. We must be true in our hearts and must be prepared to give up some of our comforts/privileges/rights for others.
I think any good initiative should start from the heart, from the “both sides of the heart”.
I am also looking for an opportunity to shed these unnecessary differences.
Thanks!
Dear Belle,
That is the unfortunate truth. These hard working, dedicated, down to earth gentlemen are also suffering from that ailment. A group is not the sum total of individuals, that may be another reason. A collection of good individuals does not necessarily make a “good group”. Group mentality is not necessarily equal to the individual mentality, and in this issue individuals are directed by that perverted group mentality of good individuals. I think that solves your contradiction. You, and I can be cited as good examples in this regard. Isn’t that so, Belle?
I further think that this ideology is dropped from the sky and not naturally born among us. But still we love it and quarrels with each other to own this fantastic ideology.
Aren’t we a herd of birds in the net of a hunter?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Wijayapala – Wonderful posts again! My knowledge about SL is very poor, which is perhaps why my impression was (and probably is still) high about Ranil. Anyways, I agree with you on how LTTE’s presence has put so much backwards for everyone, primarily Tamils. A terrorist organization that would not disarm, would not seriously negotiate and would not avoid holding people hostages has put SL Govt. also in an inevitable war mode. 2002 provided the last and golden opportunity for LTTE, which Prabkaran arrogantly dismissed. Indeed it is so sad that a terrorist group became the sole representative of it’s ethnic group after eliminating all moderates. Still don’t understand how Tamil people ended up supporting LTTE to the extent they did! But anyways….
I am interested in your perspectives on this:
Were there any Tamil leaders during the time of LTTE (or even before all the way back to 1940s) that were against partitioning the country. In another words, weren’t there any Tamil leaders that were Nationalist in nature towards Srilanka? I am looking at folks like Lakshman Kadirgamar for instance.
Yapa,
“I like them, I respect them and appreciate their contribution to this country too. But I cannot tolerate their extremist ideology formed recently with the view to break this country. I never tolerate it even with all the good qualities of the Tamils. Though I love them in personal basis, I hate them as a whole until they shed that destructive attitude.”
Interesting, the Tamils have a very similar view of us!
Yapa,
I have heard that the whole can be more the sum total of its parts, but can it be less than its parts and betray its own nature/character? A number of gentlemen cannot come together and become ungentlemanly in the process unless something or someone ungentlemanly has invaded them from the outside. Ideologies don’t drop down from the skies–they are a response to circumstances and needs.
If an individual has been taken over by a certain (ungentlemanly or extremist) group mentality, then he would have been transformed so that even as an individual, he will now be ungentlemanly or extremist–no longer what he was before. Otherwise he would be a split personality! Are you saying that Tamils are a bunch of schizophrenics?
l remain perplexed at how these Tamils that you know can subscribe to an extremist ideology while still remaining nice individuals. Either you are wrong in taking them to be gentlemen or you are wrong in saying that they subscribe to an “extremist” ideology.
Krish,
“Were there any Tamil leaders during the time of LTTE (or even before all the way back to 1940s) that were against partitioning the country. In another words, weren’t there any Tamil leaders that were Nationalist in nature towards Srilanka? I am looking at folks like Lakshman Kadirgamar for instance.”
With a few exceptions, there weren’t any Tamil leaders who openly advocated separatism until the mid-1970s, although the Federal Party was perceived by the Sinhalese to be a crypto-secessionist party. By the time the war started in 1983, it was virtually impossible for a Tamil leader to disavow separatism, although it is believed now (in hindsight) that all of the non-LTTE groups were willing to settle for less than separation.
Perhaps from the Tamil perspective “Nationalist” necessarily meant supporting something like federalism in lieu of separatism after the war began. In this sense one could argue that Neelan Thiruchelvam was a “nationalist” as well as Anandasangaree, although Neelan paid for it with his life.
Prof Heshan, in your mind-boggling treatise above you did not answer one simple question: if SL beat the LTTE while NATO is losing in Afghanistan, why should NATO be the model for SL?
Dear Yapa:
But I cannot tolerate their extremist ideology formed recently with the view to break this country.
I would like to know what you mean by “country”? Is it the “country” created by the British? Or the “country” mentioned only in Mahavamsa? And can you prove that your father’s father or great-grandfather, ever lived in the North of the island? In my opinion, we should not form an opinion of people based on fairy tales. If they have lived on some land for 1000-2000 years, then why fight them for the land? Thanks.
Wijayapala, I was thinking of Neelan Thiruchelvam for his efforts at the height of LTTE’s power in the mid-nineties to negotiate with Chandrika Kumarathunga. Wasn’t R Sampanthan his party deputy or something when Neelan Thiruchelvam was killed in 1999? I guess Sampanthan moved from TULF to TNA alongwith Anandasangaree, but when TNA recognized LTTE as the only representative of Tamil people still continued with TNA. That is why I like Anandasangaree and suspect Sampanthan’s motives. That is one of the worst things LTTE brought to Tamil people, which is, killing any alternative voice from Tamil side particularly the non-violent ones. The way they went about killing moderates like Amirthalingam, Neelan, Kadirgamar etc. was really annoying. And then ofcourse, their killing of Premadasa, Rajiv Gandhi, Gamini Dissanayake etc etc. I still wonder why India and Sri lanka didn’t do much to eliminate LTTE much earlier.
In any case, other than Anandasangaree, are there any leaders that you know of who are nationalistic in their approach from the Tamil side? I am talking about folks who are alive this time. Don’t know what kind of leaders KP and Karuna would be who have such historical criminal/terrorist records/linkage. What do you think?
Dear Belle,
I like your direct and to the point questioning. It drives things to the hard rock to lay foundation on a solid ground.
Anyway before answering your conclusion(s) posed to me as questions I would like to look at the premise of yours from where your hard questioning springs out.
Concisely your premise:
“I have heard that the whole can be more the sum total of its parts, but can it be less than its parts and betray its own nature/character?”
Can the whole be less than its parts?
My answer, Yes;
It can either be less, more or equal.
You know, 2+3= 5. In this case everybody can understand that whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Not only for numbers, this is true for all “Scalar Quantities” in Mathematics and Science. Volume is a scalar quantity and when your pour three pints of water to two points of water you get five pints of water. However, this not always true for “Vector Quantities”. Velocity is a vector quantity and when the velocity of 3 metres per second is added to 2 metres per second, the whole (=total=resultant) is many of the times is not equal to 5 metres per second. It has many less answers, one equal answer and one answer equals to zero. In this case the whole is always less than or equal to the sum of its parts.
I can explain this with an anecdote too. Look at this situation.
If one woman can weave 3 mats in a day, how many mats can two women weave in a nday when they work together?
Mathematical answer is 6 and a Management expert would argue that it would be more than 6 on the basis of “synergy” created through team work.
But there is also a simpleton answer given by people like us. We are used to say “none”.
You know why, when two women get together, we say, they won’t work, but gossip through out the day keeping all their work aside.
Doesn’t this funny story convey that message across? I think it does. It really shows that that the law is even true, out side the Mathematical domains.
Again when the whole is more, there is no dispute among us, right?
Therefore, I think you will accept that your premise is not a universally true one and hence it does not always gives rise to true conclusions, even with most subtle arguments. Therefore, even in the meaning given by you to “more” and “less” even within this context, there can be many exceptions to your conclusion(s) mentioned above.
I will try to explain.
Your notions:
(1) “Tamils can not subscribe to an extremist ideology while still remaining nice individuals.”
(2). Ideologies don’t drop down from the skies–they are a response to circumstances and needs.
But look at following statement of yours. In this you accepts the opposite of both above. Please see carefully.
” A number of gentlemen cannot come together and become ungentlemanly in the process unless (1) – something or someone ungentlemanly has invaded them from the outside (2).
Here you say that there are possibilities for gentlemen becoming ngentlemanly (1). and ideologies (something or someone) could be dropped (invaded) from the skies (outside) (2).
Really unconscious mind of yours has overtaken the notions of your conscious mind. Please give a chance to your unconscious mind once in a while to determine to shape your thinking. Some times it tells the truths we don’t know and we don’t won’t to believe.
However, if you say this is split personality, I think almost all the human beings are suffering from it if we are to say it is a mental deficiency.
No mentality is a pure “Doctor Jekyll” or a “Mister Hyde”. It is a complicated mixture. That is why psychology still is a growing subject.
An ugly “devil” can creep into a good gentleman and can transform him into an ungentlemanly individual without changing external looking. We will have to chase that devil out and replace it with a beautiful fairy.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
Q: I would like to know what you mean by “country”?
A: What I mean by the country is the geographical entity presently known as “Sri Lanka”.
Q: And can you prove that your father’s father or great-grandfather, ever lived in the North of the island?
A: One may be able to prove that his father or great-grandfather, lived in the North of the island, but he may not be able to prove that his great great grand father of the tenth generation ever lived in the North of the island. But some other who cannot prove that his father or great-grandfather lived in the North of the island,might be able to do so.
Q: In my opinion, we should not form an opinion of people based on fairy tales. If they have lived on some land for 1000-2000 years, then why fight them for the land? Thanks.
A: I agree, same is applied to the opinion of “Traditional Homeland”.
Q: If they have lived on some land for 1000-2000 years, then why fight them for the land? Thanks.
A: I think this is a question you need to answer .
Thanks!
if SL beat the LTTE while NATO is losing in Afghanistan, why should NATO be the model for SL?
NATO is not losing in Afghanistan.
Dear All;
The argument behind the Tamil homeland and the separatist war waged is that Jaffna had been a separate kingdom, when the British captured it, and therefore when the independence was achieved it should be given separately back to the Tamils. Our governance should be based on the pre- colonial scenario, the theory suggests.I think Heshan re reminds this theory to us in his post addressed to me. But this theory has many lapses.
1. If the people are alocated according to the pre- colonial period, where the Tamil people who came from India after that should go? So many Tamils were brought to North, East (and to up country) by British to work in their plantations.
2. In that case should the Tamils of East be replaced by Sinhalese as these areas were primarily occupied by Sinhalese, before the colonials captured that area?
3. Does anybody who support the theory approve of sending up country Tamils back to India?
4. India had many kingdoms when it was captured by colonials. Many kingdoms were still operating under the Maha Rajas even when the country was handed back to India in 1947. India abolished all these kingdoms and merged them into a single country. Does anybody who support the said theory, force the Indian government to handover the kingdoms back to the Maha Rajas?
We should live in peace and harmony in this country together , without trying to get undue advantages on the basis of self deceiving false theories.
Thanks!
Yapa,
“Anyway before answering your conclusion(s) posed to me as questions I would like to look at the premise of yours from where your hard questioning springs out.
Concisely your premise:
“I have heard that the whole can be more the sum total of its parts, but can it be less than its parts and betray its own nature/character?”
Can the whole be less than its parts?”
Your argument is based on mis-stating my premise. It is not “Can the whole be less than its parts” but rather “Can the whole be less than its parts and betray its own nature/character”.
‘I will try to explain.
Your notions:
(1) “Tamils can not subscribe to an extremist ideology while still remaining nice individuals.”
(2). Ideologies don’t drop down from the skies–they are a response to circumstances and needs.
But look at following statement of yours. In this you accepts the opposite of both above. Please see carefully.
” A number of gentlemen cannot come together and become ungentlemanly in the process unless (1) – something or someone ungentlemanly has invaded them from the outside (2).
Here you say that there are possibilities for gentlemen becoming ngentlemanly (1). and ideologies (something or someone) could be dropped (invaded) from the skies (outside) (2).
Really unconscious mind of yours has overtaken the notions of your conscious mind.’
There is no contradiction here. It is your unconscious mind that associates invasion as coming from above. I think of invasions as coming from the side. No doubt, being a woman, my unconscious is different from yours.
“However, if you say this is split personality, I think almost all the human beings are suffering from it if we are to say it is a mental deficiency.”
I was referring to the clinical split personality. Very few people suffer from this. I was not talking about the figurative meaning of a split personality.
“An ugly “devil” can creep into a good gentleman and can transform him into an ungentlemanly individual without changing external looking. We will have to chase that devil out and replace it with a beautiful fairy.”
Huh? A fairy? You want to take a straight gentleman and turn him into a gay guy? Why? What does sexual orientation have to do with good and evil?
Dear Yapa:
It’s pretty obvious that Tamils have been the majority in the North of the island for over 1000 years. Just as we can say that the Sinhalese have been the majority in the South of the island for over 1000 years. Therefore, they have a right to call the relevant land their “homeland.” Just like Sinhalese do. I do not agree with separation of the island into two different nations, but I do support maximum devolution, e.g. federalism.
Prof Heshan,
“NATO is not losing in Afghanistan.”
Interestingly terse reply- not the long-winded tirade I came to expect from you!
Would you mind sharing a single editorial from the last 6 mo. that backs up your claim? As you could not show me a single Tamil website that broke the story of Prabakaran’s death within 1 mo. of its occurrence, I must admit that I don’t hold high expectations from you!
“And can you prove that your father’s father or great-grandfather, ever lived in the North of the island?”
Can you?
Krish,
“I still wonder why India and Sri lanka didn’t do much to eliminate LTTE much earlier.”
What could either have done to eliminate the LTTE without harming thousands of Tamils in the process?
India during the IPKF years and Chandrika during the late 1990s intentionally pursued limited strategies against the LTTE that wound up harming the Tamils anyway. The Tamils came to vilify and excoriate both of them and in Chandrika’s case, supported the UNP that had sabotaged two efforts to reach a “political solution.” I wonder whether this played a role in the Rajapakshas’ own strategy.
Neelan was a member of TULF in the late 1990s but he was not the leader. If I remember correctly, the president was M. Sivasithamparam who survived the assassination attempt that killed Amirthalingam and led TULF until his death in 2002, when he was replaced by Anandasangaree. As you pointed out, Sangaree faced a crisis after Sampanthan and other TNA MPs refused to support his stand that criticized the LTTE. Sangaree could no longer lead the TNA but he remained president of TULF.
I predicted that the TNA would shatter after the LTTE’s defeat and that Sangaree would fill the void in leadership, but I had underestimated Sampanthan’s ties with Senathirajah and Premachandran that kept the TNA alive.
“In any case, other than Anandasangaree, are there any leaders that you know of who are nationalistic in their approach from the Tamil side?”
I am unclear what you mean by “nationalistic”; the term is no longer relevant as the LTTE is gone and thus it is no longer a question of whether Tamil leaders support separatism (and the LTTE by default) or not. Rather I think the question is how credible are certain leaders given their earlier ties to the LTTE and the present ties to the Rajapakshas. Douglas Devananda might have “credibility” among Sinhalese for his consistent anti-LTTE politics, but he has little if any crediblity among Tamils because of his links with the various govts.
After the recent depressing electoral defeat of Sangaree I am very pessimistic that anything positive will be accomplished. I think we will have to wait for the next generation of leaders to bridge the current wide gap between Sinhalese and Tamils, such as Podiappuhamy Piyasena.
Belle, sorry I didn’t see your earlier posts, I had confused them with yapa’s. Your writing styles are very similar!
Dear yapa,
I provided a lengthy response to your points on August 5, 2010 @ 6:16 am. As you did not reply, I presume that you accepted my arguments and understood the futility of applying Cholas and Pandyas to modern times.
“The argument behind the Tamil homeland and the separatist war waged is that Jaffna had been a separate kingdom”
That came later. The original argument behind Tamil homeland and separatist war that held traction was that the Tamils were not safe in a Sinhala-majority Sri Lanka. This argument became particularly relevant during JRJ’s first term which started off with anti-Tamil violence (1977), the burning of Jaffna library (1981), and topped off with the worst communal violence of all (1983). That was a lot for just 6 years!
Interestingly, this argument of Tamil safety was turned on its head by the 1990s as the war dragged on with no end in sight, and more people getting killed. The Tamils saw the war as a curse and welcomed the CFA in 2002. Arguably the LTTE’s provocations that led to the end of the CFA and resumption of war played a major role in the Tamils’ disillusionment with the LTTE.
Wijayapala,
“Belle, sorry I didn’t see your earlier posts, I had confused them with yapa’s. Your writing styles are very similar!”
That says more about your inability to discriminate between styles and perspectives than anything about my writing.
Would you mind sharing a single editorial from the last 6 mo. that backs up your claim?
Can you show me a single military base or command post manned by NATO that was overrun by the Taliban? I still remember when the LTTE nearly overran Jaffna (during CBK’s time).
As you could not show me a single Tamil website that broke the story of Prabakaran’s death within 1 mo. of its occurrence,
There are plenty of such websites. Like I said, if you don’t know how to use the Internet, you should consult with your lord and master, DBS.
Dear Yapa,
“At present the scenario is not that. We are engaged in strategies of hatred by shrewdly fabricating stories to undermine each other. I am also in that flow as I feel there must be some people to counter such fabricated lies about us and hence engaged in the same process that the other party is doing.”
In this, I differ from you. The bad guys are attacking us with fabricated lies. Should we counter them with the same process? Should we not set higher standards for ourselves? Can we continue to be proud of our history and civilization if we use the evil behaviour of the bad guys as justification for behaving in the same way, as you imply above??
Dear Wijayapala;
I am sorry that I couldn’t answer your lengthy response of August 5, 2010 @, I had to pick most pricking comments to answer, with my limited time to enjoy the luxury of writing. What to do? Beggars can’t be choosers no? Anyway don’t get desperate, I will just touch upon them.
You say;
“I am not saying that history in general is irrelevant; the history of the last 200 years and especially the last 60 years are highly relevant and must be explored thoroughly.”
If one party to the problem says that this period has been highly unfavourable to them and things developed infavour of others, how do you take this period only as the base of history to decide the present set up?will that deliver justice? In this case one might argue that thousands of years of history may necessary to correct the historical injustice done to them. Really one party could be able show that a particular piece of land was belonged to them foe 1000years and the other party also claims its right for another 1000 years. Which 1000 years you suggest to give up? No one can claim exclusive rights.
There is no solution other than giving both parties the common rights. Sri Lankan problem cannot be solved by dividing the country into the exclusive ethnic zones.
…………………
Regarding the friendly relations of Sinhalese and Dravidians
You may be able to show some scattered incidents in the history that relationship between Davidians and Sinhalese were friendly. But if we talk in averages and aggregates, I think my notions still holds. But it is obvious that this cannot continue further. Tamils should give up their long lasted attitude of breaking a piece from this country, and must settle for a peaceful living in a single country. Sinhalese have suspected Tamils as “the country breakers” throughout the history with good evidence and they will never settle for anything with Tamils until they convince Sinhalese they are no more for that “mean” purpose. When this fact is convinced, I don’t think a peaceful solution is difficult. But I think this is a precondition. Sinhalese will not accept Tamils as honest, praying for peace here and plotting all over the world at the same time against them. Rabbits or any other will not trust those who are running races with rabbits while hunting with dogs.
……………………
Your following statement gives credit to Dravidians for an inability they had. Even with a mighty effort wiping out was not a possibility. This inability does not show that they were not against the Sinhala people.
“When the Cholas and Pandyans conquered SL, they did not wipe out the Sinhala population because their wars were not against the Sinhala people. That would have been an “ethnic” war similar to how the recent war was fought.”
…………………….
“If there were pro-LTTE Sinhalese, then why are you blaming the Tamils for everything?”
I didn’t appreciate such Sinhalese and therefore my blame for LTTE is not unjustifiable.
……………………
“I can’t think of a single Tamil ally of any of the ancient Sinhala kings who received the position after murdering 600 of the king’s supporters in cold blood. Can you?”
Who do you mean? Prabakara?
…………….
“Which Chola/Pandya king attacked Buddhist pilgrims at the Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura?”
In that respect Prabakaran could be more savage.
…………….
WRT your last five questions, I am not a Mahinda fan or an advocate. But I considered him as a necessary evil while LTTE as an unnecessary evil.
Thanks!
Dear Travelling Academic;
RE: your comment of August 9, 2010 @ 11:32 am
What else can I do? When women try to use a cobra to bundle up fire wood, he has at least to show his hood up.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
Q: “It’s pretty obvious that Tamils have been the majority in the North of the island for over 1000 years.
A: I doubt. Can you prove your “obvious”?
Q: Just as we can say that the Sinhalese have been the majority in the South of the island for over 1000 years.
A: No, They have been the majority in those areas for at least 2500 years. Most probably more. In other parts too they had been the majority for over 1500 years.
Q: Therefore, they have a right to call the relevant land their “homeland.” Just like Sinhalese do.
Above statement of yours could be used for a nasty and disastrous argument. It might imply that as the Up Country Tamils are not living here more than 200 years and those lands had been owned by Sinhalese for over 2000 years, Up Country as “Sinhalese Homeland”. Further, the history of many of the Tamils in the North and East also will not run back more than a couple of hundred years, and would see its end with the colonial periods. However, we will have to keep in mind that Sinhalese has never claimed exclusive land rights, though they are the oldest inhabitant of this country. We have to accept the reality that some parts of this country have been solely used by Sinhalese throughout the history while only some of the lands have been alternatively used by various ethnic groups . If a homeland is claimed, it is possible only by Sinhalese on the basis of exclusive lands ownership of them. However, Sinhalese like to live in a single country with all the other brothers and sisters.
Q: I do not agree with separation of the island into two different nations, but I do support maximum devolution, e.g. federalism.”
A: The way federalism implemented and operating in Canada,Austrlia and Germany seems to be effective and good. Most of the Federal Systems effectively operating all over the world are based on geographic parameters. This system helps to make large countries to be governed efficiently and effectively.
However, I am not sure whether we have models to gain experience for “Ethnicity based Federal Systems” in the world. I think this is rather a “scarce federal system” different from the prevailing federal system in the world. I have no knowledge about the efficiency and effectiveness of such a system. Therefore, it is good to assess the worthiness of this “new model of Ethnicity based Federal System” for a peaceful single nation. If it is effective like in Canada, Australia and Germany I am 100% for it.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
Thank you for your response.
“If one party to the problem says that this period has been highly unfavourable to them and things developed infavour of others, how do you take this period only as the base of history to decide the present set up?will that deliver justice? In this case one might argue that thousands of years of history may necessary to correct the historical injustice done to them.”
Let’s please discuss in specific terms not abstract. How was ancient history unfavorable to the Sinhalese?
Colonial history may have been unfavorable to the Sinhalese.. but it was unfavorable for most Tamils as well. The only difference is that proportionately more Tamils benefited during that time than Sinhalese. That trend began to shift after universal franchise was implemented in the 1930s.
“You may be able to show some scattered incidents in the history that relationship between Davidians and Sinhalese were friendly. But if we talk in averages and aggregates, I think my notions still holds.”
If you’re relying on the Mahavamsa, the problem is that it presents major events such as war and not day-to-day life. It is not a useful source to determine the relationship between Sinhalese and S. Indians.
The fact that the Sinhalese have the same genetic stock as the Tamils probably gives a good idea how friendly we were!
“Tamils should give up their long lasted attitude of breaking a piece from this country,”
How long was this “long lasted attitude?” It wasn’t there prior to 1956, when all of SL was made into a Sinhala “exclusive ethnic zone.”
“Your following statement gives credit to Dravidians for an inability they had. Even with a mighty effort wiping out was not a possibility.”
How do you know that they tried to wipe us out?
“If there were pro-LTTE Sinhalese, then why are you blaming the Tamils for everything?”
I didn’t appreciate such Sinhalese and therefore my blame for LTTE is not unjustifiable.
I did not ask why you blame the LTTE. I am asking you why you blame all Tamils.
“I can’t think of a single Tamil ally of any of the ancient Sinhala kings who received the position after murdering 600 of the king’s supporters in cold blood. Can you?”
Who do you mean? Prabakara?
Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan aka “Col” Karuna
Prof Heshan,
“Can you show me a single military base or command post manned by NATO that was overrun by the Taliban?”
The Vietnamese Communists failed to overrun US military bases during the Vietnam War. Could you enlighten us who won that war?
“As you could not show me a single Tamil website that broke the story of Prabakaran’s death within 1 mo. of its occurrence,
There are plenty of such websites.”
Sorry Heshie boy, when you make a claim the burden of proof falls on YOU. You can’t expect Uncle Wije to look for the evidence to refute himself!
You only provided Defencewire, showing that you trust Sinhala nationalist websites over Tamil sites. That led me to speculate whether you are actually a Sinhala nationalist posing as a Tamil to make them look stupid.
Dear Yapa,
“What else can I do?”
It is not for me to prescribe what you ought to do. My own view is that we, Sri Lankans, should not stoop down to the same level as the terror group and its remote control backers, and keep our behaviour to higher norms, both in debate and in our physical actions. We should pressure our representatives into adopting a more open and transparent approach to problem-solving and not let them hide behind the memory of the terror group (or its current exaggerated residual noises) to justify exercising terror on us. Today, Sri Lanka has the wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to the world behaviour of quality much higher than that of the terror group it got rid of. (In some areas I know this is actually happening, due to conscientious individual actions of good people amongst civil servants and army officers). We have the wonderful opportunity to march forward in economic development and at the same time adopt an arrangement of governance in which your gentlemen Tamil friends are won over by the power of persuation and inclusive givernment policies, than be made to feel alien in their own country. Believe me, as much as they see you as a friend and love you in return for your love on an individual basis, as a group they are systematically made to feel alienated by government policies, both in statute and in practice — and if you are their friend, you might well start by trying to understand how and why they are being made to feel so — perhaps ask them! With improved understanding of their perception, your question “what else can I do?” will hopefully get good answers and possible follow-up actions on your part consistent with our history and civilization, of which you and I are rightfully proud. This is much better way forward than “fabricating lies to counter the lies of the other side”, as the mode of operation you observed.
Yapa,
You said to Wijayapala:
“If one party to the problem says that this period has been highly unfavourable to them and things developed infavour of others, how do you take this period only as the base of history to decide the present set up?will that deliver justice?”
If the intention of the present set up is to deliver equal rights and opportunities to all groups, then why are history’s injustices and ancient stories relevant? Unless of course you are arguing that one group deserves more than others because of alleged injustices against them thousands of years ago. Are you arguing that? If you are, no egalitarian-minded person will agree with you.
“There is no solution other than giving both parties the common rights. Sri Lankan problem cannot be solved by dividing the country into the exclusive ethnic zones.”
Yes, I agree with you here. There are large swathes of SL which are Sinhalese ethnic zones. Perhaps just as we re-settle the north with Sinhalese, we should also re-settle the South with Tamils. Can always get some from Tamil Nadu if the local numbers are not sufficient.
“You may be able to show some scattered incidents in the history that relationship between Davidians and Sinhalese were friendly. But if we talk in averages and aggregates, I think my notions still holds.”
Professional historians don’t talk of averages and aggregates–they know that the history that is now known is only a small slice of all that happened in the past. Unless you know every moment of life as it happened in Sri Lanka for the last two or more thousand years, you are not justified in talking of history’s “averages and aggregates.” That is merely ignorance pretending that it has a grasp on knowledge.
Professional historians also try to examine historical events in their specificity. They try to avoid looking at the past through the lens of the present and instead discover the lens or way of thought of those times buried in the event itself. It is only then that history can deliver up its real truths and provide positive inspiration on how to live today, rather than resulting in notions like yours where history is used to justify today’s evils. Wijayapala is looking at past events as objectively as he can, and see how it shows him that inter-ethnic relations are possible and are part of SL’s heritage. I think that is far more empowering for Sri Lankans than your prejudiced look at history.
“WRT your last five questions, I am not a Mahinda fan or an advocate. But I considered him as a necessary evil while LTTE as an unnecessary evil.”
To believe that any kind of evil is “necessary” makes you evil indeed! You are the Sinhalese version of Tamil LTTE supporters who believe that Mahinda is an unnecessary evil while LTTE is the necessary evil!
Dear All;
I have read a story from the Grimm Brothers Collection when I was a child, I think would pertinent to the present issue of Sri Lanka.
In that story a man takes a piece of cloth to a tailor to make a hat out of it. He asked the tailor whether he can make a hat out of it. The tailor answered in affirmation and asked for a few days to finish the job. After going back home the man thought that the tailor was very positive about making a hat out of the cloth may because the cloth is too big for one hat. Next day he went back to the tailor and asked whether he could make two hat out of the cloth. The tailor answered in affirmation coolly. The man went home and thought that the cloth might be sufficient for three hats and the following day went to the tailor and asked whether he could make three hats out of the cloth. The tailor was cool as ever. Tailor was cool for two more occations and the man was happy that he could get five hats out of that piece of single cloth.
The day to collects arrived and the man went to see the tailor. The man asked for the hats and the tailor brought all five hats wearing them to his five fingers of the hand. The five hats were ideally fitting the fingers.
I think we should not demand “more and more hats”, just because we feel it is gainful for us. One hat could also be better than five hats.
We must try to make our plans on the “need base”. We must think objectively in finding solutions to our problems.
Thanks!
The Vietnamese Communists failed to overrun US military bases during the Vietnam War. Could you enlighten us who won that war?
WInning a war means forcing the other side to surrender and gaining some kind of concession. Whether or not NATO leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will never regain control of the government of the country. This is the current phase of NATO operations – to train the Afghanistan forces to handle security. So if you say NATO has lost the war, you also have to state what the Taliban has gained, which is nothing.
Vietnam War – USA lost 50,000 men, and the North Vietnamese lost more than 1 million. The South Vietnamese were actually the ones who lost, not the USA. The USA did not make any reparations to North Vietnam/Vietnam. In the long-term, the North Vietnamese are the losers. Look at South Korea and Japan – they are 1st world nations with top economics. Now look at North Korea and Vietnam, both of which fought against the USA – who is the winner?
You only provided Defencewire, showing that you trust Sinhala nationalist websites over Tamil sites.
The original claim you made was that DBS was the only one to announce the death of Prabhakaran. I have shown that is false; whether the website is Sinhala or Tamil is irrelevant.
*with top economies
Travelling Academic, wonderful post to yapa!
Reconciliation: we are ALL essentially from South India.
If we acknowledge that only in the past 20 years have we really known who we really are scientifically, despite the stories told us by our ancestors (and we speak a different language and live in a different part of the island). Our ancestors did not have the benefit of DNA evidence, but we in our generation have. We have no excuse to ignore it.
We know that research conducted at Stamford University (1996?) shows that we the Sinhalese are 75% of South Indian origin, according to our DNA. So the divisions are not about from whom we descend – South Indians people, same as the people who we call Tamil. Just that some of us were told we are ‘Sinhalese’ and others that they are ‘Tamil’. (Mr Yapa, just as some of us were told we are Buddhist and others that they are Muslim).
Surely, official acknowledgement of the DNA facts should pave the way towards reconciliation and ‘one Sri Lanka’? We cannot escape it as our DNA is in every cell and future generations will know this more widely and without dispute. Future generations will be better educated; they will regard yesterday and today’s ‘racial’ divisions as emerging out of ignorance, our ignorance and that of people who lived centuries ago.
We can start regarding us as ‘one people’ right now. Why wait?
Dear Belle;
You say;
“If the intention of the present set up is to deliver equal rights and opportunities to all groups, then why are history’s injustices and ancient stories relevant?”
If all are prepared to settle for an equal rights and opportunities scenario, then history’s injustices and ancient stories should be kept aside. I am arguing in a dynamic scenario where you all are bargaining for maximum. I know in an equilibrium, static situation everything belong to the past should be forgotten and live happily ever after.
We all must strive to see the end.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
If a homeland is claimed, it is possible only by Sinhalese on the basis of exclusive lands ownership of them.
The above statement can only be “validated” by Mahavamsa/Deepavamsa/Culavamsa, which as I said, is the equivalent of a fairy tale, in the context of objective analysis. Therefore, the rest of your argument falls apart without the basic “Mahavamsa/Deepavamsa/Culavamsa is premise. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the “Tamil homeland” theory using the above logic. As I said, the fact that Tamils have lived on a particular piece of land for thousands of years in disproportionately higher numbers than any other group does indeed justify their right to call it a homeland.
Mr Yapa,
Adding to what Heshan said (you are taking the Mahavamsa etc origins as literal truth rather than legend and/or more likely political propaganda of ancient people promoted by the political agenda of present day people) … if the distinction between Sinhalese and Tamil is on the basis of ‘geographical origin’ then present day evidence disproves our long-held beliefs.
Remember, for millennia people believed that god created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days, because the ancient books said so. Today our understanding of the origin of the universe is very different and is based on scientific evidence. Similarly, if scientific evidence shows that every one of us (Sinhalese) descends predominantly from the people of South India then the myth of geographical origin is blown isn’t it?
We are then left with the only real distinction – language, custom, religion and which part of the island we live in.
To recap from another thread: the irony is, the Sinhalese are genetically predominantly Tamil (75%), and the actual religious practice of the majority is more Hindu than any other.
Dear Wijayapala -This is regarding your earlier question about “Nationalists” from Tamil side. I should apologize for confusing you, coming from where I come from. I was using that term very loosely for SL context in the way that they would apply in Indian context. My question was, were there any Tamil folks in the last 60 years who were firmly committed to the territorial integrity of Srilanka, no matter what the grievances of Tamils are. I knew Lakshman Kadirgamar was one such person. Are there any uniters from the Tamil side who would engage in meaningful discussions with the Sinhalese majority as to bring the two communities together rather than dig into the wrongs of history? If yes, I am interested to know.
Going back to usage of “Nationalist” in the Indian context, among Tamil politicians in India, you can say that P Chidambaram, Jayanthi Natarajan as Nationalistic, whereas Vaiko, Ramadoss are likely not. In the previous generations, you could say that Rajagopalachari, Kamaraj, Bhaktavatsalam as Nationalists, whereas Annadurai, Karunanidhi, Neduncheziyan are not. All these folks are Tamilians, but the Nationalists consider themselves Indians first and then Tamilians. And for the other group, their regional/linguistic identity is first and then the national identity. I hope you see where I come from now.
Dear Heshan;
As you said Mahavamsa, Deepavamsa, Culavamsa provides evidence infaour of the theory I believe.
1.What evidence do you have to negate it.
2. What evidence do you have to show that Tamils have lived on a particular piece of land for thousands of years in disproportionately higher numbers than any other group does? (I presume your reference to “a particular piece of land” is a piece of land in Sri Lanka not else where.)
Tell me what evidence you can provide to say that your theory is more credible than mine.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
I think Iranians are genetically over 90% of Americans? Will Americans give citizenship to the Iranians because of that genetic similarity?
I think you got mixed up Biological Science with Social Science.
Man is a social/political animal. Not just a biological animal.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
On the basis of an extension of your logic we can suggest to remove all visa barriers in the world. All the people of the world are made of the same amino acid. Further more, all the animals and plants can be applied for visas in any country, as all living things rare made of amino acids. Again stones, rocks, rivers also can apply because every thing is made of atoms, no man is different. All of them (living and non living things) can claim for equal human rights too. We can hold a big rally in support of the human rights of stone, rocks and rivers. Can collect signatures to send a petition to the UN council too, to make them aware of this fair demand.
Hooray! Eureka! Eureka!
Thanks!
My belief is in “Unity in Diversity” not “Unity in Rejecting Diversity”.
Rejecting unpopular realities is a very popular way of attracting mass support. This has become a very popular mode of argument in the recent time. You can call this as “appeal for emotions”. This way hard realities can be defeated with soft myths. For example people all over the world believe against their eye witness that all humans are born equal. But if such people are asked to show two similar people, they will turn the world upside down and after a couple of years they would say they didn’t meet any.
We deceive ourselves with pleasurable ideas. It is convenient.
Thanks!
Hi Krish,
“I was using that term very loosely for SL context in the way that they would apply in Indian context.”
I’m glad that you clarified your perspective because it helps me argue a specific point: for Indians to really understand SL, they will have to step outside of the Indian context and understand SL on its own terms. I realize that this is a tall and challenging order, and I’m happy to answer any question you might have. You should also get input from others here as I am obviously not the one and only authority on “the Sri Lankan context.”
Having said that, I think Sri Lankans would benefit immensely from learning more about “the Indian context.” If they knew more about Indian history- particularly the Independence struggle, they probably would have a better notion of nationalism in and inclusive not exclusive sense. We definitely would welcome your perspective/comments.
The first and perhaps primary historical difference between SL and India is that SL did not have a “national” independence struggle that united everyone behind a common purpose. The Ceylon National Congress (forerunner of today’s UNP) was a pale shadow of its Indian counterpart. Its leaders were noncommunal but were conservative elitists disconnected from the masses and unable to organize anything resembling Gandhi’s noncooperation campaigns. The opposition before 1954 was the Left, and similar to India they were also noncommunal but also fairly worthless as they were addicted to Marxist theory and their relations with the International rather than addressing local concerns. For the Sinhala majority, there was this wide gap in leadership that was filled by various clowns and nitwits- many of them quite educated, starting with SWRD Bandaranaike. Actually that was the historical role of the SLFP.
“My question was, were there any Tamil folks in the last 60 years who were firmly committed to the territorial integrity of Srilanka, no matter what the grievances of Tamils are.”
There are so many Tamils of this category that beg the more relevant question (for me): “How come the Sinhalese failed to appreciate the contributions of such “nationalistic” Tamils after independence and allowed their fears of Tamil communalism/nationalism to become a self-fulfilling prophecy?”
I suppose I could start with the Jaffna Youth Congress which was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi in calling for “swaraj” in SL in the early 20th century. After independence there were plenty of Tamils whom I think identified as Sri Lankan or Ceylonese first and Tamil second. For example Maj Gen Anton Muttukumaru who was the first ethnic Sri Lankan Army Commander and wrote a great book on SL military history, or Rear Admiral Rajan Kadirgamar who was one of the first Navy Commanders (then called “Captain of the Navy”). However, people like these became sidelined as communalism came to dominate SL politics. In this sense I think Lakshman Kadirgamar was one of the last if not the last of a dying breed, which I think would be extremely difficult if not impossible to resurrect.
You had mentioned Kamaraj. Although there is no SL Tamil equivalent (as the UNP or SLFP probably would never have someone who could not speak Sinhala as party president the way Kamaraj became president of Congress), a weak comparison can be made with Alfred Duraiappah who belonged to the SLFP but was popular enough to be elected mayor of Jaffna in the 1970s. Duraiappah was wrongly blamed for the police action at the International Tamil Conference in 1974 that led to nine people accidentally getting killed, and Prabakaran murdered him the following year.
One interesting Tamil who comes to mind is Siva Pasupathy, the Attorney General under the racist JR regime who drafted the original Prevention of Terrorism Act and was responsible for the imprisonment of numerous Tamil youth. Later he emigrated to Australia and became a hardcore LTTE supporter. I’ve never heard his version of the story how he converted from anti-Tamil nationalist to pro-Tamil nationalist.
“Are there any uniters from the Tamil side who would engage in meaningful discussions with the Sinhalese majority as to bring the two communities together rather than dig into the wrongs of history?”
First we have to answer “Are there any uniters from the Sinhala side who would engage in meaningful discussions with the Tamil minority…?” If the answer is “no” then I think it would be unfair to ask the question for the Tamils.
Since you asked, though, again I think the best candidate would be Anandasangaree- the only Sri Lankan I know who understands both the Sinhala and Tamil perspectives- but he has been rejected by his own people.
Professor Heshan,
“The original claim you made was that DBS was the only one to announce the death of Prabhakaran. I have shown that is false; whether the website is Sinhala or Tamil is irrelevant.”
Nope, my original claim what that DBSJ was the only Tamil journalist to announce Prabakaran’s demise. How come nobody in the diaspora (where Gotabhaya can’t touch them) has held a funeral service?
“So if you say NATO has lost the war, you also have to state what the Taliban has gained,”
Control over the population?
“Now look at North Korea and Vietnam, both of which fought against the USA – who is the winner?”
You tell me- in fact, can you find a single scholar or even another fellow halfwit who claims that N. Vietnam lost the war?
“Therefore, the rest of your argument falls apart without the basic “Mahavamsa/Deepavamsa/Culavamsa is premise.”
If you had read earlier debates between me and yapa, you would see that he actually rejects the Mahavamsa’s claim that the Sinhalese were foreign immigrants to SL who displaced the preexisting civilisation. Actually there is a lot in the Mahavamsa to debunk Sinhala nationalism, such as the claim that the Sinhalese were the original inhabitants. It’s too bad that Tamils such as yourself have not bothered to read it!
Dear Travelling Academic,
I understand, you are describing the “ideal” situation. However, the party which lays the arms aside before a cease fire will definitely loose. The “non material” warfare is still on and I am not prepared to do that unwise act.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
As you said Mahavamsa, Deepavamsa, Culavamsa provides evidence infaour of the theory I believe.
I very clearly said that Mahavamsa does not provide any such evidence. It only makes a claim.
1.What evidence do you have to negate it.
The most obvious evidence is common sense. If it was a fact that Sinhalese came to the island before Tamils, and the evidence was overwhelming, there would not have been a 30 year civil war. Consider the following: the world accepts that all of Egpyt belongs to the Egypt, all of Italy belongs to the Italians (descendants of the Romans) and all of Greece belongs to the Greeks (descendants of the ancient Greeks). But ONLY a few Sinhalese believe that all of Sri Lanka belongs to Sinhalese. Usually when the whole world does not believe something, and only a few believe it, the few people who believe it are probably wrong . Here are some examples of what only a few people believe:
1. 911 was an inside job
2. God created the whole Earth in six days
3. The Jews are the “chosen people.”
4. Women should not step outside without a male relative
5. If a homeland is claimed, it is possible only by Sinhalese on the basis of exclusive lands ownership of them.
I think you are familiar with (5). I have added it to the list of bizarre claims to add some context.
2. What evidence do you have to show that Tamils have lived on a particular piece of land for thousands of years in disproportionately higher numbers than any other group does? (I presume your reference to “a particular piece of land” is a piece of land in Sri Lanka not else where.)
There is no architectural evidence to indicate that Sinhalese were the dominant group in the North and East of Sri Lanka. If there were many palaces, dagobas, and Buddha statues, such as we see in Anuradhapura and Polannaruwa, then one could claim that the Sinhalese presence in the North and East of Sri Lanka is significant. However, what one finds is mostly Hindu temples and other Tamil archeology.
If Mahavamsa claims that such architecture exists, then we should be able to find it. However, as far as I am concerned, no such claim has ever been validated.
Using logic alone, we are forced to return to the conclusion that based on just architectural evidence, the Tamils have been the dominant group in the North and East of Sri Lanka for at least 1000 years (long enough to justify a homeland claim).
Just a question to Wijayapala:
Other than to release his tantrum on letters of his personal grudge with the LTTE, which I am sure only passed as a minor irritant to the Rajapakses, or his multiple wives, what did Anandasangaree manage to accomplish? I would be surprised if he was not rejected by the Tamils, nevermind the Sinhalese.
What is his stand on the political question and how does it fit the Tamil and Sinhala perspectives?
@ModVoice
Couple of weeks ago in Sri Lanka I saw a good interview (TNL / YATV, I think?) with Anandasangaree, in Sinhala, where he accurately identifies the causes of the problems and missed opportunities, past and present. Your question “what has he achieved?” is best answered by looking in a mirror and asking yourself “what did the LTTE actually achieve for the Tamils?” (If you do a simple comparison using known facts, you might be pleasantly surprised to find that Sangareee did not torture or murder or rob from us — fellow Tamils) Of course when racist politics is whipped up, people who talk sense are pushed to the background (as did happen to progressive people amongst Sinhalese as well) — perhaps that is rejection in the short term, but it certainly is a reminder that a lot more work needs to be done to win over the population that has sufferred so much. Disappointingly, the government’s efforts along these lines are at best half-hearted, and are also seriously undermined by being channelled through some ex-war lords.
@Yapa
Please read again what you have told me in this thread: You claim you are telling lies to counter the lies of the other side, and insist on sticking to that mode of operation. Lets just agree to differ — bye for now.
The ‘Majority’ of the majority should finally realize that Sri Lanka does not belong to ‘ONLY’ the Sinhala Buddhists! There is only a tiny minority of Sinhala Buddhists who agree that Sri Lanka is a multi cultural, multi religious and multi ethnic country!
The day when this idea permeates into the majorities heads will be the day when we have real peace…and not the ‘kind of a peace’ that we have now! It’s no use just spouting the mantras…”Sinhala…Demala…Muslim…Burgher!” “We are one country, one people,” etc. You also have to believe it to be so! They say that there is no right or wrong, only thinking makes it so! Now the ball is in the majorities court. But sadly I know that things will not change in our lifetime because the majority are sooo steeped in the Mahavamsa. So there.
ps: I am not a Tamil. But nevertheless a minority.
Mr Yapa,
I don’t get your Iranian/American connection.
Let me clarify. Our identity as ‘Sinhalese’ (at least among the chauvinistic) is that we are ‘not Tamil’. And we define ‘Tamil’ as ‘the people whose ancestry is from South India’. Our DNA shows that 75% of our ancestors are from South India, from the same population from whom the ‘Tamils’ descend. Therefore, we the Sinhalese are from the same ancestral stock as the Tamils.
The two groups Sinhalese and Tamil are different today because of assimilation. Those that lived in the Tamil speaking parts assimilated into the Tamil speaking society, just as people in Colombo assimilated into an English speaking society during the British rule.
My point was that differentiating us on the basis of geographical origins is invalid as we are all predominantly from the same place and our more recent ancestors obtained our ‘race’ after setting in Lanka, depending on where they chose to live.
To put it in another way, there may well have been a group of 700 men who arrived together 2,500 years ago from somewhere other than South India. However, little evidence of their existence remains in our DNA today. Instead the overwhelming evidence in our DNA is that we are the same people, from the same place.
To make it even simpler Mr Yapa, how many great-great-great-etc-grandfathers and grandmothers did you and all of us (Sinhalese and Tamil) have 2,500 years ago? Well, hundreds of thousands. Of these, the DNA evidence shows that 75% of these, our grandfathers/mothers who lived at that time, lived in South India. What % do you think goes back to these 700 men?
The evidence directly contradicts the popular notion that we are two distinct groups from our genetic origin.
Coming back to your Iranian/American – if Americans defined themselves (chauvinistically even) as being ‘people who are not from Iran’ and then if DNA evidence showed that all Americans descend predominantly from Iranian ancestry then you have a point. Do you have evidence that all Americans are 75% Iranian by descent? (or is this similar to your still unproven quantum physics theories?).
If you, Mr Yapa, have your DNA analysed you will find that 75% of your ancestors who lived 2,500 years ago lived in South India. When you do find out please let us know here. Thanks!
Yapa,
“This way hard realities can be defeated with soft myths. For example people all over the world believe against their eye witness that all humans are born equal. But if such people are asked to show two similar people, they will turn the world upside down and after a couple of years they would say they didn’t meet any.”
The problem is that you rely on “eye witness”. Human genetic variation is highly visible. But genetic similarities are less visible. Nevertheless, human beings are said by scientists to be 99.9% similar, genetically. Whatever genetic differences we have are contained in that .1%.
If you go by “eye witness”, you’d still believe the world is flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. What you term “hard realities” are often errors of perception.
Laws are “soft myths”. Laws against murder occur on the premise that a society can be murder-free, that it is possible for everyone to follow the rules. Yet it is a “hard reality” that people do break the rules and commit murder. So, should we dispense with the law because it is a “soft myth”?
“Soft myths” make hard realities possible and shape them. Without so much power being given to the Executive President in your Constitution, Rajapakse could not have become tyrannical. Countries with anti-racism laws have societies that tend to be less racist than countries without such legislation. If a society believes in superiority of one race over another, it is more likely to carry out harm and genocide against people of an allegedly inferior race. It is “soft myths” that led to the “hard reality” of the Holocaust.
“We deceive ourselves with pleasurable ideas. It is convenient.”
One such pleasurable and convenient idea of yours is that Sinhalese have been the majority in the south for at least 2500 years and that they had been the majority in other parts of Sri Lanka for over 1500 years. Genetic studies indicate that Sinhalese and Tamils are strangely similar genetically. That suggests that they intermarried a lot and also that they may have similar geographical origins. Intermarriage on a large scale leading to genetic similarities suggest that the people of that time did not believe in race though they may have held religion to be an identity marker. Buddhism evolved from Hinduism, and lots of people converted from Hinduism to Buddhism. I agree with BalangodaMan that what we understand today as “Sinhalese” refers to those (including the many Tamils of the past) who have a Buddhist ancestry (even if they may be Christians today) and who speak the Sinhalese language (which contains borrowings from Tamil and Indo-European languages/dialects), and the Tamils of today are those who remained Hindus (though some converted in more recent generations to Christianity) who kept the Tamil language, and who settled largely in the north. “Race” is a relatively modern concept, developed by the Europeans. As some anthropologists have pointed out, race became an identity marker in SL only through the colonizers, who promoted the concept of being Sinhalese and Tamil, the “soft myths” that led to such harsh realities.
Dear BalangodaMan;
Both European Americans and Iranians are Aryans.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You say
“Our identity as ‘Sinhalese’ (at least among the chauvinistic) is that we are ‘not Tamil’.”
Only you and a few who do not understand fundamental concepts like race, ethnicity will say Sinhalese are Tamils. Again my advice to you is please get some awareness subjects before engage in a discussion. Sorry, I cannot waste my time explaining/discussing basic things with you.
Bye!
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
You say;
I very clearly said that Mahavamsa does not provide any such evidence. It only makes a claim.
Answer:
No unbiased man say so. So many chronicles corroborate with Mahawamsa, Thousands of Archeological sites in Sri Lanka support what is mentioned in Mahawamsa. All the historical places mentioned in Mahawansa in Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Sigiriya, Dambadeniya, Kandy , Kurunegala etc. etc. are physically available even today. Many historically important places India were spotted on the information of Mahawamsa. There are ancient writings in Burma, China that tally with the descriptions in Mahawamsa. Consistency of the narratives in the Mahawamsa covering such a big period of is an evidence for its credibility. It is natural any book to have lapses. But Mahawamsa provides very credible evidence than any such book of the world.
You are calling these are not evidence? These are only claims? What a peculiar way of thinking you have? Who taught these white lies? I cannot believe it.
You say;
1.What evidence do you have to negate it.
The most obvious evidence is common sense.
Answer:
Then you admit that there is no any evidence other than common sense to negate the evidence given in the Mahavamsa, Deepavamsa, Culavamsa?
You asy;
There is no architectural evidence to indicate that Sinhalese were the dominant group in the North and East of Sri Lanka. If there were many palaces, dagobas, and Buddha statues, such as we see in Anuradhapura and Polannaruwa, then one could claim that the Sinhalese presence in the North and East of Sri Lanka is significant.
Answer: There are so many, hundreds. I don’t think there are many ancient Hindu architectural evidence as much as Buddhist architectural evidence in North and East. How come you forgot famous Kandarodei (Kadurugoda)? I will give some evidence from one of your scholars, this also confirms that your theory that Tamils the majority of North and East for over 1000years.
Please read, these are “evidence”. If you want I will give you a lot more. Castles should not be built on weak foundations!
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/02/12/going-beyond-sarath-fonseka-in-achieving-democracy-for-people/#comment-14840
Thanks!
Correction…….
this also confirms that your theory that Tamils the majority of North and East for over 1000years is “incorrect”.
Thanks!
Ho! Ho!!
Now the order of the day argument is there is no difference between Sinhalese and Tamils. What a marvelous discovery. Yes, good, please make a report to submit to the parliament about this valuable information. Ask them to make all future plans on this. All party conference also must be immediately informed.
You can be very happy about your discoveries. Please throw a big party.
Mansions in the sky!
Please try to be sensible and realistic without just filling forums with fantasies..
Thanks!
Dear Belle;
You have criticized my statement [My belief is in “Unity in Diversity” not “Unity in Rejecting Diversity”.] without mentioning it
Really are you against the above statement?
Thanks!
Yapa,
“You have criticized my statement [My belief is in “Unity in Diversity” not “Unity in Rejecting Diversity”.] without mentioning it
Really are you against the above statement? ”
No, I am not against that statement. But you seem to be! What is all your talk about Sinhalese having been in SL far longer than Tamils but an attempt to reject diversity? you can’t have “unity in diversity” by trying to establish a hierarchy between groups, or trying to prove that one group has more claim to the country than others.
Yapa,
“Both European Americans and Iranians are Aryans.”
What does that mean? That they have white skin, blue/green eyes and are fair-haired? That they should have joined forces with the Germans in killing Jews? How is that racial classification relevant to anything? Are you saying that all the very different historical and cultural differences in development that Americans and Iranians have been through mean nothing? That essentially all human beings are different or the same only in terms of their race?
“Only you and a few who do not understand fundamental concepts like race, ethnicity will say Sinhalese are Tamils.”
Yapa, you don’t understand that race is not the same as ethnicity. Race is a biological concept, and ethnicity is cultural. They have totally different referents. Somebody can be genetically Tamil, but ethnically Sinhalese. Also, you don’t seem to grasp that race is a “fiction”, a construct. What does it mean, for example, to say that all Sinhalese are of the same race? The only way they are all alike is in their brown skin colour, and even then they are not of the same shade. Some have big noses, some have small; some have big eyes, others have small eyes, etc. Do you really want to place all that importance on skin colour?
It would be good if you would set aside ancient texts for a while and try to read something published today. Then you won’t end up scolding and belittling the ideas of people who are more up to speed on race theory than you are.
Dear Yapa:
Please give an example of five Sinhala-Buddhist sites in the North and East mentioned by Mahavamsa. Thanks.
Dear Yapa:
Read the following carefully:
As the original Mahavamsa was written in Pali, only a few Sinhalese who knew Pali had access to it until its Sinhala translation appeared in 1877. The Sinhala translation of the original Mahavamsa was later updated and edited in 1935 and then in 1978. The use of the Mahavamsa as a tool for rallying Sinhala Buddhist nationalism started to become widespread as it was interpreted as a true historical chronicle of Sri Lanka and the origin of the Sinhala ethnicity.
Historians use the Mahavamsa with caution and do not use its narrations as facts of history. Alongside with many myths such as the adults-only tale of princess Suppadevi’s union with a lion and the Indian Emperor Asoka’s son (or relative, according to other records) arriving in Sri Lanka by zooming through the air, obviously were fantasies to glorify Buddhism and, as Wilhelm Geiger thought, due to the author’s Buddhist convictions ‘on account of his priestly mode of viewing things.’
“Even in translation, the chronicles were difficult to use as historical sources. The Mahavamsa was written hundreds of years after some of the events it describes. Alongside passages that seemed factual – the name of the king or location of his court – were such obviously nonfactual accounts as the story of a person zooming through the air. The Mahavamsa and other chronicles sometimes contradicted one another, with different accounts of Vijaya and his origins, for example. The biggest problem was that the chronicles were written mainly to glorify Buddhism in Sri Lanka, not to record objectively what happened.
The greatest importance of the Mahavamsa is not as history but as a symbol.- and as a motivating force behind Sinhala Nationalism. A Sinhalese politician speaking in public is likely to mention incidents from Mahavamsa as evidence of the long and distinguished history the Sinhalese have in Sri Lanka. But Sinhalese political and religious leaders also use Mahavamsa stories as evidence that the whole island should be ruled by Sinhalese Buddhists.”
There are quite a number of discrepancies in the Mahavamsa compared to other historical, archaeological and scientific records. Thus Dr. G.C. Mendis, Lecturer in History, University of Ceylon, in his foreword to the 1950 edition of The Mahavamsa (The Great Chronicle of Ceylon), translated into English by Wilhelm Geiger, assisted by Mable Haynes Bode Ph.D, discusses at length these discrepancies as quoted below. Defrayed by the Ceylon Government Information Department, this edition of the Mahavamsa was published in 1950 (and is available on line at: http://www.sinhalanet.com/Introductionpart1.pdf )
On the trustworthiness of the Sri Lankan chronicles Dr. Mendis writes:
“A very trenchant verdict is pronounced by V.A. Smith in his “Asoka”, on the Ceylonese Chronicles. He says in the plainest fashion: ‘in this work ( i.e. in the Asoka) the Ceylonese chronology prior to B.C. 160 is absolutely and completely rejected, as being not merely of doubtful authority but positively false in its principal propositions.’ (V.A. Smith: Asoka the Buddhist Emperor of India, page 57) […]
“These Sinhalese stories the value of which has been sometimes overestimated, demand cautious criticism at least as much as do other records of popular and ecclesiastical tradition” ( Dr. V.A. Smith: Early history of India, 2nd edition 1908, page 9)
Dr. Mendis agrees:
“The warning to handle critically, which the excellent historian considers necessary with regard to the Ceylonese Chronicles, is certainly justified. It applies to all historical documents, and I have no intention at all disputing the justice of it.” ( page XIII , Introduction, Mahavamsa 1950 edition published by the Ceylon Government Information Department)
According to the Mahavamsa and the Dipavansa, the son (Mahinda) and the daughter (Sangamitta) of the Indian Emperor Asoka were responsible for converting the King of Lanka and his people to Buddhism. However, Dr. V.A. Smith names the story in the Mahavamsa, related to this conversion as nothing but a ’tissue of absurdities’ (V.A. Smith, Asoka page 45)”.
The Mahavamsa with all its historical importance, enormity and glory, should be only treated as the oldest and longest mythical chronicle, a historical poem written by great creative authors.
The wild fantasies of ‘Lion Ancestry’ and the myths about the origin of the Sinhala race as pre-destined, true custodians of the island of Sri Lanka and guardians of Buddhism – should be put to rest among the other mythical fairy tales. This needs courage and wisdom from grass root level, as it takes a lot to stand against the nationalistic agenda and the divisive nationalistic culture driven by Sinhala political leadership at the top.
The sooner we gather courage to start this process, the better it would be for this generation and many generations to come, as this is the only way to save Sri Lanka from the strangling stronghold of the evil twins of nationalism and terrorism on each side of the ethnic divide, and their profiteers.
[This article written by Dr. Lankamithra Fernando has been published elsewhere earlier. Acceding to a request, the author sent this directly to the FederalIdea]
http://federalidea.com/focus/archives/76
Mr Yapa,
“Now the order of the day argument is there is no difference between Sinhalese and Tamils. What a marvelous discovery.”
Now, before you take this argument into nowhere, the point is … the differences that *you* recognise are not relevant to the objective of ‘peace and reconciliation and the way forward’ – the title of this thread.
The ‘Yapa Criteria for the Future of Sri Lanka’ involves stuff like mistaken notions of our forefathers, superiority of one race over another, language, religion, race, past conflicts – all of which are irrelevant when we come to assess the worth of a human being, and widely considered to be so by all decent people in the world today.
Peace and reconciliation would require countering attitudes such as this. We are supposed to be better educated than people who lived thousands of years ago. We can excuse them for thinking that the people on the other side of the hill are savages when actually they are their cousins who happen to have different customs. But we today have better insight into who we are, who they are, and how we are all related in one human race.
Mr Yapa, as long as a section of the population believe (and are taught!) that they are superior over other people *by birth* (you remember you claimed in another thread that this is due to a privileged status earned prior to one’s arrival in one’s life, and even that you can prove how this works via quantum physics) we cannot have harmony in the world. Throughout history every tribe has claimed to be god’s chosen people. Sadly many still do.
I think you could make a great contribution to the subject of this thread if you would care to explain and expose how you came to hold these extreme polarised views on race. Then perhaps we can look at how to eliminate that from the Sri Lankan mindset going forward, which then can be a basis for peace and reconciliation for future generations. Our children and their children will thank you for it. Who were your teachers? Who were your role models? What lessons did you learn from history?
Dear Heshan:
Thank you for posting that article on groundviews, regarding Mahamsa’s reliability and exploitation by Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Also, don’t forget to mention that we CANNOT assume that many of the buddhist monuments/temples were built solely by Sinhalese people. Buddhism was very popular in south india prior to the 13th or 14th century., and there was loads of immigration from Tamil Nadu , Kerala, and Andra Pradesh to sri lanka due to the threat of buddhism dying out in south India.
Dear yapa,
Again you are writing to others without answering my message on August 9, 2010 @ 10:36 pm. Are you discriminating against Sinhala Buddhists like me? Do you enjoy Professor Heshan’s writings over mine?
Did you ever read Prof. Indrapala’s recent book as I suggested? It has more up-to-date information on Tamils in ancient SL from his 1965 dissertation.
“I don’t think there are many ancient Hindu architectural evidence as much as Buddhist architectural evidence in North and East. How come you forgot famous Kandarodei (Kadurugoda)?”
What do you think about Dr. Siva’s conclusions:
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/08/people-and-cultures-of-prehistoric-sri.html
Yapa,
“Now the order of the day argument is there is no difference between Sinhalese and Tamils. What a marvelous discovery.”
Aside from language and to a lesser extent religion, what are the differences between Sinhalese and Tamils?
Professor Heshan,
“The Mahavamsa with all its historical importance, enormity and glory, should be only treated as the oldest and longest mythical chronicle, a historical poem written by great creative authors.”
Did you see my response to Dr. Fernando?
Mahavamsa Proves That Tamils Have Lived as Long As Sinhalese In The Island
http://federalidea.com/focus/archives/115
Dear Belle;
“No, I am not against that statement. But you seem to be! What is all your talk about Sinhalese having been in SL far longer than Tamils but an attempt to reject diversity? you can’t have “unity in diversity” by trying to establish a hierarchy between groups, or trying to prove that one group has more claim to the country than others.”
Are you expecting me to accept “Unity in Diversity” by accepting there is no diversity?
I don’t understand this “Undara Demal”.
Thanks!
Dear MG;
My statement ” “Both European Americans and Iranians are Aryans.” was consequent to the following posts of BalangodaMan and some responses of Belle. I think after reading them you will understand my position. You are only saying what I want to say.
August 11, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
August 11, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
August 11, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
August 11, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
August 12, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
My answer was to a person who does not understand the difference between race and ethnicity.
Thanks for the natural response.
Dear Wijayapala;
You say;
Aside from language and to a lesser extent religion, what are the differences between Sinhalese and Tamils?
I think I need not give lectures to you to understand the two different concepts of race and ethnicity used in the contemporary literature. There are two concepts because they are not similar. Please see MG’s post above. He is verbally attacking me for not understanding that difference. I thing he will physically attack you after realizing your ignorance.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala;
You say;
“Again you are writing to others without answering my message on August 9, 2010 @ 10:36 pm. Are you discriminating against Sinhala Buddhists like me? Do you enjoy Professor Heshan’s writings over mine?”
I think I did not mean to discriminate, though we hold different views on some issues. But I have a special liking for Heshan, he is an “intelligent brat”. I like his mischief.
The other most intelligent person I respect most, our friend “Off the Cuff” has been silent for some time.
Thanks!
Did you see my response to Dr. Fernando?
Did you see the “Dr” before his name? [Edited out] . Most of you prefer to believe Mahavamsa mythology, even when the trend among educated academics is to dismiss such stories as speculation. Unless your monks actually told you this stuff has no merit, you would go on believing it.
“In any historical research, it is natural for people to change the views and assumptions, because up to now, we have no definite answers to so many unanswered questions in the fields of Archeology, history, anthropology, epigraphy and etymology in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, daily we stumble across several new findings and they contribute to new historical vistas. Therefore, based on new facts, one’s earlier conclusion has to be compromised to adopt changes. History is a continuous process of investigation without any end in sight. For example, for the last 40 years, the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists, the Pseudo-historians and bogus scholars (charlatans) have built up a very strong love and affection towards the Tamil PhD student Mr. Karthigesu Indrapala due to his 1965 PhD thesis which was in favor of the Sinhalese. When the well renowned and recognized former History professor of the Jaffna University, the same Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala retired from his profession after 30 years of research as a Senior Archeologist/Historian/epigraphist and a University Don, he settled down in Australia. All those who kept on using the PhD student Mr. Karthigesu Indrapala’s 1965 PhD thesis as a guide in all their writings must have had a heart attack when they read the book what Prof. K. Indrapala published in 2005, 40 years after his 1965 PhD thesis where he says his PhD dissertation is completely out of date that even he does not have a copy of his 1965 PhD thesis what he wrote 40 years ago as a PhD student. Therefore, it is absolutely natural that people change their opinions upon new findings. ”
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/07/a_pragmatic_tamil_consensus_wo.html
For example, for the last 40 years, the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists, the Pseudo-historians and bogus scholars (charlatans) have built up a very strong love and affection towards the Tamil PhD student Mr. Karthigesu Indrapala due to his 1965 PhD thesis which was in favor of the Sinhalese.
Readers should note that “Wijayapala” falls into this category. He keeps parroting the name of Indrapala.
Dear Huh,
Thanks for the heads-up. I don’t know much about the so-called “Tamil Buddhists”, unfortunately. I have never met a Tamil Buddhist in my entire life.
Mr Yapa has avoided Wijayapala’s question below.
“Aside from language and to a lesser extent religion, what are the differences between Sinhalese and Tamils?”
Mr Yapa,
To clarify, in your answer to Wijayapala you only talk about the difference between race and ethnicity (which itself is lifted off a previous contributor). You have avoided answering why you feel there is a big difference between you and your Tamil brothers.
Let me help you. Today, Sinhalese people are the people think they are Sinhalese people, and Tamil people are the people who think they are Tamil people. That’s all.
Beyond that we are the same.
Dear Heshan:
Wijyapala was referring to Indrapala’s book Evolution of An Ethnic Identity that was released a few years ago, where indrapala himself announces that his thesis is out of date. That book is based on entirely new research/findings. South india was a hotbed of buddhism for sometime, but it died out due to the spread of the shaivism–according to the book, this is true of the northern part of sri lanka as well, which was heavily influenced by south india and the final nail in the coffin of buddhism in northern sri lanka was the chola invasions which secured a population that identified itself as tamil and hindu in the northern areas(I believe this is what the book states).
Yapa,
“Are you expecting me to accept “Unity in Diversity” by accepting there is no diversity?
People can be equal but different. Your notion of diversity is that of hierarchical diference. That has no potential to unify people, so I don’t know how you can claim that you are for “unity in diversity”.
Travelling Academic,
” Your question “what has he achieved?” is best answered by looking in a mirror and asking yourself “what did the LTTE actually achieve for the Tamils?” (If you do a simple comparison using known facts, you might be pleasantly surprised to find that Sangareee did not torture or murder or rob from us — fellow Tamils)”
What did LTTE achieve?
Well if you insist on a comparison, LTTE at the peak of their powers ran a de facto state and possessed the military might for the government to come to a compromise, whereas Anandasangaree could not even get a permit to see the IDPs at the immediate aftermath of the war. How many Tamil detainees did Sangaree manage to free with his letters to the President? To put it in simple terms, his value is naught – only ever reason he is brought to the fore is for his anti-LTTE views.
The fact is Anandasangaree, TNA, or any campaigning for Tamil rights or devolution, regardless of their views of LTTE, stand no chance or are insignificant when it comes to the mainstream Sri Lankan politics. The last election was quite a testimony to this, in which majority of the voters have given mandate for development over issues affecting the minorities, including political solution – it should be noted that both the main parties campaigned on those grounds although they differed on foreign policies among few other things, else they had to risk the majority of the votes. Until Sinhalese progressives take control of the politics and the attitudes of the voting mass change, the Tamil people of North and East may as well adjust to a new happy life under military establishments and expect nothing other than to assimilate into the mainstream.
Dear Heshan;
Do you think the material evidence found in the Mahawamsa can be rejected by Dr. Fernando? And the material evidence given in his doctoral thesis can be rejected by Prof. Indrapala?
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“I have never met a Tamil Buddhist in my entire life.”
That is the main problem facing the “Tamil Buddhists” theory, Wijayapala and Huh want to build up.
There are evidence about Indian Tamil Buddhists, but not much about Sri Lankan Tamil Buddhists.
Hypothetical theories often fail.
Thanks!
Dear Belle;
You say;
“People can be equal but different. Your notion of diversity is that of hierarchical diference. That has no potential to unify people, so I don’t know how you can claim that you are for “unity in diversity”.”
My intention was not to create a hierarchy, but to be with the reality. To please anybody or for other reason I don’t believe deviating from it. Reality may or may not contain a hierarchy, but that is not my concern. My belief about justice is “giving everybody their due shares” , not undue shares. My belief again is justice should be based on reality, not on emotionally comfortable myths. We cannot arrive at an objective conclusion, if we asses only one side of the problem. We should be realistic.
Thanks!
Yapa,
“My intention was not to create a hierarchy, but to be with the reality. To please anybody or for other reason I don’t believe deviating from it. Reality may or may not contain a hierarchy, but that is not my concern. My belief about justice is “giving everybody their due shares” , not undue shares. My belief again is justice should be based on reality, not on emotionally comfortable myths. We cannot arrive at an objective conclusion, if we asses only one side of the problem. We should be realistic.”
What is real and what is not real is not as transparent as you think. I also critiqued the way you set up “reality” and “myths” as binary oppositions. They are not opposed–they are related. Lots of so-called “realities” are myths. This is just childish talk to claim that what you perceive is “real” and what others perceive or believe in is “myth”. People who can’t prove their perceptions often resort to saying that they are only being “realistic”, appointing themselves as arbiters of what is realistic.
As for giving everybody their due shares, under citizenship laws, everyone has equal due share. The question of whether to give anyone their “undue” share doesn’t arise.
Huh – If I may respond to your earlier reference to Indrapala regarding Buddhism before Chola times, are you referring to Jainism as opposed to Buddhism? Jainism used to be the predominant religion of South India, although Buddhism was existent as well. In today’s TamilNadu, Buddhism existed about 2000 years ago, although likely Jainism had more followers. The decline of Jainism and Buddhism in South India came about in several phases, from region to region with kingdoms to kingdoms. This was also probably because of several philosophers like Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Basavanna etc etc. Strangely, the rise of Hinduism in South India coincided with the decline of Hinduism in Northern India when Muslims (Arabs, Persians, Mongols, Turks, Afghans) invaded. And remember that Shaivism was not the only sub-religion of Hinduism. You also had Vaishavism (I haven’t seen any Vaishnavite Hindus from Srilanka among Tamils interestingly) that had great following among all sections.
Yapa and Heshan – Talking about Tamil Buddhists, I have come across a few of them India. Very very few. Few and far in between. So, Yapa is right on that point. You may likely see more Tamil Jains than Tamil Buddhists in India for example. The most interesting aspect of Buddhism in India in the last 60 years is this. With so much of caste discrimination going on India (virtually in every single state), the lower-caste folks who are often the victims want to move to other religions. Interestingly, in Northern India (typically Uttar Pradesh) most of these folks end up embracing Buddhism. This is a more voluntary conversion without any missionary (like Christians would) telling them to convert. One of India’s constitutional writers Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar was probably the one who first converted to Buddhism to resist discrimination.
Mr Yapa,
Forgive me for butting in, but when you say “My intention was not to create a hierarchy, but to be with the reality” your statement is steeped in your well-documented mindset that the existence of a hierarchy in SL ‘is the reality’, according to you – that minorities have to bow down to the majority as the true masters as decreed by ancient texts. This is no way forward. A good starting point is the commonalities between all Sri Lankans (as I said, genetically we are all predominantly ‘Tamil’ including you), and universal and unconditional respect for the equalness of all Sri Lankans regardless of race, religion or which part of SL they have lived in in past centuries.
“My belief again is justice should be based on reality” ??? But Mr Yapa, you are furthest away from reality in this debate, in my view. In fact you are alone in this debate at being far far away from reality.
For instance, “giving everybody their due shares” should, and does normally mean, everyone having equal rights and benefits. If I read you correctly, your interpretation is ‘the majority should have a larger share due to their majority’. These are two opposite concepts that you confuse into one slogan. Individual rights means, if one wants to be Tamil he should be able to be so and live as such without hindrance. That should be no concern of yours. He should have an equal right to live in peace in SL and counted as an equally valuable citizen as you. As ‘a majority’ we have a duty to exercise our majority to ensure that that is so.
My dream is that all supremacists of all races in all countries should be allocated a country for themselves, so they can all claim supremacy over each other and have a ball.
Dear Belle;
To recap what I say in my last post, I am more concern about “right and wrong” rather than “good and bad”.
Thanks!
Comment sent from Krish Varadadesikan to post on this thread:
Huh – If I may respond to your earlier reference to Indrapala regarding Buddhism
before Chola times, are you referring to Jainism as opposed to Buddhism?
Jainism used to be the predominant religion of South India, although Buddhism
was existent as well. In today’s TamilNadu, Buddhism existed about 2000 years
ago, although likely Jainism had more followers. The decline of Jainism and
Buddhism in South India came about in several phases, from region to region with kingdoms to kingdoms. This was also probably because of several philosophers like Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Basavanna etc etc. Strangely, the rise of Hinduism in South India coincided with the decline of Hinduism in Northern India when Muslims (Arabs, Persians, Mongols, Turks, Afghans) invaded.
And remember that Shaivism was not the only sub-religion of Hinduism. You also had Vaishavism (I haven’t seen any Vaishnavite Hindus from Srilanka among Tamils interestingly) that had great following among all sections.
Yapa and Heshan – Talking about Tamil Buddhists, I have come across a few of
them India. Very very few. Few and far in between. So, Yapa is right on that
point. You may likely see more Tamil Jains than Tamil Buddhists in India for
example. The most interesting aspect of Buddhism in India in the last 60 years
is this. With so much of caste discrimination going on India (virtually in
every single state), the lower-caste folks who are often the victims want to
move to other religions. Interestingly, in Northern India (typically Uttar
Pradesh) most of these folks end up embracing Buddhism. This is a more
voluntary conversion without any missionary (like Christians would) telling them
to convert. One of India’s constitutional writers Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar was
probably the one who first converted to Buddhism to resist discrimination.
Dear Krish:
Although I wouldn’t say Buddhism was THE largest religion in Tamil Nadu, it did have a big following according to Indrapala’s book. It is likely that many Tamil Buddhists immigrated to Sri Lanka due to Buddhism. This is just according to the book Evolution of an Ethnic Identity. Also, according to Professor Obeysekere of Princeton University, in an email directed to me…well, ok, I’ll just post what he said regarding the east and north of sri lanka, and south indian buddhists:
” The East Coast was in fact populated by Keralites, probably around the 13th century or a bit later. They are matrilineal Tamils and Muslims and very likely they came from the matrilineal belt in Kerala. It is also possible that they were Tamil speakers, that is, prior to the development of Malayalam as an independent language of Kerala. There is as yet no way of proving this. As for the north, there is no doubt whatever that there were kingdoms in Jaffna that were Tamil, even though some of the more powerful kings had names like Arya Charavarti – at least from the 14th century. Also remember that Sri Lanka in the 9th and 10 centuries were a part of the Chola empire under Rajaraja 1 and Rajendra until Kitti (Vijayabahu 1) from Ruhuna raised the standard of revolt and reoccupied Anuradhapura. Note also that Tamils mercernaries known as Vellakaras guarded the tooth and bowl relic at A’pura. Finally, one must not assume that all Keralites and Tamils were “Hindu” because Tamil natu and Kerala, until around the 14th century and occasionally later, had important centers of Buddhism. Sri Rahula’s pirivena at Totagamuva taught Tamil and Tamil Buddhists came there to study. In the Sinhala areas also Tamil, Kerala and generally South Indian migrations were very common but they simply became Sinhalas and Buddhists. All the castes of the coastal areas of the Western part of Sri Lanka were post 16th century Tamil migrants, those settling in the Sinhala areas became Sinhala and those settling in theTamil areas north of Mannar became Tamil. ”
Sorry, it was just hard to pick through the email lol so I decided to post what he said in its entirety.
“as I said, genetically we are all predominantly ‘Tamil’ including you”
That shows your knowledge.
“Genetics doesn’t show all human beings are alike, but the opposite. That is why DNA tests are possible. It concentrates on a unique character of an individual.
I feel you prefer to depend on emotions than facts.
My belief is “good and bad” should be based on “right and wrong” not the other way round.
As usual you seem to misunderstand what I say.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear Belle;
I think you have uplifted the discussion to a philosophical plane. Therefore I would like to answer the queries arisen from your last post in that plane.
Q: What is real and what is not real is not as transparent as you think.
A: In general it is so. But in the subject area we are talking, that is basically History , evidence support the reality and not myth. From that we can differentiate reality and myth.
Q: I also critiqued the way you set up “reality” and “myths” as binary oppositions. They are not opposed–they are related.
A: Again in a very deep sense it may be so. But most of the times, especially in the subjects of the material world they are binary opposites. “They are oppositely related”.
Q: Lots of so-called “realities” are myths.
A: This is beyond my understanding, I suppose.
QThis is just childish talk to claim that what you perceive is “real” and what others perceive or believe in is “myth”.
A: I have mentioned the criterion above. You can measure it and see again whether what I said is childish or not. (My aim is not value judgments)
Q: People who can’t prove their perceptions often resort to saying that they are only being “realistic”, appointing themselves as arbiters of what is realistic.
A: May be true but not essentially.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
“For instance, “giving everybody their due shares” should, and does normally mean, everyone having equal rights and benefits.”
Then give your baby a shot of alcohol, a fag and bring him a woman home. He also then will have equal rights and benefits.
You never understood what I have said in earlier occasions, and I feel it will continue unchanged.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“I am more concern about “right and wrong” rather than “good and bad”.
A profound statement, however I wonder what it means?
We are all concerned about ‘right and wrong’. The problem is, ‘right and wrong’ are subjective. We’re discussing objective principles, specifically what constitutes right and wrong when it comes to bringing about peace and reconciliation going forward in SL, taking heed of what you consider to be ‘right’ and exploring the opposite argument that what you consider to be ‘right’ is in the opinion of many quite ‘wrong’. That the mindset you display is the very obstacle to peace and reconciliation in our beautiful island.
Mr Yapa,
“Do you think the material evidence found in the Mahawamsa can be rejected by Dr. Fernando? And the material evidence given in his doctoral thesis can be rejected by Prof. Indrapala?”
No material evidence has been found to support the The Mahawamsa that a nation was founded by a group of non-Dravidian people. Instead there is verifiable material evidence that the nation we have today is predominantly composed of descendants from South Indian people and no trace of this relatively small group that the Mahawamsa speaks of exists in SL.
Every country in history had invasions and invaders, as well as (friendly/non-aggressive) migration. The shear numbers over many centuries ensure that, and result in, the general population being composed of mainly these people. For example, in English history we hear of invasions by the Vikings as if these were foreigners. Well, they were … at the time. But the great majority of the genes of the people who live in the north of the UK are from the Vikings. So what they see as ‘foreign’ is actually ‘themselves’.
So, coming back to your evidence argument, the evidence is wholely against your argument. The only evidence that we have from the Mahawamsa regarding this early period (written some 900 years after the events! .. and with what records?) is that evidently there was a need in the society of that time to glorify the past of the particular faction the author(s) belonged to, or most likely were commissioned by. This is a common scenario in the recording of ‘history’ anywhere, in all times in history (even now!).
You are hell bent on favouring the evidence that someone who lived 1,500 years ago supposedly had (?), which we do not have now and cannot therefore examine, and which we doubt if he even had in any reliable form, while ignoring the hard evidence we DO have in the laboratory in the present day, and all of us carry in our genes and is therefore verifiable.
Dear Huh;
Is there anything new in your post other than what I have been telling throughout. Does it say Dravidians came to Sri Lanka before Sinhalese or in the same boat with them? Does it say anything about Davidian influence before the 9th century? Does it suggest Tamils are responsible for Buddhist monuments in the North and East?
What objectives are you expecting to achieve from your post?
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan
“We know that research conducted at Stamford University (1996?) shows that we the Sinhalese are 75% of South Indian origin, according to our DNA. So the divisions are not about from whom we descend – South Indians people, same as the people who we call Tamil. Just that some of us were told we are ‘Sinhalese’ and others that they are ‘Tamil’.”
Can you please provide me with some details of the above research?
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
Do you think subjects like Archeology, History, Literature, Culture etc. etc. are useless subjects? Carbon Dating is an unwanted technology?
DNA technology also would be useless, because it would prove that each individual is different from all others. Isn’t it?
Thanks!
Yapa,
“In general it is so. But in the subject area we are talking, that is basically History , evidence support the reality and not myth. From that we can differentiate reality and myth.”
Firstly, something must be true in all specific instances in order to be generally true. So history can’t be an exception to the general truth, otherwise it would disprove that generality.
Secondly, take a look at Huh’s citation of Professor Obeysekere of Princeton University on the issue of Tamil Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Notice such words as “probably”, “very likely”, “also possible that”, “There is as yet no way of proving this”, and “one must not assume”. This professional historian from Princeton, no less, uses the language of uncertainty in talking about the past, but you seem very certain. You must be the professor’s professor to have all the answers! History is a humanities or social science subject. That is, it is NOT a science. Some scholars show that though there may be physical evidence of the past (artefacts, texts, buildings, etc), which is obviously “real”, the interpretation of such “evidence” falls into the realm of the mythic. The writing of history has been shown to be similar in narrative form and strategy to literature.
“Again in a very deep sense it may be so. But most of the times, especially in the subjects of the material world they are binary opposites. “They are oppositely related”.”
If “reality” is “myth” in a deep sense, but not in other senses, then may I conclude that at the superficial level, i.e. that of appearances, “reality” pretends to be not “mythic”? But you are always holding traffic with the world of appearances, of that which appears real.
“This is beyond my understanding, I suppose.”
No, it isn’t. One very good example of something that appeared to be “real” but was in fact a mere myth was the belief that the world was flat. Race is also a myth though it appears to be a reality.
Huh – Thanks for your response. The theories advocated by Indrapala and Obeyesekara could be true in general, but in specifics there could be exceptions. Moreover, it is hard to prove today about what possibly happened 2000 years ago.
The early works in Tamil were predominantly Jain or Buddhist related. For example, out of the five great epics of Tamil, Kundalakesi and Manimegalai were Buddhist/Buddhism-based epics. The other three, Silappathikaram, Valayapathi and Cheevaksinthamani were Jain-related. Many of the earliest Tamil scholars including Thiruvalluvar were Jains and some of them probably Buddhist. So, it is quite likely that around 1000 years ago, when South India (TamilNadu in particular) started embracing Hinduism big time, many Buddhists fled to other parts. So, that theory could be true as well. Also, it is very likely that South India (Tamil Nadu in particular) had embraced Buddhism before Srilanka did.
But what makes it awefully tough to verify all these is the absence of Buddhism among Tamils today on both sides. Although I have come across very very few Tamil Buddhists in India, I don’t know what their origins are. They could have come from Karnataka or Gujarat for instance. And there are not very many Buddhist temples in Tamil Nadu other than Chudamani Vihara that Rajaraja Chola I built 1000 years ago in Nagapattinam.
Huh – You probably know about these links! I recently came across these links myself. These articles cover Buddhism in Tamil Nadu in the last 2000 years or so. The first one by a Tamil gentleman from Srilanka and the next two by a Sinhala gentleman writing from Chennai.
http://www.sangam.org/2009/06/Tamil_Buddhists.php
http://www.lakehouse.lk/mihintalava/gaya05.htm
http://www.lakehouse.lk/mihintalava/gaya07.htm
Seems to me that Sinhala and Tamil folks have so much of shared history, especially from a religious viewpoint. What is unclear to me is how, Buddhism ended up as a religion of Sinhalas only (not to mention that HInduism ended up as Tamil-only religion).
PS: I am an Indian and so my understanding of Srilanka could be poor. So, please bear with me. And I reckon this is SL web-site and I have been taking enough space here.
Dear Yapa:
Do you think the material evidence found in the Mahawamsa can be rejected by Dr. Fernando? And the material evidence given in his doctoral thesis can be rejected by Prof. Indrapala?
If you read all of my above posts, you will see that according to De. Fernando, even most Sinhalese academics (historians) working at the university level have rejected Mahavamsa as a source of objective material. Only individuals like Nalin De Silva would make a case for Mahavamsa, but Nalin De Silva is a scientist, not a historian.
Dear yapa
“I don’t understand this “Undara Demal”.
It seems we’re at an impasse, as some of us do not understand your “Undara Sihala.”
“I think I need not give lectures to you to understand the two different concepts of race and ethnicity used in the contemporary literature.”
No need for lectures. Just tell me in plain language what are the differences between Sinhalese and Tamils, other than language and religion.
“But I have a special liking for Heshan, he is an “intelligent brat”. I like his mischief.”
I am sure Prof Heshan appreciates your kind words, but make sure to verify his claims. Just because he hasn’t met a Tamil Buddhist doesn’t mean they do not exist. Heshan has not seen his own brain; that does not mean necessarily that he lacks one.
Education Minister Prevents Tamil Girl Admission To Sinhala School
http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/546
“Instead, the little 10-year old seems fated to become a household name because the government has denied her access into Vishaka Vidyalaya on grounds of nothing more than her ethnicity. Nethmi Yogendra is a Tamil. And a Buddhist. Her father, also a Tamil Buddhist, schooled at Ananda College Colombo. During her short life as a student at President’s College, Nawala, Nethmi has studied in the Sinhalese medium.”
“There are evidence about Indian Tamil Buddhists, but not much about Sri Lankan Tamil Buddhists.”
Are you talking about today, or hundreds of years ago when Kantarodai stupas were constructed? If there are few SL Tamil Buddhists today, it may be because 1) they assimilated to become Sinhala Buddhists or 2) they converted to Hinduism.
Balangoda Man
“No material evidence has been found to support the The Mahawamsa that a nation was founded by a group of non-Dravidian people. Instead there is verifiable material evidence that the nation we have today is predominantly composed of descendants from South Indian people and no trace of this relatively small group that the Mahawamsa speaks of exists in SL.”
The Mahavamsa does not use terms such as “Dravidian” or “non-Dravidian.” There is no “race.” Instead the text refers to linguistic (“Damila”), religious (“Buddhist”), or dynastic (“Sinhala”) loyalties. The history of the Sinhala language supports the Mahavamsa’s claims that the first Sinhalese had come from the Kalinga region.
You may have missed my comment to Prof Heshan where in another thread I ironically cited the Mahavamsa to argue to yapa that the first Sinhalese were Indian outsiders and not the original inhabitants.
When I asked yapa what are the differences between Sinhalese and Tamils, I was not talking merely about race or genetics. I was referring to the mentality.
Prof Heshan
“Did you see the “Dr” before his name?”
Lankamithra Fernando has a PhD in Technical Sciences, not History, Archaeology, Linguistics, etc. He is the General Manager of Science & Technology Workshop Services in the University of Sydney. So neither his education nor his employment give him any special insight into SL history more or less than the rest of us.
Mervyn Silva apparently also has a “Dr” before his name. Should we take his statements seriously as well?
“[Edited out]”
Come on Heshan, no need to use such un-academic language here!
“Most of you prefer to believe Mahavamsa mythology, even when the trend among educated academics is to dismiss such stories as speculation.”
You have yet to provide any kind of alternative chronology to explain Sri Lankan history. The Mahavamsa answers two important questions of the origins of 1) Buddhism and 2) Sinhala language in SL. And as I pointed out earlier, it actually demolishes Sinhala nationalist arguments by showing that the original Sinhalese were Indian immigrants to SL just like the Tamils.
Thanks to Huh for posting the email from Professor Obeysekere of Princeton University in its entirety.
Mr Yapa, you will see that the Professor explains it better than me, and being a Professor he is well read – which you are not. (They didn’t tell that) The whole of the Western coastal areas of SL are predominantly descendants of migrants from South India (including mercenaries that came to fight battles for our people) and of course the colonisers, Portuguese, Dutch and British. The Tamil migrants who settled in Sinhalese areas assimilated into the Sinhalese ethnicity and now are the Sinhalese people. My family are ‘Sinhalese Buddhist’ from the coastal South and West.
The research by Kshatriya is at Stamford University.
^ a b Kshatriya GK (December 1995). “Genetic affinities of Sri Lankan populations”. Human Biology 67 (6): 843–66. PMID 8543296.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sinhalese
[quote - Wikipedia]
Predominantly Tamil origin
According to a genetic admixture study by Dr. Gautam K. Kshatriya performed in 1995, the Sinhalese have their origins in South India and North-East India, particularly Tamil Nadu and West Bengal . Due to relatively easy access from South India and Tamil workers being brought from South India under British rule, mixing of the Tamil and Sinhalese groups has been occurring for many generations. The Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been in close proximity to each other historically, linguistically, and culturally for over 2000 years. For example, the Sinhalese and South Indian Tamils have similar cultures in terms of kinship classification, cousin marriage, dress and housing.[6] This explains Kshatriya’s findings of a common gene pool of 55%.[1]
Kshatriya found the Sinhalese had the greatest contribution from South Indian Tamils (69.86% +/- 0.61), followed by Bengalis from the North East India (25.41% +/- 0.51). Similarly, Sri Lankan Tamils have a greater contribution from the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka (55.20% +/- 9.47) than Indian Tamils (16.63% +/- 8.73). The study also suggested that 75% of Sinhalese genes have Tamil admixture and the Sinhalese have the least genetic affinity with North Western Indians.[4]
A blood genetic marker study also found the Sinhalese to be most closely related to the Tamils.[2]
[unquote]
Mr Yapa! Why waste time speculating? Why not have your own genetic origins analysed? If DNA had been discovered in the 1930s Hitler might have found that he is in fact largely a Jew. Still, it is possible that you, Mr Yapa, is the one and the only pure descendant from Vijaya’s retinue existing today, in which case I would put you in a glass case and have you on display at the Colombo Museum. Or even better have you stuffed.
If you disagree with the quote above there’s no point complaining about it here. Complain to the academics, the scientists, and Wikipedia. Or just sue them!
Good luck.
(They didn’t tell that) should read (They didn’t tell YOU that)
The Mahavamsa answers two important questions of the origins of 1) Buddhism and 2) Sinhala language in SL. And as I pointed out earlier, it actually demolishes Sinhala nationalist arguments by showing that the original Sinhalese were Indian immigrants to SL just like the Tamils.
Neither the origins of Buddhism in S. Lanka, nor the origins of the Sinhala language in S. Lanka prove that Sinhalese came to the island first, which is the argument used against Tamil homeland claims. The nationalists never argued that Sinhalese are native to the island (everyone accepts that Veddahs are native); what they argue is that Tamils are invaders, and use Mahavamsa to back up this claim. Ironically you have side-stepped this issue altogether and actually misconstrued the Sinhalese nationalist viewpoint, in a desperate (albeit pathetic) attempt to defend Mahavamsa.
Let me quote two of your nationalist comrades to prove my point that they don’t deny Indian origins:
“The progenitors of us Sinhalese were the Aryans of ancient India…. This is established by history. Our ways and customs are derived accordingly. The rituals and customs found among most of us are not different from those found among the Aryans of India.”
- W. Arya Dharmawardhana
“The Sinhalese first came to this country from Bengal and the Bengalis are superior in their intelligence to other communities in India.”
- Anagarika Dharmapala
http://books.google.com/books?id=x8NQrTmjpRcC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=Anagarika+Dharmapala,+Sinhalese+Aryans&source=bl&ots=1xTraoMcA3&sig=4_UaBYcTUat1wTw1rlCkP03Gzi0&hl=en&ei=jPNoTNW_O4L78AbZh_GzBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Anagarika%20Dharmapala%2C%20Sinhalese%20Aryans&f=false
Wije,
Yes thanks, somewhat unclever choice of words on my part. What I was trying to convey is the nationalist Sinhalese idea that the ‘Sinhalese are not Tamil as a race’ (their interpretation of the Mahawamsa story in relation to present day Sinhalese) and that that’s a myth.
Heshan,
I don’t think anyone disputes the idea that the inhabitants of SL before the western colonisers were migrants from the Indian Subcontinent. The disagreement is about whether the Sinhalese and Tamils are two distinct races, or whether the distinction is only ethnic. (which is why I said ‘the Sinhalese are those that regard themselves to be such, and Tamils are those that regard themselves to be such’, their racial origins being the same).
I think I can see where Mr Yapa is coming from. When I was a boy I too believed that my parents and their parents and so on are ‘pure Sinhalese’ like everyone else around us. I believed that this purity extended back to the Vijaya landing legend (which I then believed to be factual). But that was way before I grew up and learned to read and use my critical faculties. Then in the late 1980s came the ‘Out of Africa’ theory of human migration. This was the last nail in the coffin. I no longer believe in the lion story.
Mr Yapa,
History and Myth
—————————–
Maybe this might help differenciate ‘history’ from myth.
I too had this problem as a schoolboy (many schoolboy stories coming out now). ‘History’ had already happened. Therefore, we were told that all we are learning about are facts – as opposed to science experiments in the lab when we were trying to find out something we many not yet know.
Actually history is not fact. Although what actually happened actually happened (!) we simply don’t know what it was. We cannot know it because we were not there. All we have is pieces of evidence that is continuing to be discovered and continuing to be critically analysed, making what we understand about the past evolve and get refined through time. In other words, history (quite apart from being ‘fact’) is in reality … unfolding. Today we are closer to knowing about the past than the people who lived hundreds of years ago. We and our successors in the future will know more about the ancient times of Vijaya than the Mahawamsa authors – through archeology and the Human Genome Project and other discoveries that are not yet known to us.
The Human Genome Project is as groundbreaking as the discovery that the Earth is not flat. Or that the planets revolve around the Sun. Until just 25 years ago it was commonly thought that races evolved independantly, which accounts for the physical and other visible variations among our fellow humans. Our predessors even thought different races were like different species (during slavery the Vatican decreed that Africans are not humans, that they do not have souls). Even our ancestors in SL regarded the white colonisers as some sort of higher form, another species perhaps, certainly of different origins.
You should read about the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, which is widely accepted now. In brief, the Human Genome Project proves that all humans in the entire world outside Africa are descendants of just 2 groups of people who left Africa (yes black and looking like Desmond Tutu) about 80,000 years ago from near Somalia across the sea that was in low tide at that time. Our distinctive physical appearances emerged from the environment in which they settled – those that migrated (over tens of thousands of years) to Mongolia and then to North America over Russia/Alaska have that chinese look (35,000 – 17,000 years ago), becoming more equatorial in appearance getting towards Central and South America, we are brown, Europeans branch of humans became white skinned. (this is known from identifying genetic markers in DNA and from analysing the DNA of all indegenous populations in the world).
Read about it here. You can contribute to the project (Mr Yapa, unless you have already submitted yourself as an exhibit at the Colombo Museum as a pure Vijayan. See above)
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
There is a DVD by Dr Spencer Wells that narrates the story extremely well. It has an item that is of interest to us as he takes you through how they solved the mystery of how the aborigines reached Australia migrating along the coast of India, which of course passes Lanka – more than 50,000 years ago.
So what has this to do with peace and reconciliation is SL? The divisions between the two factions largely originate because our ancestors did not not understanding who we are (they couldn’t have), and some using myths and legends as facts for political gain and war mongering. In reality, as far we know today, the Sinhalese and Tamils are the same race (Mr Yapa, only you seem to think otherwise in this debate). This story also helps see the difference between History and Myth. I went to school long before the Out of Africa discovery. We thought what we were taught was fact. So did the teachers. Now we know it is myth and legend as the facts we now have do not support what we were taught. (similar to the illustration from Belle regardging the flat Earth which was verifiable as flat as far as ancient people could determine).
When we talk about Sinhalese, Tamil Buddhists etc we are really talking about what those people identified themselves as, for various reasons, their choice (eg. assimilation), nothing more. It is a nonsense to read a deeper meaning as if these groups are from different planets, or are difference species.
Mr Yapa, I was hoping you will have explained the difference between Sinhalese people and Tamil people in terms other than ‘who they think they are’ (who they regard themselves to be), but you have not as yet.
Prof Heshan
Thank you for using more civilized language in your responses. I am proud of you.
“If you read all of my above posts, you will see that according to De. Fernando, even most Sinhalese academics (historians) working at the university level have rejected Mahavamsa as a source of objective material.”
Like who?
In the field of history, there is no such thing as a source of “objective” material. Historical chronicles, whether in the past or present by their very nature are subjective. That alone does not constitute grounds to reject them as source material.
“but Nalin De Silva is a scientist, not a historian.”
Like Lankamithra Fernando?
“Neither the origins of Buddhism in S. Lanka, nor the origins of the Sinhala language in S. Lanka prove that Sinhalese came to the island first, which is the argument used against Tamil homeland claims.”
Actually the most credible argument against the idea of a historical Tamil homeland (or a separate Tamil kingdom in ancient times) is the lack of any epigraphical or literary evidence of such a homeland in ancient SL. The oldest known Tamil inscription dates to Chola times. Prior to that, Tamil Saiva literature mentions certain holy places near Mannar and Trincomalee, but this does not equate to a separate kingdom.
It is this lack of any kind of evidence that explains why no historian has or will ever write a history of “Tamil Eelam.” It never existed.
Opponents of Sinhala nationalism would much better serve their cause instead by showing how the ancient civilizations were not so monoethnically “Sinhala” as often portrayed by the Nalin de Silva types. K. Indrapala’s book does an excellent job demolishing this myth of SL history. It is essentially impossible for the Sinhalese to have a full grasp of their history if they ignore or marginalize the Tamil or “Dravidian” aspects.
@ModVoice
Oh, thank you, ModVoice, thank you very much for reminding us of this de facto state — tell me again, will you, was it post offices they were running, or does the glorious de facto state also include our own torture chambers where our language, Tamil, was spoken exclusively? Our right to be tortured in Tamil, by fellow Tamils, right?
You could tell me more, please — how was this de facto state achieved and what happened after that? Where is the Eelam they promised to deliver? Where now is the compromise from the government you speak of? Or was our goal simply to achieve a de facto state for a few milliseconds, by whatever means, and then tell stories about it to our grand-children?
Dear ModVoice, however long a small number of people amongst the Tamil community want to hide their heads in the sand, the sad fact remains that the LTTE phenomenon unleashed a greater amount of brutality on the Tamil population than whatever the racists amongst the Sinhalese had ever planned for us. The sooner we, Tamils, understand that, the greater is the chance of re-building that very nice way of life we once had, from the ashes under which it is all now buried. In my view, progress can only be made by working in partnership with the progressives amongst the Sinhalese, building on the idea of seeking solutions to the common problems faced by all inhabitants of the island: A better life for members of my community (Tamil) to emerge as a side-effect of a better life for everyone in my country (Sri Lanka). And personally, I am pleased to have begun some work, in the hope that my own small contributions, to achieve targets set along the above lines, will resonate well with what Lionel Bopage outlines in his nice speech posted here.
Dear BalangodaMan;
“You are hell bent on favouring the evidence that someone who lived 1,500 years ago supposedly had (?), which we do not have now and cannot therefore examine, and which we doubt if he even had in any reliable form, while ignoring the hard evidence we DO have in the laboratory in the present day, and all of us carry in our genes and is therefore verifiable.”
What do you have to say about these?
1. The volume of information on the internet is genu-inely astounding. Of course not all, or even a small fraction of it, is true but a great deal of it is certainly interesting.
The entry in Wikipedia under ‘Sinhala people’ – makes particularly interesting reading. It says, in reasonably technical jargon, that DNA studies conducted by Stanford University in 2003 indicate that the Sinhala people are not descended from north Indian settlers but rather that they can trace their origins to the indigenous people who populated this island circa 12000 BC.
What this fairly obscure DNA study does therefore is cast doubt on the creation myth central to the identity of the nation’s principle ethnic group; the legend that the Sinhalese people are the descendents of a group of marauding North Indians who arrived on the island on precisely the date of the Buddha’s death.
2. Predominantly Bengali origin
An Alu polymorphism analysis of Sinhalese from Colombo by Dr Sarabjit Mastanain in 2007 using Tamil, Bengali, Gujarati (Patel), and Punjabi as parental populations found different proportions of genetic contribution:[5]
Statistical Method Bengali Tamil North Western
Point Estimate 57.49% 42.5% -
Maximum Likelihood Method 88.07% - -
Using Tamil, Bengali and North West as parenteral population 50-66% 11-30% 20-23%
A genetic distance analysis by Dr Robet Kirk also concluded that the modern Sinhalese are most closely related to the Bengalis.[3]
This is further substantiated by a VNTR study, which found 82% of Sinhalese genes to originate from Bengali admixture:[4]
Parenteral population Bengali Tamil Gujarati Punjabi
Using Tamil and Bengali as parenteral population 70.03% 29.97% -
Using Tamil, Bengali and Gujarati as parenteral population 71.82% 16.38% 11.82%
Using Bengal, Gujarati and Punjabi as parenteral population 82.09% - 15.39% 2.52%
D1S80 allele frequency (A popular allele for genetic fingerprinting) is also similar between the Sinhalese and Bengalis, suggesting the two groups are closely related.[7] The Sinhalese also have similar frequencies of the allele MTHFR 677T (13%) to West Bengalis (17%).[8][9]
[edit] Evidence for North Indian origin
A study in 2007 found similar frequencies of the allele HLA-A*02 in sinhalese (7.4%) and North Indian subjects (6.7%). HLA-A*02 is a rare allele which has a relatively high frequency in North Indian populations and is considered to be a novel allele among the North Indian population. This suggests possible North Indian origin of the Sinhalese.[10]
Linguistically the Sinhalese are closer to North Indians than South Indians, as the Sinhala language is a member of the Indo-Aryan languages.[11]
How hard is your hard evidence?
Thanks!
YAPA
YOUR FINAL POSTING IS BREATHTAKINGLY INTERESTING!
Anybody can understand how close the Sinhalese language sounds with the North Indian languages and how distant it sounds with Tamil,apart from the borrowed words
Dear Travelling Academic:
It’s great to hear from someone like you on this site! We–the progressive minorities and progressive majority members(i.e. people like me)-need to join together. The fate of Sri Lanka is really in our hands. The biggest failing of post-independence Sri Lanka was how the minority parties and the Sinhalese left never joined together, even though they felt similarly on a number of issues. In the next few decades, the progressive Sinhalese and minorities will need to join together against the racist nationalists.
BalangodaMan,
The disagreement is about whether the Sinhalese and Tamils are two distinct races, or whether the distinction is only ethnic. (which is why I said ‘the Sinhalese are those that regard themselves to be such, and Tamils are those that regard themselves to be such’, their racial origins being the same).
The disagreement is slightly more than that. The common Sinhalese view is that Tamils are invaders . By invasion is meant that they (Tamils) destroyed the pre-existing Sinhalese civilizations. The only way to justify the invasion theory is to claim that Sinhalese came to the island first (otherwise an invasion would not be possible). Given two groups of people, A and B, group B can *invade* the territory of group A if and only if group A is already occupying the said territory. I hope you can see how everything goes back to this question of “who came to the island first.” Whether or not Sinhalese and Tamils share similar genes is actually irrelevant; the question for our SB nationalists is the question of ownership of the land , and they have justified their stake in the ownership by claiming, via Mahavamsa and such sources, that Tamils are invaders.
In the field of history, there is no such thing as a source of “objective” material. Historical chronicles, whether in the past or present by their very nature are subjective. That alone does not constitute grounds to reject them as source material.
There is an accepted (standard) convention for what constitutes “objective evidence”, within the academic community. I am not going to explain it here, since I doubt you would understand it. Suffice it to say, the Mahavamsa is not accepted as a source of objective material. It does not meet the minimum requirements, as Dr. Mendis (University of Ceylon) pointed out. Now, certain people in orange may have told you differently, but that is irrelevant – they are not the ones who write professional papers or conduct research.
Actually the most credible argument against the idea of a historical Tamil homeland (or a separate Tamil kingdom in ancient times) is the lack of any epigraphical or literary evidence of such a homeland in ancient SL. The oldest known Tamil inscription dates to Chola times. Prior to that, Tamil Saiva literature mentions certain holy places near Mannar and Trincomalee, but this does not equate to a separate kingdom.
Showing your true nationalist colors.
An early historic inscription in Tamil language and in Tamil Brahmi script, dateable to c.200 BCE, has been found in the archaeological excavations by a German team at Tissamaharama in the down south of the island of Sri Lanka. The inscription deciphered by I. Mahadevan as ‘Thira’li Mu’ri,’ which means ‘written agreement of the assembly,’ was incised on an early historic Black and Red Ware pottery. The last letter of the inscription, which is retroflex Tamil ‘Ri’, is very clearly a Tamil phoneme in Tamil Brahmi script, academics commented. The Tamil Brahmi inscription is also found mixed with megalithic or early historic graffiti marks, which were probably the symbols of the guild, they further said. Tissamaharama or ancient Mahaagama is located close to Kathirkaamam (Kataragama), a famous pilgrim centre for Tamils as well as Sinhalese.
Prakrit and Tamil were the earliest written languages of South Asia.
The first evidences in these languages, in phonetic writing, appear from c.3rd century BCE.
Sinhala as an identifiable language appears in inscriptions from c. 8– 9th century CE onwards.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=32063
The fact that Tamil inscriptions pre-date the entire Sinhala language by several centuries speaks volumes in and of itself about who came to the island first.
Heshan,
I agree the question of casting Tamils as invaders is perhaps the greatest flaw in our history education, and the source of the divides and attitudes.
The answer I think is a U-turn in the teaching of our history. This will not happen as long as some elements of our society wish to maintain that not all citizens of our country are equal. We are the most racist country I have come across, sadly. Most people do not even seem understand the modern concept of ‘racism’.
Dear BalangodaMan;
“The answer I think is a U-turn in the teaching of our history. This will not happen as long as some elements of our society wish to maintain that not all citizens of our country are equal. We are the most racist country I have come across, sadly. Most people do not even seem understand the modern concept of ‘racism’.”
I think you have got confused “facts” with “emotions”. It seems that you have been overwhelmed by your own emotions and imaginations. Please don’t let them over power your critical and analytical thinking. When you got emotional your capacity to think impartially get effected.
Further, form the very beginning I have been posting many queries about your comments but you haven’t answered them except one query. I think you have a responsibility to answer them. I hope you will answer all of them. To remind you my first query was on August 11, 2010 @ 8:57 pm.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
“I think I can see where Mr Yapa is coming from. When I was a boy I too believed that my parents and their parents and so on are ‘pure Sinhalese’ like everyone else around us. I believed that this purity extended back to the Vijaya landing legend (which I then believed to be factual). But that was way before I grew up and learned to read and use my critical faculties. Then in the late 1980s came the ‘Out of Africa’ theory of human migration. This was the last nail in the coffin. I no longer believe in the lion story.”
I have never seen you understanding what I say. You yourself dream of things as my ideas and keep on talking. Who told you that I believe lion story. My view is that Sinhalese are mainly the decedents of pre Wijaya natives, yaksa and Naga. I have given substantiate my view in a debate with wijayapala in a previous discussion.
It seems that you love emotionally pleasant ideas.
Further, I think I have answered your repeated quest, “Mr Yapa, I was hoping you will have explained the difference between Sinhalese people and Tamil people in terms other than ‘who they think they are’ (who they regard themselves to be), but you have not as yet.” in my post of August 17, 2010 @ 6:22 am. You can convey the message to its root too.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan,
“We are the most racist country I have come across, sadly.”
You really should travel more.
Dear Heshan;
“Sinhala as an identifiable language appears in inscriptions from c. 8– 9th century CE onwards.”
Taminet is a very reliable source of information, especially wrt Sinhalese!!!! Is this more reliable than Mahawamsa?
Your consistency seems affected here by some mysterious factor.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
The base of reconciliation should not be emotions. Pleasant or unpleasant it should be based on facts.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
“The Human Genome Project is as groundbreaking as the discovery that the Earth is not flat.”
Your project to replace “ethnicity” by “race” in in Social Sciences is also a groundbreaking discovery. Why don’t you publish this in a Social Science journal. You will definitely get the Nobel prize, if they offer one for Social Sciences. you might even get the peace prize for your profound theory.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
“In reality, as far we know today, the Sinhalese and Tamils are the same race.”
This naive idea is a result of your bravery originated from your lack of knowledge.
Thanks!
Heshan,
So to prove that the Mahavamsa is just ethno-nationalist propaganda of dubious veracity, you cite…. Tamilnet.
Let no one here say you don’t have a sense of humour.
Dear BalangodaMan;
“Mr Yapa, you will see that the Professor explains it better than me, and being a Professor he is well read – which you are not”
When I read your reasoning and conclusions, a story came to my mind my dear BalangodaMan.
A scientist thought to conduct an experiment about a beetle. He took a beetle and put it on the table of his laboratory and commanded the beetle “GO!”.
Then the beetle crawled on the table.
Then he took the beetle and removed one of the legs and replaced the beetle on the table and commanded “GO!”.
Though with a bit difficulty the beetle crawled.
Then he removed one more leg and repeated the experiment and the beetle crawled with a little bit more difficulty.
The scientist did the experiment for six times removing a leg each time, even at the last instance the beetle crawled very slowly with the remaining one leg.
Then the scientist removed the last leg of the beetle put it on the table and repeated his command, “GO!”
THIS TIME THE BEETLE DID NOT CRAWL.
The scientist concluded ” WEN ALL SIX LEGS ARE REMOVED, BEETLES CANNOT HEAR!
Your sweeping generalizations are not different. When you are less informed it could be easy to arrive at conclusions. It is your advantage, I suppose.
According to your theory all professors are well read than Martin Wickramasinhe.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
August 17, 2010 @ 6:22 am
Still waaaay off the mark.
Let’s take the Sinhalese of the Western Coast for example. It is well acknowledged that South Indian migrants over the centuries who settled in these areas assimilated into the Sinhalese, and are now known as Sinhalese. (BTW these are not invaders, they came to help fight battles, general migration, fisheremen who got lost at sea, alien abduction returnees misdirected etc).
My point is, do you regard Tamils who have assimilated into Sinhalese as Sinhalese or Tamil? I think you do, which is the worrying thing. If that’s the case then this second-class status you seem to wish to bestow upon some of our brothers will extend to the general population of the Western Coast also. Worst still, if the present Tamil population adopt Sinhalese lifestyles (who knows?) even that will not satisfy people like you. Then there will be calls for ‘anti-ethnic-conversion legistlation’ to prevent it! Or a demand for a description of ‘Sinhalese, formerly Tamil’ under ‘race’ in application forms, school entrance, passports etc.
While there is a desire (of some people) to create division and categories of ‘secondary-humans’ (like one Hitler once had) there will be researchers who will be ready to prove any racist theory.
The alarm is not about ‘what’ you want, but ‘why’ you want it, and ‘that’ you want it.
O Great Mr Yapa,
“The base of reconciliation should not be emotions.”
It is.
Reconciliation is an emotional experience. It is firstly about confronting the errors of our own ways and then, with the pureness of heart that results, acknowledging to our former adversaries the extent of our regret, unconditionally.
You are confusing ‘confrontation’ with ‘reconciliation’. They are even spelt differently, pronounced differently and mean something like the opposite.
Identity and pre-history
—————————
Granted there were people on this island as far back as 50,000 years. But whether they were ‘Sinhalese’ people or not would depend on your particular definition of the term, doesn’t it? If it’s language and religion and a cultural identity then what is that? Could it have been anything we can see today? Very unlikely! You are putting forward a nonsense because by ‘Sinhalese’ you mean the ‘Sinhalese identity’ that was invented only 130 years ago and promoted with greater vigour only post-independence, that we know very well today – an identity that could not have existed 10,000 or even 2,500 years ago without time travel.
I think the flaw in your argument lies in an erroneous notion that the ancient people in SL somehow ‘grew our of the soil’ in the island, evolved from a tadpole that lived near Kandy billions of years ago. So any other human is an outsider, a recent arrival, carrying spears or not. Can’t you adjust your knowledge to accommodate the idea that no modern humans existed anywhere in the world outside Africa until 80,000 years ago? So all modern humans (homo sapiens) came to ALL countries from outside, including these pre-historic people who you claim were ‘always there in SL’. The ‘always were there’ theory was the generally accepted ‘fact’ until recently until the human genome project blew it to pieces.
In those days (say 10,000 years ago) humans only moved a few miles from where they were born. The island of Lanka could only have been inhabited by humans moving a short distance from what is now Tamil Nadu, a little bit by little bit. A quick look at the Atlas may help see this.
Dear BalangodaMan;
“My point is, do you regard Tamils who have assimilated into Sinhalese as Sinhalese or Tamil?”
Don’t ask me such naive questions. Learn your basics.
If possible answer my queries posed to you.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan;
You are very uninformed.
“Mahavamsa Bashing” was one of the first and foremost strategies of Tamil racism. Tamil historians tried to distort the history of this country and to build a false history friendly to them to pave the way to a Tamil Eelam here. They taught fabricated false theories to uneducated youth of Tamil like Prabakaran. These foolish guys got all the lies taught by their educated ones emotionally (just like BalangodaMan) and started all sort of destructive acts and hostilities against Sinhalese. That was the seed of this massive destruction. The main obstacle for their fabricated theory is the huge evidence found in the Mahavamsa. That is the reason for their hate of the Mahawamsa. So they started ” Mahawamsa Bashing”.
BalangodaMan, you are only an uninformed innocent prey of that foul project. You have a lot to learn , as wijayapala once told you.
Thanks!
Yapa,
“When I read your reasoning and conclusions, a story came to my mind my dear BalangodaMan.”
For someone who claims that he has a better grasp of reality than others, you sure rely a lot on stories (i.e. myths) to make your points! Just because one (fictional) scientist interpreted facts wrongly, that means that BalangodaMan is making sweeping generalizations? Why would it not refer equally to your own sweeping generalizations instead?
You’re saying that the scientist should have used common sense in interpreting his evidence, i.e. that it is the removal of the legs that caused the beetle to remain stationary. Is it common sense to claim that people all the way over from the north of India came first to Sri Lanka when South India was not only adjacent to this beautiful island full of natural resources, but was actually connected to it through a natural bridge in those ancient times? To make such a claim is of the same order of silliness as your scientist thinking that removing the legs of a beetle causes him to lose his hearing.
Also, if you really want to make your claim stick that Sinhalese arrived first by citing genetic evidence, you need to address the disparity in findings between various genetic studies, some of which claim that Sinhalese are most related to Tamils and others that claim that they are related to Bengalis. You need to really get into genetic theory to approach this issue. Perhaps there is something wrong with the indicators used in some studies over others. But you need to identify such lapses before you can make your claims stick.
But at the end of it, who came first is totally irrelevant to the issue of the Tamil claim for an Eelam. At the point the nation was formed, Tamils were largely settled in some areas. If the new nation of Sri Lanka could not give equal rights to the Tamils, then it had no right to count Tamil settled territory as part of the new nation. It doesn’t matter how long the Tamils were there–they were there when the new nation was being negotiated and formed. Citizenship is a social contract that entails equal rights. If you can’t give equal rights, then the Tamils are not citizens of SL and SL never had any jurisdiction over Tamils and the north. In which case, the recently concluded war was an invasion and not a civil war. But it would seem according to you, an invasion does not give any ownership rights to the invaders!
Prof Heshan
“Showing your true nationalist colors.”
If you believe that there was a separate Tamil kingdom in ancient times (which anyway would be irrelevant to the discussion), you are most free to refute me.
Thank you for the Tamilnet link. The citation of Mahadevan was generally correct although Tamilnet’s own analysis was goofy: there has never been a language called “Prakrit.” Prakrit refers to a category of similar ancient Indo-Aryan languages, of which Sinhala prakrit (the direct forerunner of modern Sinhala) was one. It is not separate from Sinhala in the same way that ancient Tamil is not separate from modern Tamil save for age and some other influences.
You neglected to include one key part of Mahadevan’s testimony:
“The inscription bears testimony to the presence in southern Sri Lanka of a local Tamil mercantile community organised in a guild to conduct maritime trade as early as at the close of the 3rd century BCE”.”
Is this your evidence of a separate Tamil kingdom?
yapa
“BalangodaMan, you are only an uninformed innocent prey of that foul project. You have a lot to learn , as wijayapala once told you.”
Perhaps this applies to all of us.
As I told Heshan, the Mahavamsa provides key glimpses into the origin of the Sinhalese and Buddhism in SL. I would add that it is a tool to decipher Indian history as well. The Europeans who uncovered the Asokan Edicts in India, for example, had no idea who he was until James Princep drew the connection with the Sinhala chronicles.
The Mahavamsa is not all-encompassing, however; it does not contain the sum total of every aspect of SL history. No historical text does. It is up to the historian to play detective by seeking clues in other places.
In this case, the Mahavamsa does not explain the origins/ancestry of the *modern* Sinhala people. Sinhala language and Buddhism, yes. Sinhala people, no.
Sorry I hit the submit button too early.
I meant to add that the glaring gap in the Mahavamsa is the lack of discussion on the Tamils in SL. Perhaps this is a reason why the Tamils have not embraced it the way we have.
Wije,
“In this case, the Mahavamsa does not explain the origins/ancestry of the *modern* Sinhala people. Sinhala language and Buddhism, yes. Sinhala people, no.”
My thoughts exactly.
At the extreme, it would take only one influential person arriving from outside to introduce a new language and religion (fashion, sport, all things cultural) to an entire tribe. Therefore, ‘migration’ of culture is not necessarily indicative of physical migration of people. For example, Nigerians who speak English in Nigeria did not originally come to Nigeria from England!
So, in SL is this a cultural conflict? A (mistaken) racial conflict? A longevity conflict? Or just ‘a conflict’ spurred on by bad education that cast part of our people as having something to answer for? (the latter using race, culture, longevity as bogeymen excuses to justify a deep seated unjustifiable shameful prejudice)
Gentlemen!
I am much enthused by curiosity and wandering to know in what language the ‘Mahavamsa’ was written originally. Was it in Sinhalese or Hindi or Sanskrit?
Wije,
“the glaring gap in the Mahavamsa is the lack of discussion on the Tamils in SL”
Which is why I think it was most probably written to glorify the Sinhalese. Quite likely similar literary endeavours existed in all other tribes/groups but we don’t know about them because (1) they were lost/destroyed (2) not found yet.
All,
Let’s get this is perspective. The Mahawamsa is an important discovery. Its part in developing a national identity in the late 1800s is understandable – for those alarmed at the rising popularity of the colonisers it became a perfect tool. I don’t think the promotion of it was aimed at driving a wedge between the Sinhalese and the Tamils, rather to combat the rapid ‘Anglisisation and Christianisation’ of Ceylon. The Mahawamsa should be equally important to all Sri Lankans as a voice from the past (albeit one voice, there could have been many more). Its a pity that it has become a political football in this unnecessary conflict. An acknowledgement of that may help the process of reconciliation (for those who want it, that is).
As John Lennon sang ‘the war is over (if you want it)’.
Nithyananthan,
The Mahawamsa was written in Pali.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavamsa
Dear Belle;
“Also, if you really want to make your claim stick that Sinhalese arrived first by citing genetic evidence,….”
Really I don’t want. Only BalangodaMan suggested to solve the problem on “racial” basis. If you read carefully you will realize that I am against that “racial theory”. I argued against it. BalangodaMan is “a little Hitler” who believes building social and political institutions on racial basis. This Montessori child is acting like a bull in the china shop.
” But at the end of it, who came first is totally irrelevant to the issue of the Tamil claim for an Eelam. At the point the nation was formed,…….”
Irrelevant? For the advantage of your claims it is irrelevant? Otherwise how do you say it is irrelevant? Just parroting and repeating it as a mantra does not substantiate statements. Again claim for Eelam? It is history, and the claim again would only do the reconciliation process delayed. Nation formed? what nation formation are you talking about? You are trying to create some more imaginary concepts.
” If you can’t give equal rights,………….”
To get equal rights you don’t need to distort the history. Are they expecting to gain their rights by rejecting the rights of Sinhalese for their legitimate history? Why do you want to do it? I never have rejected the equal rights for Tamils. What I opposing is to rejecting Sinhalese’ rights is gain your rights. This is a demand, not negotiation. This attempt to distort the the history has some hidden agenda as giving equal rights is possible without distorting the history. History of Sinhalese is a right of them.
“But it would seem according to you, an invasion does not give any ownership rights to the invaders!”
Do you really think invaders must have equal rights. No I don’t believe so.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“Do you really think invaders must have equal rights. No I don’t believe so.”
So who invited us to Lanka all those years ago? (whoever we are)
(I have asked this before) Mr Yapa, who taught you these things?
In those days the country was huge relative to the number of people who lived here. Nobody needed to ‘invade’ to come and settle in Lanka. No border controls. No visas. No big sign saying ‘keep out’. Some came to help our rulers fight internal wars. Large numbers in the Western Coastal areas (like I said) were South Indian mercenaries. These people are now called Sinhalese. Do they also have to reveal themselves as an underclass for you? How do we separate the descendants of invaders (now define? likely to be a minority and much diluted) from the descendants of peaceful migrants?
Mr Yapa, you are harping on about things that are supposed to have happened 1,000 years ago (even if they did happen as you think they did). Do you really want the people of the next 1,000 years to bear your misplaced insecurities?
Every land had migrations, invasions, famine, drought, natural disasters. These things are happening even now as we speak. It is not unique to our country. It is how a country and its people grow up and becomes a more mature country. You too need to grow up and become mature, and move on. There is peace to be made and we must not let attitudes like this get in the way. And I thought you are a Buddhist too. May I leave you with the wish that you reconsider your attitude for the sake of the future of Sri Lanka.
Yapa,
‘Really I don’t want. Only BalangodaMan suggested to solve the problem on “racial” basis. If you read carefully you will realize that I am against that “racial theory”.’
I went back to check your early posts in this thread. Other forummers were busy discussing the fate of Tamils displaced by the war, and how SL government should try to treat Tamils in a more equitable fashion. Then you came along and disturbed the focus on equal rights by challenging somebody who saw Sinhalese chauvinism as an obstacle to peace and reconciliation. You did so by bringing up ancient history, linking alleged Tamil destruction of Anuradapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms to LTTE’s violence, and beyond that generally to Tamil demand for Eelam. What is that if not an assertion of your belief in “race”? Only a person who believes in race would think that a community doesn’t change over centuries–that they will behave in the present exactly as they behaved many, many centuries ago. You speak as if you believe that invasion and violence is coded in Tamil genes (although of course you are very careful about not saying that directly).
Later when Huh said SL had been in the past made up of kingdoms, rather than political formations based on race, you challenged that too, insisting that the kingdoms were based on race.
Further, you show distinct discomfort about the idea that those known as the Sinhalese today may be made up of Tamils who in the past assimilated into Sinhalese culture. The people who believe this consider Sinhalese to be an ethnicity rather than a race. But you want to assert that it is a race.
Do you actually think forummers here are dumb enough to fall for your ploy of saying you don’t believe in race while all the while arguing to keep race as a valid concept? You remind me of people who do nasty things to others while claiming all the while to be acting in their interests.
“I never have rejected the equal rights for Tamils. What I opposing is to rejecting Sinhalese’ rights is gain your rights.”
All your posts depict Tamils in a very bad light, as usurpers or invaders of Sinhalese land. Do you see that as promoting equal rights for Tamils? I have never ever seen you participate in any thread where you seriously suggest ways for Tamils to be given equal rights. You only pay lip service to it (like here) while attempting to rile people against Tamils and raising totally imaginary fears of Tamils obtaining their Eelam at the expense of Sinhalese rights (which is designed to make Sinhalese resistant to giving Tamils their equal rights). Eelam will never happen–you know that as well as anyone else. SL Tamils don’t have the political power to demand it and actually they are not even demanding it. They are looking at other ways of power sharing (which is their right, by the way). Due to sovereignty issues, the diaspora can never force Eelam on SL. They may have some traction in demanding equal rights (which appears to scare you silly). China will not let Eelam happen. So why do you raise these totally imaginary fears? We all know your game.
“To get equal rights you don’t need to distort the history. Are they expecting to gain their rights by rejecting the rights of Sinhalese for their legitimate history?”
The Sinhalese have a right to their history as anybody else. But they DONT have a right to nationalist chauvinism or to majoritarianism. They don’t have a right to distort their history to serve their nationalist chauvinism. Why do you even emphasize history as the history of race? Historians have already shown time and again that race was not a concept embraced or even known in ancient times–yet you want to structure history along racial lines. You have throughout used the modern race lens to distort SL history of ancient times.
Why do you distort Tamil history to make Tamils seem like they have contributed nothing to SL except murder and mayhem?
“Irrelevant? For the advantage of your claims it is irrelevant? Otherwise how do you say it is irrelevant? Just parroting and repeating it as a mantra does not substantiate statements. Again claim for Eelam? It is history, and the claim again would only do the reconciliation process delayed. Nation formed? what nation formation are you talking about? You are trying to create some more imaginary concepts.”
I am not at all surprised by your disdain for the concept of a nation as a social contract and as a reality. You are one with your government in having such disdain. But the nation is a reality. Eelam is not in itself an illegitimate claim—every community on this earth has an inalienable right to self-determination. Unfortunately, they do not always attain this right. But in exchange for dropping this claim, do you not think the Tamils have a right to claim equal rights? That is the basis of being a citizen. If you are not prepared to give equal rights to a community, they have every right to sail away from your nation. It is not the demand for Eelam that has delayed the reconciliation process—it is the refusal to give Tamils their equal rights that has caused this delay.
Dear Belle;
“For someone who claims that he has a better grasp of reality than others, you sure rely a lot on stories (i.e. myths)…………”
This shows the depth and width of your knowledge and thinking. You are a prisoner of popular thinking. Did you ever think of the mighty service endowed by the stories in human civilization to bring it to the present position? Do you underestimate the contribution of stories to shape and mold morality and values of the human kind? What do you think the present situation of the mankind if the stories found in Vedas, Upanishads, Bible, Koran, Jathaka Stories, Folk Lore, Fairy Tales, Aesop’s Fables did not exist? Have you read Pinocchio’s story? Didn’t you ever find your nose is unusually long?
Most of the people do not understand the value of the things that are not purposely taught to them or if I say in other words if not in their syllabus.
Most of the learned people today are just syllabus learned people, not real learned people. They do not know cannot think anything out side their syllabuses. To day we feel misery of the lack of the scholars of the scale of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.
Thanks!
First and foremost, Mahawansa is not a book written by some Buddhist monk on “omaginary tales” like Vedas nor a “collection of Jewish Fairy Tales”. It is a chronicle contributed by many scholars over a period of nearly 2000 years. Some details of it may be definitely blown out of proportion and at times biased towards certain rulers according to the liking of the chronicler. For example the account on Dutugemunu goes on and on for several pages whereas the description of Kashyapa in limited to one paragraph! And also there is a touch of super natural as well in describing certain events,maybe in order to make the accounts more graphic.
But, all in all any of these does not diminish the value of Mahawansa as a historical source simply because the events and the time periods described in the chronicle by and large match the other historical evidence i.e. the stone inscriptions, bronze “sannasas” and other artifacts.
I won’t be surprised if some of the “hyperintellectual” professors who post here say that stone inscriptions are the work of “Rajapakse government” or “Sinhalese extremists”!
Longus,
It is not the Mahawamsa that this debate has an issue with. It is the introduction of the Mahawamsa to this debate to frustrate an exploration of how peace and reconciliation can be brought about.
The implication, apart from the content of the chronicles, of its existence alone is to further the mistaken and chauvinistic idea that nobody but the (community that calls itself Sinhalese today) are proper bona fide citizens of SL. The absence of similar chronicles describing other groups does not reduce their validity (they may exist, may have existed, may well be found).
Yapa,
“This shows the depth and width of your knowledge and thinking. You are a prisoner of popular thinking. Did you ever think of the mighty service endowed by the stories in human civilization to bring it to the present position? Do you underestimate the contribution of stories to shape and mold morality and values of the human kind? What do you think the present situation of the mankind if the stories found in Vedas, Upanishads, Bible, Koran, Jathaka Stories, Folk Lore, Fairy Tales, Aesop’s Fables did not exist? Have you read Pinocchio’s story? Didn’t you ever find your nose is unusually long?”
I have no problems with stories. It’s my area of specialization, actually. But you were the one complaining about how everyone prefers myths to reality.
Actually, my nose is very short. Sometimes people think I can’t be Indian because of that! Your nose is probably short too. You ever heard the story about men’s noses?
Mr. Balangodaman,
Thank you for your response clearing my doubt. Not that I didn’t know – but confused. I learnt it long ago when I did history at Grade-5.
I follow-up and keep track with keen interest the unhampered and unregulated interesting discussions in the GV. Volleys of crisscrossing arguments, covering all aspects of Lankan political affairs, going on between the well-read and informed elites and academics enjoy good reception among the audience. Although outwardly the discussion simply appears as a grade – 8 school debates, the objectives are believed to be noble, constructive, exploratory, informative and healthy; and expected to be productive and fruitful one day – with purpose-served desired outcome at the end.
Your presentation style, a fact that you believe-in and emphasize, always accompanies pleasing explanation to the very fact without deviation or distortion, by setting forth careful and often elaborate detail is appreciated; and it protrudes one’s devotion to exercise intellectual pursuit guided by his / her appetite for intellect rather than emotional compulsions.
Qoute from Mr. Wije – “In this case, the Mahavamsa does not explain the origins/ancestry of the *modern* Sinhala people. Sinhala language and Buddhism, yes. Sinhala people, no’.
I perceive the ‘Old Testament’ as so sacred Holy book to the descendents of Abraham; and so is the venerable ‘Mahavamsa’ to our Sinhalese brethren. Then my notion prompts another persisting puzzle as to why the Mahavamsa was not written in Singhalese Language! Therefore, I would be much pleased if anyone of the learned, Mr. Balangodaman in particular, could correct me if I had wrongly conceived such belief and explain realistically acceptable justification as how or why the Sinhalese Language was circumvented. Thanks! Nithy!
Mr Yapa,
Whilst it is bad netiquette to combine viewpoints raised in two separate discussion threads I think your (stated) views on this thread …
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/
… may throw some light on why you are adamant that some people are inferior (by some ‘ancestral burden’) even before they are born (your sentiment).
Following on from your theories in that thread, people you consider to be sons and daughters of ‘invaders’ (your view) were born as such for some legitimate reason as decreed by some cosmic judgement mechanism of karmic retribution (which you also claimed to be able to prove with quantum physics, though no such proof was forthcoming).
(It’s worth another read!)
At least you are consistent.
Dear Belle;
“Actually, my nose is very short. Sometimes people think I can’t be Indian because of that! Your nose is probably short too. You ever heard the story about men’s noses?”
You know in Pinocchio’s story, when Pinocchio tells a lie, his nose grows longer. Don’t you think my nose too is unusually long?
Thanks!
Nithyananthan,
“Then my notion prompts another persisting puzzle as to why the Mahavamsa was not written in Singhalese Language!”
Good question. I had not thought about this.
Whist the Mahawamsa has been hijacked by the SL Neo-Nazis since late there is a view that ethnic polarisation (to the extent we have today) did not exist in SL in ancient times. Certainly, the nationally organised jingoism is a product of the extent of communication we have today (but see next para). I’m not an expert on this, but general knowledge suggests that Pali was the language in which learned people wrote things down. As Latin was the written language of academics in Europe while I would expect people spoke in local languages (from which the modern European languages developed, with common ancestry in Latin)? I’m guessing.
(Mis)interpretation
—————–
I have always wondered what is meant by ‘he was the King/ruler of X country’ when talking about ancient times. Even in a small land like Lanka I would question if a fisherman in Galle had any idea (or even cared) who was the King/ruler of the ‘country’. Firstly, what was ‘the country’? How would he have known anything about anything going on except through travelling salesmen and people with dubious intentions that passed through? How would one authenticate anything that anyone said? No CNN in those days, see? No corroboration of news/information. And how did the ‘king’ know that he is the only ‘king’? And who was a ‘king’ except a local ‘chundiya’ (thug) who often claimed some form of divinity, with the local priestly class adding their blessing/confirmation that supporting the ‘king’ would hold them in good stead in the afterlife, wherever that might be?
We tend to (particularly well illustrated by Mr Yapa both in this thread and the one mentioned earlier) try and interpret things in another era in terms of knowledge, norms, attitudes we know in this era. We then arrive at quite a wrong conclusion, quite wrong understanding of the motives of people who lived thousands of years ago. (I’m sure when Mr Yapa says ‘invasion’ the picture that comes up is something like the D-Day landings, or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait)
Which reminds me of another thing to ask Mr Yapa (if only he would answer), after his condemnation of ‘the descendants of invaders’. Shouldn’t descendants of murderers also have their rights withdrawn? If so what level of proof should we need for a fair judgement? And how many generations should such punishment persist? And is there a statute of limitations and should double jeopardy apply? How should one ‘pay one’s dues to society’ and become a free man, if that’s possible at all? (aren’t most people in most countries descendants of invaders of some sort?)
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps I ought to stick around a bit longer
balangodaMan
In my opinion both peace and reconcilliation are already,after the defeat of the LTTE here, we only have to give the finishing touches to it now!
If anybody considers Mahawansa to be a pile of lies,I must say in that case all other non recorded histories of the other nations in the world as lies too!
I think everybody should learn lessons from history. Please read. I think Montessori children must specially read.
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=4733#
Thanks!
Mr. Austin Fernando was too late to learn the lesson. There are more late learners in the queue. A day will come for them too to make a confession.
Thanks!
Travelling Academic,
Sure, I am not painting a rosy picture over Tamil militancy – it had its toll. However, you and I know very well what brought about the Tamil militancy. Many critics of LTTE and backers of Ghandiyanism often ignore the failure of ahimsa methods used by pre-LTTE politicians as well as by col. Thileepan. We live in a world where one can get away with massacre as long as they have the right allies, who may happen to have a little bit more than pure economic interests, and be congratulated by the authoritative world body. Then what can the likes of TNA, Sangaree achieve? It is only a matter of how much power one has and not the moral high-handedness as you would argue in favour of Sangaree – which is why I drew the comparison.
“You could tell me more, please — how was this de facto state achieved and what happened after that? Where is the Eelam they promised to deliver? Where now is the compromise from the government you speak of? Or was our goal simply to achieve a de facto state for a few milliseconds, by whatever means, and then tell stories about it to our grand-children?”
Now that the LTTE have lost, many analysis on their failures will be forthcoming. Had they have won, they would have been celebrated as war heroes. Anyway, the important point is they were a symptom of failed politics or State oppression.
Also,
“The sooner we, Tamils, understand that, the greater is the chance of re-building that very nice way of life we once had, from the ashes under which it is all now buried.”
Trav, as the way things look like, they are more likely to diminish or lose their identity than return to the life they once had.
@ModVoice
Why do you not call a spade a spade: “Tamil militancy had its toll”, is a poor description of LTTE’s acts. Would you not agree that the LTTE did murder, torture and steal from fellow Tamils? When they killed young kids from TELO, some were burnt alive, were they not? Why do you shy away from using accurate language to describe the Tigers?
Longus,
“If anybody considers Mahawansa to be a pile of lies,I must say in that case all other non recorded histories of the other nations in the world as lies too!”
I don’t think anyone on this thread dismiss the Mahawamsa as ‘a pile of lies’. That would be wrong.
The point made is that the Mahawamsa has been put forward (hijacked) as a vehicle to marginalise a particular ethnic group, promote inequality and make the ludicrous claim that one ethnic group is in effect ‘god’s chosen people’.
(BTW Mahawamsa is recorded history) Both recorded and non-recorded ‘history’ is open to challenge when new evidence comes to light. Until then historians keep an open mind about the authenticity of what ancient stories say. History, myth, legend are words with different meanings. King Arthur is not history. Robin Hood is not history. They are stories passed down the generations and the people in the country in which they originated (England) treat them as such, say in contrast to accounts of the Roman occupation. Also, often you have real events and there are stories built around them.
So we have to be careful how we differentiate. I doubt if the people commenting on this thread have a problem there. Our problem is, the large proportion of our countrymen who will believe whatever is told to them by people of ‘authority’ (yellow robians, politicians, tele-drama actors etc) as gospel truth. We are not, as a nation, sufficiently advanced intellectually to be comfortable with separating legend from fact. It is an emotional pain we avoid (as a country). Anyone who tries to use objective analysis, or challenge the status quo, is branded a ‘western conspirator’. There lies the problem.
The Mahawansa is ‘FACTION’ a bit like the stuff Dan Brown writes. Fiction based on fact. Most history is ‘FACTION.’ You got to take it with a pinch of salt. Just imagine…in about 2500 years time, there might be a ‘RajapaksaWansa’ written by the good docter Da Yarn JoyTickler! Hmmm…I can’t wait to read that version of history about the ‘Utopian Paradise of Rajapakistan!’
“I don’t think anyone on this thread dismiss the Mahawamsa as ‘a pile of lies’. That would be wrong.”
But this is the earlier version of this person about the Mahawamsa.
“Adding to what Heshan said (you are taking the Mahavamsa etc origins as literal truth rather than legend and/or more likely political propaganda of ancient people promoted by the political agenda of present day people)”
This is the person who earlier suggested to use genetic base as a solution for the present political problem of the country.
This is the person who attributed breakdown of his oil pump of the car to karma. This is the person who suggested to chemically test Tooth Relic in Kandy to check its authenticity, in another discussion of this blog.
What to do?
Thanks!
All this fuss over Mahavamsa. I have shown that the vast majority of reliable academics in SL (regardless of ethnicity) do not consider the Mahavamsa to be an objective source of historical material. Let me repost what I posted before:
Dr. Mendis (University of Ceylon) agrees:
“The warning to handle critically, which the excellent historian considers necessary with regard to the Ceylonese Chronicles, is certainly justified. It applies to all historical documents, and I have no intention at all disputing the justice of it.” ( page XIII , Introduction, Mahavamsa 1950 edition published by the Ceylon Government Information Department)
According to the Mahavamsa and the Dipavansa, the son (Mahinda) and the daughter (Sangamitta) of the Indian Emperor Asoka were responsible for converting the King of Lanka and his people to Buddhism. However, Dr. V.A. Smith names the story in the Mahavamsa, related to this conversion as nothing but a ’tissue of absurdities’ (V.A. Smith, Asoka page 45)”.
—————
What this shows is that the university establishment in S. Lanka (with a few Nalin De Silva type exceptions) is still able to do objective analysis… the fact that individuals like Wijeyapala, longus, and travelling academic would dispute the claims of these academics, who have spent the better of their lives analyzing Mahavamsa and the like, is rather unfortunate. These academics are probably the last living bastion of objectivity in the Raja dictatorship.
“Utopian Paradise of Rajapakistan!”
Love it!
Then again, we really have no evidence that the past ever existed, no? The entire universe and all of us in it may have been created just a moment ago as a science experiment, with history books and catch-up TV to give the impression that there was a past. Only this moment exists, forever.
LOL!
Post of August 19, 2010 @ 9:57 pm,
Uninterrupted imaginations of insanity. If some drug like cocaine is taken that imaginations will be more colorful. You can make an imaginary fairy world. Just think without any fact. That is good way to produce good concepts.
This man is living in an imaginary world.
Thanks!
Trav,
To be fair not just LTTE but other rival militants, such as PLOTE, EPDP, etc all were part of the mayhem you describe (i.e. murder, torture, …) on our community.
I would rather blame those who instigated violence and put arms in the hands of these youth, paving way for rivalry and what not. Wasn’t TULF one of those who promoted them to take up arms and fight for a separate country?
longus,
“In my opinion both peace and reconcilliation are already,after the defeat of the LTTE here, we only have to give the finishing touches to it now!”
What finishing touches? You mean keeping them in open prisons surrounded by military cantonments, registering them with police, or is it the renewal of PTA the finishing touches you are talking about?
“If anybody considers Mahawansa to be a pile of lies,I must say in that case all other non recorded histories of the other nations in the world as lies too!”
I agree Mahawamsa is the true recorded history. Do you believe that Sinhalese are descendants of a cross between lion and Kuveni as the Mahawamsa states?
PresiDunce Bean,
Nice blog!
Dear Travelling Academic,
I must add to my last post to you:
While the LTTE may not be democratic, who would you blame the murders, robberies, abductions going on in the peninsula now – the vanquished LTTE? Is the society now crime – free?
Mr Yapa
August 20, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
To regard ancient literature as entirely ‘factual’ is wrong. This includes the Bible, Qu’ran, Mahabarata, the legend of King Arthur/Robin Hood. All of these may be based on factual elements, but the motivation or inspiration to write them came from the needs of the time. Often this is political. Which is evident from the Mahawamsa or the authors would not have begun by describing the ‘origins of the Sinhalese people’ as descendants of a lion – ie. to glorify our beginnings. (you will notice that my statement you misquote refers to the ‘Mahawamsa origins’ of the Sinhalese. Read it again). However, that does not mean that the Mahawamsa is irrelevant or ‘a pile of lies’. The point that is relevant to this discussion is, the hajacking of the Mahawamsa for present day political needs (ie. taking it out of context and THAT being ‘a pile of lies’ – YOU are making ancient literature into ‘a pile of lies’ by making out that it is fact!) by people such as yourself hell-bent on prolonging strife in our country for many more generations.
The genetic base is, in my opinion, the key to our society becoming inclusive once again. For how long are we to deny that the population in some traditionally Sinhalese areas in SL are descendants of Tamil migrants over many centuries long ago, now assimilated into Sinhalese? Are we suggesting that we lie to our children/next generations? Won’t they find out?
The car breakdown and karma is a perfect illustration of the popular understanding of what karma is/supposed to be in SL. See for yourself. Any event of misfortune is usually followed by a shrug of the shoulder and an acknowledgement that it is karma at play. (outside this discussion)
The Tooth Relic’s authenticity is another example of history and its aberration. It is recorded in historical writings that the relic was destroyed by colonisers. This may or may not be true. It can only be confirmed by scientific testing. The point in that discussion was about whether we have the stomach to face facts and challenge what we know as ‘history’, whether we are open to considering new evidence, whether we seek new evidence and corroboration. Clearly YOU do not. A certain amount of intellectual maturity is needed for the progress of knowledge, and the emotional insecurity in hanging on to myths is indicative of the lack of such. An example of this is the investigation into the authenticity of the Turin Shroud. The key point here is not that it turned out to be a 13th century fake but that enough people wanted to know the truth.
I think you are just picking on certain ‘emotive’ words and not actually digesting the meaning of what is being said, and in context. Or you are wrapped up in a narrow mindset preventing you from entertaining alternative views?
Mr Yapa,
If the difference between ‘fact’ and other things is still a blur to you …
Let’s suppose I wrote a To Do List. Someone many centuries later finds it. Do they consider my To Do List to be ‘fact’?
To understand the meaning of what they have found they need to try and find out who wrote it? when? why was it written? is it supposed to be things that did happen? or things that the writer hoped would happen (more likely)?
The most useful thing a future generation can learn from it is that in this age we have things called ‘To Do Lists’. That may help them understand the world we live in now, the pace of it, things we did, what we aspired to do. They will relate my list with other things they know about our age to get a better understanding of what they found.
Hope that helps.
Mr Yapa,
To Do List … part deux
———————
If primitive humans re-emerged after the world is destroyed by a nuclear holocaust and find my To Do List we can excuse them for creating a ‘myth of origins’ and religion out of it. Item No 1 says ‘feed the cat’, so to them cats become sacred. Item No 2 is ‘wash the car’, which they (not knowing what a car is) decipher to mean ‘wash the cat’, thus further enhancing their belief in the almighty Cat God. Other tribes that did not have possession of the Cat List (now renamed) are marginalised as usurpers, as invaders of the holy Cat Land and destined for hell, and their rights withdrawn even before that. Of course, other tribes in time find other artefacts from pre-holocaust times. One of them is a piece of toilet roll which says ‘now wash your hands’. This becomes their mantra, ritual, and undisputed route to heaven or their particular nirvana, in contrast to the beliefs of the Cat People whose primary religious ritual is feeding the cat. Cats in Cat Land get quite large as a result.
(So, My Yapa, feeling a little pussy?)
Hope that helps too.
@ModVoice,
Thanks — I am glad you now accept that LTTE (who was the group you identified as having achieved much for the Tamils by running their own government for a brief period), engaged in mayhem, murder and torture. This is good start, but you immediately go onto two lines of defense that amuse me a lot: (a) other groups, PLOTE, TELO and the chicken thieves of present day Jaffna, have done bad things too; and (b) somebody else, TULF, is to blame for starting it.
Is this not, as an argument in defending the side you support, just the same as those supporting the Sri Lankan government’s stance quickly resort to? You try talking about the immense brutality unleashed on the Vanni population during the last days of the war, and they will immediately tell you: (a) the Americans have done bad things too; and (b) the LTTE started it anyway!
Sometimes, in the interest of decent behaviour, we should rise above these petty tactical arguments to score points and set for ourselves absolute standards. That, in my view, mostly involves being self-critical. When I think with my Tamil hat on, as I sometimes do, I deeply regret not speaking out against the evils carried out by armed Tamil youth (all of them) in my name. Equally, and most of the time, I think as a Sri Lankan, and am ashamed of the way our post-independence politics was managed; of the way we failed to understand and manage the problems faced by our youth; of the way we put down three rebellions with exteme brutality — with no care in the world about who got caught in the middle; and of the way many of my countrymen still run to the Mahavamsa to find explanations and justifications.
There is now a great opportunity to grow up, and work towards a greater good. Let us not miss it — that is the take home message in Bopage’s speech.
In this thread, Yapa amused me by claiming his role is fabricating lies to counter the lies of the other side; you do equally well by saying it was not just the LTTE that was bad. Must be that 90% genetic similarity amongst all Sri Lankans, don’t you think? Bye for now.
Re: August 21, 2010 @ 2:40 pm, August 21, 2010 @ 3:13 pm, August 21, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
you are showing your lack of knowledge, and immaturity again.
Learn before preaching.
Thanks!
By the way how is your DNA Project? I think you must be very busy with that, as it is very important for the reconciliation process. Please be kind enough to expedite it.
Thanks!
Sorry, I wanted to remind you another important matter. After finishing that DNA project, please be kind enough to make arrangements for Scientific testing of the Tooth Relic of the Lord Buddha.
Further, please request your president (USA) to approve citizenship for all the Iranians, as they are genetically same as USA citizens.
Your great service will be recognized and honoured soon.
Thanks!
Lessons learnt or still to be learnt?
For special attention of the swollen headed Montessori Children.
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=4861#
Thanks!
Travelling Academic;
“In this thread, Yapa amused me by claiming his role is fabricating lies to counter the lies of the other side;”
I owe some respect over most of the others at least telling truth and being honest. I am further proud of myself not forgetting my obligations and duties. I am a quite happy man.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“I am further proud of myself not forgetting my obligations and duties”
There is no requirement in SL’s constitution, or the people to create conflict and division. Therefore I suggest that your obligations and duties are misplaced.
As I mentioned on another thread, we have good examples in recent history of misplaced obligation and duty along the lines you are at. An entire German nation were motivated by that 1939-45, and if that’s too long ago to remember there was a recent case of 19 young men flying large aircraft into tall buildings in NYC as their obligation and duty.
Appropriate for a Sunday, as someone important said, ‘hatred cannot be conquered by hatred, but by love alone’.
“Therefore I suggest that your obligations and duties are misplaced.”
You are too quick, too early, too immature and not knowledgeable enough to arrive at such a conclusion.
Some people try to see the world with their” Little Eyes”.
Thanks!
Oligations and Duties
———————
Mr Yapa has revealed that his somewhat unconventional approach to Peace and Reconcilitiaion is due to his ‘obligations and duties’.
Do any readers agree that our Obligations and Duties towards the present and future generations of Sri Lankans in bringing about a peaceful and harminious land takes precedence?
Or, does anyone take Mr Yapa’s view that ‘Obligations and Duties’ towards a few past (divisive and misguided) people, and the racist mindset they introduced in our country (on both sides), takes priority over progress towards Peace and Reconciliation that we seek for our children and their children?
Please post your thoughts here. It may help influence the future of Lanka.
“Mr Yapa has revealed that his somewhat unconventional approach to Peace and Reconcilitiaion is due to his ‘obligations and duties’.”
A frog might be able to describe very well the well he lives. It is his world. However, it does not imply that he can describe the tings outside his dwelling place. But some frogs living in wells thinks that the world is the world is limited to the world he knows.
This frog is miserably trapped in a “Science Well” and he think he can describe and explain the whole universe with his frog mentality. He even has no knowledge to describe his well, that is Science. He has no knowledge of Scientific Method or any other methodologies used in different disciplines to gain different forms of knowledge. He advocates and prescribes Scientific Method as panacea for all illnesses and social problems and subjects, even when he doesn’t have a fair knowledge even about the Scientific Method. Not only Scientific Method I have no doubt that he does not have knowledge in Science Subjects more than high School student.
Today one of the biggest problem is that people with a marginal knowledge are trying to talk big making recommendations to the world problems. They do not like to handle smaller issues. Small heads want to handle big issues.
Frogs should know their size. They cannot be blown to be an elephant.
Little knowledge is dangerous.
Thanks!
Yapa,
In order to pass judgements on BalangodaMan as a frog in the well who thinks he is an elephant, you yourself must be an “elephant”. In order to prove that he doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of Scientific Method, you yourself must have supreme knowledge of Scientific Method. I have seen no evidence of either in your retorts. I said earlier that if you want to make your argument stick that Sinhalese arrived first by citing genetic evidence, you need to address the disparity in findings between various genetic studies, some of which claim that Sinhalese are most related to Tamils and others that claim that they are related to Bengalis. I waited and waited for you to explain those disparities, but obviously you lack knowledge of genetic theory to do so. So, on what grounds do you have the authority to pass judgement on BalangodaMan’s knowledge of scientific method?
Instead, you show yourself to be the proverbial frog in the well. You don’t even seem able to recognize that BalangodaMan is not using obsolete classical critical methods and epistemology but rather poststructuralist ones.
BalangodaMan says: “Future generations will be better educated; they will regard yesterday and today’s ‘racial’ divisions as emerging out of ignorance, our ignorance and that of people who lived centuries ago. We can start regarding us as ‘one people’ right now. Why wait?”
Do you have a problem with that? Do you have a problem with ideas of unity and equality of people? I suspect you do. Like many people who need to dominate others and establish power over them, you have anxieties about size. You’re concerned that BalangodaMan’s ideas make him appear to be a bigger person than you. So you need to cut him down to size. Your need to do this is so strong that you literally use the words “big” and “small” and other words associated with size. Sorry to have to tell you this, but nobody is bigger than anyone else. We are all as vulnerable as the next person. We all have the potential to be magnificent people.
One thing about the frog in the well that the proverb ignores—when it looks up, it sees the sky.
Well said, Belle.
People, Lionel Bopage’s article is about Peace and Reconciliation. It has attracted contributions from many people and I’m sure with that level of resolve we may yet have lasting Peace and Reconciliation in SL, before too long.
If I am reading Mr Yapa right, his objection is … ‘the readers of GV should not be discussing Peace and Reconciliation at all’ – evidently Peace and Reconciliation is not on his agenda. He claims that it is his ‘obligation and duty’ to take that position. Clearly Mr Yapa is not looking forward to a peaceful and reconciled Sri Lanka. Where will he go?
BalangodaMan,
Yapa wrote to me on the 6th of Aug on this forum:
“Dear Burning_Issue, We should find solutions not by not rejecting hard realities, but by accepting them and making attempts to bridge them. Really there are two different ethnicity known as as Sinhalese and Tamils, it is a reality not a myth. Existence of differences are not a big obstacle in find solutions, but neglecting such realities is a big barrier. It is like ostriche’s rejecting the cyclone after hiding his head under sand. This very act might bring the end to the ostrich, if the intensity of the cyclone is high enough.”
He concluded:
“Dear Burning_Issue, we must build our houses on hard realities, not on soft quick sand. We must bravely face realities.”
I asked him to clarify the Realities but no response.
Yes, Yapa wants peace but only on the basis that the Sinhala Buddhists own the Island and the rest is tolerated as invaders; as long as such people understand this Reality, then he is at peace!
Dear Belle;
You say (Q): In order to pass judgements on BalangodaMan as a frog in the well who thinks he is an elephant, you yourself must be an “elephant”.
Answer (A): I believe in relativism. In that sense your statement of above is true. It is my belief and I think it is true, according to the available facts and evidence.
Q: In order to prove that he doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of Scientific Method, you yourself must have supreme knowledge of Scientific Method.
A: Yes, Though I don’t have a supreme knowledge I believe I have a comparatively higher knowledge in the context you referred, there is no doubt about it in terms of the facts available so far.
Q: I have seen no evidence of either in your retorts.
A: I think that is a biased belief. But I think you know the truth.
Q: I said earlier that if you want to make your argument stick that Sinhalese arrived first by citing genetic evidence,
A: I showed that it is not reliable by citing entirely different results, gained trough that method. So far the results itself have proved that it is an utter failure so far. What I did was challenging a conclusion based on wrong results and a forceful drive to implement that conclusion.Do you say that forceful conclusion and recommendations to implement were right? Do you then reject the results of the researches referred by me which are entirely different from the previous result cited by the other party? If so how?
Q: you need to address the disparity in findings between various genetic studies, some of which claim that Sinhalese are most related to Tamils and others that claim that they are related to Bengalis. I waited and waited for you to explain those disparities, but obviously you lack knowledge of genetic theory to do so. So, on what grounds do you have the authority to pass judgement on BalangodaMan’s knowledge of scientific method?
A: My post citing Sinhalese more related to Bengalis and Natives were response to contradict the earlier proposition by the other party, that Sinhalese are more related to Tamils. When I contradicted the notion of the first proponent, do you think it is my turn again to answer? Several times I reminded the proponent about my contradictory response expecting an answer, but he avoided it shifting his topics to favourable places instead of answering them. On this basis don’t you really think that I do not have an authority to pass judgments on him? I had no counter answers for my queries about his theory.
Q; Instead, you show yourself to be the proverbial frog in the well. You don’t even seem able to recognize that BalangodaMan is not using obsolete classical critical methods and epistemology but rather poststructuralist ones.
A: Obsolete classical critical methods and epistemology? I had some respect you as some knowledgeable person. Are you suggesting me to change my opinion? Can you tell me these became obsolete? Do you know that these are again the methods of the day. Empiricism is not an accurate philosophy. Modern knowledge seeking at subtle levels are done on formal philosophy. I think you know that empiricism is based on inductive logic and the accuracy of results obtained using this method is not guaranteed. But the rationalists’ method you are indirectly talking are accurate to the point wrt to the particular knowledge area.
Which do you think is obsolete?
Q: BalangodaMan says: “BalangodaMan says: “Future generations will be better educated; they will regard yesterday and today’s ‘racial’ divisions as emerging out of ignorance, our ignorance and that of people who lived centuries ago. We can start regarding us as ‘one people’ right now. Why wait?”
Do you have a problem with that?
A: Yes of course.That is an action packed emotional appeals aimed at the gallery.
” Future generations will be better educated; they will regard yesterday and today’s…….”
What an emotionally lovable piece? Do you really think this is true. then the proponent must be more educated than Einstein, because he is belong to a future generation compared to Einstein. These are emotionally comfortable popularistic lies aimed at the gallery. Nothing more?
Q: Do you have a problem with ideas of unity and equality of people? I suspect you do.
A: Do not suspect arbitrarily. I have no problem about unity and equal rights of the people of this country. I have repeatedly said that all the people of this county must be given them without any difference. However, taking a hares, elephants, tigers, birds as similar and have no differences cannot be a prerequisite for that. It has no relevance to the first issue. Some people want to attach that mythical second proposition as a tag to the first one and push it with the first one. My opposition is for the second and not to the first.
Q: Like many people who need to dominate others and establish power over them, you have anxieties about size.
A: Not at all I want to do it on the basis of the facts provided. On the basis of that there is no doubt about my domination.
Q: You’re concerned that BalangodaMan’s ideas make him appear to be a bigger person than you. So you need to cut him down to size.
A: Not at all. He is no match to me. Reality is he does not know his who he is and what his size is. I have seen “Japanese Spitz” trying to fight ” German Shepard” and have seen the end result.
Q: Your need to do this is so strong that you literally use the words “big” and “small” and other words associated with size.
A: I have used them in the proper places.
Q: Sorry to have to tell you this, but nobody is bigger than anyone else.
A: Who told you this big bunkum? Above statement is a popular myth. There are bigger and smaller people? Are you going to dispute it?
Q: We are all as vulnerable as the next person.
A: Totally incorrect.
Q: We all have the potential to be magnificent people.
A: Sometimes. We cannot totally reject the possibility.
Q: One thing about the frog in the well that the proverb ignores—when it looks up, it sees the sky.
A: For normal frogs it is true. But I am sure this frog cannot turn his eyes up.
Thanks!
Correction……….
Can you tell me these became obsolete?
It should be read as
Can you tell me when these became obsolete?
Thanks!
“If I am reading Mr Yapa right, his objection is … ‘the readers of GV should not be discussing Peace and Reconciliation at all’ – evidently Peace and Reconciliation is not on his agenda. He claims that it is his ‘obligation and duty’ to take that position. Clearly Mr Yapa is not looking forward to a peaceful and reconciled Sri Lanka. Where will he go?”
You were never be able to understand what I have said, and will continue to be so. Peoples capacities has a bearing on their level of understanding.
Thanks!
Correction…
On this basis don’t you really think that I do not have an authority to pass judgments on him?
The correct sentence is
On this basis don’t you really think that I have an authority to pass judgments on him?
Thanks!
Yapa
I must tell you that when we say “scinetific method” that doesn’t mean something fallen out of the sky;it’s a set of rules evolved by man over many years which apparently remains the best method to find out the truth about the universe; if a scientific hypothesis repeatedly agrees with experimental evidence over a period of time it becomes a theory and generally accepted to be true-until evidence to the contrary surfaces!- where we have to change the theory. Even without experimental evidence, some theories are accepted as true if they are mathematically sound, but later the experimental evidence might come along. For example einestien’s gereral theory of reletivity was accepted by the scientific community accepted it, only to be confirmed much later. But sometimes even mathematically sound theories are not accepted until the experimental evidence surfaces.eg. the fate of the “super-symmetry” theory and the “string theory” hangs in balance until conclusive experimental evidence is found in the “Hedron collider” now underway in Swiss-Austrian border.
But the scientific method is not flawless or foolproof. Today’s brilliant theory could to tommrrow’s trash as well. People thought Newton had the ultimate theory in his hands
until Einstien “proved” it’s not so.Then people thought that Einstien was the ultimate super brain, until the Quantum theory started to cast doubts-and continues to do so!-on his ideas. Already there is enough phenomia that cannot be explained by Einstienian theories.eg.quantum entanglement and “faster than light particles” seen in a Black Hole
And of late there seems to be a lot olf bias in the scientific community and it has become something like a hiarachy that is intorenent to dissent. It lacks the openness of the early 20th century and gained a habbit of trampling the theories that contradict the established ones.
So, you are right in assuming that scientists are “frogs in the well”, but wrong in assuming that that scientific method is “looking through small eyes”! Because that is tha best method we have.
BalangodaMan
In spite of what I said in my response-please dis-regard the errors!-to Yapa, you can’t apply the scientific method to everything in the world. Yes, you can use the genetics to prove a certain lineage between the peoples, but even if you prove something it may not play any role in the way the people(s) think about their relationship. When it comes to established cencepts this is particularly true. The Jews believe their promised land,Israel was founded by Ebraham and they are the chosen people.Moses led them to the promised land when he led them across the Red Sea after escaping slavery in Egypt. They lost their promised land after the 2nd Jewish uprising in 80AD and are still waiting for their Messiah ever since then. Eventhough their “Promised Land was “legally”(ILLEGALLY?) granted by the UN IN 1945,THEY ARE STILL praying at the wailing wall and waiting for their Messiah and the “Promised Land”!
In other words the meaning of Judaism seems to be lost in the present context, but I haven’t heard anyone questioning it in this way!
Can you change a belief system of a people,howevermuch it seems to be un-scientific?
It’s good on the other hand to hear that people like “Belle” talking about reconcilliation with the Sinhalese whom she used to call a “barbaric race”, because until the defeat of the “pet’ organization,LTTE they never gave a thought to that! They only thought that Sinhalese “modayas” could be taken for a long ride!
Dear Belle,
“Sometimes people think I can’t be Indian because of that!”
Are you an Indian?
Academic,
“In this thread, Yapa amused me by claiming his role is fabricating lies to counter the lies of the other side; you do equally well by saying it was not just the LTTE that was bad. Must be that 90% genetic similarity amongst all Sri Lankans, don’t you think?”
LOL That is exactly my point!!
BalangodaMan,
“I don’t think anyone on this thread dismiss the Mahawamsa as ‘a pile of lies’. That would be wrong.</i."
Are you saying that the illustrious Professor Heshan is wrong??
Wijayapala,
“Are you saying that the illustrious Professor Heshan is wrong??”
No. I haven’t come across anyone regarding the Mahawamsa as a fake account (‘a pile of lies’) similar to the Turin Shroud, which is not accepted as someone’s 13th century prank. I don’t think Prof Heshan considers it such either. The general objection is to how it has been used to cause division in our country by the Neo-Nazis who stand in the way of lasting peace.
My error!
This ….. “similar to the Turin Shroud, which is not accepted as someone’s 13th century prank.”
Should of course read “similar to the Turin Shroud, which is NOW accepted as someone’s 13th century prank.”
Mr Yapa says
“A: Do not suspect arbitrarily. I have no problem about unity and equal rights of the people of this country. I have repeatedly said that all the people of this county must be given them without any difference. However, taking a hares, elephants, tigers, birds as similar and have no differences cannot be a prerequisite for that. It has no relevance to the first issue. Some people want to attach that mythical second proposition as a tag to the first one and push it with the first one. My opposition is for the second and not to the first.”
So here Mr Yapa is making it clear that he regards different ‘races’ similar to different ‘species’ (as I suspected earlier) – the common basis of argument with Neo-Nazis of all countries – a basis that has been totally debunked by recent DNA evidence analysed by the Human Genome Project in the past 30 years.
(the reference to ‘scientific method’ is in the context of whether our DNA does or does not tell a story about our origins. Please let’s not get into a side-track as did the previous debate, or it may end up with the ludicrous conclusion that ‘peace and reconciliation is untenable because scientific method is flawed’ or some such Yaparistic nonsense !!!!)
Mr ‘Adolf’ Yapa may not like this news report of yesterday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Now here is the problem
—————————-
Mr Yapa, how do we find these people that you want to exclude from our society? I mean the ‘invaders’ (in the 12th century) you refer to. Can we assume with 100% confidence that all of them are (by now) dead?
I think what you have great discomfort with is the realisation that these ‘invaders’ exist today within all Sri Lankans, forming rather a large proportion of ALL of us. It does not take a lot of common sense to work it out, and the maths is not difficult either (900 years represents 36 generations – that’s 2 to the power of 36. More than enough to practically saturate the entire population of SL).
So, all you can say Mr Yapa is that you have an objection to people who speak a particular language or dress in a certain way today. Or maybe smoke a different brand of cigarettes. Is that a good enough differentiator to chance the future Peace of SL on?
Dear Wijayapala,
Sorry I have been missing for a while on this debate; many people have contributed with valuable posts. In fact, I went to Sri Lanka and visited Jaffna too. I went on land cutting across the Vanni area; all together I have seen 6 Buddha Statues: 2 in Vanni and the rest in the Jaffna district excluding the Naga Vihara. There may be more that I have not seen!
I must say that I dealt with people from all walks of live; almost exclusively Sinhala both in north and south; none were discourteous to me including the SLA personnel that I encountered. Nevertheless, the overwhelming presence of the army headquartered along the A9 road is uninviting indeed. In the Vanni area, army bases are littered gapping by a kilometer or so!
Our house is Jaffna is part of the Headquarters of the 512th Brigade and access to it has been denied repeatedly; I have been told that, I need to show the deeds, proof of identity, and evidences of local council rates payments. Opposite of the camp, they ring-fenced a square area of land that belongs to the local Kovil. While I was there, some works were afoot laying turf at the front. There were some Buddhist Monks stationed with SLA; I am convinced that all this was a prelude to erecting a Buddha statue.
I am flabbergasted that, the state is openly propagating Buddhism by graping land and no one can do anything about it! Certainly, the Sinhalese are the new masters of the Tamils; one can conceivably say that we have never been de-colonised; especially in the absence of a nation of subjects on par with India. I know that no Tamil can be proud of supporting LTTE and separatism but on the same token, how can the Sinhalese be proud of what they have been subjecting the minorities with, Subjugation!
I have heard from credible sources that, the people who went back to there lands in the Vanni areas are going through intolerable sufferings. Their rations are being with held; sex is expected before handing over their due rations! I have seen along the A9 road; people living between army sentry points in makeshift tents and huts; what protection are there at nights; what can they do and where can they complain!
People in Jaffna said that, the police can only speak Sinhala and going to make complains etc very troublesome indeed. By contract, the locally stationed army personnel have learned to converse in Tamil; the people are interacting with the army much more than with the police!
I have more to say………………….
Dear longus;
“So, you are right in assuming that scientists are “frogs in the well”, but wrong in assuming that that scientific method is “looking through small eyes”! Because that is tha best method we have.”
I really know the value of the Scientific Method as you have explained in your post . But in the case I referred the person was telling nonsense in the name of the Scientific Method and deceiving the world. What I meant was this man who has know knowledge of even to measure his size was trying to see the world with his little eyes. Other than doing a great damage, by poking his nose to each and every corner what else he can do?
He has been asking for the answer for a long time, poor creature.
Thanks!
“So, all you can say Mr Yapa is that you have an objection to people who speak a particular language or dress in a certain way today. Or maybe smoke a different brand of cigarettes. Is that a good enough differentiator to chance the future Peace of SL on?”
You have no capacity to understand complex problems. You have displayed that in the past too. You have no competencies to identify the differences of the people other than on the basis of such silly things. Small minds see small things. Go and play with your toys.
Dear Prof Heshan
“I haven’t come across anyone regarding the Mahawamsa as a fake account”
Seems that BalangodaMan isn’t buying your argument.
Dear Yapa (actually this is more for everyone else since you barely respond to me),
“Q: I said earlier that if you want to make your argument stick that Sinhalese arrived first by citing genetic evidence,
A: I showed that it is not reliable by citing entirely different results, gained trough that method.”
We do not need genetic studies. The simple fact is that Sinhalese and Tamils cannot distinguish each other by physical appearance. We have to rely on things like dress or accent. During the 1983 violence, the jathika thugs would search for Tamils by asking them to pronounce the aeyanna sound because they could not detect Tamils by appearance.
Burning_Issue,
“many people have contributed with valuable posts.”
Really? I felt the only person who wrote anything interesting while you were gone was Travelling Academic.
What you mentioned is very similar to what I’ve heard from others, such as Dushy Ranetunge’s article. Let me ask: would you feel better if the army bases were gone leaving the Buddha statues by themselves?
Dear All;
Do you believe education can make people ignorant? Though it seems a little bit unusual, it could happen. You know learning a language at a later stage of life is a bit more difficult because the the things learned before comes as an obstacle to new learning. This is an example for what I said in my first statement.
This can happen to people in a more grave way, but it may be a psychological deficiency of the human mind that they don’t realize that grave mistake to the people even after it is pointed out them. They tend to vehemently argue against obvious facts.
The difference between animals and other non living things (here plants are taken as non living things) is that former has a non material component called mind. Among all the animals human has a significant difference, because his non muscle component plays a major role than their muscle part. So it is correct to argue that man is more none material than material. Significance of the mind in present day activities of man is very much more than his muscular activities. Hence today’s man is a more psychological man than a muscular or genetical man. Human differences are more decided by the “thinking factor” rather than the inactive genetical factor. People all over the world have human genes, still you cannot find two individuals with equal behaviour. If somebody tries to explain complex human behaviour confining to genetical component along he is sadly mistaken. That is why Descartes said ” I think, therefore I am”.
That is why Aristotle said “Man is a social/political animal”. Really man is the thinking animal.
Differences in the human kind is mainly formed not on their genetic but on their thinking or the culture formed on this thinking capability of the man. Hence the the basis for analysis of social behaviour of the man should be more weighted towards their ethnicity more than the race or genetics. This is simple logic. If somebody says just because there is no genetical difference, it implies there are no differences at all or no significant difference, I have to say that he does not know simplest logic. If so, Chinese must be Japanese, and Japanese must be Mongolians, Burmese, Taiwanese and as I said Iranians must be Americans. Also Brits, Australians, French, Italian also should be given American citizenship. Look around the world, is this the reality? The problem is some people don’t see this reality. They ask me to pin point the difference between Sinhalese and Tamils. They have no capacity to think that 30 year prolonged ethnic war was an effect of these differences. Are they thinking the cause of this ethnic war was the similarities found in them?
Even an ignorant rustic of a remote village understands the war took place due to the differences found in Tamils and Sinhalese, but these learned gentlemen who have physically traveled all over the world, and living luxurious lives in foreign countries do not understand this simple reality. They want me to tell them the differences. They have not traveled the world with their minds.Or else they must have done so with closed eyes.
Letting comfortable emotions overcome self is easier than critical thinking. With that it is easier to recommend simple solutions to the national level and worldwide problems without worries. Mathematics is very easy, one can say though they get zero for it.
I have heard of a story that a country full of men with donkey heads. The king and all the advisers are of the same clan. There are some vacancies I came to understand. Those who like can apply.
Ohoma yun! Ohoma yun!!
Thanks!
Longus,
“It’s good on the other hand to hear that people like “Belle” talking about reconcilliation with the Sinhalese whom she used to call a “barbaric race”, because until the defeat of the “pet’ organization,LTTE they never gave a thought to that! They only thought that Sinhalese “modayas” could be taken for a long ride!”
I only started posting in Groundviews AFTER the defeat of the LTTE, so the many critical comments I made of the Sri Lankan Sinhalese community had nothing to do with wanting to take Sinhalese for a long ride. In fact, at that time, hundreds of thousands of innocent SL Tamil civilians were incarcerated in camps. There was no question then nor now of Sinhalese being the ones taken for a ride.
I am not an LTTE sympathizer. But of course you know that. This accusation of Tamil forummers here being LTTE sympathizers is always trotted out by Sinhalese forummers here when they suffer from an argument deficit.
I challenge you to cite posts where I say that Sinhalese are a barbaric “race”. I don’t believe in race–it is an utterly stupid and futile concept that dissolves into nonsense as soon as you start to interrogate it. I have certainly made critical comments about the barbarism and racism that Sinhalese have exhibited in their behaviour. I have no doubt that thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of innocent Tamil civilians were mown down by the SL army in order to win the war against the LTTE. The SL government then proceeded to incarcerate war refugees in barbed wire camps, and no Sinhalese went out into the streets to demonstrate against such cruelty. In fact, the Sinhalese went on to indicate their approval of such tyranny by voting for the tyrants. This war was not the first time either that the SL government committed massacres (not only against Tamils), and where the majority community went on to vote for the party that perpetrated such violence. So, yes, I would say there is some level of acceptance that violence is the way to solve problems. And racism certainly is embedded deep in Sri Lanka. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been an ethnic conflict that has dogged the country since it became a nation.
I don’t say these things to subjugate anyone. Peace and reconciliation can only come with facing up to one’s own mistakes, with self-examination. If you want to paper over them, you will only get an ironically treacherous ‘peace and reconciliation’ that is used to dominate the vanquished people—which is what is happening now. The Tamils have long had to face up to their mistakes because the Sinhalese groups in power and the millions who support them are extremely adept at pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.
That you and some others here actually think at this moment in time that it is the Sinhalese who are being taken for a ride just goes to prove the level of delusion you labour under and the kind of absolute power you enjoy—where you can state clear untruths and get away with it.
Wijayapala,
“Are you an Indian?”
It seems I am so in Singapore! You may have read about Singapore’s policy of multiracialism (as opposed to multiculturalism). Under this policy, people are classified under only four groups: Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others. Sometimes they also recognize another group: “Eurasian”! Can you beat that–it seems mixed-blood people form a new race! And for some strange reason (perhaps the history of SL migration to Malaya), they also sometimes recognize “Sri Lankan” as a racial group (but only sometimes). I have “Sri Lankan” written on my identity card against “race” (assigned to me) but most people here see me as Indian. When asked, I usually claim to be the “Other” because, in truth, I have no idea what “Race” I am (and have no interest in knowing).
Small addition……………..
Today man is a thinking animal as I said above, However, BalangodaMan lived in caves several thousand years had not grown up to that level. His genetical component is still prominent. He still is a genetical animal.
Thanks!
“I haven’t come across anyone regarding the Mahawamsa as a fake account”
If you believe that a lion and a woman can have intercourse, please say so explicitly.
Yapa,
“The difference between animals and other non living things (here plants are taken as non living things) is that former has a non material component called mind.”
Perhaps you’d like to look up the difference between psychology and neuropsychology, and psychology vs psychiatry.
Belle,
“In fact, at that time, hundreds of thousands of innocent SL Tamil civilians were incarcerated in camps ” and “The SL government then proceeded to incarcerate war refugees in barbed wire camps,” — You mean rescued from being human shields of the Sun God and the LTTE and then given refuge in Camps…
Here is what has happened to those you call “incarcerated people” just after one year, coming from none other than the UN Country Rep In SL………
“UN Resident and Country Representative Neil Buhne yesterday said that 90% of the IDPs in the North had been resettled. Addressing a programme held to commemorate World Humanitarian Day, Mr. Bhune said resettlement of IDPs should be complete within the coming months. “We hope that future humanitarian work will only be needed for people who are affected by natural disasters,” he said. He said there were many development works that had been done by the UN during the previous year in Sri Lanka and they including the controlling of disease out-break in the Menik Farm, the reduction of malnutrition in children under five, 2% of which had remained stable since then and the registration of over 57,000 students in the newly opened schools in the North.”
So according to you the Govt incarcerated these people for just one year.Some even less…..I wonder why??? Your choice of words are a ridiculous description of a tragic event!!!
Source;
http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-image/19047-90-idps-resettled-in-north-says-un.html
Diffperspective,
“You mean rescued from being human shields of the Sun God and the LTTE and then given refuge in Camps…”
No, I mean “incarcerated”. Refugees are allowed to move about in camps and receive visitors.
“So according to you the Govt incarcerated these people for just one year.Some even less…..I wonder why??? Your choice of words are a ridiculous description of a tragic event!!!”
They were only incarcerated for a year because of IC pressure and the threat of withheld world funds. I wonder about other things–such as why LTTE cadres were able to buy themselves out of camp within weeks of the war’s end while innocent Tamil civilians caught in the war had to be incarcerated, some as much as for a year. Or why these same innocent civilians had to suffer in the camps while senior LTTE figures were set free.
As for the UN saying 90% had been resettled, that really depends on what that term means. Does “resettlement” include taking people from camps and dumping them elsewhere on roadsides? Does resettlement mean settling them elsewhere than in their homes?
As for the news report, please try reading the UN’s and Buhne’s words carefully, especially this: ““We hope that future humanitarian work will only be needed for people who are affected by natural disasters,” he said. What he is saying is that he “hopes” that the SL government will behave responsibly. We can infer that the signs of this are not currently present. He also then outlines UN aid for the Menik Farm, i.e. the aid, especially in terms of health services, was NOT provided by the SL government. And only 2% of children remained stable after suffering from malnutrition? What happened to the remaining 98%? Did they die?
It’s pretty obvious that the UN is trying a less-than-aggressive approach with the SL government. Guess they’ve figured that sucking up works better with this gang of nepotists.
Heshan said,
“I haven’t come across anyone regarding the Mahawamsa as a fake account”
If you believe that a lion and a woman can have intercourse, please say so explicitly.
There are also lot of people who believe Jesus resurrected. But then there are lot of people who doesn;t go around saying that dead people can rise from the dead. Catch my drift??
I am not exactly sure of the size of genitalia of a lion, but intercourse maybe physically possible. However, conception is another matter!
Again some people believe in creationism as opposed to evolution…
Mahawansha may have it’s exaggerations, like lot of very ancient historical accounts do, but it is the only recorded concise reference we have and it has been cross correlated many times with other historical, archeological finds. Point is it is not all fiction!
Heshan, do you believe in a god? Then buddy, nothing else is far fetched! If god created Adam and Eve, then so did god possibly create a lion and a woman and the off spring as Sinhalese!! ROFL!! (I am not being serious btw, so don;t put me into the looney bin….yet…. just pointing out the crazy side)
I have no idea what “Race” I am (and have no interest in knowing).
Really now??? so why don;t you talk against injustices being done against Afghans then? Or Iraqis? Heck dare I even say, injustices being done against Sinhalese? If you don’t know, then you may be an Afghan or another race…you know since you never checked. What I’m saying is you could possibly be rooting for the wrong team! Or even worse you could have possibly turned up at the wrong game all together.
Wijayapala,
“Let me ask: would you feel better if the army bases were gone leaving the Buddha statues by themselves?”
Before I answer your question, please tell me that; I say that propagating Buddhism by the state at the dawn of victory in lands that belong to private people/organisations amounts to sheer aggression from the majority. The majority community has no intention to reconcile with the Tamils. What do you say?
Is there any justice for the Vanni people who settled in the homes against the vultures in SLA? The SLA is not disciplined after all!
Observer,
“Really now??? so why don;t you talk against injustices being done against Afghans then? Or Iraqis?”
Why do you assume that I don’t?
“If you don’t know, then you may be an Afghan or another race…you know since you never checked.”
Aren’t you confusing race with nationality?
“What I’m saying is you could possibly be rooting for the wrong team! Or even worse you could have possibly turned up at the wrong game all together.”
What race are SL Tamils and Sinhalese? Are they Caucasian since Indians are classified as Caucasian and we originated from India? Some geneticists have linked Dravidian people to Southeast Asia, hence placing them in the Mongoloid or East Asian group. Others link them to Australian aboriginals, which makes them Oceanian. Some say Dravidians came out from Africa. Then there are the Veddahs, and the Sinhalese, with whom no doubt there was mixing. But Veddahs are tribals, and hence not Caucasoid or Indo-Aryan.
How could I be rooting for the wrong team? Who decides which is the right team for me? Who is setting up the rules? You?
Longus,
Just wondering: are the Sinhalese “modayas” the equivalent of the Tamil “maddayans”?
Observer:
Nice try, but no one here has tried to made the claim that the Bible should be used as a piece of objective historical material .
but it is the only recorded concise reference we have and it has been cross correlated many times with other historical, archeological finds.
But it has also conflicted many times with “historical, archeological finds.”
These conflicts are so major that they undermine the entire credibility of the Mahavamsa!
Although the Mahavamsa says that Asoka handed over his own children to the temple and sent them to Sri Lanka to convert the King of Sri Lanka to Buddhism, Asoka has made no mention of this in his own Edicts.
Prof. Herman Oldenberg (1854-1920), the great German scholar of Indology and professor, studied and researched the Buddha and his teachings in Pali. His study on the Buddha, published in 1881, helped popularize Buddhism and still remains continuously in print. In association with Thomas William Rhys Davids (1843 -1922), the British scholar of the Pali language, he founded the Pali Text Society in 1881. Professor Oldenberg translated three volumes of Vinaya Pitakaya texts and many other Pali texts and sutras into English. Thus the contributions made by these German and British scholars in providing broader access to the Buddhist scriptures written originally in Pali, (the language in which the texts of the Theravada school of Buddhism is preserved) are enormous.
In Herman Oldenberg`s assessment the stories related to the conversion of Sri Lanka to Buddhism by Mahinda and Sangamitta are PURE INVENTIONS. As referred to by G.C. Mendis in The Mahavamsa or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon (1950 edition, page xvi and xvii) there are doubts as to why Asoka in his 13th century Rock Edicts, in the Rock-Edict XIII in particular, has failed to mention his own son Mahinda and daughter Sangamitta being handed over to the temple, and also their role in converting the Sri Lankan king to Buddhism.
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/3/41581_space.html
The above would actually correspond somewhat with what BalangodaMan said – that the original Buddhism on the island may have been a form of Tamil Buddhism. I do not necessarily subscribe to the latter view, but the point is that when you discredit Mahavamsa, suddenly many alternative theories seem credible.
So the question is why Mahavamsa should be the theory of theories? In fact, the alternative views seem more credible; e.g. I would rather believe that Tamil Buddhists existed than that a lion and a woman copulated.
Observer:
Heshan, do you believe in a god? Then buddy, nothing else is far fetched! If god created Adam and Eve, then so did god possibly create a lion and a woman and the off spring as Sinhalese!! ROFL!! (I am not being serious btw, so don;t put me into the looney bin….yet…. just pointing out the crazy side)
Do you believe that you can be reborn again as a snail, a pig, or Paris Hilton’s offspring? The Adam and Eve story is much saner actually – though it is obviously not true.
As BalangodaMan suggested I think the Buddhists should allow a scientific investigation in order to assess the age of the Tooth Relic and the Sri Maha Bodhi. First it should be acertained that the Tooth Relic is”human”, because it is recorded when Henry Steel Alcott stated that the Tooth Relic can’t be human,after seeing it,it drew an angry reaction from Anagarika Dharmapala!
These things should be open to investigation, because as far as I know Buddhism in its original form doesn’t try to conceal the reality from the desciples.
Heshan, what do you say about the events mentioned in Mahawansa, which match the archiological evidence?
Belle, you may have started to post after May 2009, but your anger with the Sinhalese didn’t subside until now,right? You were using collectively derogatory terms on Sinhalese and there were volcanic outbursts by you at the mention of Tamils as racists. Have you met a Sinhalese with a long nose of late????
Dear Belle,
“I only started posting in Groundviews AFTER the defeat of the LTTE”
Why?
“I have certainly made critical comments about the barbarism and racism that Sinhalese have exhibited in their behaviour… no Sinhalese went out into the streets to demonstrate against such cruelty.”
As I have maintained in this thread and elsewhere, Sinhalese and Tamils seem to have a common mentality behind this sort of behavior. What you’re saying above hardly sounds different from the inaction of Tamils after numerous suicide bombings, the expulsion of Muslims from the north in 1990, or the killing of thousands of fellow Tamil “traitors” throughout the war. So perhaps a more constructive approach would be to gain an understanding of this common mentality which I suspect has a sociological, rather than culture/community-specific explanation.
“The Tamils have long had to face up to their mistakes because the Sinhalese groups in power and the millions who support them are extremely adept at pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.”
I had no idea at all that Tamils accept what “Sinhalese groups in power” say without question. Do you think this will help or hurt reconciliation?
“They were only incarcerated for a year because of IC pressure and the threat of withheld world funds.”
How come they weren’t able to pressure SL into halting the offensive?
Prof Heshan
How come you can’t find anyone on google to support your views except for Lankamithra Fernando, whom I exposed as a fraud on Asiantribune??
“His study on the Buddha, published in **1881**, helped popularize Buddhism and still remains continuously in print.”
How oh how did you find such current, up-to-date research?
“As referred to by G.C. Mendis in The Mahavamsa or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon (1950 edition, page xvi and xvii) there are doubts as to why Asoka in his 13th century Rock Edicts, in the Rock-Edict XIII in particular, has failed to mention his own son Mahinda and daughter Sangamitta being handed over to the temple, and also their role in converting the Sri Lankan king to Buddhism.”
The fact that Dr. Fernando (and you) refer to the Mauryan sovereign with his Mahavamsa name “Asoka” speaks volumes as to your insight into the topic.
I expected eminent scholars like you two to understand basic laws of logical reasoning. You can’t prove anything through an argumentum ex silentio. Lack of mention of Mahinda or Sanghamitta in the Rock Edicts does not prove that they did not exist.
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ex_silentio
As for evidence showing that Mahinda was a historical person:
http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/11366
For more evidence (and a longer rebuttal of Lankamithra):
http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/7132
“In case Dr. Fernando feels like recycling V.A. Smith’s erroneous conclusions about Mahinda and Sanghamitta from the dustbin of his first article, I would direct him to Geiger’s observation that the remains of certain luminaries of the Mahavamsa’s 3rd Council were found at the Sanchi stupa in India. One burial urn contains two of the five “Hemavata” (Himalaya) theros: Majjhima, Kassapagotta, and Dundubhissara. The latter two monks are mentioned in the Mahavamsa commentary, but Majjhima is described in the Mahavamsa itself as the thera who converted the Himalayas. Another urn is inscribed with “Moggaliputta,” presumably referring to the great Moggaliputta-Tissa, the teacher of Mahinda.”
Burning_Issue,
I am sorry that you no longer have your house. There is something that I would like to point out.
Before the war began, Sinhala racism was far worse than it is today but there was no SLA nor Buddha in your backyard. You may not believe me but what is happening today is not some grand conspiracy to disappear Tamils. Instead it is the result of when any large army occupies a place. The reason the SLA is there is because of the LTTE. Now LTTE is gone and the next task is to move SLA somewhere else or to give the soldiers other jobs in civilian life.
“The SLA is not disciplined after all!”
I have a Sinhala friend who also visited Jaffna. This may surprise you but he told me that many soldiers felt guilty about what was happening to the Tamils. He mentioned that while the govt helped Sinhalese to move back to Padaviya where the LTTE had chased them out, it did not give similar help to Tamils.
Whatever the SLA is doing it is ordered by the govt and Gotabhaya. It is not the same undisciplined mob it was in the 1980s. If anything the problem is that it has too much discipline and carries out orders without questioning.
Belle,
“They were only incarcerated for a year because of IC pressure and the threat of withheld world funds” – I guess there is no satisfying people like you!!! “you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. and you will always have your theories…however unreal they maybe,,, and pray..what funds are we talking here??? surely not the IMF that has been coming in without interruption. and in Billions…..:)
“Does “resettlement” include taking people from camps and dumping them elsewhere on roadsides? Does resettlement mean settling them elsewhere than in their homes?” – For me, resettlement means they have been given a permanent place to restart their lives, some maybe in their original lands and others maybe in new areas… However, since you seem to be convinced otherwise.. you will have to get the clarity you seek from the UN who is making the statement… I am quite sure they know exactly what “resettlement” is and the definition of the word and are using it accurately…!!! But then again you seem to be more knowledgeable in these matters than the UN…
Why don’t you challenge their statement publicly and prove your insinuations????
: ““We hope that future humanitarian work will only be needed for people who are affected by natural disasters,” he said. What he is saying is that he “hopes” that the SL government will behave responsibly. We can infer that the signs of this are not currently present.” —You must be joking… I infer this to be that he hopes we will not have any more man made disasters like this where the so called “saviors” and their leader the “sun god” keeping civilians as human shields and hiding among the civilians!!!!! even you have accepted these LTTE chaps were hiding among the civilians!!! So different interpretations… we will have to get clarity from Buhne himself on this too….:)
“He also then outlines UN aid for the Menik Farm, i.e. the aid, especially in terms of health services, was NOT provided by the SL government. And only 2% of children remained stable after suffering from malnutrition? What happened to the remaining 98%? Did they die?” — I am sure even you can understand that he is only outlining what the UN has done not what any one else has done …… the rest obviously was done by the SL Govt and others like the ICRC etc…… Where does he say the SL Govt has “NOT Provided” .. he cannot speak for the Govt or other organizations….. so he is silent .. your conclusions on this statement shows how one sided you are!!! …
“Guess they’ve figured that sucking up works better with this gang of nepotists.” – oh yeah… sucking up I’m sure… What with that “Panel of Experts” and all… nice way to suck up!!! Real intelligent!!!!
Travelling Academic,
Oh man, I do not deny LTTE’s crimes and I am not fond of ‘em or violent/non-democratic path to be precise, just as anybody else. However, it is also important to analyze why the democratic path failed to achieve anything – the fact is, like it or not, only the LTTE held political bargaining power for an otherwise powerless minority group. Afterall, without the support of the wider Tamil community, it would not have been possible for LTTE to wage a war against a state for nearly three decades. The fact also remains that the power struggle of the marginalized groups that brought about the rebellions still remains unresolved and a cold war is now protracted in the name of preventing re-grouping of LTTE. I, for one, do not have much hope for Tamils remaining there and there are little alternatives left for them.
“In this thread, Yapa amused me by claiming his role is fabricating lies to counter the lies of the other side; you do equally well by saying it was not just the LTTE that was bad. Must be that 90% genetic similarity amongst all Sri Lankans, don’t you think? Bye for now.”
But you admit we are 10% different – I think Yapa would appreciate it.
Wijayapala,
“I am sorry that you no longer have your house. There is something that I would like to point out.”
I am sorry too; we intend to fight for it. We can sketch the area ascertaining as to who lived where; we intend to document the then demography of the area along with copies of the respective deeds and lodge a complaint; if need be we will file a lawsuit.
“Before the war began, Sinhala racism was far worse than it is today but there was no SLA nor Buddha in your backyard.”
I am sure one can say the same about the Tamils; the Tamil nationalism was at its high point pre-war. I did not detect any animosity from the Tamils towards the Sinhala now. Of course, the Tamils appear insecure and destitute but not bestow hatred. I do not think that the Tamils possess strong opinions about Buddha statues literally. I do welcome the presence of Buddhist places of worships within the North & East. We need the Sinhala people to spread out in those areas freely and set up Buddhist Viharas etc. But, what we see is state orchestrated propagation of Buddhism! When one sees a Buddha statue in the North, one can feel the pulse the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism; this is wrong. My opposition the Buddhism in the constitution is well vindicated; the state is acting in accordance of the constitution!
“ You may not believe me but what is happening today is not some grand conspiracy to disappear Tamils.”
Whether there is any conspiracy or not, it certainly seems that there is an organised approach encompassing the government and the Buddhist hierarchy. I do not see articles on any of the front line newspapers about such issues informing the common Sinhala folks. I do not see the Sinhala intellectuals debating about this very fact rendering it as undemocratic and hindering to race relations. The majority of the Sinhala approve of what is afoot in the North & East; who can speak on behalf of the Tamils; the Tamils have no voice!
“Instead it is the result of when any large army occupies a place.”
You mean on par with the Portuguese, Dutch and the English; like they established their churches, the SLA is instilling the Buddhist flavour! Only difference is that, unlike the colonists, no other places of warships have been destroyed.
“ The reason the SLA is there is because of the LTTE. Now LTTE is gone and the next task is to move SLA somewhere else or to give the soldiers other jobs in civilian life.”
I agree; only one hope is that, GOSl cannot sustain and maintain the current military spending for too long; something has got to give; there need to be cutbacks; logistically impossible to maintain such military infrastructure for too long. The People of the North hope that, no one will upset the peace and there will be no excuse for GOSL to prolong the military siege of the Tamil people.
“I have a Sinhala friend who also visited Jaffna. This may surprise you but he told me that many soldiers felt guilty about what was happening to the Tamils. He mentioned that while the govt helped Sinhalese to move back to Padaviya where the LTTE had chased them out, it did not give similar help to Tamils.”
Not just the Tamils, the Muslims also are not being attended to in the Mannar district!
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/08/26/where-do-they-go-from-here/#respond
“Whatever the SLA is doing it is ordered by the govt and Gotabhaya. It is not the same undisciplined mob it was in the 1980s. If anything the problem is that it has too much discipline and carries out orders without questioning.”
The same Gotabhaya whom you defended as saying that best to occupy as the Defence Secretary! Certainly, the MR regime is good for the Sinhala Buddhists; is it good for Sri Lanka as a nation?
Wijayapala,
“Why?”
Because as long as the LTTE was around, nobody could do anything. I was actually naive enough to think that, with the end of the war, the situation had a chance to be resolved.
“As I have maintained in this thread and elsewhere, Sinhalese and Tamils seem to have a common mentality behind this sort of behavior. What you’re saying above hardly sounds different from the inaction of Tamils after numerous suicide bombings, the expulsion of Muslims from the north in 1990, or the killing of thousands of fellow Tamil “traitors” throughout the war. So perhaps a more constructive approach would be to gain an understanding of this common mentality which I suspect has a sociological, rather than culture/community-specific explanation.”
You can’t compare the absence of civil society action by a community during peace time (i.e. after the war) with that of another community’s lack of protest while under occupation by a terrorist regime during a civil war. At any rate, the Sinhalese came out to protest against the treatment of Fonseka, and other causes—but not the incarceration of innocent Tamil civilians. I wouldn’t say the Sinhalese are a politically quiescent community–there are just some causes they don’t care about. Ill treatment of Tamils as a community is one.
“I had no idea at all that Tamils accept what “Sinhalese groups in power” say without question. Do you think this will help or hurt reconciliation?”
I didn’t say that they uncritically accept what is said, but I’m sure they reflect on it. You can’t help but question yourself about your character flaws and errors of judgement when others are perpetually throwing it in your face. Like I said, if the other side does not care to do such self-reflection, the “reconciliation” will be a fake and treacherous one.
“How come they weren’t able to pressure SL into halting the offensive?”
For the same reason–too much money to be made. As you yourself have said, the current regime does not care about race or religion. It’s about money, and power, and going down in the history books.
How come you can’t find anyone on google to support your views except for Lankamithra Fernando
I have already proven that the vast majority of academics in SL and elsewhere do not consider Mahavamsa to be an objective source of historical material.
Lack of mention of Mahinda or Sanghamitta in the Rock Edicts does not prove that they did not exist.
Neither does it prove that they came to SL either. Unfortunately for you, Mahavamsa asserts that they did come to SL; therefore, we clearly have a case where Mahavamsa cannot be cross-referenced and validated with a very important historical source.
Diffperspective,
“oh yeah… sucking up I’m sure… What with that “Panel of Experts” and all… nice way to suck up!!! Real intelligent!!!!”
So, you believe that all is hunky-dory between SL and UN now, given Buhne’s remarks? A month or so ago, the UN Sec-Gen’s effigy was burned, at the instigation of SL government elements. You think a UN official is saying these things because he believes them? The turnabout doesn’t sound fishy to you? Grow a brain. Watch out for the hidden daggers.
Just wondering–at summit meetings, when all the big powers make nice, sucky noises about each other to the media, do you actually believe what they’re saying?
Burning_Issue,
Glad to hear that you will fight for your home. Best wishes in your endeavour.
Burning_issue,
Hope you get your home back. I would apologise on behalf of my fellow countrymen but I might be somewhat unrepresentative. Good luck.
absolutely you should not root for any team but humanity. not just that other living animals as well. i had the impression, you’re only rooting for only one team because you’re quick to suggest to us sri lankans that we should take advice from other countries which have even scantier disregard for human rights to form our own policies! either that or you like all races but sinhalese for what ever reasons.
nationality and race go hand in glove. every nationality has a majority race that defines them. for instance, anglo saxons form the majority of many western nations. so you tell me then does the afghans not belong to a race then? no point getting all technical if you don’t have an answer to the underlying message.
Diffperspective,
Perhaps someone with “real intelligence” such as yourself can explain some discrepancies that Buhne made in remarks six days AFTER the World Humanitarian Day occasion you quoted.
In an August 26 Reuters report, Buhne says that 200K of the IDPs have been resettled, while 100K are in transit camps near their home areas, and another 35K are in emergency sites.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE67P0JY
In a Canadian press report, the UN is reported to have said that 200K have been resettled, and about 70K are in transit camps near their home areas, of which 35K are still in emergency sites. In this report, Buhne says things that contradict the earlier report you cited. He said: “The job is not yet done. It is still a critical period and we ask for your continued support to meet the remaining crucial needs,” Neil Buhne, the U.N. resident co-ordinator in Sri Lanka, told a meeting of donors.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hLh9MW0nvDuEaGrY-DCmTTdMv1vw
In the Daily Mirror Lanka report you cited, graphics indicate that 232 have been re-settled, while 35 K are still in IDP camps). Those figures are the only ones that justify a close to 90% assessment. And Buhne is cited as quoting them. Could they be GOSL figures since Buhne’s later quotes of figures do not add up to 90% resettlement?
Indeed, if you read a UN report of the same World Humanitarian Day event, you will find that it claims that GOSL, NOT Buhne, said that 90% had been resettled.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=90305
I also found that the World Humanitarian Day function with its buffed up numbers was not reported by the international press, whereas Buhne’s assessment to donors that re-settlement continues to be a crucial concern was reported by the international press but not by the SL media.
Error in my post above–Reuters report says 100K are still displaced, of which 35K are in emergency sites.
Observer,
“nationality and race go hand in glove. every nationality has a majority race that defines them. for instance, anglo saxons form the majority of many western nations.”
For a long time, the majority African race of South Africa had no relation to South African nation identity. Currently, South African nationalism doesn’t refer to any specific race. Scandinavians make up the majority race in Norway, Finland and Denmark—are you saying then that, as nations, they are entirely the same? Go tell the Welsh and Scots, and Black British that Anglo-Saxons define British identity. Americans, Brits, Australians, and Canadians then have the same nationality because they are made up of a majority of Anglo-Saxons?
Nations aren’t defined by the majority race. They are defined by a national culture, i.e. one that all races/ethnic groups share in common, and/or one that they have created together. Nationality refers to your citizenship, not to your race.
If you look at the flag or other symbols that define a nation, you will note that there are often references to the multiple cultures of the nation.
“so you tell me then does the afghans not belong to a race then?”
Afghans may all be of one nationality, but they belong to different racial groups and racial sub-groups. Pashtuns and Tajiks are of Mediterranean Caucasian descent, but Hazara and other have mixtures of different types of Mongolian or East Asian descent. Many other groups are of various Turkic origins. So, no, they are not racially similar.
The reason for the desparity of the results of the survey conducted on the DNA of the Sinhalese, is the location from wich they have taken the samples. It is sometimes not well known even among the relevent population where their origins are. Most of the Sinhalese living in the South-Western coastal regions (areas like Hikkaduwa,Dodunduwa and Boossa) have their ancestry in the South Indian mercenaries brought here to fight wars for the Sinhalese kings. Subsequently they settled here and inter-married with Sinhalese as well. Some of their surnames like Agampodi(a derivative of Agampadi-meaning “a paid soldier”)and Thuppahige (meaning an outsider)proves this point. Most people in this area have in fact Tamil surnames(“ge” names) This explains how the mixing of genetic matter might have taken place. In some other areas of Sri Lanka the same process might have taken place as well.
As I stated in another place what matters is the ethnic identity perceived by the person -as to his ethnic identity;not the historical or scientific evidence.
For that matter if you analyse the DNA of the Maldivians you might find that it is very similar to the Sinhalese considering the fact that their language Divehi resembles Sinhala to a great extent,but I wonder whether the Maldivians would acknowledge this fact!
Prof Heshan
I graciously accept your admission of defeat in your inability to answer my previous post.
“I have already proven that the vast majority of academics in SL and elsewhere do not consider Mahavamsa to be an objective source of historical material.”
No you have not. You cited only a single SL scholar who lived 60 years ago.
“Unfortunately for you, Mahavamsa asserts that they did come to SL; therefore, we clearly have a case where Mahavamsa cannot be cross-referenced and validated with a very important historical source.”
Unfortunately for you, I provided not only evidence that Mahinda existed but several of his contemporaries mentioned in Mahavamsa and interred in India as well.
You on the other hand have provided nothing to substantiate your claims save for an unqualified patents man citing scholars who lived over a 100 years ago and whose views have long been debunked.
Burning_Issue
Best of luck in getting your house back. I wish there was something I could do to help.
“it certainly seems that there is an organised approach encompassing the government and the Buddhist hierarchy.”
I disagree. What do you mean by Buddhist “hierarchy?” Is there such a hierarchy for Hinduism or Islam in SL?
“I do not see articles on any of the front line newspapers about such issues informing the common Sinhala folks. I do not see the Sinhala intellectuals debating about this very fact rendering it as undemocratic and hindering to race relations.”
This is an easy one to answer. We don’t have any intellectuals!
“You mean on par with the Portuguese, Dutch and the English; like they established their churches, the SLA is instilling the Buddhist flavour!”
There is one slight difference- there had been Buddhist sites in the region previously which disappeared as Buddhism disappeared. Kantarodai is one of the last surviving of those sites.
“The same Gotabhaya whom you defended as saying that best to occupy as the Defence Secretary!”
Who is better?
“Certainly, the MR regime is good for the Sinhala Buddhists;”
I’m not sure that I agree, after hearing him talk about God which is not part of Buddhism.
Belle,
“Because as long as the LTTE was around, nobody could do anything. I was actually naive enough to think that, with the end of the war, the situation had a chance to be resolved.”
Using your own logic that nothing can be resolved now, shouldn’t that mean you should be as quiet now as you were when the LTTE was around?
“I wouldn’t say the Sinhalese are a politically quiescent community–there are just some causes they don’t care about.”
Sooo… just like the Tamils?
“You can’t compare the absence of civil society action by a community during peace time (i.e. after the war) with that of another community’s lack of protest while under occupation by a terrorist regime during a civil war.”
Last time I checked, the Tamils living in Colombo or the diaspora had never lived under occupation by a terrorist regime.
“How come they weren’t able to pressure SL into halting the offensive?”
For the same reason–too much money to be made.
From what?
Longus,
“As I stated in another place what matters is the ethnic identity perceived by the person -as to his ethnic identity;not the historical or scientific evidence.”
Yes, ethnic identity is a perception. But lots of people, and not only in Sri Lanka, confuse race and ethnicity, and race becomes part of the perception of ethnic identity. For eg, Yapa, who claims he is only talking about ethnic identities but makes it a point to refer to Tamils repeatedly as “Dravidian”, which is a purely racial category. Why don’t Sinhalese Buddhists and Sinhalese Christians come to bloody communal conflict? Why is there a resistance to accepting the notion that Sinhalese and SL Tamils are racially similar, despite the fact that people can’t tell them apart? Can people commit the kind of physical violence and violation against another community that Sinhalese and SL Tamils have managed for these past decades while thinking that the only way they are different is in their ethnic cultures, their religions, their languages? You have to believe that the other’s treachery or threat to yourself lies in their body, their genes, for violent ethnic conflict to occur and for one community to entirely disidentify with another. German Jews lived for centuries in Germany, marginalized and suspected for their religion but generally allowed to go their own way. It took the Nazi discourse of race to fuel the drive to exterminate them. Ethnic cultural aspects of Jewish life, even their material success, were given a racial causation in the Nazi discourse of the Jewish race. Suddenly, the Jews were not considered to be German–just as here, there are challenges to SL Tamil claims to be Sri Lankan.
I’ve always been puzzled by Sinhalese bitterness that the SL Tamils apparently did better than Sinhalese under colonial rule. But why massacre them (pre-LTTE) when the Sinhalese, being in political power as the majority, could always ensure that equal opportunities prevailed through government policies? On the other hand, there appears to be no such rancour against the rich Sinhalese families that dominated colonial life, and the Sinhalese polity seem quite happy to let these people continue to enjoy such privilege even today.
Mr. Wijayapala:
It doesn’t matter if Mendis lived 20000 years ago; many people since his time have agreed with him.
Did the Buddha visit Sri Lanka?
Point of view
By Ranjan Gooneratne
Mahanama, the author of the Mahavamsa refers to three visits by the Buddha to Sri Lanka. Is this historically correct? Did the Buddha ever visit Sri Lanka? To ascertain whether the description in the Mahavamsa has any basis, one has to study the life of the Buddha, as revealed in the Pali Canon.
Immediately after Enlightenment, the Buddha walked from Buddha Gaya to Saranath. From Saranath, He set out to wander by stages to Uruvela. At that time three ascetics with matted hair — Kassapa of Uruvela, Kassapa of the River and Kassapa of Gaya — were living at Uruvela. When the Buddha was living at Uruvela, Kassapa’s sacrificial ceremony fell due.
The Mahavamsa says, “Now, since a great sacrifice by Kassapa of Uruvela was near at hand, and since He (the Buddha) saw that this latter would fain have Him away .., the Conqueror in the ninth month of his Buddhahood, at the full moon of Phussa, Himself set forth for the Isle of Lanka…
A painting at Kelaniya temple that depicts one of the instances that Lord Buddha is supposed to have visited Lanka to settle a dispuite between two factions
“To this great gathering of the Yakkas went the Blessed One and there in the midst of that assembly, hovering in the air over their heads, at the place of the future Mahiyangana Thupa, He struck terror to their hearts, by rain, storm, darkness and so forth. The Yakkas, overwhelmed by fear, besought the fearless Vanquisher to release them from fear. Then, when He had destroyed their terror,… the Master preached them the doctrine.” (Geiger’s translation pages 3 and 4)
The suttas display the Buddha, as the incarnation of patience and peace, capable of working the miracle of transformation by His unshakeable equanimity and impeccable wisdom.
The Buddha would never have struck terror to their hearts. This idea that the Buddha struck terror to their hearts by rain, storm and darkness, Mahanama has taken directly from the Vedas. The Vedas tell us that Indra wields the thunderbolt and conquers darkness. He brings us light and life, gives us vigour and freshness. Heaven bows before him and the earth trembles at his approach “Yes, when I send thunder and lightning” says Indra “then you believe, in me.” (Radhakrishna Indian Philosophy Vol. 1 pages 35-36)
According to the Mahavamsa’s description of the first visit of the Buddha to Lanka, the visit should take place between the sacrificial ceremony and the deliverance of the fire sermon at Gayassi.
The Mahavamsa says the Buddha came by air to Lanka. The description of the first visit of the Buddha goes against the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. In Mahasihanada Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 12) Sunakkata made this statement before the vesali assembly: “The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of reasoning as it occurs to him, and when he teaches the Dhamma to anyone, it leads when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering”.
Bhikku Bodhi in his commentary to this sutta says “Apparently he (Sunakkhatta) believes that being led to the complete destruction of suffering is, as a goal, inferior to the acquisition of miraculous powers”. In His rebuttal of Sunkattha’s assertion the Buddha says “the recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma hammered out by reasoning, following His own line of reasoning as it occurs to Him-Unless He abandons that view, then he will wind up in hell”.
In the Kevaddha Sutta (Digha Nikaya Sutta 11 in Maurice Walshe’s translation), The Buddha says, He dislikes, rejects and despises the miracles of psychic power and miracle of telepathy. The Buddha was possessed of a quality of compassion, seldom seen among men. His sympathy was all embracing and spontaneous. The Buddha’s teaching is based and built on a conception of universal love and compassion for all living beings.
In the Vatthupama Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 7) the Buddha says, “he abides pervading that all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving kindness, abundant, exalted immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. He abides pervading one quarter with the mind imbued with compassion.”
“In the Lakkahan Sutta (Digha Nikaya sutta 30) it is stated, “the Tathagata rejects harsh speech, abstains from it, spoke what was blameless, pleasing to the ear, agreeable, reaching the heart, urbane, pleasing and attractive to the multitude.”
Therefore, if the Mahavamsa is to be believed, when Mahanama says, “He struck terror to their hearts by rain, darkness and so forth. The Yakkas overwhelmed by fear… we have to accept that the Buddha abandoned the fundamental tenets of the Dhamma merely for the sake of converting a set of ‘uninstructed wordings.’ He was, of all the historical personages of whom we possess any knowledge, one of the most consistent in thought, word and act.
He not only placed little value on the supra-rational knowledge and ecstasy to which ascetics and mystics were supposed to have access, but actually described their mental acrobatics as “the thicket of theorizing, the wilderness of theorizing, the tangle, the bondage.”
The Mahavamsa goes on to say that it was on His first visit that the “Master preached the doctrine”.
There is no record of the doctrine the Buddha preached to the Yakkas. However, there is a record of the two earlier sermons the Buddha delivered at Saranath.
According to the Mahavamsa, the Buddha’s second visit to Lanka was in the fifth year of His Buddhahood “He set out to Lanka from Jetawana.” If the Mahavamsa account of the Buddha’s second visit is to be believed He should have come to Lanka before He left for Kapilavasthu.
In His second visit, the Mahavamsa says the Buddha brought about a reconciliation between the Naga kind Maniakkhika and Mahodora by preaching the “the doctrine that begets concord.” King Pasanedi was one of the most devoted lay followers of the Buddha. Pasanedi says “The dhamma has been made clear in many ways by the Blessed One, as though He were turning upright what had been turned upside down. (vide Kosalaamyutta in the Samyuta Nikaya.)
Yet the Buddha was not able to prevent King Pasanedi going into battle with Ajasathu. In the Paranibbana Sutta we find Ajasattu sending his chief minister Brahamin Vessakara to the Buddha to seek advice as to how he could attack the Vajians and bring them to ruin and destruction. The Buddha told him, “the Vajians will never be conquered by force of arms.” Still the Buddha was not able to dissuade Ajasatu resorting to various stratagems to destroy the Vajians.
It is strange therefore, that while the Buddha was not able to prevent His disciples from waging wars, He could bring about reconciliation between two kings in a foreign country.
The doctrine that “begot concord” is not found anywhere in the Pali Canon. It is also strange that this doctrine was not delivered to Kings Pasanedi or Ajasatu and thereby dissuade them from going to war.
According to the Mahavamsa, the third visit of the Buddha to Lanka was in the eighth year of His Buddhahood.
The Buddha “set forth surrounded by five hundred arahats on the second day of the beautiful month of Vesak..” Again the doctrine He preached on His third visit to the island is not found in the Pali Canon. The Buddha’s famous statement in the Paranibbana Sutta, “I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no inner and outer. The Tathagata has no teacher’s fist in respect of the Dhamma,” makes it clear that there is no esoteric teaching in Buddhism.
On a plain reading of the Buddha visits to Lanka as recorded in the Mahavamsa, it becomes clear that this account is not only false but goes against the teachings of the Buddha.
It is also established that from the day of His enlightenment till He passed away at Kusinara, the Buddha walked barefoot from Buddha Gaya to Kusinara. At the little village of Beluva the Buddha said (Paranibbana Sutta), “Ananda, I am now old, worn out, one who has traversed life’s path, I have reached the term of life which is eighty.” The version in the Mahavamsa that the Buddha came by air from Jetawana to Lanka should be rejected.
One other matter that should be considered in delving into the veracity of the Buddha’s visit as narrated in the Mahavamsa is that there was an intellectual awakening in India about a thousand years before the Buddha. Therefore, we find in India at the time of the Buddha’s birth the tendency of man to think rationally, to reduce the chaotic universe of his sense-impressions and intuitions to a coherent and logical order, was ingrained in the Indian mind. The Buddha, as Radhakrishna says, “tore away the Dhamma from His ancestral stem and planted in a purely rational soil.”
Even in such an intellectually fertile soil as in India in the fifth century B.C, soon after enlightenment the Buddha experienced an inner conflict as to whether He should ever teach the Dhamma because, in the words of Bhikku Bodhi, “He reflected the density of the defilements of beings and the profundity of the Dhamma. In the Brahmasamayutta in the Samyutta Nikkaya we find the following statement, “This Dhamma I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.”
There is no evidence that the Nagas and Yakkas, if such tribes ever existed in prehistoric Lanka, had any intellectual background capable of understanding the profound teachings of the Buddha. It is also a matter for surprise that while there is a record of the very first sutta preached to five ascetics, we do not find in the Pali Canon any reference to the three discourses delivered to the Nagas and Yakkas.
William Geiger regards the Mahavamsa as a conscious and intentional rearrangement of the Dipavamsa as a sort of commentary to this latter.” Geiger refers to R.O. Franks’ Dipawamsa and Mahavamsa where he says, “In the absence of any sources, the Dipavamsa must be considered as standing unsupported on its own tottering feet.” Therefore, according to Franke no historical value can be conceded to the Dipavamsa nor to the Mahavamsa.
Geiger also refers to V.A. Smith’s “Asoka, the Buddhist Emperor of India” where “the Ceylonese chronology prior to B.C. 160 is absolutely and completely rejected as being not merely of doubtful authority but positively false in its principal propositions.”
The account given in the Mahavamsa has no historical evidence to support the proposition that the Buddha ever visited this island . Biographer and literary critic Lytton Strachey once said, “ignorance is the first requisite of the historian. Ignorance which simplifies and clarifies, which selects and limits, with a placid perfection unattainable by the highest art. Had Lytton Strachey ever read the Mahavamsa, he would have been delighted to realize that Mahanama had followed his observation to the very letter.
http://sundaytimes.lk/091213/Plus/plus_12.html
The account given in the Mahavamsa has no historical evidence to support the proposition that the Buddha ever visited this island .
I think I am beginning to understand why modern Sri Lanka (e.g. post-independence Ceylon) is such an overwhelming failure…. when it comes to certain matters of particular importance, there are some rather illustrious individuals from the majority community who will engage in a game of rabid deception. And certain sheep (of the likes of Wijayapala) will blindly heed the call. Mahavamsa is a very good example. Here we see that the game of deception has gone beyond any reasonable proportions. Yet quite a few “sheep” continue to heed the call.
Wijayapala,
“Using your own logic that nothing can be resolved now, shouldn’t that mean you should be as quiet now as you were when the LTTE was around?”
I didn’t expect to see the state itself take advantage of the victory against a minority population. I had come to believe in Sinhalese goodwill with the CFA, but now I see it was just convenient for that time, when the LTTE was around. What I meant was that I was naive enough to expect that the situation would be resolved soon after the war. Governments rise and fall. People are capable of changing their thinking, especially if they see that they stand to gain by it too.
“Last time I checked, the Tamils living in Colombo or the diaspora had never lived under occupation by a terrorist regime.”
You mean during the LTTE years, Colombo itself was not under siege, be they Sinhalese or Tamils? That’s news to me. Are you saying that the LTTE terrorist threat to Sri Lanka was over-rated? As for the diaspora, that’s irrelevant. I was talking about people not caring about the plight of fellow-citizens and about racism in Sri Lanka.
“Sooo… just like the Tamils?”
The SL Tamils are politically quiescent? You can say that, given the militant groups that emerged? You seem bent on wanting to think that Sri Lankans in general are politically quiescent, even though the facts don’t bear you out. I don’t think political quietism explains the ethnic conflict nor Sri Lankans coming under the rule of tyrants. Perhaps their chauvinistic politics makes them susceptible to being used by tyrants.
“From what?”
You’re kidding, right? So the continued presence of the LTTE did not impact adversely on the Sri Lankan economy? There was no money to be made in the East by clearing out the LTTE? All that abandoned real estate? Of course, money had already been made in war. Isn’t Fonseka accused of having made millions through tenders for war equipment? Is he the only one, do you think?
Belle (August 28, 2010 @ 2:54 pm) has explained the difference between ‘race’ and ‘ethnic identity’ very well.
The difference between ethnic identities is mistakenly thought of as because of ‘race’ or ‘origins’ (Mr Yapa’s idea of the Sinhalese evolving from a tadpole from Kandy) when in reality it is because of our perception of the differences between groups of people – language, religion, dress, cultural roots, and consequently (as ‘race’ has been politicised) also political allegiances.
In other words, Mr Yapa is ‘Sinhalese and Buddhist’ because he has been told, from birth, that he is Sinhalese and Buddhist. If he was told he is something else then he would passionately regard himself to be one of those. Nothing to do with his genes.
However, the relevance of DNA and genes comes in only because some ‘racist’ people put forward racial origins as the differentiator- as some sort of truth and as some sort of elitist ‘purity’. This is easily disproved as (as we know) most (if not all) ‘Sinhalese’ people are of varying degrees of Tamil ancestry, as well as of other migrants.
Dear belle;
“For eg, Yapa, who claims he is only talking about ethnic identities but makes it a point to refer to Tamils repeatedly as “Dravidian”, which is a purely racial category.”
I think you have misunderstood me here. I have never denied the existence of races. My belief is that social and political institutions should not be formed on racial basis.
Race is a hidden attribute which is usually not visible. To identify race you need to have deliberate efforts. Race has a minimal social impact, but it contributes to ethnicity which clearly visible and make visible social differences. Therefore in a society, unlike race, ethnicity is an apparently prominent factor in formulating social and political institutions.
What really I said was though races exist, I have no confidence in it in building up social and political institutions on it. I never say races does not exit. I never say Dravidians do not exist. They really exist. But unlike Hitler I have no idea to revolutionize the society based on race.
Existence is one. No faith on it, is something else.
I think I made myself clear about this point.
“I’ve always been puzzled by Sinhalese bitterness that the SL Tamils apparently did better than Sinhalese under colonial rule.”
It is because “that doing better” was not fair to Sinhalese. They got those benefits through unfair competition, by taking the side of the colonials, while Sinhalese were sidelined.
“But why massacre them (pre-LTTE) when the Sinhalese, being in political power as the majority, could always ensure that equal opportunities prevailed through government policies?”
You are trying to attach the murder tag casually to Sinhalese community. Do you think this can simply be attribute to Sinhalese ethnicity. Do you think acts of some Sinhalese thugs can be attributed to the whole community. You think it is fair?
If I argue in the same line as you, I could ask “Why then the Tamils massacred Sinhalese even without the political power?”
Thanks!
“Mr Yapa’s idea of the Sinhalese evolving from a tadpole from Kandy”
You have very correctly identified your ancestry. Frogs evolve from tadpoles.
By the way are you from Kandy?
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
What I like about you most is that unlike many others you try to substantiate your opinions with evidence. A debate exists just because, there is no consensus about opinion(s). Some people hold credible opinions, but do not/can not substantiate them. Some people hold very unreliable opinions without having evidence. Some other people hold very unreliable opinions, while providing evidence.
You belong to the first and third category above according to my opinion. You kept on arguing for the existence of creator god, even after the concept was literally disproved. This is impossible by a person other than an intellectual. That is why I called you “an intellectual brat”, to whom I have a special liking. Under the first category, to me you are a intellectual and a scholar.
In regard to your posts of August 29, 2010 @ 10:09 am and August 29, 2010 @ 10:17 am, I would have to call you by the name given within brackets above. However, as I said in an earlier post addressed to wijayapala your mischiefs are lovable.
Please give me a little time to express my opinion about your articles as I am a bit busy now. I always liked your thought provoking ideas.
Thanks!
Correction……..
Some people hold credible opinions and substantiate them with strong evidence.
should come before
” Some people hold credible opinions, but do not/can not substantiate them.”
and in
“You belong to the first and third category above according to my opinion.”
the word “third” should be replaced with “forth”.
Thanks1
Belle,
Please do not deviate from the point… If you go back to my first post it was to question your characterization about the refugees being “incarcerated” therefore my question to you was—– ” So according to you the Govt incarcerated these people for just one year.Some even less…..I wonder why??? Your choice of words are a ridiculous description of a tragic event!!!”—- I was not trying to prove 90% was resettled but was showing the ridiculousness of your characterization with the UN quote..
However, interestingly all your sources too claim more than two thirds as being resettled and the balance in the process of being resettled… And this in just over a year all the while in the US 20,000 families remained without permanent housing 5 years after Katrina!!! So where is the incarceration?? Oh yeah I forgot they were released because the Int’l community withheld Funds!!! Which Funds were these again??? Lol
We can quibble all we want on whether it is 90% or 70%… but one thing all including your sources agree is that more than two thirds have been resettled and the balance being resettled after just over an year!!!>> This is hardly “incarceration”
What you term as “incarceration” I see as a tragic event which was a result of the “Sun God” and his cohorts using these people as human shields (as also accepted by you) to try to save their rear ends. (As cowards who use terrorism do) As a result the SL Govt had to provide refuge to these people and weed the LTTE’ers off… Were there problems in doing this??? Certainly… were there issues in doing this?? Certainly.. No one is arguing that!!!
With regards to getting clarity on Buhne’s inconsistencies and the various reports you have quoted… I suggest you get it from him and the UN direct!!! This has nothing to do with what you term as “incarceration”…Actually it proves the opposite!!!
Diffperspective,
I did not deviate from the point. In an earlier post, I said why I called it an “incarceration”.
Here’s a definition of the word from a dictionary. It may help you to see why the term I used was most apt.
incarcerate |inˈkärsəˌrÄt| verb [ trans. ] (usu. be incarcerated) imprison : many are incarcerated for property offenses. • [ trans. ] confine (someone) in a particular place : he spent a long evening incarcerated below decks. DERIVATIVES incarceration |-ËŒkärsəˈrÄ sh É™n| noun incarcerator |-ËŒrÄtÉ™r| noun ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from medieval Latin incarcerat- ‘imprisoned,’ from the verb incarcerare, from in- ‘into’ + Latin carcer ‘prison.’
Were the “refugees”, as you termed them, allowed to leave the camps? To talk with visitors? Were there not armed soldiers at these camps? Were the camps not ringed with barbed wire to prevent ‘escape’? Ever seen any of these features at refugee camps?
That the civilians were released in a year does not remove the fact that it was an incarceration.
As for your reference to Katrina, no doubt many of the IDPs will still be in temporary shelters, makeshift homes, five years from now. There have been many reports of IDPs just dumped at roadsides and of others trying to make legal claim to their homes. You can call that “resettlement”. I don’t.
“What you term as “incarceration” I see as a tragic event which was a result of the “Sun God” and his cohorts using these people as human shields (as also accepted by you) to try to save their rear ends. (As cowards who use terrorism do) As a result the SL Govt had to provide refuge to these people and weed the LTTE’ers off…”
Yeah, right, they weeded the LTTE cadres out by taking bribes from them and setting them free! While innocent civilians had to be…wait…let’s hear that word again: INCARCERATED. Some LTTE cadres even paid a few extra thousands for armed escort from the camps. Stylish, eh?
There are no incosistencies with regard to what Buhne said. The problem was that the Daily Mirror Lanka reported him as having made that 90% claim when actually it was GOSL making that claim.
Dear Yapa:
Some people believe Buddha flew in the air to SL. Others believe a lion and a woman produced a whole race of people. Others believe His Excellency Lord King Honorable Most High Venerable Mahinda Rajapakse is the incarnation of Dutugemunu. Even though Dutugemunu died 2000 years ago, somehow he is “alive” today and happily robbing the country. Compared to all this nonsense, belief in God is rather sane. As I explained to you a long time ago, God is energy, and the universe , at some level is energy. I cannot, of course, directly prove that God is energy. Nevertheless, the indirect proof serves its purpose well. To summarize, while my beliefs may not be “complete” in the sense of an error-free proof, they are far more rational than the fairy tales I have listed earlier. Thanks!
Prof Heshan
“Did the Buddha visit Sri Lanka?”
If you had bothered to read by rebuttal to Dr. Fernando, you would have seen that I do not accept that the Buddha had visited Sri Lanka, nor do I readily accept any part of the chronicle that predate the arrival of Buddhism because the earliest Sinhala-Prakrit inscriptions are associated with Mahinda and the arrival of Buddhism.
In plain English, you have 2300 years of Buddhist history in SL from Mahinda onward which you have failed to refute. I hope that I have educated you!
Dear Belle,
“I had come to believe in Sinhalese goodwill with the CFA”
But there was goodwill, which the LTTE exploited. Don’t blame us for the failure of the CFA.
“What I meant was that I was naive enough to expect that the situation would be resolved soon after the war.”
What would you otherwise expect within a year after a brutal 26-year civil war??
““Last time I checked, the Tamils living in Colombo or the diaspora had never lived under occupation by a terrorist regime.”
You mean during the LTTE years, Colombo itself was not under siege, be they Sinhalese or Tamils?
To answer your ORIGINAL question, Colombo was not occupied by a terrorist regime. The LTTE could not have suppressed a mass demonstration against it.
“As for the diaspora, that’s irrelevant. I was talking about people not caring about the plight of fellow-citizens and about racism in Sri Lanka.”
Did I hit a little too close to home, by implying that diaspora Tamils did not care about the suffering of Sri Lankans (even fellow Tamils) caused by the LTTE?
“You seem bent on wanting to think that Sri Lankans in general are politically quiescent, even though the facts don’t bear you out. I don’t think political quietism explains the ethnic conflict nor Sri Lankans coming under the rule of tyrants.”
Actually I’m bent on showing that Sinhalese and Tamils essentially have the same mentality, and you haven’t shown much to refute that point. If you want to say that Sinhalese and Tamils are equally suckers for tinpot leadership, I will not dispute it.
Your argument about “tyrants” is rather counterintuitive- quiescent people are exactly the type to be enslaved (which is the explanation I’ve heard for the military junta in Burma).
As for the “ethnic conflict,” I would explain its violent aspects precisely as the result of “political quietism” of the noncommunal elements, whom I consider to be the majority. The actual war started under a regime that was so incredibly unpopular that it cancelled elections to keep itself in power for another 6 years.
“So the continued presence of the LTTE did not impact adversely on the Sri Lankan economy?”
Could you please show me economic figures showing how the economy improved following the destruction of the LTTE? Mahinda being brusque with the Europeans doesn’t appear to have helped things.
“There was no money to be made in the East by clearing out the LTTE?”
Who has made money?
Mr. Wijayapala:
I’m highly disappointed that you don’t believe Buddha flew through the air, and lions enjoyed the pleasure of vivacious young Yakka beauties. Unfortunately, you are alone in your views… your comrade Yapa, for example, believes all these events (and many more) to be 100% correct. In another thread, he has spent many hours, days, and weeks, “proving” the theory of reincarnation – that in fact, a tiny bacterium found in the excrement of a rabies infested dog, can be reborn as the Queen of England in its “next life.” Of course we can go backwards as well… surely His Excellency Mervyn Silva had a more illustrious protege back in the day, of whom Mervyn is a rather unfortunate *degenerate* reincarnation.
On the other hand, by admitting Buddha never visited SL, you are jeopardizing the destiny of the “Sons of the Soil” – to preserve “Therevada Buddhism” – as stipulated by Buddha when he took a long peaceful nap. You are also contradicting your bona fide assertion that Buddhism should be given special mention in the Constitution.
Anyway, realization is the first step in releasing the bonds of racism. Do you also accept that “Prince” Vijaya was not, in fact, a Prince, but a merchant? And that there were Tamil Buddhists on the island before there were Sinhala-Buddhists?
Wijayapala,
“What would you otherwise expect within a year after a brutal 26-year civil war??”
I expected the will to resolve the ethnic conflict. I expected steps to at least begin to be taken in the right direction. GOSL resistance to constitutional reform surprised me.
“To answer your ORIGINAL question, Colombo was not occupied by a terrorist regime. The LTTE could not have suppressed a mass demonstration against it.”
So, may I infer from this that the Sinhalese were happy with the LTTE? If the LTTE could not have suppressed a mass demonstration, then surely the lack of Sinhalese-organized mass demonstrations suggest they did not view the LTTE as a threat.
What the LTTE would have done if there had been mass demonstrations–blow up a bus every time there is one. Or assassinate the organizers.
“Actually I’m bent on showing that Sinhalese and Tamils essentially have the same mentality, and you haven’t shown much to refute that point. If you want to say that Sinhalese and Tamils are equally suckers for tinpot leadership, I will not dispute it.”
I don’t know how one can refute such a claim, or how you can prove it. It’s an unverifiable claim to make. How would you refute or prove the claim that Tamils are exactly like Chinese or that Sinhalese are just like Malays?
“Your argument about “tyrants” is rather counterintuitive- quiescent people are exactly the type to be enslaved (which is the explanation I’ve heard for the military junta in Burma). ”
Let’s take the example of wives dominated by husbands (or vice versa, if you prefer). The party being dominated may attract the domination by her quiescence, her timid personality. But also, she may attract a dominant husband simply because she subscribes to the ideology that men should be dominant, equating tyranny with strength. Similarly, perhaps in Sri Lanka, there is a popular idea that true leadership is characterized by authoritarianness. Many forummers here go out of their way to justify MR’s tyranny and even the nepotism. Or, as I have suggested, the Sinhalese chauvinism of the masses attracts just the kind of tyrannical politician that will exploit it. Nothing to do with quiescence.
I don’t think Burmese are quiescent. They come out in demonstrations despite the fear of violence. And let’s not forget–nobody votes for military rule; it’s imposed on them. Sri Lankans have the vote, even if political parties have been known to try to limit it.
“As for the “ethnic conflict,” I would explain its violent aspects precisely as the result of “political quietism” of the noncommunal elements, whom I consider to be the majority. The actual war started under a regime that was so incredibly unpopular that it cancelled elections to keep itself in power for another 6 years.”
It was the majority that voted to let the UNP carry on for another six years in a referendum.
“Could you please show me economic figures showing how the economy improved following the destruction of the LTTE? Mahinda being brusque with the Europeans doesn’t appear to have helped things.”
“Who has made money?”
http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/sri-lankan-economy-boom-after-war
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-30/sri-lankan-economy-accelerates-at-fastest-pace-in-five-quarters.html
Yapa,
“Race is a hidden attribute which is usually not visible. To identify race you need to have deliberate efforts. Race has a minimal social impact, but it contributes to ethnicity which clearly visible and make visible social differences. Therefore in a society, unlike race, ethnicity is an apparently prominent factor in formulating social and political institutions.”
Race is distinguished from ethnicity in that race is the more visible one. You cannot tell that a Sinhalese person and a European are both Christian unless you talk to them or have prior knowledge of their religion. But you can tell they are of a different race just by looking at them. They don’t have to wear anything on them to show that they are of a different race.
How is ethnicity rather than race the more prominent factor in formulating social and political institutions in Sri Lanka? Are there different policies and institutions for Sinhalese Christians as against Sinhalese Buddhists? Aren’t these differences more pronounced based on race (or at least, on perceptions that these groups are racially different)? For instance, only Tamils were incarcerated in the barbed wire camps. Sinhalese were the ones allowed to be free. In terms of language policy, is one regional dialect of Sinhalese privileged over another? No. But Sinhalese is obviously privileged over Tamil, the language, supposedly, of another race.
Belle
Maybe at a glance one would say that the Sinhalese and the Tamils look all the same physically. But on close inspection of their features most of the time you can tell the difference based on their physical features- except in instances where the mixing of the genetic matter has taken place to a great extent, so that the features become indistinguishable. It’s not difficult to discern the North Indian features of the Sinhalese, and the non-Aryan features of the Tamils ie.the flatter noses.darker complexion, narrower foreheads, the alignment of the eyes in the head, the size of the eyes in proportion to the face and the shape of the face etc.
In the same way one could say that all the far-eastern races like the Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai and Philipinnos look alike but if you look closely you can differtiate between them, though it looks a hard task. Even I, for that matter can tell the difference between a Phillipino, Chinese and a Japanese, being a total outsider
That’s how sometimes after seeing a person some Sinhalese say, “He is Tamil,right?” and some Tamils say,”He is Sinhalese,right?”,even without hearing them talking!
Heshan
Your bigotry knows no limits, and may be excusable considering your intellectual plight-grey matter turning white! You think it is reasonable to believe in a creator because the universe is energy (when you pass wind,that’s also energy!) It’s not an absurdity for you to believe that that “energy” is listening your sorry-tales and grant your wishes; nor to believe that the creater was not created; nor to believe that if the creator created the universe he should be outside the universe (and in that case He can’t poke His devine finger to the wordly matters)-if He is inside He would not have created this expanding blob of space-time! ;nor this ultimate energy had a Jewish son called Jesus whom He sent to the world 2010 years ago to be crucified, for the sake of the “sinners” that his father created!
That may be what you consider the “incompleteness” of your “unproven theory”. Give the same freedom to the believers of the Lion story and re-incarnation, man!
Dear Longus,
Although I, myself, also think that it is often easy to distinguish between Tamils and Sinhalese physically, I don’t think it is appropriate to Tamil facial features as ” non-aryan”. Remember that although Sinhalese people may speak an indo-aryan language, they are not aryans!
Longus,
“It’s not difficult to discern the North Indian features of the Sinhalese”
You have your fantasies, don’t you?!! Sorry, but I never saw a Sinhalese who looked like Hrithik Roshan.
Go through a photo gallery of Miss Sri Lankas or actresses through the years. They look different from the Miss Indias and Indian actresses in that they have broader, flatter noses and much wider mouths–same features that distinguish SL Tamils from Indian Tamils. Less refined features, but more interesting, I think. MIA could easily pass as Sinhalese.
“That’s how sometimes after seeing a person some Sinhalese say, “He is Tamil,right?” and some Tamils say,”He is Sinhalese,right?”,even without hearing them talking!”
But they seem to have some doubt, wanting the other person to confirm it. How come? And what edification do they gain from guessing right?
Longus,
Most of the world has always believed in God, still believes in God, and will continue to believe in God, despite the pathetic and futile attempts of atheists such as yourself to discredit such beliefs. On the other hand, the myths and deceptions of Mahavamsa have been laid bare and are apparent for anyone to see. Unfortunately, racist ignoramuses such as yourself continue to propagate such fabrications as genuine history; nevertheless, that does not make such fabrications any more believable than they already are.
‘Aryan’ – by what meaning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
This Wikipedia entry covers the vast range of meanings of the term. Mostly it’s use is about language, not ancestry. In common usage ‘Aryan’ refers to the Nordic appearance (blonde, blue eyed) of which I am yet to meet an indigenous Sri Lankan of any variety!
However, in the context of this thread the term ‘Aryan’ is used in the same way as Hitler and the Nazis did (a 20th century aberration of the term), as a differentiator to distinguish a ‘master race’ from another (the Jews by the Nazis) – ‘Aryan’ vs ‘Dravidian’. A racial distinction that may have existed thousands of years ago because of the relative isolation of tribes, but does not exist today. All that does exist today is ‘a perception’ of such a distinction handed down from generation to generation, and now earnestly propagated by the SL Neo-Nazis.
Any difference between different races only arises out of which region in the world these humans migrated to and settled in (love to hear Mr Yapa challenge that!). Eighty thousand years ago we were all the same, our ancestors (of all modern humans) were a relatively small group, and black (yes). Some settled closer to the equator, others further north, their physical appearance derives from that. This does not make any particular group any ‘better’ than another, except each adjusted to the particular climate they settled in. So the distinction that the likes of Mr Yapa wishes to base all his racist campaigning on is completely illusory.
God
—-
Belief in god, or not, it a complete red herring in this discussion. As I noted earlier, whether god exists or not depends on one’s particular definition of ‘god’. If god = ‘everything’ then of course ‘god exists’. If god = the ‘Christian god’ then non-Christians do not believe that he exists. It is naive to assume that ‘god’ always mean Christian god. Interestingly, it is the non-Christians who mostly jump to the automatic assumption that the ‘god’ referred to is the Christian god!
Prof Heshan is right, all people of all varieties ‘tend to believe in some god or other’ (my words). Even Buddhists, while the doctrine is atheist in essence, believe in higher beings. This is evidenced by the enormous investment they make both financially and emotionally towards deities, including the Buddha who most Buddhists regard as a ‘god’ figure to whom they pray. The result is, they have created a god because they needed one.
None of the above proves that god exists, or what god is. I am merely pointing out the futility of making distinctions between differing positions in a discussion like this on the basis of whether ‘one believes in god or not’.
( we all do, as I wrote earlier. We simply disagree on what his name is, where he lives, and his job description)
Dear Heshan;
Sorry for the delay responding to you. Wrt to the God concept and reincarnation you mentioned in your last post addressed to me, I must write a few lines.
Surely the “God” we discussed in the previous discussions was “Creator God”, mentioned in the Bible and in other religious records in western religions and nothing else. The existence of this creator god, who is omnipotent, is clearly disproved by Averroes’ argument, and I have quoted the argument several times. Therefore there is no space for this “particular god” for existence. However, it does not disprove the existence of Rain God, Wind God, Fire God,Tree God, and Rock God or as you claimed “Energy God”. So you have found a very safe god to worship just as very olden day people and tribal people all over the world like our Veddha clan did/do. Surely you are free to worship your “Energy God” without any hindrance from us. But I must stress again “Creator God” has no escape from “intellectuals” in today’s world.
Wrt to rebirth concept of Buddhism too I must touch upon a bit.
The destiny of a being after the death (and before birth) is still an unsolved problem, as there is no one solution for this accepted by all. But the question is a valid one. Therefore there is a vacuum for a theory of the sort of reincarnation in this case (unlike in the case of Creator god).
Further, it can be seen that this question has been a common point of attraction throughout the world for known time of history and there has been mainly two types of answers suggested for the question.
1. There is no life after death
2. There is/are life/lives after death
Under 2. I think all the God based religions believe that there is one more birth after this, heaven or hell (i). Hinduism believes in “Reincarnation”, with an unchanging soul (ii). However, Buddhists believe in “Rebirth”, rejecting the unchanging soul concept and the explanation is based on “Panch Niyama Dharma” (Five Laws of Dhamma) and “Paticca Samuppada” (Dependent Origination)” (iii).
Anybody can objectively explore/analyze and see, among these three theories, without any doubt Buddhist theory is far ahead of the other two. Though it is not yet empirically proved totally, none can reject the rational flow and the consistency found in the theory. It has none or has only a few contradicting questions that can be asked in the line of rationality.
(I will respond soon to the other two posts too)
Thanks!
Correction………
“Under 2. I think all the God based religions believe………”
should be corrected as “Under 2. I think all the God based religions of the west believe…………….
Thanks!
“Any difference between different races only arises out of which region in the world these humans migrated to and settled in (love to hear Mr Yapa challenge that!). Eighty thousand years ago we were all the same, our ancestors (of all modern humans) were a relatively small group, and black (yes). Some settled closer to the equator, others further north, their physical appearance derives from that. This does not make any particular group any ‘better’ than another, except each adjusted to the particular climate they settled in. So the distinction that the likes of Mr Yapa wishes to base all his racist campaigning on is completely illusory.”
Your theory above further substantiate your ancestry to “Tadpoles”!
As you said,
Some million years ago we were all the same, our ancestors (of all modern BalangodaMen) were a relatively small group, and some species lived in water (yes).
All the animal species on ground including frogs evolved from that species lived in water and therefore have a common ancestry. So this proves the apparent relationship between these outwardly different two species (T & B).
Thanks!
Huh
Are you suggesting that an Indo-Aryan language,Sinhalese was forcibly thrust on the non-Aryan inhabitants of Sri Lanka by some government edict? What is your source?, huh…
Belle
When they guess it’s generally correct! There is a doubt in the mind of the guesser because the difference is subtle-sometimes,it depends on the degree of mixing. I never say the Sinhalese are pure Aryan or the Tamils are pure Semitic. I don’t want Hitler to turn! (in his grave?), but it’s commen sense, as Huh claims. (I’m sorry, if you don’t have it!) The reason is still there is no free inter-marriaging between the Sinhalese and the Tamils-thanks to the services of extremists on both sides, and cultural barriers! I hope this will not be so in the future and that is what the topic of this article (now, forgetten!) discusses.
Don’t think the term “non Aryan” is demeaning to that particular race. Aryans have nothing to be proud of themselves;it’s only one of those races who migrated and settled in ancient Asia and Europe. Only lunatics like Hitler thought that Aryans were special-in spite of himself being half-Jewish! In fact the ancient Aryans who migrated from Asia Minor and Anatolia to Europe and Asia in two lines were a barbaric race. They are thought to be responsible for the destruction of the two great Indian civilizations.(definitely, those great civilizations were of non Aryan in origin!) They were ruthless and barbaric plunderers and meat-eaters-until Hinduism turned them into vegetarians!
The bottom line is being of Aryan origin doesn’t mean that the Sinhalese are superior. It’s just one of those ancient migrating human tribes.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to compare the beauty queens of India and Sri Lanka, unfortunately because both connot be taken as representative samples! Think about 70′s Miss Sri Lanka Shiranthi! Yet I haven’t seen a Tamilnadu woman being crowned as Miss India- once again the prejudice of the Aryan North Indians that Southerners are “less beautiful”!(may be you can disprove this myth!) This prejudice runs in the Vedas as well in branding the non Aryan South Indian races as “Asuras”
BalangodaMan
What you site -the global migration theory – is generally accepted as true, apart from some recent challenges that “modern man” lived in other parts of the world, well before 80,000 years, with the discovery of “modern human” artefacts in some other parts of the world.
I agree what you say about believing in a “God”. It seems to me a primary and primitive human need. God doesn’t mean only the Christian God;it means the Hindu God Siva, the Jewish God Jehova, Islam’s “one and only” Allah, Sikhism’s One God and many other Gods of lesser known religions.
Buddhism too sometimes mentions of a “god” called Shakra or Maha Brahma in it’s literature, but whether this “god” is similar to the “omnipotent” creator God of theistic religions in NOT CLEAR.
Anyway, Buddhism does mentions of “superior beings living in a different realms”-”gods” or deities- but their role in the origin and maintenence of the universe is quite different from the creator God of Islam or Christianity!
Among the atheistic religions Buddhism doesn’t stand alone; Taoism, Jainism-in spite of talking about a “union with the universe”- are atheistic in essence. But the Lack of a “God” is thoroughly felt by the desciples of those religions which is quite evident by the creation and worship of gods of other religions, worship of “minor gods”. The worship of Hindu gods and provincial gods by the villager of average intelligence in Sri Lanka can be sited as an example – Martin Wckramasinghe’s description of a “Hirigal Devalaya” comes to my mind. Because a philosophy doesn’t offer much help to the layman with an average intelligence, who needs some “urgent divine intervention” to (cure his sick daughter).
All these “ancient” religions were preached by men of wisdom at that time and that is what they grasped as truth more than 2000 years ago-in the case of Islam,slightly less! In my opinion they DO NOT represent the ultimate truth-if there is an ultimate truth!- in spite of their (the Founder’s) “MOMENTS OF BRILLIANCE”
Heshan
Apart from what I have wriitn in response to BalangodaMan regarding God, I have one more point regarding the Mahawansa (by the way I don’t know why many people use “m” instead of “n” in writing words like “Mahawansa” and “sansara” in English!) The “racists” and “lunatics” like myself believe that Mahawansa is true despite the lack of historical proof, according to you. People like myself must be fools as well, right? But funnily you don’t apply the same argument to the multitudes of people of the world who believe in God. For example in a recent survey by the CNN it was revealed that about 60% of the people in the USA believe that the Bible is true, WORD TO WORD. Enlightened America, eh?
Curiousely you don’t seem to be knowing that in no contemporary historical record -by Josephus and others- is the existence of a person called Jesus is mentioned; even in the dead sea scrolls- which is a genuine historical source- a person called Jesus is not mentioned- only an assumption as to the existence of John the Baptist or the “good priest”.
Why don’t you call the vast majority of people in the world “fanatics” “lunatics” or “idiots” as they believe in a person whose existence cannot be historically proven?
Dear Longus,
the word ” aryan” does not apply to the sinhalese people–can you explain how it does? I was saying that the LANGUAGE we speak is indo-aryan but that does NOT make the people ” aryans”–why are you still using this term, anyways? I thought grouping people together as aryans went out of style after the whole World War 2 thing? We may speak an indo-aryan language, but we in terms of culture, we are pretty much south-indians, anyways.
Dear longus,
Please consider the following link; I would like to hear your views:
http://www.sangam.org/BOOKS/sachi10_05_02.htm
Dear Longus,
Another link to consider:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=arjun_guneratne
Yapa
When you talk about a “Creator God’,not only the “Western religions” have a God. Even the Christianity is not Western for that matter. It originated in the Middle East just like Islam. Judaism is Middle-Eastern too.(So, none of the current religions are Western in origin, eventhough the Christianity has a Western outlook, because it was propagated by the colonial invaders) Even the Hinduism talks about a Creator God.
Your account on the rebirth or “trans-migration” described in Buddhism is not easy to grasp as it does not involve a “un-destrcutable soul”.(as in Hinduism) But even that explaination in Buddhism raises many a question in a rational mind,which are still beyond the scope of Science- or simply un-scientific,as for now..
Mr Yapa, we had two very long threads pointing out the problem with religion when we try to put them forward as ‘the truth’. In those two long threads we have spelt out the many inconsistencies.
Just as you say that your religion is completely consistent I have many Muslim friends who swear by the consistency and the beauty that’s within the Qu’ran, and many Christian friends who have a similar affinity towards the Bible. We have been through all of that. You never produced the proof that would convince a non-believer (Sujewa, SomewhatDisgusted and me, for example) of the ‘truth’ of any religion and therefore we remain convinced that a religion, any religion, is only ‘true’ to the faithful, no one else.
That makes challenging the validity of any other religion to be quite pointless. I think if we devote as much energy to challenging one’s own religion we may yet sufficiently ‘refine’ religion to be of some use in modern society, going forward.
(However, the article is about Peace and Reconciliation, and you have expertly shown how religion is easily used to achieve the opposite and create division in society)
Burning_Issue, I think you may have missed my prior message.
Couldn’t you have found anyone other than the schizophrenic LTTE bootlicker Sachi Srikanth to defend your views?
As for Mudaliyar Rasanayagam, he wrote his book in 1926 and there has been plenty of research on the history of Jaffna since then to give a better picture of the past.
Burning_issue
It’s an interesting theory, but the best way to anlyse it,I think is to study the Sigiri Graffiti. These are written by the admirers who visited Sigiriya and they show the true picture as to what kind of language was used in ancient Sri Lanka-during the Anuradhapura kingdom.(like the present day youngster who visits Anuradhapura and writes something like:”Heshan Thattaya-Ampara,077-1234567!”) Furthermore these poems were written by the average village folk and not by the Pali,Sanskrit educated elites of the time.
If you can find a clue in Sigiri graffiti which points in the direction to say that present day Sinhalese was imposed on them by the Pali,Sanskrit educated ruling class it will be great!
Dear Belle,
“I expected the will to resolve the ethnic conflict. I expected steps to at least begin to be taken in the right direction. GOSL resistance to constitutional reform surprised me.”
What is the solution to the “ethnic conflict?” More specifically, what changes have to be made to the constitution? What will be the effects of these fixes that will lead to a *noticeable* change in Sri Lanka?
“If the LTTE could not have suppressed a mass demonstration, then surely the lack of Sinhalese-organized mass demonstrations suggest they did not view the LTTE as a threat.”
So let me understand your train of logic: to support your argument that the Sinhalese are not politically quiescient, you are arguing that the Sinhalese did not protest against the LTTE?
“What the LTTE would have done if there had been mass demonstrations–blow up a bus every time there is one. Or assassinate the organizers.”
Why didn’t they do that for the EPDP’s celebration of Pooneryn?
http://www.tamilnet.tv/news/2008/123266/jaffna-tamils-celebrate-pooneryn-victory/ (sorry for citing Tamilnet)
“How would you refute or prove the claim that Tamils are exactly like Chinese or that Sinhalese are just like Malays?”
I guess I can’t, but despite that there seems to be people here who insist that Sinhalese and Tamils are utterly alien to each other.
Do you think things in SL would’ve turned out very differently if the Tamils were the majority and the Sinhalese the minority? The only major difference would have been that there would have been no “Sinhala Nadu” anywhere else to leverage support, and we would have been crushed much sooner. Anything else?
“Let’s take the example of wives dominated by husbands (or vice versa, if you prefer). The party being dominated may attract the domination by her quiescence, her timid personality. But also, she may attract a dominant husband simply because she subscribes to the ideology that men should be dominant, equating tyranny with strength.”
Huh???
“I don’t think Burmese are quiescent. They come out in demonstrations despite the fear of violence.”
Ok. Then how come the SL Tamils did not come out for demonstrations against the LTTE?
“It was the majority that voted to let the UNP carry on for another six years in a referendum.”
The most fraudulent election in SL history, as commonly believed.
http://www.tops.lk/article2991-election-violence-began-with-1982-referendum-ec.html
http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=94&id=573
To add a little bit salt to my last post, in my view Pancha Niyama Dharma (Five Laws of Dharma) and Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Origination) taken together represents something close to “Theory of Everything”, which Modern Scientist are trying to establish to explain the universe. I think the Scientific Community should explore this profound Buddhist theory in their hectic endeavour to find the Final Theory, if it is a possibility. It is true that Paticca Samuppada has many interpretations that are not totally tallying. However, this complexity of multiple versions themselves could be a blessing as the right one may be unearthed from that complex repository of knowledge.
I think the people of the world should keep aside religious biases in the case of finding truth. Truth should not be avoided, merely because it contains in religious literature. Religious outer cover should not be a preconceived hindrance in this case. What we need is to find the truth, not the place it is hidden or its ownership. I think an objective investigation by the proper authority would at least shed some light into the path of finding the ultimate truth or the final Theory of Everything, if such a theory is a possibility.
Thanks!
.
To give an example why we should not reject things just because of their places origination or sort of such minor biases, I recently had the opportunity of associating a friend of mine who didn’t have a close relationship for a very long time with me. After associating me for a couple of days, he astonished me by showing me my exact horoscope drawn on a small piece of paper. Not only that he gave a very close range of time for my time of birth.
I had been a non believer of Astrology until this happened a few weeks ago. I am 100% sure there is no way he can access to my horoscope or the time of birth, but he did it to the point. According to him he had identified two very strong attributes of mine through his casual talks with me and deduced my horoscope from those attributes.
This shows an indisputable relationship (converse) between the horoscope and attributes/behaviour of a person. However, he says that the exact prediction of future of a person through horoscope is not possible but only some possibilities/probabilities of the future can be envisaged.
If the theory of horoscope is based on karma/ kamma as he said, really there must be some uncertainty in predicting the future of a person, as the laws of operation of Kamma is not predictable (as per the Buddhist doctrine).
These are some examples and eye openers/motivators for us to come back to our roots and explore our heritage to find truths/values hidden in our neglected repositories, not just dazzling from quick glare of the recently found knowledge.
However, westerners had realized the same fact before us and have already started exploring the subjects they named as as “Traditional Knowledge” “Indus Studies” etc.. etc.. to explore the eastern repositories while we are startled in the western pool of knowledge alone, rejecting our own heritage blindly.
Coming back to the starting point, my friend calls his process of predicting horoscope through personal attributes as ” Re engineering”.
Hope I was able to provoke your idling curiosity a bit.
Thanks!
Correction…………,
‘If the theory of horoscope is based on karma/ kamma as he said, really there must be some uncertainty in predicting the future of a person, as the laws of operation of Kamma is not predictable (as per the Buddhist doctrine).’
should be read as
If the theory of horoscope is based on karma/ kamma as he said, really there must be some uncertainty in predicting the future of a person, as the laws of operation of Kamma is not predictable and also the attributes/ behaviour of a person is solely not based on karma but also on the other four Laws of Dhamma (pancha Niyama Dharma), ie., Dhamma Niyama, Uthu Niyama, Beeja Niyama and Chitta Niyama, (as per the Buddhist doctrine).
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“When you talk about a “Creator God’,not only the “Western religions” have a God. Even the Christianity is not Western for that matter. It originated in the Middle East just like Islam. Judaism is Middle-Eastern too.(So, none of the current religions are Western in origin, eventhough the Christianity has a Western outlook, because it was propagated by the colonial invaders) Even the Hinduism talks about a Creator God.”
Thanks for the clarification and kind words. When I mentioned “western Religions”, what I really meant were the religions mentioned above by you.
Thanks!
‘Just as you say that your religion is completely consistent I have many Muslim friends who swear by the consistency and the beauty that’s within the Qu’ran, and many Christian friends who have a similar affinity towards the Bible. We have been through all of that. You never produced the proof that would convince a non-believer (Sujewa, SomewhatDisgusted and me, for example) of the ‘truth’ of any religion and therefore we remain convinced that a religion, any religion, is only ‘true’ to the faithful, no one else.”
When I talk about “Truths”, I don’t count on the number of heads of the believers, but on the strength/reliability of the theory/facts in them. If the truths are elected as “Parliament Members” in so called democratic countries, what you are professing may be true.
As an ardent advocate of Science are you recommending Scientific Investigations to be carried out on vote? Is that in accordance with “your so called Scientific Method”?
The Monkey’s love for the king did not bring him fortune, but destruction. Same way BalangodaMan’s (a descendant of monkey’s as per Anthropology) love for Science too will not bring any good to it.
As I have repeatedly said before, “little knowledge is dangerous”.
Thanks!
Correction………
“Same way BalangodaMan’s (a descendant of monkey’s as per Anthropology) love for Science too will not bring any good to it.”
should be corrected as
Same way BalangodaMan’s (a descendant of monkeys as per Anthropology) “unprotected love” for Science too will not bring any good to it.
Thanks!
“‘Just as you say that your religion is completely consistent I have many Muslim friends who swear by the consistency and the beauty that’s within the Qu’ran, and many Christian friends who have a similar affinity towards the Bible.”
Did you then level your unrestricted cynical bombardment of verbosity questioning diarrhea at their position on the religions, just as you did against Buddhism, along with your equally capable blind pack hunter accomplices? You rely on the quantity of words, number of people as evaluation methodologies.
There is a psychological syndrome of boy children when they become adults, to develop a jealousy/unpleasantness towards their father. Also there is a social psychological syndrome developed among the people who rose to a higher plane from lover planes of society. They try to hate and avoid their merciful pasts. This can be well seen among the big shots who have started their lives as miserable village children and come up through education to become authorities. A hesitation to revisit their villages and even to visit their parents developed in them, and a passion for modern attitudes/living comes up as their priority.
I don’t consider you as an entirely different personality. Most of the time these are common principles for all.
Thanks!
Correction………,
NOT “from lover planes of society.” But from lower planes of society.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“I think an objective investigation by the proper authority would at least shed some light into the path of finding the ultimate truth or the final Theory of Everything, if such a theory is a possibility.”
They are. It is called scienctific research – the very activity that you spent two long discussion threads rejecting in favour of ancient ideas that mainly emerged from the fear of the unknown suffered by ancient people. I have also asked what research is being conducted by the Universities in SL today to prove that the ‘absolute religious truth’ that you promote is supported by known scientific facts of today. (I assume from the silence that the answer is ‘none’?)
By ‘science’ we simply mean objective exploration of things. You seem to continue to regard ‘objective exploration’ as ‘another religion’ (a religion is based on ‘faith’ – ie. a belief in something disregarding the lack of proof) and display your opposition to ‘objectivity’ in the same way as you oppose alternative religious theories.
BTW: my writing in the last 2 threads draws upon examples of all major religions to demostrate that the absurdities and failings therein, as well as the benefits, apply to all of them equally. My viewpoint is not against religion per se, or any particular religion, but against the claim that any religion is ‘true’ while others are not. All religions serve the same purposes.
Mr Yapa, your long paragraph on challenging authority is interesting! We have a duty to ourselves to challenge what we have been told, by anyone, particularly when there are immediately observable discrepancies (We have cited The Kalama Sutra a hundred times in these talks). My father was a learned man, he was thrilled that my generation and later ones will know more about everything than his generation – only saddened that he will not be around to share in that knowledge. Clearly we have had different upbringings as you feel it is your ‘duty and responsibility’ to propagate the myths of ancient people, completely disregarding the objective analysis of those myths by ‘thinking people’ since.
Objective Analysis
————————
On that you should read the extract by Arjun Gunaratne posted earlier and I repost below (excellent exploration) – I would re-title ‘How do we know we are Sinhalese’?
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=arjun_guneratne
“My father was a learned man, he was thrilled that my generation and later ones will know more about everything than his generation – only saddened that he will not be around to share in that knowledge.”
Some good fathers get good for nothing sons. Some bad fathers get good sons. Don’t worry you will get a good son.
Thanks!
“rejecting in favour of ancient ideas that mainly emerged from the fear of the unknown suffered by ancient people.”
just expressing your uninformed opinions won’t reject anything. There is an accepted methodology for that, just as Creator God concept was rejected. Can you reject Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada using a such accepted method?
I challenge you to do it keeping aside your mere verbal rejections. Verbal rejections are possible by anybody who is having a horizontal slit in the face, below his nose. No more competencies needed for that. That is why you are barking about big rejections.
Some people rejects things even without knowing their names, I don’t think the position is different in these case too. I can remember you had no idea about Noble Eight Fold Path and misquoted something else. You had no slightest idea of the karma concept. I am sure your knowledge of Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada cannot be better. Still you engage in whole sale rejection of Buddhism. You have no knowledge/cannot reject any doctrine of Buddhism, even if a student of grade five does it.
When you have no knowledge only rejection you can do is mere oral rejection. You are impotent otherwise.
Thanks!
Yapa
Science and religion are worlds apart to say the least. Science doesn’t accept anything that lacks objectivity and reproducibility, whereas religion is a personalized experience. That experience in Buddhism is eradication of all suffering by attaining a state called Nirvana which is not describable by positive terms of the language. In Christianity it is “communication with God”. In Islam it’s ” total subjugation to God”. In all religions people find a way to explain their out look of the world in religious terms. But science uses a narrower and limited scope to find out the truth about the universe;the perceivable realities. Therefore as a result we find numorous phenomena which are not explained by science, and those we put into the dustbin of memory and move forward, hoping they would be explained one day!
As for the “Pancha Niyama Dhamma” or the “five laws of the nature” it is a way that Buddhism explains the laws of the universe; just like science says there are four Forces in the universe- which they are trying to unite! The difference is the Buddhist theory does not try to dig into the origins of things. For example Dhamma Niyaama says that there are certain laws in nature like gravitational pull, power of lightening and wind power but doesn’t try to go further and analyse how these forces operate or how they came into being. But on the other hand Science wants to find out how gravity operates, how it is related to other forces and what it is made up of. Science has a habbit of finding the origins of things, which according to Buddha is a “futile act”. Furthermore we can take “Chitta Niyaama” or “laws of the mind” and say it gives a set of rules on how the thoughts originate and disappear in a fraction of a second. Psychology too is considered as a scientific study but how do the scientists deal with “unseen thoughts and emotions”? Once again the scientists go to the roots of things and try to see what brain chemicals are associated with what psychological conditions and what parts of the brain are involved etc. Buddha’s reported attainment of Nirvana or eradication of “greed and ignorance”,which are the root causes of existence,according to Buddha, can never be tested by science! But while saying it I must say that even now,as you have mentioned in your post, scientists are in the process of measuring the changes that accur in the brain during deep meditation. Maybe as you say the scientists are still crawling on the floor trying to stand up! We can only hope that one day they will find the meaning of “un-formed,un-completed,un-made state called Nirvana that doesn’t come under “aggregates” or “existence”!
As Buddha has “chosen” to remain silent when questioned about the origins of things Buddhism doesn’t come into conflict with science as most other religions do! “The study of the world (loka vishaya) is beyond the scope of the mind-and endless (achintya)”, according to Buddha. This is the very issue that theistic religions in the world took up arms against and fought “heratic” scientists!
Some were burned at the stake (Bruno) and some narrowly escaped(Gallilio). By inflicting fear in the minds of the followers, that God or Allah can see everything and hear everything Islam has managed to convert more people than any other religion. Not only that their “Holy War ” wouldn’t end until the whole world becomes obidient to Allah, but it is seen as a duty of every Muslim to convert/or destroy infidels!
Buddhism too instils fear in the minds of its followers when it comes to “Kamma Niyaama”! Karma, according to Buddha is a self governed set of laws, with an element of unpredictability, that acts on people based on their “good” or “evil” actions. Everything that happens is not a result of Karma -as it is only one of the five laws!- contrary to the popular belief of the Buddhists. How Karma acts, nobody knows, as Buddha has told ” The subject of Kamma is beyond the capacity of an ordinary mind”,just as in the case of the universe! The theistic religions solve this problem by introducing their “omnipotent” God who makes the decisions for the humans -his creation!
What “Heshan” asks about rebirth is interesting in this regard. Can a bacterium be born as Mahinda Rajapakse -I have ommited the titles given to him by Heshan!-or vise-versa? I don’t think even the learned monks would be able to answer this question. One thing is in Buddha’s time bacteria were not discovered! But apperantly Buddha knew that there are “bugs who feed on amaller bugs and those bugs feeding on even smaller bugs and so on….” And also Buddha has told that out of the five “masses’ or “skandhas” that make up a human body, some simple animals have only one or two “skandhas” out of the five and therefore not capable of being born as a human. In that case a bacterium would never be able (unfortunately though!) to be born as Mahinda Rajapakse! But once again the margin or the deciding point in the animal kingdom is not stated by Buddha!
The bottomline of this boring account is that science and religion go in entirly different pathways. One is objective;the other is subjetive. But maybe they are destined to meet at some point in the future!
longus,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
Wijayapala,
I will reply soon.
Dear longus;
As a whole I agree with your article regarding Religion and Science. However, there are some points I feel I can do some additions. It is true in a sense that Religion and Science are poles apart. But it doesn’t rule out the commonalities and relationship in them. It is said that the Technology evolved from Science, Science evolved from Philosophy and Philosophy evolved from Religion, for example. Einstein said Religion without Science is blind and Science without Religion is lame, showing their complementary to each other. Further, both the subjects have the areas of common interests, and also the non transcendental areas of religions can be subjected to scientific investigations. Further, Religions too can contain objective principles; however, my understanding is Science does not always demand reproducibility. That is a must only in Empirical Science, developed after Galileo. Until that time from the Greek era Science was based on pure reasoning (based on deductive logic) and such scientific knowledge does not demand reproducibility. Even modern Scientific theories such as “Quantum Theory, Relativity, Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory have no care for this reproducibility.
In view of this, areas of religions that are related to worldly matters or areas based on reasoning can be subjected to scientific investigation. That is how Averroes rejected the omnipotent god concept using a scientific methodology, that is reasoning.
Same way, Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada are based on reasoning (really Paticca Samuppada literally means cause and effect and it is the very basis of Science), and hence fully compatible for scientific investigation. If you can produce contradictions in their flow of arguments you can reject these two theories. Even though Chitta Niyama and Kamma Niyama cannot be sensed, on the basis of there application in the theories and on the outcome of them, one can ascertain correctness or incorrectness of them. This is a principle used in scientific investigation, “to ascertain the cause, ascertain the effect”. For example you cannot ascertain/measure the physical quantity “temperature”, but you measure it by measuring an effect of it, for example the expansion of a liquid. This is the principle in simple thermometer.
In view of above, there is no barrier for some areas of religions for scientific investigation and Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada qualify for it.
So, I challenge that BalangodaPerson to disprove or reject those two doctrines in Buddhism using his “pet Science”. He says all major religions to demonstrate that the absurdities and failings therein, as well as the benefits, apply to all of them equally. So I show the absurdity of creator god by disproving it scientifically. Now it is his turn to show the equal absurdity of other religions by disproving the concepts of Buddhism given above using scientific methodologies. Failing would result for me to think him as a “talkative village woman” who gossips at the village well.
Ignorance makes people brave! The Jathaka Story, swine challenging the lion comes to my mind. He will have to lie down for weeks in a toilet pit soon, to look after his safety.
One must keep their big mouths shut, if they cannot defend or substantiate what they say and answer the questions raised on them. Some people talk absurdities like talking in their dreams without any responsibility, and avoid answering questions raised. There is no substance in what they say rather than just the letters of the English alphabet burdening the forums they bear.
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
I am very sorry for the belated response.
“I disagree. What do you mean by Buddhist “hierarchy?” Is there such a hierarchy for Hinduism or Islam in SL?”
I cannot speak for Islam in Sri Lanka, but there is no such hierarchy within the Hindu faith at all in Sri Lanka. I still maintain that, there is collaboration between the GOSL and Buddhist establishments in Sri Lanka; without which, Buddhist Monks cannot be allocated for various Buddha statue ceremonies around North and East.
I said:
“I do not see articles on any of the front line newspapers about such issues informing the common Sinhala folks. I do not see the Sinhala intellectuals debating about this very fact rendering it as undemocratic and hindering to race relations.”
You said:
“This is an easy one to answer. We don’t have any intellectuals!”
I am dumbfounded completely! Is this why we cannot find solutions for our problems?
“There is one slight difference- there had been Buddhist sites in the region previously which disappeared as Buddhism disappeared. Kantarodai is one of the last surviving of those sites.”
There is no proof that the Kanthaiodai was as a result of Sinhala Buddhism, is there? Why is it necessary so soon after ending the war, there is a need to place Buddha statues? Do you defend such occurrences? Do you support that the statues are placed in private lands and what would you do if you are one of those unfortunate owners?
“I’m not sure that I agree, after hearing him talk about God which is not part of Buddhism.”
Never mind about MR; a vast majority of the Sinhala Buddhists follow Hindu Deities religiously! One only needs to see the busses, lorries, vans, and autos; they all have a framed picture with 5 Deities: Saraswathy, Ganesh, Murughan, and two forms of Buddha; how do you explain this?
On my visit to Jaffna; I saw Buddhist Monks in side Hindu temples a few were attending annual festivals; I have photos to prove it; how do you explain this? I can publish the photos here but do not know how to.
I said:
“The same Gotabhaya whom you defended as saying that best to occupy as the Defence Secretary!”
You said:
“Who is better?”
How do we know that there isn’t anyone better?
Prof Heshan
“In another thread, he has spent many hours, days, and weeks, “proving” the theory of reincarnation – that in fact, a tiny bacterium found in the excrement of a rabies infested dog, can be reborn as the Queen of England in its “next life.””
Yes I was part of that thread, and the quality of your own posts reinforces the argument that even excrement of a dog can be reborn as a human.
You have to admit that the idea of reincarnation makes a lot more sense than some of the silliness out there, like woman being created out of man’s rib or that a certain somebody could die for others’ “sins” because he deluded himself to believe he’s the Son of God. It’s hard to imagine how ignorant were the ancestors of the modern adherents who converted to these superstitions.
“On the other hand, by admitting Buddha never visited SL, you are jeopardizing the destiny of the “Sons of the Soil” – to preserve “Therevada Buddhism” – as stipulated by Buddha when he took a long peaceful nap.”
Mahavamsa did not create this “Sons of Soil” mentality among the Sinhalese- it is rather a SYMPTOM of this mentality. “Sons of Soil” comes from the fact that there isn’t any other place in the world that has Sinhala people in significant numbers.
“You are also contradicting your bona fide assertion that Buddhism should be given special mention in the Constitution.”
I never said that Buddhism should be given special mention. I told Burning_Issue the reasons why Sinhalese want this provision and how these feelings must change if the Constitution is to be changed.
“Do you also accept that “Prince” Vijaya was not, in fact, a Prince, but a merchant?”
Actually I have not come across evidence that Vijaya, prince or merchant, was even a historical person, as I clearly stated in my rebuttal to Lankamithra Fernando.
“And that there were Tamil Buddhists on the island before there were Sinhala-Buddhists?”
It would be nice if you could provide evidence for that. Unfortunately, you can’t!
Longus,
“Can a bacterium be born as Mahinda Rajapakse?”
He’s already here, so the question is could the President have been a bacterium in a past life? If so, that bacterium must have led a pretty pious life to have become elected a Head of State.
Such a theory (of rebirth, karma) is only of any relevance to us if we can know (definitively) what the bacterium did to have such an elevated birth subsequently. If that knowledge is beyond us then whether such a mechanism exists or not in the Universe is a complete red herring, no? We cannot influence it (as Mr Yapa tells us there are many factors involved), we cannot even observe it. It is as useful to us as a bicycle with 5-speed gear box is to a fish.
Critical analysis of religion
—————————-
We spent two long threads on this. However, it’s worth reminding ourselves that the Kalama Sutra does not advice us to just challenge ‘other people’s religious books but it’s advice is to challenge what OUR OWN religious books say. If the Buddha meant the opposite (ie. criticise others) then that would have contradicted much of what his teachings are known for.
Religion and Science
——————–
Way way back in the ancient world ‘religion’ was ‘science’ – it is how things they did not understand (yet) were explained, like thunder and disease and death. As rational-thinking developed less and less things needed religious explanation, or the ‘rational explanation’ constantly and increasingly contradicted the ‘existing religious explanation’. For religion to survive over the centuries the followers need to have greater and greater FAITH – ie, they needed some personal resolve within themselves to ignore rational explanation where it conflicted with what the religious books said. For example, the theory of evolution, flat Earth etc.
In other words, we today need far greater FAITH to practice religion than people who lived in ancient times. We are also better educated than they were, which also adds to it.
The problem arises, however, when a religion or its followers claim that the things that require ‘faith’ are actually ‘true’. As we discussed in the earlier thread, the doctrine of karma, rebirth, nirvana can sit quite comfortably well as items that require faith (just as Prof Heshan’s god, and my imaginary friend Bob). The followers simply only need to believe that it is true for it to work. That is, ‘it is true for me’ and it may not be (and need not be) true for anybody else. What developed in the last thread is a scenario where the believers require the non-believers to accept the ‘items that require faith’ … as true! Of course that will not happen, almost by definition. It is akin to expecting the world at large to regard the ‘Sinhalese’ as the master race of the world just because a few wish to believe so. (I am borrowing from an earlier suggestion that we Sinhalese-Buddhists have a privileged birth through the mechanism of karma because of our past good lives, even as bacteria!)
longus,
For example in a recent survey by the CNN it was revealed that about 60% of the people in the USA believe that the Bible is true, WORD TO WORD. Enlightened America, eh?
I guess you’re not aware of the separation of church and state principle. It is forbidden to teach the Bible in public schools in USA. Even public prayer is forbidden. On the other hand, Mahavamasa is used in Sri Lankan schools to teach a version of history that is 95% wrong. For example, the “Aryan race theory” has long been discredited by scholars. There was no Aryan race that invaded India. Unfortunately, the Arynan theory, which was created by the British, was then taken up by racists like Anagarika Dharmapala, and since that time, has been used to reinforce (and further distort) the deceptions proposed by Mahavamsa. Is it any wonder that S. Lanka was unable to peacefully resolve a simple ethnic conflict? Part of that inability has to do with the intransigent nature of the “Mahavamsa Mindset”, which even today, is a potent force. Basically, the Sri Lankan schools in the South – even the private ones – are producing generations of students who believe (1) Sinhalese are Aryan (2) the entire island belongs to Sinhalese, (3) Sinhalese came to the island first, (4) Tamils are invaders. None of these beliefs can be substantiated and verified using any objective, neutral analysis.
Curiousely you don’t seem to be knowing that in no contemporary historical record -by Josephus and others- is the existence of a person called Jesus is mentioned; even in the dead sea scrolls- which is a genuine historical source- a person called Jesus is not mentioned- only an assumption as to the existence of John the Baptist or the “good priest”.
Why don’t you call the vast majority of people in the world “fanatics” “lunatics” or “idiots” as they believe in a person whose existence cannot be historically proven?
I have already explained in another thread that the value of Christianity does not lie in its abstruseness, or the correctness of its doctrines, but rather, in its simplicity.
“In our country, ‘Judeo-Christian values’ is shorthand for a complex idea: the common culture of the American majority. The values are called Judeo-Christian because they derive from the complementary ideas of free will, the moral accountability of the individual rather than the group, the spiritual imperative of imperfect man’s struggle to do what is right and the existence of true moral law in the teachings of Christ and the Jewish prophets. Along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they are the political and cultural heritage of the Founding Fathers. The declaration and the Constitution define the source and the limits of state power. But they do not tell us how a moral life within this society should be led. While they have provided a durable structure for America’s success, only Judeo-Christian values, freely held by the majority, explain its continuing realization. These values are not identical with the Christian religion, although they manifest its universal insights. Americans, as the Founding Fathers hoped, uphold the Constitution, but live according to “Judeo-Christian values.”[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian
Of course, morals and values exist in other religions as well, but as I stated elsewhere, they are difficult to apply in practice. One reason is because many of the societies where these religions dominate tend to value the group over the individual. In this context, “right and wrong” depends on what the “group” thinks is right or wrong. So if the “group” thinks its okay to build Buddhist temples all over the North, then it must be okay. After all, the temples are
part and parcel of the identity of the group, and their very presence reinforces that identity. The other problem with religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam etc. is that the system of morality which they profess tends to border on extremes. For example, sexuality is repressed, ancestor worship is encouraged, there is an overemphasis on the supernatural (e.g. horoscopes), women never enjoy the same status as men, certain foods become forbidden, worship of the parents is encouraged, etc. It is true that Christianity also suffered from some of these things, a long time ago, but I think that it has largely evolved. I would attribute this evolution, once again, to the simple system of morals which even the weakest mind can comprehend. So in the case of religion, we can gauge the value of its practical application not by the abstruseness of its doctrines, but by its ability to evolve and integrate with fluctuating societal and other dynamics.
Dear longus;
It is very interesting to have a discussion on science, scientific methodologies, truth, reality etc.. etc.. with a person who has some understanding about them. I enjoyed such discussions with Heshan and Off the Cuff in previous discussions. However, there are some fake science lovers who claim ownership for it just reading some science magazines and a few science fictions who think their crazy love for it gives all necessary scientific knowledge to them to control everything related to them and gives them the authority to answer any bloody problem arisen in the field. They seem to be of the opinion that science is a housemaid’s subject any nitwit can handle even without a primary level formal education of it. One of the accomplices of BalangodaMan who had no any formal education in science, acted in the forum as a science expert and gave all sort of advices on science and later disclosed to be a person who did not know simple facts in chemistry and professed theories about separating methyl alcohol from ethyl in kassippu. He used to recommend all sort of scientific solutions to any bloody ailment of anybody’s back side and now his successor seems to take over the role. Now he seems to have appointed himself as the authority of Science and Religion for the Asian and North American region he lives. These swollen headed idiots, who do not know their proper size, try to pass judgements on them on authority. These people have no a slightest idea of the damage they are doing to the world by trying to man handle such vast and important areas of knowledge under the limited square of their perception can bear. People need special skills to handle such subtle knowledge areas and not every nitwit can govern them on authority or on mere wishful thinking they have about their capabilities. What huge sweeping generalizations they make off hand, please see their high mind (empty head),
“…..my writing in the last 2 threads draws upon examples of all major religions to demostrate that the absurdities and failings therein, as well as the benefits, apply to all of them equally. My viewpoint is not against religion per se, or any particular religion, but against the claim that any religion is ‘true’ while others are not. All religions serve the same purposes.”
He has authoritatively over ruled that one religion cannot have any better things than others. What a swollen headed dictator mutt!
However, coming back to the main topic, just as you said Science try to dig into the origins of things. It is true, but if you look at the original objective of science, finding the reality (if available) or finding a Theory of Everything, the course it has taken so far is immaterial because it has still to show its success. Therefore digging in to origins or “Analysis” may not be the step taken to the right direction. Really Science has deviated from its original objective, especially when it started to grow in Europe, with the interests of the people to gain economic advantages to uplift their life conditions. Here the objective deviated towards the more practical/ application side of it and started growing towards technology as its main aim. Only that interest brought the weaker but quick so called “Scientific Method” based on “inductive logic” to science by people like Francis Bacon. However, in a deeper sense, the ultimate objective of any methodology used in science is to “dig out” the truth or reality. Therefore as far as that objective is the main aim of science, it cannot limit its methodologies to some limited set. Science does use “digging in” (analysis) in many specifically divided subject areas, in keeping in mind the “synthesis” of their findings to form the total picture, that is the final formula (ultimate reality, Theory of Everything) of the universe. Still Science has no a definite clue in this regards and hence science has no hesitation to change its course to whatever directions possible, to achieve its end. It will not lie down in or limit to a set of limited methodologies that didn’t bring its desired results. Modern science is already showing this, by keeping aside almost all the scientific knowledge gathered through Classical Science, in shifting to Modern Science. Modern Science is a paradigm shift in all aspects of science including the methodologies used in it. They use modern methodologies to dig out scientific knowledge that has been never heard before in the history of science. To day the science is not limited to “traditional” methodologies like “so called scientific methodology” or chemical analysis or to some limited number of methods. The scope of the methodologies used in sciences today has widened and changed immensely. Those fiction reading science lovers have no knowledge of them, still walking blindly with their old “hanamitiya” on their heads. If they are sleeping we can awake them, but if they are blind and rude as ever and wants to teach the world what they know as ever, mona deyyanta kiyannada (whom to tell)?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
Surely the “God” we discussed in the previous discussions was “Creator God”, mentioned in the Bible and in other religious records in western religions and nothing else. The existence of this creator god, who is omnipotent, is clearly disproved by Averroes’ argument, and I have quoted the argument several times. Therefore there is no space for this “particular god” for existence.
The “Creator God” question does not boil down to a “chicken or egg” dilemna, as you propose, but actually rests on another question: can something be created out of nothing?
“Before the creation of the Universe, the Unmanifest was stationed in itself and the product (the Universe) was withdrawn.” – Brahma Purana (http://ia311242.us.archive.org/3/items/BrahmandaPurana/BrahmandaPuI.pdf)
How does science answer this question?
Heisenberg’s principle implies, for example, that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space. During their fleeting existence, these “vacuum particles” interact with each other, and turn the supposedly dull vacuum of space into the quantum vacuum – which astronomers now know is anything but dull. Observations suggest the expansion of the entire cosmos is being propelled by quantum vacuum energy, in the form of enigmatic “dark energy”.
Some theorists now think they can go even further, and use the physics of something for nothing to explain the origin of literally everything. They claim that the Big Bang from which the entire universe emerged was the result of convulsions in the quantum vacuum which took place around 14 billion years ago.
New theoretical work on the nature of matter suggests we may now have to regard even ourselves to be manifestations of the quantum vacuum.
All atoms are made up of electrons plus a far more massive central nucleus, made up of clusters of particles called quarks. It seems obvious that the mass of the nucleus must be the sum total of the masses of its quarks – but that reckons without the effect of the quantum vacuum. It turns out that the quarks account for only a tiny fraction of the total mass of a nucleus. By far the bulk comes from the subatomic “glue” that binds its quarks together. And this glue takes the form of vacuum particles flitting in and out of existence.
http://quantumphysics.tribe.net/thread/e7cd5323-3efb-4025-99a1-944aee173e55
As you can see, physics always assumes that a certain energy was here. It does not care how the energy was created. In fact, it is impossible to answer this question, “how did God A create God B, God B create God C, C create D, D create E… etc. The argument is circular. It is equivalent to asking, what is the biggest number (because I can simply add 1 to whatever number you give me). But you see that the existence of a number does not depend on whether or not there is a biggest number or a smallest number. In order to guage the properties of a number, it is necessary to specify what set the number belongs to – one is then able to understand certain characteristics of the number immediately, based on relations that apply to the set, without performing any calculations.
The “Creator God” argument assumes that God is equivalent to the set of all sets. If the Universe is another set, then it is simply a subset of the God set.
What is interesting is that even in mathematics, one does not ask how the universal set, U, was created. One simply takes it for granted. But one cannot deny that the universal set exists. After all, there is an empty set – e.g. a set with no elements, so its opposite, U, must exist.
The destiny of a being after the death (and before birth) is still an unsolved problem, as there is no one solution for this accepted by all. Therefore there is a vacuum for a theory of the sort of reincarnation in this case (unlike in the case of Creator god).
Actually, given that life and death is a 24/7 phenomenon of nature, it should be easy to prove whether reincarnation is true or not. The creation of the universe, however, was a one-time event. Nevertheless, one is able to verify that whatever energy created the universe still exists today.
Anybody can objectively explore/analyze and see, among these three theories, without any doubt Buddhist theory is far ahead of the other two.
Actually, there are many problems: for example, Buddha never denied the existence of God (so how can you say a soul is not necessary for rebirth). Also, Buddha did not explain what happens when rebirth is completed. And finally, Buddhist rebirth is a modified form of Hindu rebirth; it is difficult to say, on the basis of the modification alone, that the Buddhist rebirth idea is superior. Lack of originality presents certain difficulties.
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Your post of September 3, 2010 @ 8:23 am
It’s always nice to have someone write long-winded paeans in my name, no matter how perverted the logic employed. Your filibustering and ad-hominem arguments are as usual, orthogonal to the point, but fascinatingly enjoyable. It’s long been a battle to decide who amongst the posters on this forum is the most merciless at brutalizing logic and reason. Have no fear, you seem to be in the lead at the moment. Please keep em coming!
Yes I was part of that thread, and the quality of your own posts reinforces the argument that even excrement of a dog can be reborn as a human.
Speaking of quality, I am not the one who has lost every single argument in this forum. Perhaps you should take some advice from the last four letters of your name.
You have to admit that the idea of reincarnation makes a lot more sense than some of the silliness out there, like woman being created out of man’s rib or that a certain somebody could die for others’ “sins” because he deluded himself to believe he’s the Son of God.
I accept that the Bible is mythology, and so do people who study the Bible in its original languages. The opinion of professional scholars is really all that matters. But you and your friends in the orange robes are the one making a case for Mahavamsa, when it fact it has close to zero historical value.
Mahavamsa did not create this “Sons of Soil” mentality among the Sinhalese- it is rather a SYMPTOM of this mentality. “Sons of Soil” comes from the fact that there isn’t any other place in the world that has Sinhala people in significant numbers.
So are you denying that Dutugemunu said he was surrounded by the sea on one side, and (hostile) Tamils on the other? Are you saying, as per Mahavamsa, that Buddha flew through the air to S. Lanka? Are you denying that “Prince” Vijaya from Orissa sailed on the ocean blue with his fair-skinned “Aryan” brothers? The root of all Sinhalese nationalism can either be directly found in, or else has parallels to, Mahavamsa.
I never said that Buddhism should be given special mention. I told Burning_Issue the reasons why Sinhalese want this provision and how these feelings must change if the Constitution is to be changed.
You never opposed or condemned such a provision which is evidence of your usual (subtle) racist tactic – to play around with words, concealing a racist viewpoint, and then later flatly deny it.
Actually I have not come across evidence that Vijaya, prince or merchant, was even a historical person, as I clearly stated in my rebuttal to Lankamithra Fernando.
And yet you would agree that Mahavamsa should be taught in the public schools?
It would be nice if you could provide evidence for that. Unfortunately, you can’t!
BalangodaMan has already made a strong case for this. On the other hand, the failure of Mahavamsa to mention such an important phenomenon, speaks volumes about its accuracy and attempts to deceive.
Religion, faith and science
——————————–
“In view of above, there is no barrier for some areas of religions for scientific investigation and Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada qualify for it.”
If a religious leader says “the sky is blue” it does not need faith for anyone to see that it is. And if science subsequently goes on to prove that the sky is indeed blue that does not validate the other religious theories that DO require faith.
As I said in another post, ‘faith’ is needed in order to believe things that are generally thought to be incredulous. A collection of items that require ‘faith’ is what we generally call ‘a religion’. A specific ‘religious faith’ (eg. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) enables us to understand and sell this collection as a distinct packaged product.
Mr Yapa, all religions state the obvious in some parts. That does not confirm other things contained in the package to be true. Most require varying degrees of faith (such as karma, rebirth, nirvana, god, Mohammed is the messenger of god, Jesus is the son of, that any human can become omniscient).
Heshan,
“So in the case of religion, we can gauge the value of its practical application not by the abstruseness of its doctrines, but by its ability to evolve and integrate with fluctuating societal and other dynamics.”
Exactly, and well put.
Example: Which is why I argued that a modern commercialised society it is hypocritical to preach an ideology based on ‘wanting things brings unhappiness’. Indeed, the entire economy is driven by people wanting things, often to excess. Do we ban advertising? Or do we reject the ideology as something that could apply practically to ascetics only (people who have rejected society) and not ordinary people who are part of the economy? To be useful to modern society the ancient idea should be revised to encourage people to strive for better even though we may not reach the ideal we are aiming for (no gain without pain, speculate to accumulate etc). Otherwise no one would do anything.
Religion needs to keep up with modern needs. As I said before, I do not expect people in 2,500 years time to refer to the Windows 7 documentation to fix their computers.
“but by its ability to evolve and integrate with fluctuating societal and other dynamics.”
Further, it is interesting to note the extent to which even the ardent followers of all religions have abandoned the fundamentals of their religion for Earthly gain – the manner of the conclusion of the recent war is an example, along with the commercialisation of society in SL (‘greed’ as with the rest of the world, and why not?), knocking other religions and looking to god(s) for quick fixes, worshipping physical structures and plants. A case of fundamentalists having abandoned the fundamentals but yet promoting a fundamentalist position as a fundamental requirement to others.
(But Mr Yapa, you put the ‘fun’ back in fundamentalist and we applaud you for that. I join SomewhatDisgusted in requesting that you continue to give us more entertainment)
Heshan & BalangodaMan,
Religions per se don’t really evolve. Religion concerns absolute truths, which by definition don’t bend to expediency. On the other hand, societies evolve. And the role and significance of religion in those societies evolve.
For example, religion was hugely important in Europe once upon a time, but that is obviously not the case today. It is not that Christianity has changed, it is that Europeans don’t take it quite as seriously (or literally) anymore. However the basic ethical foundation of European society is still mainly drawn from Christianity. And that is how it should be.
Heshan, I don’t subscribe to your oft-expressed view that Christianity is somehow more functional than other religions. The five precepts in Buddhism are just as simple to understand and apply as the ten commandments. Circumstances change. The Buddhist world has had its golden age, as have the Hindu, Christian and Islamic worlds. The current ascendency of the West cannot really be attributed to Christianity – it is a triumph of secular humanism.
BalangodaMan, all religions, Christianity included, caution against greed and unchecked materialism. And considering the state of our planet today, we should think twice about tossing away this counsel like it was some old operating system.
“Religion needs to keep up with modern needs. As I said before, I do not expect people in 2,500 years time to refer to the Windows 7 documentation to fix their computers.”
Come on modern CHARVAKA!
You have already taken a an Indian philosophy that is older than 2500years to shape your thinking. You are following the materialistic philosophy preached by Charvaka, and Ajitha Kesakambala etc.. etc.. long ago.
BalangodaMan is nor a modern man. He is still a primitive man who follows a rotten parts of old Indian teaching.
This is called “Daha pole ga geneema”.
God, please forgive this ignorant man.
Thanks!
1. “Indeed, the entire economy is driven by people wanting things, often to excess. Do we ban advertising? Or do we reject the ideology as something that could apply practically to ascetics only (people who have rejected society) and not ordinary people who are part of the economy?”
2. “Religion needs to keep up with modern needs.”
That is the philosophy of animals Their sole aim is to satisfy their sensory desires. They do not need a philosophy going further than that.
Kanna denava nam,
Bonna denava nam,
Vena ken gediyada,
Thava onekaranne…..//
Kapalla, beepalla, jolly karapalla!
Thanks!
Heshan
The idea that, as the universe started in a”Big Bang”-as per now- that it should start from a singularity (where the laws of physics break down) is not a necessity. Actually the singularity (which is hailed by the creationists!) is only one of many millions of “histories” that the universe could possibly have. The histories in which there was no singularity the “laws of physics” do not break down, and it becomes a “quantum marble” where the uncertainty principle operates.
The energy of this “quantum marble” cannot be zero as in that case it would violate the basics of the Quantum Physics. So it could fluctuate beween zero and the amount of energy needed to set off the big bang – once in a long long life time of course!- and so the universe and everything and Heshan ensued! It could have been another universe which is entirely different from ours where the hydrogen atom is 1.1 times haevier than it is in ours, where life would not have evolved. We cannot know about such a universe as we would not have been there in the first place to question like that! (anthropic theory)
Therefore you can see that the creation of the universe from a singularity is not a necessity ; so does the role of a God
Dear BalangodaWoman;
Will you please disprove the two doctrines of Buddhism I have mentioned, to substantiate your theory that all religions are equal?
Thanks Madam!
Rajivmw,
“All religions … caution against greed and unchecked materialism”
Of course, and right that they do as well.
(pls forgive my digression into religious doctrine)
However, it is a fundamental teaching of the religion of the community I grew up in that ‘craving’ is the source which makes life ‘unsatisfactory’, leading to a desire to end the cycle of life. Arguably it is the craving for life itself, or the pleasures of it, that perpetuate the cycle of life. So, the ‘greed’ that I mentioned is not ‘excessive and unchecked greed’ (which I agree is a recipe for trouble) but simply ‘wanting things, including life itself’ in the most fundamental form. I have already stated elsewhere that living in the modern world I could not see how my own life-view can conform to that view in any shape or form (I like to think that life is a gift to enjoy and be grateful for, and its a worthwhile thing to promote that among people who may be prone to occasionally doubt it) – and neither do nearly all of the people in my community who outwardly profess to be ‘believers’ but have evidently rejected the very basis of the ‘truths’ on which the religion sits (as, given a choice, they would like to have a life all over again, if possible, regardless of what the religious books and the priests say, rather than not).
End of religious digression.
Longus,
“Therefore you can see that the creation of the universe from a singularity is not a necessity ; so does the role of a God”
Actually, debating who created the Universe is quite secondary, I think. The primary question, in my view, is who or what created ‘our conciousness’ – by which I mean ‘the mechanism that makes us feel that we are living, that ‘I’ exist, with all the consequences of that, the impending end of that, speculating and possible fear of what form that conciousness would take subsequently, including the perception of a Universe and the physical world’.
Most discussions on the existence or not of god (the creator variety) presupposes that the physical Universe IS the basic creation. It very likely isn’t. The basic creation could well be our capacity to ‘feel that we are living’, our conciousness, the ‘I’. Who created that ? (Anyone into Matrix-Buddhism will know what I mean) and is it likely that we are able to comprehend the answer even it we were told it? In my view, we can only speculate on that (privately), in which case our understanding of ‘god’ is one that we define ourselves, individually.
(Matrix-Buddhism = the physical Universe is a perception/deception created in our conciousness by some design. Purpose unknown and open to speculation)
Mr Yapa,
All religions are not equal, but they exist to meet the same needs of different tribes within human civilisation in various times in history and today. They meet those needs to an equal degree of success (eg. comfort in times of need, ritual), and also give us problems for equally the same reasons. (for example, because of a need that insecure societies have to claim superiority over others, to rally the troops in battle against enemies etc)
I hope that answers your question.
I very much like the debate that both Heshan and Wijayapala are having; it is certainly the heart of the matter.
Heshan, I salute you for the below:
“I guess you’re not aware of the separation of church and state principle. It is forbidden to teach the Bible in public schools in USA. Even public prayer is forbidden. On the other hand, Mahavamasa is used in Sri Lankan schools to teach a version of history that is 95% wrong. For example, the “Aryan race theory” has long been discredited by scholars. There was no Aryan race that invaded India. Unfortunately, the Arynan theory, which was created by the British, was then taken up by racists like Anagarika Dharmapala, and since that time, has been used to reinforce (and further distort) the deceptions proposed by Mahavamsa. Is it any wonder that S. Lanka was unable to peacefully resolve a simple ethnic conflict? Part of that inability has to do with the intransigent nature of the “Mahavamsa Mindset”, which even today, is a potent force. Basically, the Sri Lankan schools in the South – even the private ones – are producing generations of students who believe (1) Sinhalese are Aryan (2) the entire island belongs to Sinhalese, (3) Sinhalese came to the island first, (4) Tamils are invaders. None of these beliefs can be substantiated and verified using any objective, neutral analysis.”
To me, whether God exists or not; whether the universe is created by a phenomenon of God is a personal matter. People have varied opinions and perceptions that they need to reconcile with their conscience. In the name of God many around the world committed evil crimes and thought nothing of it! It is precisely for these reasons; a state must elevate itself from any religious constraints. A state must view, analyse, judge and prosecute on the basis of absolute equality; it must govern with conscience that is based on secular humanism and nothing less and nothing more.
BalangodaMan
What made you think that only humans have a consciousness? Most of the higher animals seem to have a consciousness. This can be assessed by estimating the higher brain functions (cognitive, memory and learning) of animals. Not only the intelligent animals like the dolphin, primates and elephant have been shown to possess a consciousness, some invertebrates like the octopus too falls into this category. This could be nothing special, but a natural out come of the evolutionary process. For example if the dinosaurs did not become extinct they would have taken the place of the present day humans!
But a problem does exist as to from where in the animal kingdom this distinction takes shape. Certainly a bacteria is considered a plant and therefore may not possess a consciousness! But we may well be wrong and the founder of Jainism, Maha Weera (and for that matter late Dr. E.W.Adikaram) may be right in assuming that the plants too have a consciousness!
Yapa
Now we’ll get on to “paticca samuppada” or “causative origin”!
It is a cause and effect chain of events which according to Budda explains the “exisitence” of the Being and its travel through the “sansara”
It starts with “ignorance (avijja) which gives origin to good and evil karma(sankaara)”.
According to Buddha “ignorance” here meansthe lack of knowledge of the “impermanant nature of the world”
Then the the effect of Karma gives origin to “consciousness”(vin^nana). When a person dies, according to this doctrine the next consciousness takes origin in another place, as another being. As a train of continuous thoughts the consciousness is transferred to a suitable candidate “somewhere in the universe”
How this happens in beyond the scope of science at least for the time being!
I really don’t know how in this case the other “karmas” (apart from the causative karma for the new birth) are supposed to follow the new life. According to some Buddhist scholars like Ven. Henepitagedara N^anaseeha and Ven. Kannimahara Sumangala the last thought of this life with all the other past karmas make itself into a ‘package” and travels like a “gandhbba”or a transient entity. This is different to a permanant soul-according to them, as it is governed by the principle of impermanance. This may be a modification to the Hinduism’s permanant soul by the Buddha (as Heshan says) or something different!
This consciousness (vin^nana) gives origin to “thoughts and forms”(naama-rupa) Naama includes various functions of the mind and “rupa” means the physical form.
Naama-Rupa gives origin to the “six senses”(shadayathana) and this includes the five senses and mind -mind is included as a sense organ here
Due to these six senses a “contact” happens;this contact could well happen while the baby is still in the mother’s womb. (my idea)
The contact with the senses causes a stimulus, and the stimulus gives origin to greed or “grasping the pleasent stimulus tightly”-if it is unpleasent it should be a repulsion, but both are equal responses according to Buddha.
The greed gives origin to the “life” and all its consequent sufferings (as Buddhism basically considers life or any kind of “existence” for that matter as “suffering”
This is the outline of “Paticca Samuppada” as I have read it-there may be other interpretations as well, and Buddha is said to have been contemplating on it for “one whole week” under the Bo tree after attaining the Buddhahood, before he embarked on his mission.
The first thing that strikes you is the seeming irregular or incoherent way that this doctrine explains the cause and effect with regards to the existance of life. Maybe another person could have given a different kind of “cause and effect” chain, for example one could say the cause for the “ignorance’ (the “first cause” of the sequence) is senses, or in any otherway.
This is a doctrine that Buddha preached as one of his core realisations, and what I see in it is it cannot be verified by any other means except by “attaining the same” (ehi-passiko). This is in clear loggerheads with the scientific investigation in a great way!
So, finally don’t expect a personal experience (or realization) could become a “theory of everything” as you claim.
Dear Burning_Issue
Good to hear from you again!
“I very much like the debate that both Heshan and Wijayapala are having; it is certainly the heart of the matter”
Really? I had the impression that our discussion was certainly the BUTT of the matter, looking at Heshan’s trademark responses:
I am not the one who has lost every single argument in this forum. Perhaps you should take some advice from the last four letters of your name.
“I cannot speak for Islam in Sri Lanka, but there is no such hierarchy within the Hindu faith at all in Sri Lanka. I still maintain that, there is collaboration between the GOSL and Buddhist establishments in Sri Lanka; without which, Buddhist Monks cannot be allocated for various Buddha statue ceremonies around North and East.”
There is collaboration between the Rajapakshas and individual monks, not “establishments” as you claim. Have you already forgotten how they silenced the Nikayas from criticizing the treatment of Fonseka?
As for these Buddha statue ceremonies, there is far less conspiracy than you may believe. Some soldiers may install such a statue somewhere and one of them will invite a monk from his village to conduct bana. Or at one of the bases, one of the commanding officers may invite a monk that he knows. That is the extent of the “collaboration” you are referring to, and I would be quite surprised if it turned out that this was policy coordinated by the Rajapakshas.
I find it curious whenever Tamils attribute conspiracy theories to us, under the assumption that we are very organized or something when we are clearly not, but then again we attribute similar theories to the Tamils.
“This is an easy one to answer. We don’t have any intellectuals!”
I am dumbfounded completely! Is this why we cannot find solutions for our problems?
To a great extent. The “civil society” types in Colombo are more familiar with Switzerland than what is going on in SL.
“There is one slight difference- there had been Buddhist sites in the region previously which disappeared as Buddhism disappeared. Kantarodai is one of the last surviving of those sites.”
There is no proof that the Kanthaiodai was as a result of Sinhala Buddhism, is there?
Where did I use the term “Sinhala” Buddhism, and what difference does it make whether the builders of the Kantarodai stupas were Sinhala or Tamil?
“Why is it necessary so soon after ending the war, there is a need to place Buddha statues?”
I see two reasons. The benign answer that most ignorant Sinhalese like me would say is that there are a gazillion soldiers currently in the NE and that they should have the right to follow their religion. The more sinister, conspiracy-theory answer is that the Sinhalese are intentionally placing these statues to “prove” that Tamil Eelam has been crushed. Actually there is merit to this latter theory as right-wing Sinhalese were doing this in Trincomalee before the war started up, placing Buddha in the middle of a fishmongering area! It’s a similar mentality as a dog urinating to mark his territory.
Regardless of which answer is correct, the decisive factor behind the Buddha statues is the large SLA presence, and therefore the solution is for the SLA to leave or at least greatly reduce its presence. That is precisely why I asked you whether you want the SLA gone or the Buddha statues.
“Never mind about MR; a vast majority of the Sinhala Buddhists follow Hindu Deities religiously! One only needs to see the busses, lorries, vans, and autos; they all have a framed picture with 5 Deities: Saraswathy, Ganesh, Murughan, and two forms of Buddha; how do you explain this?
“On my visit to Jaffna; I saw Buddhist Monks in side Hindu temples a few were attending annual festivals; I have photos to prove it; how do you explain this?”
Clearly orthodox Buddhism has no appeal (except for some Westerners). Would you prefer us to be more anti-Hindu?
“The same Gotabhaya whom you defended as saying that best to occupy as the Defence Secretary!
“How do we know that there isn’t anyone better?”
Because you haven’t told us who he or she is!
“All religions are not equal, but they exist to meet the same needs of different tribes within human civilisation in various times in history and today. They meet those needs to an equal degree of success (eg. comfort in times of need, ritual), and also give us problems for equally the same reasons.”
Please support your view with evidence. I say this is untrue. On the other hand how do you disprove Paticca Samuppada and Pancha Niyama Dharma as untrue on this basis. For me, your statements have no relevance in regard to that. That is the basis for you to prove your earlier statement. I hope you will clarify the matter standing behind yourself.
Thanks!
Prof Heshan
“But you and your friends in the orange robes are the one making a case for Mahavamsa, when it fact it has close to zero historical value.”
Can you provide a single historian from the last 20 years who has made this claim?
As I told Lankamithra, the Mahavamsa confirms a number of episodes from TAMIL history, such as the story of King Senguttuvan as well the existence of Thenmadurai, which was otherwise considered a myth of Sangam literature. But you apparently are not aware of this because you are equally ignorant of Sinhala and Tamil history/culture!
“Mahavamsa did not create this “Sons of Soil” mentality among the Sinhalese- ***it is rather a SYMPTOM of this mentality.*** “Sons of Soil” comes from the fact that there isn’t any other place in the world that has Sinhala people in significant numbers.
So are you denying that Dutugemunu said he was surrounded by the sea on one side, and (hostile) Tamils on the other?
Sigh.. Heshan, you really need to work on your reading skills. Maybe your arguments about the Mahavamsa would have some credibility if you had actually bothered to read it!
Take another look at what I said above (I bolded and ***asterisked*** the key part since I’m sure you’ll miss it). The Dutugemunu story in itself did not create Sinhala nationalism or paranoia but was rather the product of it. Why else would he (or rather, the chronicler) say those things if there was a flourishing Sinhala civilization next door in India?
“And yet you would agree that Mahavamsa should be taught in the public schools?”
To my knowledge, Mahavamsa is not taught in public schools. I never read it when I was in school. Instead, history is taught through poorly-written textbooks that focus on Tamil invasions even more than the Mahavamsa itself!
“BalangodaMan has already made a strong case for this.”
Not quite. If you had read the Mahavamsa, you would have noticed how it acknowledges “Tamil Buddhism” (or rather, the variant of Buddhism that was dominant in Tamil Nadu back then) and its influence in Sri Lanka. This alternate Buddhism, which one can tentatively identify as “Mahayana” or at least non-Theravada, had its stronghold in the Abhayagiri monastery, where it competed with Theravada orthodoxy in Mahavihara (I bolded these terms for your Google learning experience).
The influence of this alternate Buddhism can be seen in the rise of Buddha statues in SL, ironically enough! You see, Theravada Buddhism of Emperor Asoka’s time did not have Buddha statues; Buddha was never depicted in human form in early Buddhist art, arguably because he was too “perfect” to be adequately portrayed. This changed when the Greeks came in contact with Buddhism and constructed the first statues in Gandhara, with Buddha wearing a toga. This practice filtered southward and probably came to SL via Tamil Nadu.
“Mr Yapa, all religions state the obvious in some parts. That does not confirm other things contained in the package to be true.”
Exactly,
However, you profess they are untrue, right? You reject them? Then please prove or substantiate your case by systematically rejecting two doctrines in Buddhism. I will become an atheist the very moment you disprove them. I promise you.
Thanks!
“Unfortunately, the Arynan theory, **which was created by the British,** was then taken up by racists like Anagarika Dharmapala, and since that time, has been used to reinforce (and further distort) the deceptions proposed by Mahavamsa. Is it any wonder that S. Lanka was unable to peacefully resolve a simple ethnic conflict? Part of that inability has to do with the intransigent nature of the “Mahavamsa Mindset”, which even today, is a potent force.”
So in other words, the so-called “Mahavamsa Mindset” did not derive from the Mahavamsa, but rather from colonialism and European racism. Thank you for this revelation!!
I hope I have given enough information for you to dig yourself out of your pit of self-imposed ignorance. Happy googling!
Addition…
You can justify your claim only by disproving at least one of the doctrines of Buddhism.
Thanks!
Dear Burning_Issue;
“Yes, Yapa wants peace but only on the basis that the Sinhala Buddhists own the Island and the rest is tolerated as invaders; as long as such people understand this Reality, then he is at peace!”
Sorry, I didn’t see your particular post of August 24, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
Didn’t you also notice that some people want peace only on the basis of Tamils own the island before Sinhalese and also after totally rejecting the Mahawamsa?
I think, looking at both sides is a better idea. don’t you think so?
Thanks!
Dear longus;
I am very much thankful to you for showing this forum that there is some substance worthwhile for exploring in those “old religions”, some people used to reject in whole sale even without knowing a single stanza mentioned in them. You have lifted the discussion to a higher plane by taking out some valuable arguments, which have been kept aside by ignorant pandiths just because they are old or just because they contain in a “religion”. I am also in the process of re-examine in them in a, I should say, Scientific way with my little background of Science. I have found it is worthwhile.
I would like to share some clues; I have collected for my investigation in this regard. I came to understand that Culla Kamma Vibhanga Sutta, Sela Sutta, Arya Shalissthamba Sutta, Maha Thanha Sankhaya Sutta, Dhamma ChakkaPavaththana Sutta and Succa Vibhanga would help in this regard. Further, Books: Bauddha Dharshanaya saha Sanskruthiya by Prof.Chandima Wijebandara & H.M. Moratuwegama and Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge by Prof. K.N. Jayatillake would help.
Further, very recently I had the opportunity of reading a very interesting book on the subject by one school principle, named A. K. Thilakarathne. The name of the book is Chuthi Pati Sandhi Vibhagaya. He was able to explain most of the phenomena in a very logical way, though I am not very sure whether it is perfect. He argues with some supporting facts that the consciousness is not the entity that transmigrates in rebirth. Any way it is an interesting book worthwhile reading.
While agreeing with your notion that the ultimate goal prescribed in Buddhism cannot be realized, except by “attaining the same” most of the doctrines of Buddhism can be understood by the average people through normal methodologies in knowledge gaining. That is why the Buddha preached them to average people and how average people understood before attaining the same at least to a certain extent.
Further, there is one thing I would like to mention at this instance. It is not a secret that people have a tendency to simply refuse/reject anything other than objective knowledge, mainly under the influence of the notions spread by Science. I think this notion to believe only the objective realities/truths has leveled a mighty blow in the present era to the enterprise of exploring knowledge. Keeping other knowledge systems outside the purview of exploration has done an immense damage to this endeavour. I think it is time for us to accept that there are “Personal Realities” as well and they too are important as objective realities. For example I have no doubt about the “Horoscope Phenomena” I mentioned earlier, but I have no way to convince anybody of that by any scientific or any accepted method in the present belief system about knowledge/reality. Anybody could experience the same experience as I had personally, that is, these personal experiences or realities are “Reproducible, but the problem is that there is no way to understand them as common to all, or in other words, one’s experience keeps limited to that person and all cannot be convinced it at one time.
We should think about subtleties, to understand the world and should not blindly rejecteverything on whole sale basis on the basis of the available notions alone. Then only we can produce “new notions” to enrich our reservoir of knowledge. If Galileo didn’t think in a different way and if trapped in the “traditional thinking of Aristotalian “Science”,we would still be thinking that the earth is the centre of the universe. In all the periods of time there were people who didn’t want to deviate from their “Traditional Thinking” saying what they believe is “Scientific”, and opposed changes. BalangodaWomen is a all time phenomenon.
Thanks!
Heshan
You readily accept that Judeo-christian culture is the dominant culture in America but fails to acknowledge the same with the Sinhalese-Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka. Bigotry?
I don’t know who has discredited the theory that the Aryans settled in Sri Lanka! As Sinhala language belongs to Indo-Aryan class I don’t know how you can prove the lineage between the North-Indian languages and the European languages-and Sinhala!
Though you call Anagarika Darmapala a “racist” if you have an aota of knowledge of the independence struggle and what role Anagarika played in that in reinstating the morale and the national pride of the Sinhalese,you wouldn’t have uttered such nonsense!
To my knowledge, Mahavamsa is not taught in public schools.
There is no point in engaging in further debate with those who perpetuate such blatantly obvious lies. I reserve the right to simply ignore any future post emanating from the said source, at my discretion.
“Mahawamsa is the Book of Sinhala Buddhism, a faith which resulted from a perversion of the teachings of Gautama Buddha. I say perversion with deliberation. When a religion premised on ahimsa towards not just humans but all living beings, a religion that tells its adherents not to kill because, `All beings tremble before violence. All fear death. All love life. See yourself in others` (Dhammapada), is used to justify the `slaughter of a great host numbering millions` simply because they happened to be `unbelievers`, then that use is an abuse, and its outcome a perversion which is the antithesis of the original teaching. According to Mahavamsa when a conscience stricken King Dutugemunu was lamenting over `the slaughter of a great host numbering millions` in his war against Elara, a group of monks arrived to console the King: `From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the give precepts.
It is easy to dismiss these tales as myths but they are the noxious fare on which most Sinhala children are raised. According to Indian journalist Aditi Phadnis, `There is just one painting on the wall in the Sri Lanka Army Commander`s office in Colombo. It portrays a Sinhalese king on an elephant with a vanquished Tamil chieftain cowering at his feet. This is a stylised portrayal of the war between Dutugemunu and Elara ` (Business Standard 24.1.2009). This story fits in well with the publicly expressed views of Gen. Fonseka, especially on the nature of Sri Lanka and the place of the minorities in it. With such people in control of the war effort, the government`s obdurate refusal to consent to a temporary ceasefire to facilitate an internationally managed evacuation of the trapped Tamil civilians becomes eminently comprehensible.
There were wars even during the time of the Buddha some of them were waged by rulers who were his disciples. But these wars were waged for political reasons they were not waged against the enemies of Buddhism or to safeguard Buddhism. Nor did the Buddha take sides in these conflicts. The concept of holy war, of engaging in violent battles for the sake of religion is completely alien to the teachings of the Buddha. That concept was introduced into Buddhism by the author of Mahawamsa, with the ethno-religious twist he gave to a war waged between two kings about seven centuries previously. Even according to the Mahavamsa, Elara was a just king and was accepted as such by men and gods. Still Mahawamsa justifies waging war against him and killing him simply because he was an unbeliever. It introduces the notion of the war against unbelievers as not just sinless but also as meritorious, akin to Crusades and Jihads.
- Tisaranee Gunasekara
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/3/41599_space.html
longus,
You readily accept that Judeo-christian culture is the dominant culture in America but fails to acknowledge the same with the Sinhalese-Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka. Bigotry?
What matters are the Judeo-Christian values, e.g. system of morals. These have functioned well in politics, economics, the judicial system, etc. For example, honesty (integrity) is valued in both politics and business. The (incumbent) American President cannot simply nominate his friends and family to high positions of power and get rich off the commissions. The media would hound him to no end – in the States, negative media attention is enough to end a person’s career, even if they are a Senator (Parliamentarian). Here, if a business cheats you, you can easily seek redress in the Courts; there is no powerful MP to block the investigation. Here, if you go to a tourist site, and you are a foreigner, you pay the same rate as a local – in fact, everyone pays the same rate.
Now, what about the dominant Sinhalese-Buddhist culture in SL? Well, it is a culture in which dishonesty prevails. The colonials did not create that culture. IMO, it began with racists like Dharmapala during the so-called “Buddhist revival.” Dharmapala and friends compared the status of Sinhalese (specifically Buddhists) during ancient times to the status of Sinhalese during colonial times, and somehow reached the factitious conclusion that colonialism had deprived Sinhalese of their “rightful” ownership of the island. Virtually every Sinhalese President since Independence has followed that logic, exploiting the nationalist sentiment of the downtrodden rural Sinhalese, to enhance their own prestige and power.
In fact, much of the dishonesty stems from the inability of the dominant culture to successfully transition from a feudalistic society to a modern capitalist society. There has always been a certain group from the majority community, even since colonial times, opposing the practice of capitalism on the island. Capitalism, is in fact a Western philosophy. But it is in total opposition to feudalism. One-person/one-family rule belongs to the domain of socialism/communism . In capitalism, what matters are the institutions, and more importantly, their ability to function independently, without undue political or other interference. The climate of dishonesty that prevails in SL is due to the failure of these institutions to evolve in accordance with a coherent set of morals and values. I have already pointed out how in the States, Judeo-Christian morality is able to fill this gap.
I don’t know who has discredited the theory that the Aryans settled in Sri Lanka! As Sinhala language belongs to Indo-Aryan class I don’t know how you can prove the lineage between the North-Indian languages and the European languages-and Sinhala!
If the Aryans did not settle in India, then it follows that they did not settle in Sri Lanka.
“From this it is apparent that the Harappans, though inhabiting a vast area, fell victim to a sudden calamity which forced them to seek shelter in other parts of ancient India. The usual explanation found in history books is that the inhabitants of the Harappan cities were driven out by the invading Aryans. However it is now recognized by scholars that the Aryan invasion theory of India is a myth that owes more to European politics than anything in Indian records or archaeology. (The politics of History, The Hindustan Times, Nov. 28 1993).”
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-harappan-myth.html
Though you call Anagarika Darmapala a “racist” if you have an aota of knowledge of the independence struggle and what role Anagarika played in that in reinstating the morale and the national pride of the Sinhalese,you wouldn’t have uttered such nonsense!
Morale and national pride of the Sinhalese? Is that why when the minute a (white) tourist steps off the plane, he is treated like royalty? It’s actually quite extraordinary that the vast majority of Sinhalese were *united* when it came to choosing sides in the war – considering that they are pretty much disunited in regards to every other matter.
Burning_Issue,
To me, whether God exists or not; whether the universe is created by a phenomenon of God is a personal matter. People have varied opinions and perceptions that they need to reconcile with their conscience. In the name of God many around the world committed evil crimes and thought nothing of it! It is precisely for these reasons; a state must elevate itself from any religious constraints. A state must view, analyse, judge and prosecute on the basis of absolute equality; it must govern with conscience that is based on secular humanism and nothing less and nothing more.
Let me put it another way: it is impossible for large groups of people, let us say, groups numbering several million, to comprehend the minutest details of arcane, abstract philosophy. It is better to give them something simple that can be learned quickly, and at least the rudiments of which will not be easily forgotten. That is why I say Judeo-Christian morality has worked so well in the West, whereas Hinduism and Buddhism have, for the most part, only further perpetuated the dismal existence of myriad an Asian society. Even though you hand someone a text as extraordinary as Vedas, chances are they will never comprehend its full meaning. When it comes to morality, elegant philosophies are like icing on a cake. They only serve to hide the obvious, which is the cake itself.
There is one more point I would make: that science cannot teach morality. Science can only teach rationality, which is based on truth, not faith. Truth is independent of any right or wrong clause, which is why science does not provide a valid basis for making value judgments. Our sense of morality -set of values – still comes from religion. So in this sense, it is difficult to get rid of religion altogether and replace it with a more rational methodology.
Dear Heshan;
Sorry, I could not respond to your post of
The “Creator God” question does not boil down to a “chicken or egg” dilemna, as you propose, but to “nothing”, without any reservations. Somebody has an iota of knowledge of logic does not refuse it. I know that you know it, but also I know that you are pretending not to understand to protect your pride of competency in arguments, fear of being defeated in the forum. That is OK, we will not talk about this hereafter, I don’t want to embarrass you.
……..” As you can see, physics always assumes that a certain energy was here. It does not care how the energy was created. In fact, it is impossible to answer this question, “how did God A create God B, God B create God C, C create D, D create E… etc. The argument is circular. It is equivalent to asking, what is the biggest number (because I can simply add 1 to whatever number you give me). But you see that the existence of a number does not depend on whether or not there is a biggest number or a smallest number. In order to guage the properties of a number, it is necessary to specify what set the number belongs to – one is then able to understand certain characteristics of the number immediately, based on relations that apply to the set, without performing any calculations.
The “Creator God” argument assumes that God is equivalent to the set of all sets. If the Universe is another set, then it is simply a subset of the God set.
What is interesting is that even in mathematics, one does not ask how the universal set, U, was created. One simply takes it for granted. But one cannot deny that the universal set exists. After all, there is an empty set – e.g. a set with no elements, so its opposite, U, must exist. ……….”
Above arguments support the “Avyakatha status” of Buddhism rather than supporting a god and it odes not support creator god at all against your aspirations.
………..”Actually, given that life and death is a 24/7 phenomenon of nature, it should be easy to prove whether reincarnation is true or not. The creation of the universe, however, was a one-time event. Nevertheless, one is able to verify that whatever energy created the universe still exists today. ……….”
I don’t see any relevance of the above statements to the topic we are discussing.
“………..Actually, there are many problems: for example, Buddha never denied the existence of God (so how can you say a soul is not necessary for rebirth). Also, Buddha did not explain what happens when rebirth is completed. And finally, Buddhist rebirth is a modified form of Hindu rebirth; it is difficult to say, on the basis of the modification alone, that the Buddhist rebirth idea is superior. Lack of originality presents certain difficulties………”
Buddha vehemently denied the existence of “creator god”. There is no something call completion of rebirth. Who told you that Buddhist rebirth is a modified form of Hindu rebirth? What evidence do you have to say so? Who says Buddhist rebirth idea is superior because of a so called “modification”, we say on the basis of the characteristics of it. It is a original one, if you go deep in it and compare with the Buddhist rebirth theory, you will find that Hindu idea is a story fabricated by a grade five child.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“Will you please disprove the two doctrines of Buddhism I have mentioned”
I thought my piece on ‘the sky is blue’ would suffice?
(BTW you refer to me as ‘a scientist’. I am merely using common sense and general knowledge, and I am not a scientist by profession. General knowledge and rationality is not uncommon)
Pancha Niyama Dharma (‘The Five Cosmic Orders’)
———————————————-
This is essentially categorisation of observable human experience. Much like Part 2 of the Kama Sutra in which MallanÄga VÄtsyÄyana categorised forms of sexual union into groups. Such categorisation does not mean that the experience itself is invented by the categorisation or the person categorising. For example, you can categorise the animals in a zoo, as those with 4 legs, those with no legs, those that can fly etc. The animals existed long before the attempt to categorise them.
It is nonsensical to ask science to ‘disproof the categorisation of animals in a zoo’ or indeed Part 2 of the Kama Sutra.
Paticca Samuppada (‘Dependent Origination’)
—————————————–
Causes have effects.
Again, this is observable experience that early beings must have had (don’t ask me for proof though). A caveman would have known that if he goes out to hunt he will have food for himself and his family. If he does not then he may not. Following from that, he at some point will have realised that in order to have food for his family today he would need to have gone out to hunt yesterday, and if he hasn’t food today it may be because he didn’t go out to hunt yesterday, or if he did he didn’t catch anything. The idea that ‘actions’ cause ‘results’ was known a long long time ago by prehistoric people. Long before humans came on the scene I expect. I think even animals know this.
Again, it is nonsensical to ask scientists to ‘prove’ that ‘things cause other things’. Indeed, their aim is to find out ‘how’ causes and effects are related. To go back to the previous illustration, if MallanÄga VÄtsyÄyana claimed in Kama Sutra that ‘the position in Chapter 3 used immediately after the one in Chapter 7 practised regularly’ guarantees a more prestigious next birth or direct ascension to heaven, or elevation to becoming a god even, then that would be pure speculation and requiring ‘faith’ (meaning a belief held despite the non-availability of proof, usually because of ‘wanting or needing to believe’). And Mr Yapa, if you did not share that faith you would laugh at such a preposterous claim, wouldn’t you?
So why are you surprised when those who do not share your faith find your beliefs to be unconvincing?
Protestant Buddhism
——————-
Mr Yapa, your writing perfectly exemplifies ‘Protestent Buddhism’ that began in the 1880s.
Let me explain.
By the late 1800s western colonisation of Ceylon had gathered great momentum. To counter this arose a movement which promoted ‘a brand’ based diametrically opposite to the threat (but interestingly, borrowing certain ideas from the threat itself, but that’s another story). This is now referred to as ‘Protestant Buddhism’ (Obeyesekere) to mean a brand promoted to ‘protest against the widespread Christianisation’ of the country.
The point is, Protestant Buddhists affirm their identity, not by ‘being Buddhist in practice’ (developing love through mental conditioning, for example) but by showing their opposition to Christianity instead. This is done by a strong preoccupation to argue about the existence or not of a ‘creator god’, Adam and Eve and other facets of Christianity that readily appear to be absurd to rational people. (In other words, displaying a form of hatred rather than love)
Ironically and arguably, the Buddhism we have today in SL (a devotional religion like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) is more a version of Christianity but in a different colour, with much of Hinduism still intact. Which is why our Buddhist practice (‘practice’ as opposed to what we can read in the scriptures) has little Buddhism, buried among a lot of other non-Buddhist religious leanings (but with wide visibility of Buddhist icons and artefacts and quoting of passages etc).
In ‘real’ Buddhism we would display greater concern for the tragic victims of this conflict. Peace and Reconciliation would be a piece of cake for us. It isn’t. Why? Any thoughts on this Mr Yapa?
Prof Heshan
“I reserve the right to simply ignore any future post emanating from the said source, at my discretion. ”
Thank you for admitting your inability to refute any of my points. The Mahavamsa stands vindicated.
Although it is unfortunate that you no longer have the opportunity to learn from me, overall it does relieve me of the burden of having to correct your misperceptions of what I write.
Best of luck and no hard feelings!
Dear BalangodaWoman;
You are running away from the topic acting as gone crazy. You did the same thing twice before to avoid answers. Please prove your heroic statement about one group classification of religions. Be frank. Accept that you cannot do it. Verbosity tactics won’t work everywhere M’am.
Thanks!
THEORY OF EVERYTHING or SINGLE GROUP CLASSIFICATION THEORY- A Modern theory that would revolutionize the world by BalangodaWoman
Classification is an old idea meant to separate things into different groups considering their similarities and differences. Now that a lady scientist, BalangodaWoman has found a new theory that every thing can be classified into one group. She gives following examples for the understanding of the general public, as the theory is so complicated to the understanding of average people.
1. Religions have no differences. Therefore they can be classified as one group.
2. There is no two things as west and east, west and east are one and the same.
3. Tamils and Sinhalese are same. There is no difference. Therefore both of them can be classified in the same group.
4. On the basis of (3) above kovil and temple are same.
6. All men in the world are equal in all respects. They are classified in the same group.
7.There is no difference between black and white, because black or white all men are equal. Therefore black and white colours should be classified in the same colour group.
8. Me and women are same, and they can be classified within a same category in terms of (4) above.
9. Iranians, Americans , Italians, Britisher, Australians and Canadians are same and use the same passport. They are classified in the same category.
10. All the mothers are same. Therefore we are the children of a single mother.
Therefore, people don’t have to quarrel over anything. On the basis of this theory peace will remain through out the universe forever.
General public is invited to inform the honourable lady scientist that if anybody find something that cannot be classified within a single group so that she can make them similar. She also announces that this is the THEORY OF EVERYTHING which scientists were eagerly looking forward to formulate to describe the whole universe in a single formula.
Are you convinced? No?
What……! You don’t understand this simple theory?
In a nutshell THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING means “EVERYTHING IS SAME . THERE IS NOTHING DIFFERENT IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.
That is my universal principle. You don’t understand dud?
We will have to wind up this programme at this moment due to unavoidable circumstances.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
Above arguments support the “Avyakatha status” of Buddhism rather than supporting a god and it odes not support creator god at all against your aspirations.
Actually, Avyakatha is something else together. The argument I have made is that every system of logic has axioms , which, if you are not familiar with the term, refers to one or more unproved assumptions. This makes sense because if one tries to prove every proposition, he will end up in a so-called “vicious circle.” It is easy to see this with the “Creator God” question. If God A was created by God B, and God B was created by God C… etc. etc. It is much simpler to believe that only one God has actually existed, and that this God has always existed. Of course it is an axiom. But it is a necessary axiom if one wishes to avoid falling into the vicious circle trap.
I don’t see any relevance of the above statements to the topic we are discussing.
As I said, given the extremely rapid pace of death, it should be possible to “prove” that rebirth is “real.” If a 1000 people are dying every 1 minute, and 1000 people are being born every minute, at least one of the 1000 people should be able to remember something from his past life. Now, I said 1000 people every minute… that means 60000 people every 1 hr, and 1,440,000 people every day (these are underestimates). In scientific terms, this equates to a very observable phenomenon. So the natural question to ask is, why has this highly “observable” phenomenon not been verified? It takes only 1/1440000 persons to give a definitive proof of rebirth. Did you know that humans have existed for 200000 years. Please multiply 1440000 X 365 X 200000. That means that 10,512,000,000,000 rebirths have occurred since that time, yet not a single person has been able to definitely prove he/she existed in a past life. Wow! I know you are a fan of 100% probability factors, but it seems that the odds of rebirth actually occurring are rather astronomical. Well, you did say in this thread that you’re a fan of astronomy, so it might not be a problem for you.
Buddha vehemently denied the existence of “creator god”.
He neither denied nor affirmed it. Of course, if you wish, you can quote from Pali Canon to prove your point. Please give the exact reference.
There is no something call completion of rebirth. Who told you that Buddhist rebirth is a modified form of Hindu rebirth? What evidence do you have to say so?
It is funny how you try to make the claim that Buddhism is “original.” Buddha was a Hindu before he was a “Buddhist.” He would have been familiar with Vedas.
You cannot dismiss the influence. If you learned how to add 298 + 398, it is because you first learned how to add 2+3, and then 20 + 30, and then 200+300. That is the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism – if you take away all the modifications, Buddhism becomes Hinduism. Whether rebirth occurs without a soul is a modified form of saying rebirth occurs with a soul which is a modified form of saying rebirth simply occurs. But the Vedas were the first to say that rebirth occurs. So only Vedic Hinduism can make a claim to originality when it comes to rebirth. I can make a similar argument for other concepts in Buddhism.
Correction: 105,120,000,000,000 (one more 0 to add to Mr. Yapa’s astronomical odds)
Heshan
You haven’t answered my question as to why there is a remarkable phonetic resemblence between the European languages and the North-Indian languages-and Sinhalese-, in your lenghty reply!
If Anagarika motivated the Sinhalese to regain their lost land right which had been plundered by the Colonists, and subsequently staged a Buddhist revival,he is absolutely right! He branded the imitators of the White Master as “Kalu Suddas” and told the Sinhalese,”One day the White Man will leave us, but when he leaves he will breed many thousands of Kalu Suddas who will act like the White Master and undermine your culture, religion and the values”. You may well be one of the descendents of that clan ,going by your writings! The tourist guide or the hotel manager might treat the tourists like the ‘royalty’, as you say, but that happens anywhere in the world where tourism thrives, and people make a living out of it. As Anagarika’s movement was successful only that the Sinhalese masses started to give up their “thuppahi’ names;changed their parasitic mentality that the whiite man’s culture was superior;dream about independence from the British and ultimately revived the national movement. There were the people even at that time too, who were the products of Anglo-Saxan cultural invation who tried to shut him up and they were the ones who called him a racist. It’s a mistake the half educated imitators made, of mixing up anti-colonialism with racism.The grand uncle of the present leader of the opposition, who is hailed as a newspaper magnet of the time-of Times of Ceylon fame- is a case in point!
Even now thanks to people like Anagarika we have rulers (as you too have admitted) who don’t treat the Western advocates like gods. That’s why Rajapakse didn’t listen to the peace merchants and stop the war (to the dismay of blokes like you!) and stoped the LTTE leadership from being saved for a future bargaining war!
Yapa
Thank you for the thought provoking piece!
Dear Heshan,
You say (A:)”Actually, Avyakatha is something else together. The argument I have made is that every system of logic has axioms, which, if you are not familiar with the term, refers to one or more unproved assumptions. This makes sense because if one tries to prove every proposition, he will end up in a so-called “vicious circle.” It is easy to see this with the “Creator God” question. If God A was created by God B, and God B was created by God C… etc. etc. It is much simpler to believe that only one God has actually existed, and that this God has always existed. Of course it is an axiom. But it is a necessary axiom if one wishes to avoid falling into the vicious circle trap.”
Answer (B): Really that is self is the problem. You who created this argument is making a situation for the creator god cannot exist. Don’t you notice it? If the answer is a creator god he traps in this circular logic and become null and void before he is born (created). This is like a situation of an “abortion”. Your axiom contradicts itself.
I think Avyakatha is the only answer fitting here, showing the “perfection” of the answers of the Buddha. Just imagine, giving a (the) exactly fitting answer for the “First Axiom” of the world 2600years ago! It is worthwhile thinking about this marvelous fact alone to understand the value of Buddhism as a Philosophy.
Personally, I have not come across many problems with the consistency of Buddhist philosophy. I am telling frankly this with some objectivity, not because of it is my religion alone. As a person of capability, I think you should not form a hostile attitude towards Buddhism, just because it is not presently your religious belief or you feel it is the religion of your hostile party. I have seen you have exhibited the capability to see things over the personal biases during the past discussions, objectively. Without arguing against it just because it is not your religion, a person with the capacity of yours should focus on objectivity, disregarding personal biases. You can do a better service to the world by using your analytical capabilities, focusing the attention to more objective things than arguing for your “personal cases” taking over the role of a “cunning lawyer”. I think you are wasting your energies to fabricate theories to defeat others. You should not be a lawyer or a politician, but a scientist.
(A): As I said, given the extremely rapid pace of death, it should be possible to “prove” that rebirth is “real.” If a 1000 people are dying every 1 minute, and 1000 people are being born every minute, at least one of the 1000 people should be able to remember something from his past life…………………
(B): This indicates your personal cleverness to make good arguments, but I should tell you, you cannot prove anything, especially to “me”. It is just a magnificent creation of yours, which will be very attractive / effective and work well with some people. You don’t prove any case here for me. To tell you frankly, there is no substance in it. It is an illusion created by the clever magician named Prof. Heshan, as Wijayapala is used to call you.
(A): It is funny how you try to make the claim that Buddhism is “original.” Buddha was a Hindu before he was a “Buddhist.”………………………
(B): Again do you really think you are making any case here. It is true that Prince Siddhartha learnt the philosophies prevailed then in Indian society. It may have given him some wisdom, I don’t deny it. But the “enlightenment” is something entirely different from the knowledge he gained through those philosophies. Really he abandoned all those views learnt from them as useless with regard to the goal he was expecting achieve and pursued in an entirely different path, that ie. “Middle Path” that had never been professed by any philosopher before. Are you going to say “Middle Path” or “Noble Eight Fold Path” was a creation of Hinduism?
You should not argue with biases (with knowledge). It is below your dignity. Please use your energies for a nobler goal.
Thanks!
Addition….
Sorry, I really thought I finished my answer.
(A): He neither denied nor affirmed it. Of course, if you wish, you can quote from Pali Canon to prove your point. Please give the exact reference.
(B): Not only he rejected that view, he gave the reasons and explained why people fall into that wrong “Ditti” (View). Please Google and read Agganna Sutta/Brahmajala Sutta.
(A): It is funny how you try to make the claim that Buddhism is “original.” Buddha was a Hindu before he was a “Buddhist.”……………………
(B): I think I have already given the answer for this. Your “Seppada Vijja” (foul magic) is not going to prove anything. They are only Seppada vijjas of Prof. Heshan to misguide people. You really know that I know my Mathematics. You are posting these “Mathemagic” to delight the people who appreciate your arguments.
Be good.
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
“So let me understand your train of logic: to support your argument that the Sinhalese are not politically quiescient, you are arguing that the Sinhalese did not protest against the LTTE?”
That is your twisted logic, hampering you because you have come to a fixed conclusion that Sinhalese are politically quiescent. People may not protest at something for various other reasons than political quietism: perhaps they just don’t care about the cause; perhaps the realities of the situation such as the presence of a terrorist force make it impractical to do so. In this instance, I’m suggesting the cause is the latter rather than political acquiescence. To make the claim you do, you need to prove a whole national history of keeping quiet. What about the development of labour politics and the left-wing movement in your country—does that suggest political quietism to you?
Political quietism is just your excuse to explain away an ethical lapse, i.e. a majority community not caring about fellow-citizens and justice for minorities.
“Why didn’t they do that for the EPDP’s celebration of Pooneryn?”
Seems you didn’t read the earlier Tamilnet story where they claim that Pooneryn didn’t fall to the SLA but that the LTTE had “relocated” Pooneryn! The more fool you expecting logic and rational action from the LTTE.
“I guess I can’t, but despite that there seems to be people here who insist that Sinhalese and Tamils are utterly alien to each other.”
I’m not claiming that they’re utterly alien to each other. Which doesn’t mean that they’re exactly the same either.
“Huh?”
I explained the link between the analogy I provided and the situation we were discussing. Strangely, you cut away that explanation in your citing of my post.
“Ok. Then how come the SL Tamils did not come out for demonstrations against the LTTE?”
Whether they lived in the north or in the south, SL Tamils as individuals from a besieged minority community have not had the luxury of having a political will, sandwiched between the LTTE on one side and Sinhalese chauvinist governments on the other. Nor do they have any now. Why did SL Tamils in Colombo not come out to celebrate the demise of the LTTE? Was it because they did not like the outcome or because they were cowering in fear of violence and humiliation from the Sinhala nationalists? You expect a minority community deprived of rights to come out and protest against harm being done to the majority community who are their oppressors?
Perhaps if they had ever felt included and welcomed in the nation, SL Tamils might have demonstrated against LTTE anti-Sinhalese violence.
Your attempt to equate a besieged minority community’s failure to demonstrate against terrorists in war time with a triumphant majority community’s failure to demonstrate against unjust treatment of innocent minority civilians during peacetime reveals your mindset. When even educated people like yourself think like this, is it any wonder that SL Tamils have been huddling among themselves all these years?
“It’s always nice to have someone write long-winded paeans in my name, no matter how perverted the logic employed. Your filibustering and ad-hominem arguments are as usual, orthogonal to the point, but fascinatingly enjoyable. It’s long been a battle to decide who amongst the posters on this forum is the most merciless at brutalizing logic and reason. Have no fear, you seem to be in the lead at the moment. Please keep em coming!”
It is because I don’t like “Baba Kukkun”. I like only Kukkun Babas”.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa, you are falling into a common trap of mistaken logic.
Here’s the short answer.
A chair has 4 legs. A dog has 4 legs. For the functional purpose of ‘supporting its own weight’ the 4 legs in both cases do the same job. Therefore, in THAT CONTEXT (ie. functional purpose), the two are the same. On the other hand, if the context is ‘how fast it can run’ then obviously the two are not the same. If we stick withing the context of the point being made the similarities mentioned are (you will find) important ones to take into account.
Therefore, applied to the list you very kindly provided:
1. Religions have no differences. Therefore they can be classified as one group.
Yes. In all communities religion serves the same purpose(s). It’s like, ‘food’ serves the purpose of solving the need of ‘hunger’. In ancient Spain they had that need (they made paella). In ancient India they had the same need (they made curry). They satisfied the need with local ingredients that they had available to them at the time. The need for religion was the same. The early Christians solved it with their local ingredients (Judaism + Jesus), the early Buddhists solved the same need with their local ingredients (Hinduism + Buddha). To say that ‘all religions serve the same purpose’ I base this on this observation – I have never come across a Christian believer, or a Muslim believer, who is less satisfied with their religions than a Buddhist believer is with his or hers.
Of course, all those who wish to differentiate their religion from others (another one of those purposes) attempt to describe them as something other than a religion – a law, a relationship with god, a philosophy, a way of life etc. While the detail is different (again) the purpose is the same.
2. There is no two things as west and east, west and east are one and the same.
Yes. In many ways true. You have not stated the context from which you have pulled this out.
The west is enormously enriched by eastern culture, food, the arts, language – and the east similarly enriched by the same, and technology and the progress of some aspects of civilisation such as justice, administration, sport. Geographically the two are in different parts of the world, permanently. Globalisation brings the two together economically and culturally for the benefit of everyone, the whole world, including you or you would not be participating in a forum in the English language.
3. Tamils and Sinhalese are same. There is no difference. Therefore both of them can be classified in the same group.
Yes. For the purposes in which you want to drive a wedge they are the same. The differences are language and culture. Language and culture do not make one ethnic group ‘lesser’ than another. The same group for classification of the Sinhalese and the Tamil in SL is ‘Sri Lankan’.
The recipe for future harmony in SL is to acknowledge the commonalities and enjoy the differences. However, I realise that a few Sinhalese (such as you Mr Yapa) and a few Tamils would prefer a divisive alternative. I suggest a separate geographical location for such people, a small island off SL should do. The rest of us can enjoy the ‘one-ness’ while you guys can argue amongst yourself as to who is better, away from us. But … oh dear, you in that small island will have something in common after all, ie. the divisive viewpoint! I wonder whether you will come together on the basis that you share a common need to promote yourselves as different? LOL!
4. On the basis of (3) above kovil and temple are same.
Yes. They serve the same purpose. Mainly superstition, but also as a place of worship, often worshiping the same deities.
6. All men in the world are equal in all respects. They are classified in the same group.
All men and women have equal value in the world. This is a fundamental principle in the modern world. It’s centuries since slavery stopped being condoned on the basis that some races are sub-human. Only in some under-developed civilisations do they still regard some people as ‘lower’ by birth. The caste system is an example. This is an antiquated practice. Even Buddha spoke out against it all those years ago. Not sure why you are against it. (also ‘equal human value’ is a challenge against the doctrine of karma that implies that people are not born equal).
7.There is no difference between black and white, because black or white all men are equal. Therefore black and white colours should be classified in the same colour group.
Not sure what you mean by this. Yes, to illustrate the principle I mentioned at the beginnning of this piece, if the context is ‘colour’ then black and white are the same (they describe colour, and not one being a fruit, for example) and different by being different colours, or that one can argue that black is not a colour. If you are trying to show that there is a concept known as ‘different’ I think you will find most people know that there is such a thing (?). I suspect you do too.
8. Men and women are same, and they can be classified within a same category in terms of (4) above.
Again, it depends on context. Should they have equal pay for equal work? Yes, in my view. Do they dress differently? Mostly, no! Should different laws apply to them? No (though I understand there are descrepancies in SL under marital laws. I could be wrong though)
9. Iranians, Americans , Italians, Britisher, Australians and Canadians are same and use the same passport. They are classified in the same category.
Not sure where you got this. I think you are still stuck in that ‘aryan myth’ groove. Passports deal with Nationality, not under which god, star or myth he bases his identity.
10. All the mothers are same. Therefore we are the children of a single mother.
Actually, funny you should question that! The Human Genome Project announced in 1988 that every human being on Earth carries the genetic marker that traces us back to a woman who lived in Africa 150-200,000 years ago. Is that your objection? If so you should take it up with the Human Genome Project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Still Protestant Buddhism!
—————————-
In your exchanges with Heshan, Mr Yapa, you are still arguing on the lines that your ‘opposition to Christanity’ automatically makes you a Buddhist. This is quite wrong. A Buddhist is someone who has developed skills such as loving kindness following the teachings of the Buddha. Actually, personally, even if loving kindness is developed by some other means it is still useful to society and the world – I don’t think a proper Buddist will object to a person displaying such personal qualities even if they happen not to be ‘Buddhist’ or share the faith.
In that respect I feel Heshan is more a Buddhist than you are. He appears to have benefited more from the teachings of the Buddha (regardless of what his actual influence was). This I conclude from comparing your writing to his.
Dear BalangodaWman;
I know that you like Heshan more than me. I also like Heshan more than you. He is a man with “Kusala Kamma” (competencies) unlike you, though he is a Christian.
However, I think you have an urgent matter to resolve, to put off your lady garments, and wear a jean and a shirt. Why aren’t you taking some initiative in that respect.
You know what you have to do no? Answer those questions.
By the way, don’t you like to read the “Dhammapadaya” when you have some leisure time? It will help you to dilute that cynical mentality a bit. Try it.
Thanks Maam !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial%20Eve
This shows how even western Science is even entangled by Judeo-Christian Tradition. Scientists even try to substantiate the mythical Adam- Eva story.
People like BalangodaWomen should protest against such things as Religions should be kept separated from other things. Objective Science has been raped by subjective religions.
Why are you silent objective lady scientist?
Take stern action Maam!
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
Answer (B): Really that is self is the problem. You who created this argument is making a situation for the creator god cannot exist. Don’t you notice it? If the answer is a creator god he traps in this circular logic and become null and void before he is born (created). This is like a situation of an “abortion”. Your axiom contradicts itself.
There are two different issues. I think you are confusing them. The first issue is did God create the Universe. The second issue is who created God. Your argument that God did not create the Universe, because God does not exist in the first place, is rather clever. The problem is that you have not explained how the Universe created itself. Maybe the ingredients were there, but how did the ingredients combine in the correct proportion? If you have flour, yeast, and water, is it bread? It is not bread until you mix and bake. What you are really doing is performing work and transferring energy. It is the same way with the Universe. The Big Bang Theory tells us all the ingredients were there. But without a transformation of energy, these ingredients could not become the Universe. When you ask, who created God, you are asking, who created the singular energy that made possible the Big Bang? The most reasonable answer is to state that this energy always existed. It is the most basic law of physics, that the amount of energy is always constant. So if you assumed that God B was created by God A, you are still not accounting for the creation of the energy that created God B and God A in the first place. Let me summarize for you: if you accept that the only constant in the Universe is energy, and you accept that God is energy, then it is not difficult to conclude that God has always existed. Then the question of who created God becomes irrelevant.
I think Avyakatha is the only answer fitting here, showing the “perfection” of the answers of the Buddha. Just imagine, giving a (the) exactly fitting answer for the “First Axiom” of the world 2600years ago! It is worthwhile thinking about this marvelous fact alone to understand the value of Buddhism as a Philosophy.
Avyakatha does not answer the question – it avoids the question. Either the Buddha did not know the answer, or else he felt that the answer was not very important.
Personally, I have not come across many problems with the consistency of Buddhist philosophy. I am telling frankly this with some objectivity, not because of it is my religion alone. As a person of capability, I think you should not form a hostile attitude towards Buddhism, just because it is not presently your religious belief or you feel it is the religion of your hostile party.
I am not sure how u define consistency. Consider that there are many versions of Buddhism. Most of them – over 95% – believe in a God or Gods, e.g. Hinayana, Mahayana, Tantric, etc. It seems as if only Theravada Buddhism makes this claim to being atheist. So in order to prove “consistency”, you will have to show that Theravada Buddhism is “superior” to all other forms of Buddhism. You will have to show that Theravada Buddhism is the “true” Buddhism.
I have seen you have exhibited the capability to see things over the personal biases during the past discussions, objectively. Without arguing against it just because it is not your religion, a person with the capacity of yours should focus on objectivity, disregarding personal biases.
Actually, I am asking common sense questions. You say that God can’t be energy, yet you have no explanation for how energy was created in the first place. You cannot prove that energy never existed. In fact, when you accept that you cannot prove that energy never existed, and then you ask who created God, you are actually contradicting yourself, because you have to failed to show that God and energy are mutually exclusive.
(B): This indicates your personal cleverness to make good arguments, but I should tell you, you cannot prove anything, especially to “me”. It is just a magnificent creation of yours, which will be very attractive / effective and work well with some people. You don’t prove any case here for me. To tell you frankly, there is no substance in it. It is an illusion created by the clever magician named Prof. Heshan, as Wijayapala is used to call you.
It is not an illusion. According to you, Buddhism is even more sophisticated than science. Yet Buddhism does not have the tools to prove the existence of this phenomenon of “rebirth”, which as I have demonstrated, occurs more than one million times a day. It reminds me of a child learning arithmetic. After making the obvious errors, 1+1 = 4, 1+8 = 10, 3+5 = 6, etc. he will come up with the right solution eventually – because there is a method to it. With reincarnation/rebirth, the believer must forever guess. But he will never know for sure, because there is no logical method to even prove the process occurs. In science, if you cannot prove directly, then you must prove indirectly. You cannot simply keep guessing like a madman. Guessing is not rational. It works sometimes (e.g. lottery) but it is not rational . People who believe in reincarnation are similar to those who play the lottery. I have given the odds for reincarnation in my earlier post.
(B): Again do you really think you are making any case here. It is true that Prince Siddhartha learnt the philosophies prevailed then in Indian society. It may have given him some wisdom, I don’t deny it. But the “enlightenment” is something entirely different from the knowledge he gained through those philosophies.
Really he abandoned all those views learnt from them as useless with regard to the goal he was expecting achieve and pursued in an entirely different path, that ie. “Middle Path” that had never been professed by any philosopher before. Are you going to say “Middle Path” or “Noble Eight Fold Path” was a creation of Hinduism?
Actually you find the “Middle Path” , “Noble Eight Fold Path”, and all other paths in Hinduism/Jainism, etc. Do you think Buddha was the first to come up with ahimsa? A Jain will cover his face in order to avoid harm to any insects in the air, if necessary. What Buddha did is cut down on the number of rules. That was his primary issue with Brahmanic Hinduism anyway; he did not like the number of rituals. BalangodaMan has already shown in detail how most religions are the same, at a basic level, when you take away the decoration.
By the way, you did not answer my earlier claim: I stated that Buddha never denied the existence of God. I asked you to give a direct quotation from Pali Canon, if you disagree, not a web link. Are you capable? Thanks.
All western knowledge developed till 20th century is the illegitimate child born after the Greek Tradition was raped by Judo-Christian Tradition. You can see the the signs even in the so called objective Science. Anybody can imagine the plight of other subjects like Political Science, our pandiths are used to preach to us as universal truths to plant in our countries. They cannot see the strings attach to them.
However, we can see to a certain extent that Modern Science is taking a path towards a bit more objectivity. That is why these western parasites just born in our countries and living abroad, don’t like to see the change of the course of Science. They don’t like other traditions to come into the front. However, it should be noted that with the rise of Asia, the hegemony of west over everything including knowledge system will change. Already the Europe is in that merciful flight. Soon Asia will be the economic as well as knowledge and cultural centers of the world as a couple of thousand years back. Then the rest of the countries will come with their begging bowls to Asia to learn “Modern Culture”.
However, one of the main problems that will arise against in this course is whether the western powers will let that peaceful transition happen. They didn’t let the riches of middle east oil to take over the hegemony. They even intervened with force in addition to their foul tactics, as shown in the book ” Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” written by John Perkins.
We will have to wait and see. However, there is no doubt that the western powers and their henchmen don’t like the trend looming over their heads.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
You say (A): There are two different issues. I think you are confusing them. The first issue is did God create the Universe. The second issue is who created God. Your argument that God did not create the Universe, because God does not exist in the first place, is rather clever. The problem is that you have not explained how the Universe created itself. Maybe the ingredients were there, but how did the ingredients combine in the correct proportion? If you have flour, yeast, and water, is it bread? It is not bread until you mix and bake…………….
Answer (B): Do you want to bake the universe?
That is a very naive and popular argument put forward by many as evidence of creation that is the “necessity of a doer to happen things”. What is the necessity for anybody to come to those unwarranted conclusions? Why things cannot happen without the inter-mediation of a “doer” especially of the sort of the creator god mention in the Bible, who has a “consciousness”?
Dear Heshan, Things happens in the nature without the intervention of a consciousness. Look around, almost all non- living processes in the nature takes place without such intervention. Rains, storms, waves on the sea surface, blooming of flowers take place without the necessity of somebody with a consciousness. So called “Creation” at least the first part of it is an inanimate thing. That does not need an intervention of an “animate god”.
You don’t have to bake cakes to fill you tummy, you can pick some berries which nature gives you even without asking for your labour.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Further, Big Bang theory still is a theory and no one is sure it represents the ultimate truth about the origin of the universe.
Why do you say energy always existed and present universe sprang out from it. What if I say the universe always existed instead? Rationally there is no difference. Why do you prefer the first over the second? What is the rational need for such a random event to take place? One can very well argue that universe always existed in the present form. What is that big idea to put that “innocent creator god” into this mess? He must be cursing you if he really exists.
* * * * * * * * * * *
OK, say for instance your notion that energy exited always and the universe came into being later as an action of a “person” with consciousness. Then what is the mighty necessity this person to be that “no one seen god”. Don’t you prefer to think this is a job of that “gossiping woman from Balangoda area”, that is a job of a readily available “frog”? Or it can better be attributed to a cockroach, because it has been living in the universe, from a far away point of time.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Heshan, Who told you that the only constant in the Universe is energy? It was a myth spread by the outdated Classical Newtonian Science. I think you know about very famous Einstein’s equation, relating energy to mass.
According to this, energy can exist in the form of matter. Didn’t you put your thought to this before?
* * * * * * * * * * * *
So now do you think there exist a necessity of a “Creator God” for the existence of the universe?
Very clearly the universe can exist without the necessity of a “Creator God”.
CREATOR GOD IS AN UNNECESSARY or REDUNDANT CONCEPT.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Now, we will come to the Avyakatha status.
Avyakatha has no reference to say whether the universe was always existed or sprang into existence later. What it simply says is that “human mind is incapable of grasping that deep history of time or “It is a too big piece to bite”.
Is there anything contradictory, when we say there is things that human mind cannot grasp?
Not at all, Can you remember in a discussion some times ago I gave several examples of very simple things that human mind cannot grasp? Can you remember I was talking about the upstream journey of a Salmon fish to its birth place in the river to lay its eggs? How does that knowledge is possible by that “limbless creature”, but not by the humans with “big heads”? Unless you become a Salmon, you have no way to access for that knowledge
.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
(A): Avyakatha does not answer the question – it avoids the question. Either the Buddha did not know the answer, or else he felt that the answer was not very important.
(B): So you say Avyakatha is an indication that “Buddha has no knowledge of something? Not at all, but the opposite.
The Buddha’s knowledge that the origin of the universe cannot be grasped by average humans is the real knowledge about the phenomena. Really, no one before him did not know that it cannot be perceived. Buddha was the first person to know that it is not perceivable and therefore advised the disciples not to contemplate on this futile act, instead advised to look into the liberation from the Dangerous “Samsara”.
Here, “Not knowing is knowing!” You got my point?
Remain for the moment, will continue soon.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa and Heshan,
The question of whether the Universe always existed or not, or whether a greator god had anything to do with the Universe, (sadly) will not change one iota whether (or how) we can bring Peace and Reconciliation to Sri Lanka.
Mr Yapa,
It is futile to question the faith of another person. All one can do is question/challenge the beliefs that WE OURSELVES (individually) hold, has held for a long time without challenge thus far. Indeed we should always challenge ourselves. But challenging the faith of another is, well, up to them.
The reason is quite simple. Other people’s faith originates for the same reason that yours originated. Their’s can be as strong as yours. Evidently, they are well served by theirs and most see no reason to change it or abandon it. It’s purpose is personal to them (Mr Yapa, like yours gives you ‘ethnic identity and consequent emotional security through belonging to a group’).
I am allowed to legitimately review and challenge the ‘truths’ I was taught in my Buddhist environment. I take on board what I find to be useful to me, and reject what is not, express concerns on certain aspects where that is needed. I have no basis on which to do that with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism – except to note that they too have similar concepts by other names (as I continue to mention on this forum).
On the question of ‘what is the meaning of life’ the conclusion I came to is … we simply do not know. We cannot know. Therefore, I am what’s called ‘agnostic’.
When people of different faiths challenge aspects of each other’s faith it is like my cat and my neighbour’s dog discussing … my job. When you ask silly things like ‘who created god, and who created god’s god’ it is like the cat and the dog discussing how I got my job, and how my boss got his, and what we do in our jobs. All I can say is, my cat may be curious, and he seems quite clever … but not THAT clever!
Where my cat is cleverer than you Mr Yapa is … he knows that he can live happily, and in perfect harmony with my neighbour’s dog, without knowing what I do professionally, my name or anything else about me for that matter.
On the question of ‘Avyakatha’, your argument is like the cat saying he knows everything there is to know because some other cat who lived thousands of years ago knew everything there is to know as a result of miraculously becoming omniscient, but did not reveal much of it because other cats will not understand it. My cat is putting forward that argument about an ancient cat despite a distinct lack of examples in the present day of cats becoming omniscient. Go figure!
Continuation…………
Dear Heshan;
(A): I am not sure how u define consistency. Consider that there are many versions of Buddhism. Most of them – over 95% – believe in a God or Gods, e.g. Hinayana, Mahayana, Tantric, etc. It seems as if only Theravada Buddhism makes this claim to being atheist. So in order to prove “consistency”, you will have to show that Theravada Buddhism is “superior” to all other forms of Buddhism. You will have to show that Theravada Buddhism is the “true” Buddhism.
(B): My consistency has the same meaning the word literally has, there is no deviation at all. Really, what has happened here was you have taken rituals of the various people as Buddhism. Just because some people perform rituals in the name of Buddhism, they do not become Buddhism. What I really mean as any sensible man would do is taking the Buddhist doctrine or Buddhist Philosophy as Buddhism. I am talking about the consistency of the Buddhist doctrine.
There may be some differences in various versions of Buddhism found in various parts of the world; however, core doctrines are still common to all according to my understanding. It is natural the doctrine getting changes with the so much of time passed after it was preached and mingling with the traditions of the various parts of the world. However, though I don’t say it is superior, it is reasonable to accept that the Theravada is more original than others as it was turned to written form much earlier than other versions. However, I do not say that it has not changed at all. With several interpretations, of the later scholars and due to the colonial influence against Buddhism, it also have got some changes. That is why the contribution of the able scholars is needed to take out the correct portion from this valuable doctrine, which will be a treasure to the future generation of the word.
Anyway, I have studied only a few doctrines of Buddhism, in them I have not found contradictions. For the moment I can say that it agrees with the “First Principle”. For instance you can take Dhammapadaya and see whether there are any contradictions among the ideas in 423 stanzas. This is an example for the consistency of the Buddhist doctrine. Can you find such consistency in any part of the teaching of any other religion?
(A): Actually, I am asking common sense questions. You say that God can’t be energy, yet you have no explanation for how energy was created in the first place. You cannot prove that energy never existed. In fact, when you accept that you cannot prove that energy never existed, and then you ask who created God, you are actually contradicting yourself, because you have to failed to show that God and energy are mutually exclusive.
(B): You even cannot prove that energy existed for ever, that is just speculation. Neither can you prove that the whole universe never existed for an unknown period of time. This again shows that Avyakatha is the best fitting answer, in terms of rational thinking.
Further, I never asked who created god. I don’t want that argument to disprove Creator God. My arguments given earlier suffice. Even if it is not so, how come the “Creator God” cannot face the “Averroes’ Magic Stone”. No, he has no escape. Therefore I don’t have to show that God and energy are mutually exclusive.
(A): It is not an illusion. According to you, Buddhism is even more sophisticated than science. Yet Buddhism does not have the tools to prove the existence of this phenomenon of “rebirth”, which as I have demonstrated, occurs more than one million times a day. It reminds me of a child learning arithmetic……………..
(B): Only popular snag anybody can show against “Rebirth” is the inability of its proof through empirical studies. This situation itself does not disprove the existence of rebirth, even in principle. Besides there are some credible empirical studies carried out the people like Dr. Stevenson. How do you explain Edgar Casey?
Other than the suspicion created on the basis of above there is no any other deficiency found in the theory.
There is a real need for such theory, as I have pointed out earlier, and also if somebody goes in to the details of the theory, based on Paticca Samuppada and Pancha Niyama Dharma, you can see the real consistency of it, even finer than a modern scientific theory. People like that gossiping woman, protest against it catching hold of that simple fact, throwing away the massive amount of points in favour of it. If you have time please go through it in detail and tell me any inconsistency in it if you come across. The problem is there are no much people who have thoroughly studied it. To day people are leaning subjects that are marketable. Unfortunately they do not have much literary interest.
You don’t have to guess on reincarnation if you thoroughly study the theory of it. You will never simply reject it, just as that B/Woman and the accomplices. For them lack of knowledge is their advantage.
(A): Actually you find the “Middle Path”, “Noble Eight Fold Path”, and all other paths in Hinduism/Jainism, etc. Do you think Buddha was the first to come up with ahimsa?
(B): You say the Middle Path or Noble Eight Fold Path was their in any other religion? Not at all, May be those words are found in them, but not the substance, the doctrine. One may call stone a coconut, but it does not have the creamy kernel inside. Buddha is the first person to show the Eight Fold Path, which paved the way to real enlightenment.
I have no problem with other good concepts like Ahimsa. Even the five percepts were there when the Buddha was born in India in other religions. It is true that Buddha allowed good virtues in other religions to follow by his disciples. However, it does not say that whole Buddhism is a copy cat of other religions as you are going to suggest.
(A): By the way, you did not answer my earlier claim: I stated that Buddha never denied the existence of God. I asked you to give a direct quotation from Pali Canon, if you disagree, not a web link. Are you capable? Thanks.
(B): Really Heshan, I have no knowledge of Pali. However, the original English Translations you many find in the net. Read the original translations of Agganna Sutta/ Brahmajala Sutta. It is not a difficult task to find the original. If you cannot find tell me again, I will do it for you. However, I know that you are better at seaching the web.
Thanks!
Heshan
As for your childish curiority as to how the universe began without a creator is answered by me in my post on 03-09-2010 at 8.45pm. If you don’t want to believe “longus” you can read the world renowned physicict Steven Hawkin’s latest book “The Grand Design” which was out on last week in London. You can go to the “Times” newspaper of London on 02-09-2010 and read the excerpts of it.
Ignoramuses like yourself are advised to educate yourself before writing about “more complex things”, becasue you seem to be believing what you learnt in grade 12 as “conservation of energy” applies to the conditions at the start of the universe.
The recent theories on the origin of the universe comes closer to the “Buddhist Theory”-in both Hinayana and Mahayana- that there is no beginning to the many cycles of expantion and contraction of the universe, and what we see as the “beginning” in really the end stage of a previous cycle (even if the universe goes on expanding this applies too)
A (completely off-topic) academic exploration of god
——————————-
It would take a certain degree of arrogance to conclude that humans on Earth are the highest form of existence in the Universe, or that the physical Universe is the sum total of all that exists, that all of existence exists only on one ‘plane’. It would take a further leap of reasoning to conclude that the limits of knowledge and power of such (superior) entities is confined to the boundary of what humans can comprehend and visualise.
For this reason, denying the existence of ‘god’ is unreasonable. All we can say is that, as humans, we have no idea what ‘god’ is, in form, in function, in concept.
However, ‘faith’ is subjective, so ‘god’ can be anything that suits you. It does not have to orignate from any particular religious tradition.
Stephen Hawkin is putting right a little carelessness in the closing words of his famous book ‘A Brief History of Time’ – which gave room for believers in god to claim a kind of ‘quantum physics backing’ for the god brigade (same as Mr Yapa from the KRN brigade was claiming for karma, rebirth and nirvana on the other thread).
Longus,
“The recent theories on the origin of the universe comes closer to the “Buddhist Theory” ”
And how did this theory arise? What observations, what measurements? Could anyone repeat the process by which the theory was tested? Can we see it?
If the answer to those is ‘no’ then either the theory is a fluke, or we are trying to fit what we now know to what we want to believe, don’t you think? (a la Nostradamus)
A question for all is, why do we expect ancient theories to have foretold present day discoveries?
And why is it that every time it is the discovery of a hero from our own history? It is never anyone from some other history, particularly not from a group that we are not too fond of!
(religion never sought to, never had the capacity to, reveal an absolute truth. It’s purposes were, among other things, to provide comfort to people faced with the unknown/unknowable in ancient times. It is our subsequent need for validation against ‘others’ that had brought about this ‘our god is better than your god’ pattern. If the Buddha expected his words to be construed as some absolute truth about reality (forever uncontestable) he would have ensured that such a theory would withstand scrutiny … forever. He would have written it down, included his reasoning so that people in the future can understand it (to the level of scrutiny we in our times would expect, and for millennia to come), and he would have provided the evidence that he had. The Buddha would have known that other ‘peoples’ of the world will have their own religions to which they are entitled to, equally. He never wrote it down, nor put forward anything as a direct confrontation. Ever wondered why?)
BalangodaMan
That’s why they are called “theories”, man. If a theory continuously agrees with the observations it is generally accepted as true. There are many such theories regarding the origin of the universe. Some are awaiting experimental evidence even at this moment as the “Massive Hedron Collider” is in operation now.
“Theory of evolution”, “Newton’s theory of gravity”, “theory of relativity”, “global migration theory”, “big bang theory” and “quantum theory” are some of the examples of other well known theories. Are any of these “reproducible” in the sense that you state? All those must be “jokes” or “flukes”!
As Yapa tells “little learning is dangerous”!
Dear Yapa:
You did a stunning job of completely avoiding my questions. Please read all of the following carefully:
As scholar Richard Hayes describes, “the attitude of the Buddha as portrayed in the Nikayas is more anti-speculative than specifically atheistic,” although “Gotama regarded the belief in God as unhealthy.”[20]
As Hayes describes it, “In the Nikaya literature, the question of the existence of God is treated primarily from either an epistemological point of view or a moral point of view. As a problem of epistemology, the question of God’s existence amounts to a discussion of whether or not a religious seeker can be certain that there is a greatest good and that therefore his efforts to realize a greatest good will not be a pointless struggle towards an unrealistic goal. And as a problem in morality, the question amounts to a discussion of whether man himself is ultimately responsible for all the displeasure that he feels or whether there exists a superior being who inflicts displeasure upon man whether he deserves it or not . . . the Buddha Gotama is portrayed not as an atheist who claims to be able to prove God’s nonexistence, but rather as a skeptic with respect to other teachers’ claims to be able to lead their disciples to the highest good.”[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Mr. Yapa, I made the exact same point: that Buddha was not an atheist or a believer but an agnostic. However, you made the totally false claim that Buddha denied the existence of God. When I asked you to prove your claim, with an exact reference, you gave some vague references to sutras. I am now forced to believe that in fact you lack any knowledge of Buddhism outside of Sinhala-Buddhism, which as BalangodaMan has done an excellent job of pointing out, is a distorted version of real Buddhism anyway. However, I would be interested in knowing who told you that Buddha was an atheist. Did you just make it up, or is that what you were taught by the monks?
Now, it is worth seeing just how much Buddhists believe in God:
Brahma in the Pali Canon
Brahma is among the common gods found in the Pali Canon. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in samsara (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). In fact there are several different Brahma worlds and several kinds of Brahmas in Buddhism, all of which however are just beings stuck in samsara for a long while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Mr. Yapa, if gods and devas do not exist, will Pali Canon mention them? Is it logically possible to mention something that does not exist? Actually, there is one way: the correct word is myth. If you accept that Pali Canon is full of myth, only then we can say that the gods and devas in Pali Canon do not exist.
Other common gods referred to in the Canon
Many of the other gods in the Pali Canon find a common mythological role in Hindu literature. Some common gods and goddesses are Indra, Aapo (Varuna), Vayo (Vayu), Tejo (Agni), Surya, Pajapati (Prajapati), Soma, Yasa, Venhu (Visnu), Mahadeva (Siva), Vijja (Saraswati), Usha, Pathavi (Prithvi) Sri (Lakshmi) Kuvera (Kubera), several yakkhas (Yakshas), gandhabbas (Gandharvas), NÄgas, garula (Garuda), sons of Bali, Veroca, etc.[24] While in Hindu texts some of these gods and goddesses are considered embodiments of the Supreme Being. The Buddhist view was that all gods and goddesses were bound to samsara. The world of gods according to the Buddha presents a being with too many pleasures and distractions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Mr. Yapa, did I not inform you that Hinduism is the mother and Buddhism is the child? Even your precious Pali Canon is not free of the Hindu influence. What is this world of gods that Buddha talked about, Mr. Yapa? Did your monks not teach you at the pansal? On this forum you have denied that gods existed… yet in the Pali Canon, Buddha himself talks about an entire world of gods? Mr. Yapa, either you are very misinformed, or we are having quite a serious communication problem.
Mr. Yapa, please stay in your chair, as the fun has just started:
Mahayana Buddhism includes a sphere of devotion, where the Buddha is taken as the Supreme Reality – a kind of God who assumed human form in order to benefit all humanity[29]:
“ Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional … in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion… He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end … Buddha … is eternal, immutable … As such He represents Dharmakaya. ”
According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha taught the existence of a spiritual essence called the tathagagatagarbha or Buddha-nature, which is present in all beings and phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Really, Mr. Yapa… no beginning, middle and end? Sounds like another chap I know… his name has three letters. : )
“(religion never sought to, never had the capacity to, reveal an absolute truth.”
Just like you madam?
Thanks!
Enlightenment of Yapa (Part II):
Vajrayana views
In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshiped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: “The Buddha worshiped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities …[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead.”[31].
Zen and the Absolute
A further name for the irreducible, time-and-space-transcending mysterious Truth or Essence of Buddhic Reality spoken of in some Mahayana and tantric texts is the Dharmakaya (Body of Truth). Of this the Zen Buddhist master Sokei-An, says:[38]
… dharmakaya [is] the equivalent of God … The Buddha also speaks of no time and no space, where if I make a sound there is in that single moment a million years. It is spaceless like radio waves, like electric space – intrinsic. The Buddha said that there is a mirror that reflects consciousness. In this electric space a million miles and a pinpoint – a million years and a moment – are exactly the same. It is pure essence … We call it ‘original consciousness’ – ‘original akasha’ – perhaps God in the Christian sense. I am afraid of speaking about anything that is not familiar to me. No one can know what IT is …
The Karandavyuha Sutra presents the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos. A striking feature of Avalokitesvara in this sutra is his creative power, as he is said to be the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities. Dr. Alexander Studholme, in his monograph on the sutra, writes:
‘The sun and moon are said to be born from the bodhisattva’s eyes, Mahesvara [Siva] from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders, Narayana [Vishnu] from his heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his mouth, the earth from his feet and the sky from his stomach.’[47]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi Buddha, who is ‘svayambhu’ (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Dr. Studholme comments: “Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the Adibuddha, or ‘primordial Buddha’, a term that is explicitly said to be synoymous with Svayambhu and Adinatha, ‘primordial lord’.”[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Mr. Yapa, the list is endless.I have given the link, you may refer it to for general knowledge. There is nothing to indicate that Buddhism is even remotely atheist.
Hi Belle,
“That is your twisted logic, hampering you because you have come to a fixed conclusion that Sinhalese are politically quiescent.”
Is it very different from your own logic based on YOUR “fixed conclusion” that the Sinhalese are inherently evil and that the Tamils have always been inherently victims?
“People may not protest at something for various other reasons than political quietism: perhaps they just don’t care about the cause; perhaps the realities of the situation such as the presence of a terrorist force make it impractical to do so. In this instance, I’m suggesting the cause is the latter rather than political acquiescence. To make the claim you do, you need to prove a whole national history of keeping quiet.”
Ok- so in this case, how would you prove the latter and NOT the former for the Tamils regarding the LTTE and its misdeeds?
“What about the development of labour politics and the left-wing movement in your country—does that suggest political quietism to you?”
LOL- Groundviews apparently has addressed this point in a new thread “The pathetic capitulation of the organised Left in Sri Lanka.” UTHR wrote a very incisive critique of “labour politics” in Broken Palmyra, the best I’ve ever come across:
http://www.uthr.org/BP/volume1/Chapter1.htm
If you’re still utterly clueless about the Sinhalese but too proud to admit it to me, you should check out Mick Moore’s “The State and Peasant Politics in Sri Lanka.” You can get it through amazon.
“Political quietism is just your excuse to explain away an ethical lapse, i.e. a majority community not caring about fellow-citizens and justice for minorities.”
You mean like how the Tamils did not care about the Muslim minority being driven out of Jaffna by the Tigers? If you would characterize that as an ethical lapse, then I would agree that the Sinhalese have also been involved in similar ethical lapses.
“Seems you didn’t read the earlier Tamilnet story where they claim that Pooneryn didn’t fall to the SLA but that the LTTE had “relocated” Pooneryn! The more fool you expecting logic and rational action from the LTTE.”
That doesn’t address my point that anti-LTTE demonstrations were able to be held in Jaffna without reprisal, thus negating your argument that it was not safe to hold demonstrations.
“I’m not claiming that they’re utterly alien to each other. Which doesn’t mean that they’re exactly the same either.”
I was thinking of yapa, and probably Professor Heshan as well. But I haven’t gotten the impression that you see how both Sinhalese and Tamils tend to think and do the same dumb things.
“I explained the link between the analogy I provided and the situation we were discussing. Strangely, you cut away that explanation in your citing of my post.”
Yes, and clearly I could not follow.
“Ok. Then how come the SL Tamils did not come out for demonstrations against the LTTE?”
“Why did SL Tamils in Colombo not come out to celebrate the demise of the LTTE? Was it because they did not like the outcome or because they were cowering in fear of violence and humiliation from the Sinhala nationalists?”
Uhh.. why would Sinhala nationalists use violence and humiliation against a Tamil anti-LTTE demonstration?
“You expect a minority community deprived of rights to come out and protest against harm being done to the majority community who are their oppressors?”
So now you understand why the Sinhalese have never protested on behalf of their “Tamil” oppressors?
Perhaps if they had ever felt included and welcomed in the nation, SL Tamils might have demonstrated against LTTE anti-Sinhalese violence.
“ When even educated people like yourself think like this, is it any wonder that SL Tamils have been huddling among themselves all these years?”
See that’s the thing, the Tamils actually have NOT been “huddling among themselves.” Oddly enough this is a Sinhala misperception about Tamils and I’m amazed that you’re repeating it. If anything, the Tamils have been divided along many lines, the pro vs anti-LTTE line only the most recent, and in that sense are hardly the monolithic organized anti-Sri Lanka conspiracy that many Sinhalese make them out to be.
If Sinhalese had a better knowledge of the divisions between Tamils, they wouldn’t have seen them as a threat and things could have turned out differently. On the other hand, if these divisions didn’t exist then the Tamils may not have had to fear the possibility of the Sinhalese exploiting them.
Heshan,
I too was rather shocked to read Mr Yapa say “Buddha vehemently denied the existence of “creator god”. It is the word ‘vehemently’ that caught my eye.
Mr Yapa, the point is, however much you wish it not to be the case, PEOPLE all over the world, at all times in history, have had a strong desire to believe in the existence of ‘higher beings’. The main reason is (1) to answer the question of who put us here (creator) and (2) to appeal to them for our salvation (fixer) and (3) who will take us away and to where (heaven, hell, nirvana).
Again, your position (remember ‘vehemently’?) is more to do with distancing your ‘religious views’ from Christianity than acknowledging the reality of real Buddhism – even to the point of portraying the Buddha to be completely out of touch with the people of his time, and since, as we see that most Buddhists today believe in ‘higher beings’ that can fix things for us (which is their primary need for religion).
The Buddha was agnostic, not atheist.
Dear Longus,
You can’t call something a scientific “theory” if there’s zero correlation with observational evidence and/or zero predictive power. Therefore, BalangodaMan’s question is very valid. Random speculation cannot elevate itself to theory until and unless rigorous methods are adopted. This is one of the reasons the Large Hadron Collider was built in the first place – to make sure the experimental results validate the existence of the hypothesized Higgs-Boson particle. Otherwise, the Higgs-Boson will remain a predicted phenomenon at best.
FYI, all of the theories you mentioned have observational evidence + predictive power. Therefore, it’s quite right to ask: can you provide us the grounds on which you claim the truth of this Buddhist theory?
Longus,
SomewhatDisgusted has written exactly what I was going to say.
Further to what he asked, do we know how the Buddha arrived at his theory? Was it subject to rigorous testing by his peers of his time? (compare this with Archimedes or Pythagoras or Darwin) Do we know why the people who transmitted the theory to us down the ages did so? Why do we *think* they did? Why did people pass it down from generation to generation without challenge? What proof had they seen?
As we said in the other thread … if it cannot withstand scrutiny it is nothing other than religious dogma, it remains ‘speculative’ and items of ‘faith’. Only the faithful will regard these as ‘true’ for reasons of (well!) … faith, superstition, tribal loyalty. The arguments put forward are unconvincing to the rest of us.
(the main, if not ‘only’, supporting reason for accepting the theory of karma, rebirth, nirvana is the belief that the author became ‘omniscient’ …. all-knowing-all-seeing, aka. ‘enlightened’. Which is saying that he became ‘god’ in all but name in this respect. This idea is no different from Jesus’s claim that he is the son of god, and Mohammed’s claim that he had been given the word of god. Consequently, there is no reason why an objective rational person would accept one as valid and the others as not)
Reminder: let’s not introduce the ‘sky is blue’ type of pronouncement (the obvious about the human experience) to validate the fantastic, unproven, unprovable regarding the cosmic order.
With apologies to Belle/Wijayapala. We’re getting miles away from Peace and Reconciliation. However, it appears that the ‘unshakable truth of an ancient religious doctrine’ stands in the way of Peace in SL today and in the future.
If somebody proves that Paticca Samuppada and Pancha Niyama Dharma has zero correlation with observational evidence and/or zero predictive power or it has only random speculations I will become an Atheist what ever he wants, the moment he do so. I challenge anybody to do so if possible. We will see whether thunder will bring cats and dogs.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
Give me a little bit time to respond to you.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“If somebody proves that Paticca Samuppada and Pancha Niyama Dharma has zero correlation with observational evidence and/or zero predictive power or it has only random speculations I will become an Atheist what ever he wants”
(As I said before) The items that are observable and predictable are obvious to even pre-historic people (an exploration and categorisation of ‘human experience’ and an exposition that ’cause has effect’). Much of these two discourses fall into that category.
However, the items that are *speculative* are not observable or predictable (such as, a particular action causes an effect in a completely different unconnected person who may live some time in the future). For example, some of our countrymen have done some really bad things. Are you saying that you can show a predictable outcome in another person (who you will show is ‘actually the same person’) who will be born in (say) 20 years time? Or in 2,000 years time? On some other planet? (Which syllable of ‘observable and predictable’ do you not understand?)
I have earlier suggested a double-blind experiment, where you get one group to follow some religious path and the other group to behave normally (as normal sensible people). Observe the outcome.
LOL! If your previous logic is anything to go by, (I predict that !) you will turn this into a circus where *you* expect *us* to prove to you that no living being has been born in the future in order to pay for the crimes of the past sinner. (Mr Yapa, if that doesn’t happened in the course of this discussion I shall marry a chimpanzee).
(Again, apologies for prolonging this off-topic digression)
B/Woman is the B/Woman because she said Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada has no difference with the concepts of the other religions like Creator God. To become the Man he has to disprove them in an accepted method just as the Creator God was rejected. Without going round and round with loads of meaningless statements, you can directly do it. Why waste lots of energy.
“Maga hondata thiyenam,
Yanna Desath penenam,
Kima bediwala yanne,
Manmula woo ekaku se
My belief is she had never heard of above Doctrines, before we mentioned them in this forum. A woman made of only materials. Poor creature!
Thanks!
Belle, please provide comments on the following articles:
‘India should stop calling Eezham Tamils a minority’
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=32562
Boycott Colombo International Tamil Writers Conference – Tamil Nadu Creativists
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=32549
longus,
The recent theories on the origin of the universe comes closer to the “Buddhist Theory”
I’m only concerned with the Big Bang Theory, not these other “recent” theories, since the Big Bang Theory is still the most widely accepted theory in regards to the origin/creation of the Universe. The singularity is an essential part of the BBT – in fact, it is probably the most important component.
BalangodaMan,
I too was rather shocked to read Mr Yapa say “Buddha vehemently denied the existence of “creator god”. It is the word ‘vehemently’ that caught my eye.
It is my understanding that while most Buddhists don’t believe in a creator god, they believe in certain “beings” that, for all practical purposes, are equivalent to a god. Mr. Yapa is therefore correct that there is no room in Buddhism for a creator god; unfortunately, he is in the deep end on the issue of Buddhism being atheist.
Dear BalangodaMan,
“We’re getting miles away from Peace and Reconciliation.”
Thank you, I entirely agree.
“However, it appears that the ‘unshakable truth of an ancient religious doctrine’ stands in the way of Peace in SL today and in the future.”
There are a number of problems with that statement. Firstly there already is “peace” in SL although we can all agree it is not a desirable peace. Thus the question should be “where is this peace going?”
Secondly, I entirely disagree that the ‘unshakable truth of an ancient religious doctrine’ is an obstacle for the future, let alone a cause for the “ethnic conflict.” I trace this conflict primarily to an incorrect and ignorant Sinhala perception of the Tamils that began around independence and may have strengthened during the war. I told this to yapa but then you derailed the discussion by bringing in religion.
This fantasy that secularism is the panacea for all the current problems is not too different from the thinking of Westerners that the solution to the problems in the Islamic world is to encourage secularism and support secular-minded leaders, regardless of how unpopular they or their views are. Since the Westerners, like you, do not really view education as the solution (esp given the low social position of teachers in western society), it is not surprising that the only access to education that many Muslims receive is from Saudi-funded madrassas which preach hatred and violence. So much for the “war on terror.”
Is this what you all mean by secularism?
Proposed 18th Amendment is grave threat to democracy and good governance-National Christian Council
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/09/proposed_18th_amendment_is_gra.html
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “Is this what you all mean by secularism?
Proposed 18th Amendment is grave threat to democracy and good governance-National Christian Council”
Secularism cannot prevent religious people from holding political views. It can however, explicitly prevent the *government* from acting to appease religious sects and/or give the govt. an escape route in avoiding religious rubbish sneaking into government. Consider for example, the american constitution preventing the teaching of “intelligent design” or forcing prayer on children during school.
I agree with you however, that education is the key to many problems!! This means teachers need to be paid roughly 5 to 10 times the salary they are being paid right now, so as to attract the best candidates.
I still remember my history teacher taught us the Mahavamsa version of history with Tamil Hordes intent on destroying the glorious Sinhala Buddhist civilization in a classic Yapaesque version of history. Where do you propose we find teachers to replace them? How do you propose to battle the religious paranoia that’s instilled into children at a young age? Why do you conclude that religion too does not play a factor here, considering that it’s inextricably intertwined with Sinhalese identity (at least for most)? And how do you propose to do any of this without instilling a concept of secularism and the equality of man?
Dear Heshan;
“You did a stunning job of completely avoiding my questions.”
Please tell me precisely the questions of yours I have avoided answering, so that I can re-answer them. Anyway I have seen a complete shift of the topic in your last posts addressed to you. Do you really think it is not so?
Thanks!
Heshan
As I explained earlier the “singularity” in the Big Bang theory is neither a requirement nor a component. It has been discarded by physicists with the advent of the “quantum gravity” theories. The same thing happened to the supposed singularity in a Black Hole with the discovery that the entropy of a black hole is increasing.
Your holding onto the singularity – with the hope of proving your Creator! – is akin to hanging on to that “ether” theory which was believed to be a requirement for the transmission of electro-magnetic waves, before Einstein! And your refusal to see beyond the “singularity” is another proof of your “intellectual bigotry”!
Amen!
Dear BalangodaMan & somewhatdisgusted
Yes you have a point there. As I have mentioned in my earlier posts ” founders of ancient religions (most of them were very good men) only had “their moments of brilliance”. On the backdrop of the time they lived this becomes remarkable, but at the same time these ideas cannot be tested in “objective experiments” as they were not supposed to have been uttered in that context. Especially Buddha’s discourses on the composition of the galaxies and the super clusters can be taken as “unexplainable knowledge” considering the time period he lived and the theories about the universe the rest of the world held at that time – unless of course, the whole thing is coincidental speculation!
Not only Buddha, even the ancient Mayans had such an advanced knowledge of the universe, when the rest of the world was crawling far behind, that their source of knowledge is puzzling. They not only knew that the sun is in the centre of our solar system, but also knew exactly when the centre of our GALAXY aligns with the sun! All these cannot be discarded as mere speculation, as they are so accurate!
This is the frontier of science that we still haven’t embarked on and such ancient knowledge remains to be explored; without bias.
Prof Heshan
“I’m only concerned with the Big Bang Theory”
I previously gave you not only Big Bang, but Big Crunch and Evolution as well, all in one Sutta! Unfortunately you were too tongue-tied to reply. Can Jesus top that?
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/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.
“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…”
SD
“It can however, explicitly prevent the *government* from acting to appease religious sects”
So you support Mahinda ignoring the National Christian Council?
“I still remember my history teacher taught us the Mahavamsa version of history with Tamil Hordes intent on destroying the glorious Sinhala Buddhist civilization in a classic Yapaesque version of history.”
Did you actually read the Mahavamsa in your history class or a textbook that claimed to paraphrase the Mahavamsa? I had a textbook that did not mention Vijaya and his supporters getting wives from Tamil Nadu or Elara’s bell- key omissions from the real deal.
“And how do you propose to do any of this without instilling a concept of secularism and the equality of man?”
A number of people have suggested scrapping the ethnically-divided school system that encourages closed-door racism. But before this can be done, a new curriculum and new textbooks have to be created which actually teach history.
longus,
The Big Bang Theory is not possible without a singularity. You cannot discard the singularity. I don’t care about quantum gravity theories, as the Big Bang Theory is still more widely accepted and popular than any other theory in regards to the creation of the Universe – a fact which you seem to conveniently ignore. I suggest you stop claiming that the Big Bang Theory is possible without a singularity, unless you can back up your claim with a valid reference (other than quantum gravity).
Big Bang vs. other theories:
The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.[5][6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Dear Yapa:
Please tell me precisely the questions of yours I have avoided answering, so that I can re-answer them.
I asked you to state explicitly from the Pali Canon when and where Buddha denied the existence of God. It seems you are unable to do this, and now are hiding behind corners to avoid the issue altogether. Also, you have tried to make a case that Buddhism denies the existence of God, when in fact, most Buddhists are venerating Buddha (equivalent to God-status) and/or worshiping higher beings that are equivalent to God.
Somewhat Disgusted:
I still remember my history teacher taught us the Mahavamsa version of history with Tamil Hordes intent on destroying the glorious Sinhala Buddhist civilization in a classic Yapaesque version of history. Where do you propose we find teachers to replace them? How do you propose to battle the religious paranoia that’s instilled into children at a young age? Why do you conclude that religion too does not play a factor here, considering that it’s inextricably intertwined with Sinhalese identity (at least for most)? And how do you propose to do any of this without instilling a concept of secularism and the equality of man?
Excellent post – and thanks for your honesty. You are spot on that the undue racial theories begin with the teaching of Mahavamsa in the lower standards. In the larger context, I would say its probably impossible to teach Mahavamsa to vulnerable youngsters without instilling some kind of nationalist sentiment. After all, at that age, the sensationalist aspects are what they will remember most. Stuff like Dutugemunu slaying Elara, and Dutugemunu *lamenting* that on one side is the sea, and the other the Tamils.
longus,
specially Buddha’s discourses on the composition of the galaxies and the super clusters can be taken as “unexplainable knowledge” considering the time period he lived and the theories about the universe the rest of the world held at that time – unless of course, the whole thing is coincidental speculation!
Not only Buddha, even the ancient Mayans had such an advanced knowledge of the universe, when the rest of the world was crawling far behind, that their source of knowledge is puzzling.
The problem is that neither Buddha nor the Mayans wrote down a single mathematical equation to back up their claims. Without a sound mathematical foundation, any claim amounts to mere speculation and is not a proven theory. What did Buddha actually prove related to science? Absolutely nothing. There is no scientific theory of rebirth, karma, nibbana, etc. The Mayans at least had a counting system and an accurate calendar so we can say they were somewhat advanced – but which ancient civilization did not have those?
“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.’
Pseudo-science at its best! I nominate the author of the above for the “Nobel Fool’s Prize.”
Unfortunately the Nobel Fool forgot to mention gases, so there is no correlation to the Big Bang. Contraction and singularity are not the same thing.
Dear Longus
RE: “specially Buddha’s discourses on the composition of the galaxies and the super clusters can be taken as “unexplainable knowledge””
Can you please give a reference to these passages so I can judge for myself? What I’ve seen so far, especially with regard to scientific truth in the Agganna sutta, is confirmation bias and subjective validation in action. 99% of the Agganna sutta consist of misses, with an out-of-context, 1% hit being given prominence. Interpreted this way, even Nostradamus was omniscient. We’ve already discussed it at length in that epic previous thread. These are well-understood cognitive biases, I don’t understand why anyone would choose to ignore them.
RE: “All these cannot be discarded as mere speculation, as they are so accurate!”
While I agree that these should be investigated as best as we can, that doesn’t mean these people were omniscient or had access to magical knowledge. They too may have figured things out in exactly the same way we did, or it may have been pure speculation. I mean, Eratosthenes even measured the circumference of the earth to astonishing accuracy and Aristarchus presented the first known heliocentric model of the universe. We know that wasn’t omniscience because we also know how they arrived at those figures. The problem with the Mayans is, we aren’t so sure how they came about the figures. But why would anyone be tempted to assign a supernatural explanation to it? That would be falling prey to the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Further, probability does not favour supernatural explanations.
As for the Buddha, I’m yet to see a statement made by him that conclusively proves any kind of omniscience or conclusively demonstrates knowledge inconceivable in his time. All attempts to elevate him to this status of omniscience seems more a result of wishful thinking than actual fact.
So far, magical omniscience ranks low on my list of possible explanations for Mayan knowledge or the Buddha’s knowledge. I am quite eager to listen to contrary evidence as long as it’s convincing.
Dear Longus,
Just to clarify. I’m not suggesting that you believe magic is the answer, unlike some other people on this forum. It’s clear that you are reasonably critical minded on this topic and that’s precisely what drives you to entertain the possibility of omniscience as an answer. What I’m trying to do is to show that the precise opposite is also entirely, if not more, plausible.
One of the reasons I believe that many people are willing to entertain these notions is because we should be open-minded about different possibilities. We should indeed be! But being open-minded about something and actually believing in something that’s pretty unlikely, as Mr. Yapa is doing, is not the same thing IMO.
For example, Mr. Yapa believes that the Buddha actually flew through the air and placed an elephantine footprint on top of some obscure mountain in a little known island because the Buddha foresaw that this island would be the sacred refuge of Buddhism for the rest of eternity. And Mr. Yapa takes his holy duty seriously, which is why he battles us “decadent western conspirators” ceaselessly. That’s also why any discussion with him inevitably turned into parallel monologues – after all his “holy duty” was always crystal clear and no further discussion was ever needed.
Normally, people who believed things like that would be institutionalized without delay. But as it so happens, when it’s a “religious” belief, such a thing is considered quite “normal”. It’s no different to the fact that it’s quite respectable to say you are having a conversation with God, but the moment you say you are having a conversation with Zeus, people would think you are a bit off the deep-end.
Being unable to separate fact from fiction is at the heart of the matter. That’s what drives one to believe that the bronze age myths of camel herders written down in the Bible is the gospel truth or to think that the Mahavamsa alone is the unerring chronicle of Sri Lankan history or that the Tripitaka represents the pinnacle of human knowledge. All of this because human beings are pattern seeking mammals, chock full of cognitive biases and while that pattern seeking may have helped us in the Savannahs of Africa, in more modern times, they misfire a bit too often for comfort. Not being aware or willing to confront our own cognitive biases is one of the biggest issues confronting us.
Outdated Newtonian Science and Lamentation of Western Soul made in East
The tide of the “Scientific Revolution” started rising in the 14th century in Europe, with the help of capital formed on wealth robbed from all over the globe and the stolen knowledge originated in ancient civilizations like Greece. Hundred of great civilizations, and millions of innocent lives of the people and hundreds of peaceful societies were sent to guillotine to build up that “modern civilization” came up in Europe. American continent, Australia and many other countries were forcibly grabbed from their real owners and demographic composition of many countries were manipulated as their greedy wish and planted time bombs in those countries in the name of that revolution. If you want to know what damage they have done to the sentiments of such people please go through You can see the consequences of that “time bomb” of those colonials in this country, just by going through the misery we had to face during the last thirty years. You can think of the massive destruction they have done to the whole world to the humankind, in the name of this revolution, on the basis of our bitter experience taken place in our country. But for our slaves who have got a chance to lick a left over bone of colonials think “Colonials are Creator Gods” and we have/ had nothing significant/valuable in our societies. They bark at everything if it is local and wag the tail and lick any bloody thing if it is of their foreign masters. These people are no different than three blind mice that run after that woman even after she cut their tails with a carving knife.
“Three blind mice, three blind mice,
See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the farmer’s wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
As three blind mice?”
It is said that slaves tend to cultivate love for their iron chains that are used to tie them to their iron cages.
It is with this slave mentality that they worship every nook and corner of outdated western science and bark even at a little dust of local values, not with any understanding.
I challenge they neither knows Science nor any other valuable knowledge originated at any part of the world. These primitive women, as suggested by their names with their swollen headed accomplices can only do are barking, wagging tails and licking the left over bones. They know nothing more than that.
Really the origin of western science was in Greece in Europe or any other so called developed country. Then the Science was developed as a philosophy that did not have “subjective interests”. Then Science or (Natural) Philosophy was catered only for the interest of philosophy itself, and developed on the basis of Inductive Logic, which gave accurate conclusions. Then it was only a rational exercise, which was totally confined to rational intellects, not to each and every nitwit who have learnt science from science fictions.
However, with the acceptance of the knowledge gained through “Inductive Logic” in Europe “Science” started to develop with leaps and bounces though it lost its “academic interest”. The focus of Science shifted from quality to quantity in Europe with the giving up of the accuracy and precision from its focal point. That is how”Empiricism” was introduced to Science as its main progressing drive. With the influence of Judeo- Christian Tradition and the interests to grab the world for resources, the Science changed its direction of progress and grown as a enormous giant whose shadow covered the whole world. Every other thing in the world disappeared in the dazzling light of this New Science and Science (Newtonian Science) itself believed that everything in the universe could be explained through in a mechanical way (Newtonian Mechanics), and further believed that anything other than Science is not necessary to realize every thing in the universe. So the “Believers” or every “Scientific Nitwit”, started to give “beatings” blindly to each and everything even looking at them. Now the era of Newtonian Science has lapsed, still these “believers “are hanged on to that outdated science and barking in ignorance to every leaf fallen from the sky. God! Please forgive these ignorant women.
Science has become a mighty genie in Europe and gave them whatever they thought of, though it had a monstrous heart. It brought many perils to the people of the other parts of the world. However, it should be noted that the acceptance of “Inductive Logic or “Empirical Method” as a tool in Science, paved the way to a massive development of it we are witnessing today. If we did not accept it as a “Methodology” in 14th century and confined to perfect “Deductive Logic” of Ancient Greece, alone, still we would have been using bullock carts in the place of Mercedes Benz. So the real change taken place in Europe took place when it accepted a new methodology to Science. This shows that new innovations in methodologies can revolutionize Science.
I think such an initiative is in the vicinity, in my view at present. Even, with the new methodology, introduced in Europe, Science shies away from other forms of knowledge and limited its scope only to objective ( in real sense it was not objective after inductive logic was introduced to it in Europe) material areas. Science was blind in non material and subjective areas of knowledge. Science had no guarantee that only the knowledge areas within its scope are true and correct, but it is only a blind belief of “superficial science believers”. In subjective areas too there is true an correct knowledge, as I have mentioned in my personal experience of “Horoscope Phenomenon”, only problem is there is no methodology in Science to accept this truth. It is a shortcoming in Science, though “believers” will think that science is perfect. So, I believe that if this short coming in Science is avoided or treated properly the third phase of Science would stat in 21st century, as the 2nd phase was started in Europe. This would give access to neglected repositories of knowledge looking forward to come up to serve the world. This new knowledge at least would tame the heartless monster Science developed after 14th century.
However, still there is a problem. The souls of the believers of that deterministic Science, is trembling in fear when we talk about something progressive, which will level a threat to their belief system. They know nothing other than this, for the survival of their souls other than worshiping the old mythologies developed seven centuries ago in Europe.We have heard of the Lamentation of Grey Pigeon (Alu Kobeyyage valapilla) when we were small. We should not be shaken by the lamentations of these ignorant women: the caravan will progress despite the barks and howls of the ignorant dogs.
Thanks!
.
Correction…….
“If you want to know what damage they have done to the sentiments of such people please go through”
Should be corrected as
“If you want to know what damage they have done to the sentiments of such people please go through Red Indian Chief Seattle’s letter sent to the white sahibs.”
Thanks!
correction….
Really the origin of western science was in Greece in Europe or any other so called developed country.
Should be corrected as
Really the origin of western science was in Greece,and not in Europe or any other so called developed country.
Thanks!
“Mr. Yapa believes that the Buddha actually flew through the air……..”
Flew through air…………?
Please learn to use proper wording to respect respected things. You have no knowledge of such small etiquettes even, while worshiping the winds coming from the west? Don’t be a material cynic. Understand the sentiments.
Thanks!
“For example, Mr. Yapa believes that the Buddha actually flew through the air and placed an elephantine footprint on top of some obscure mountain in a little known island because the Buddha foresaw that this island would be the sacred refuge of Buddhism for the rest of eternity.”
You should not think on behalf of me.
I will say what I think. You have no counter arguments for what I say. That is why you create things what I have never said as as I sad.
Please quote my writing when you criticize my ideas. You are very famous for beating straw men.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala
RE: “So you support Mahinda ignoring the National Christian Council?”
The issue was not a religious one and I think you get that. I also think you understand the purpose of a secular constitution. The same safeguards will be available to *all* religions to protect themselves from each other’s madness. I also think Mahinda Mama’s dynasty is worrying and the personality cult around him even more worrying. The apparent attitude that the purpose of a constitution is to revolve around a single personality or one’s favourite party, is a testament to the depth of the problem.
RE: “Did you actually read the Mahavamsa in your history class or a textbook that claimed to paraphrase the Mahavamsa? I had a textbook that did not mention Vijaya and his supporters getting wives from Tamil Nadu or Elara’s bell- key omissions from the real deal.”
I think you’re right here. I should have written my sentence as “Mahavamsa based” history. I acknowledge your point that the Mahavamsa itself is being twisted to to suit the ends of some. But still, we can’t deny that it is the source they use to “justify” their beliefs, whether or not that justification is warranted. It’s no different to the Christians using the Bible to justify homophobia while selectively ignoring the misogyny and passages on slavery. I also agree with you that this in no way invalidates the Mahavamsa and disagree with Heshan is he thinks it does. The only thing it requires is that it not be treated as the gospel truth but merely a historical chronicle from a certain perspective.
I don’t recall the story of Elara’s bell being taught, although the fact that Elara was a just king was mentioned somewhere I think. I can’t recall exactly whether Wijaya getting brides was mentioned, although other kings doing so were mentioned. My actual critique was not even on the books in use, but the perspective that the teachers were giving it!
RE: “A number of people have suggested scrapping the ethnically-divided school system that encourages closed-door racism. But before this can be done, a new curriculum and new textbooks have to be created which actually teach history.”
That’s of course a very good idea, to paraphrase Ghandi, except for the Yapas who will protest saying that the actual history is the bastardization and “their” history is the real thing, devoid of interference from evil decadent conspirators hell-bent on spreading western hegemony in order to undermine the glorious, unparalleled civilization of the Sinhalese. How do you deal with that?
Dear Heshan,
RE: “You are spot on that the undue racial theories begin with the teaching of Mahavamsa in the lower standards. In the larger context, I would say its probably impossible to teach Mahavamsa to vulnerable youngsters without instilling some kind of nationalist sentiment. After all, at that age, the sensationalist aspects are what they will remember most. Stuff like Dutugemunu slaying Elara, and Dutugemunu *lamenting* that on one side is the sea, and the other the Tamils.”
Please see my reply to Wijayapala. I don’t believe that how the Mahavamsa is “interpreted” by some necessarily invalidates its content. Anything can be twisted to support some ideology, but that doesn’t mean that the source itself is entirely wrong. The Mahavamsa contains historical facts interwoven with myth and legend. It is the duty of the historian to tease them apart.
But the fact that it contains myth and legend doesn’t mean it’s wrong in its entirety, especially when certain facts have been cross-checked and bear historical accuracy. What I would entertain is not blind prejudice against the Mahavamsa, but a protest against misusing the Mahavamsa to justify racism. No historical chronicle, no matter how grand, can justify racism, jingoism and cultural stereotyping and that’s what the Yapa’s of this world don’t have the IQ to understand.
Mr Yapa,
“Flew through air…………?”
Are you saying that you do not believe that the Buddha came to SL three times by air, and on one of those occasions he placed a rather large footprint on top of a hill, and decreed on his deathbed that the island of SL would be the guardian of his teachings in its purest form for eternity?
Which part of this, specifically, don’t you believe?
‘Women’
———-
Why is it that, when you refer to anyone in derogatory terms, you refer to them as ‘women’?
Parallel monologues
——————–
Which part(s) of anything I or SomewhatDisgusted has written has had the biggest impact on changing the way you understand things?
correction……….
Then Science or (Natural) Philosophy was catered only for the interest of philosophy itself, and developed on the basis of Inductive Logic………
Here “inductive Logic” should be corrected as “deductive Logic”
Thanks!
Jokers who have no knowledge to discuss deep doctrines of Buddhism in depth and in details at a micro level, humiliate asking naive and gross questions like, did Buddha fly to Sri Lanka through air, how Buddha placed a rather large footprint on top of a hill? etc. .. etc.. . Any fool can kept on asking any amount of such unending questions about any Science or Philosophy so that any scholar cannot prove or convince anything in them. That does not represent the cleverness of the questioner or it does not say anything about the inferiority of the particular subject or its credibility. The gross questioners might think that they are too clever preventing answerers establishing anything on the subject. But they are mistaken. That is why I suggested to take some doctrine like ” Dhammapadaya” and analyse and apply literary criticism in detail going down to its depth to see whether it has lapses, deficiencies or contradictions. How can anybody reject anything on the basis of just created suspicions on the macro level? If anybody who says old religion has no substance to the today’s world, I challenge directly to come for a in depth debate on “Dhammapada” or “Pancha Niyama Dharma” together with Paticca Samuppada. Any body can ask questions , but not general questions or speculative questions or just imaginations, but the questions based on the details of the subject area. Is anybody ready?
I challenge anybody without just uttering general questions that can be raised on any subject to raise subject specific questions and analyse any doctrine and show the lapses. Without doing so, anybody can just brand anything as they want. Would anybody like to analyze “Dhammapadaya” to see the consistency of Buddhism? Can you bold guys analyse a few stanzas and show us some short comings in them. Open invitation/challenge to brave critiques of Buddhism.
WRT, Heshan’s comments on my last posts to addressed to him, I have critically shown that the not necessity or redundancy or irrelevance of the “Creator God” concept to describe the nature of the universe, which he had been trying to emphasize as mandatory. Further, when he questioned I showed that Buddha has rejected that concept and explained the reasons as to why people fall into that wrong view. Further, I have shown how “Avyakatha Status” exactly fit the “First Question” from where the universe came into being. After that Heshan, is telling I have not answered his questions. Then what Heshan has to do is to expose the errors of my arguments, not grossly telling I have not answered his questions and running away. Heshan, do you accept my arguments or not? If not show them with reasons.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“I asked you to state explicitly from the Pali Canon when and where Buddha denied the existence of God. It seems you are unable to do this, and now are hiding behind corners to avoid the issue altogether. Also, you have tried to make a case that Buddhism denies the existence of God, when in fact, most Buddhists are venerating Buddha (equivalent to God-status) and/or worshiping higher beings that are equivalent to God.”
1. Aggañña Sutta is the 27th Sutta of Digha Nikaya collections.
You can take the Pali Canon and directly read it.
2. I have disproved the creator God Concept, showed that that it is unnecessary, irrelevant and redundant to explain the origin of the universe. I have never had a problem about the existence of other types of gods as I could not disprove them. Further, I think you understand the position that somebody’s acceptance acceptance Buddha as God does not make him a god. He has very clearly said that he is a human being who realized the nature of the world. Further, I have repeatedly told you that I am arguing for Buddhist doctrines and not rituals. Buddha has never asked to perform aimless rituals. Please limit your scope to doctrines, specially Theravada doctrines in the discussion with me. I Am not responsible for other versions I have no fair knowledge about them.
OK! Now I gave the answers, for the your questions you said I avoided.
Now precisely, respond to my points and the queries raised in my posts.
Thanks!
“Why is it that, when you refer to anyone in derogatory terms, you refer to them as ‘women’?”
Women is your plural.
Thanks!
I don’t like SomewhatDisgusted’s “wahen oro”, I prefer ohen waro”.
Thanks!
To start the discussion with a stanza from Dhammapada I would like to propose the following for the kind attention of the Buddhist Doctrine critiques.
“Sabbe thasanthi dandassa,
Sabbe bhayanthi maccuno,
Aththano upaman kathva,
Nahaneyyana Ghathaye ”
If somebody says that as the teaching of olden day people is not required to fix the computer, this stanza has no any validity in the modern day or it acts as counter to the present day modern norms, please be kind enough to show it.
Meaning of the stanza is,
“All fear , punishment to all life is dear. Comparing oneself with others , one should neither kill or cause to kill”.
If anybody says this is outdated, please be kind enough to reason out.
Gossiping women and accomplices are invited start to prove their case.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
I have asked for the direct quote where he (Buddha) denies the existence of God. I have not asked for the name of the sutra. The burden of proof is on you not me, since I do not consider myself an authority on Buddhism, such as you are (or claim to be).
I have never had a problem about the existence of other types of gods as I could not disprove them.
Well if you believe in gods then you believe in “a” god as well, because you believe in at least one god. If I give you four bananas, you have at least one banana. Therefore, I can say you have a banana, even though you may have four bananas. Now, it is rather clever to accept these other gods exist but not a creator god. The question is, who created these creator gods? Were they created at all, or are they simply a manifestation of the same god? As a Buddhist, you are simply assuming the existence of many gods, without any regard to their origin. That is not very different from assuming the existence of a Creator God, without any regard to the origin.
Heshan
By not wanting to listen to qantum mechanics at the beginning of the universe, don’t you know that you are rejecting one of the key pillars on which modern science stands?
You question Yapa, whether he doesn’t want to believe in some Pali canons which describe the “worlds of gods”, and unwittingly you your self fall into the same predicament by refusing to accept one of the key aspect of science, don’t you?
Don’t you know that the classical theories break down when it comes to small scale of things? And that you can’t apply Newtonian physics when it comes to atoms and particles? The beginning of the universe was one such small scale event where quantum mechanics operate!
As far as your gospel, wikipedia is concerned you can go to the following sites and educate yourself;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ultimate-fate-of-the-universe
and also:
http://universe-review.ca/F02-cosmicbg.html
under Quantum cosmology and pre Big Bang theories
Still the classical Big Bang theory is discribed in the sites I gave you before the more modern theories are described mainly because the experimental evidence for the latter is still forthcoming. Some are in the mathematical formula stage only. As for the theory of “dark energy”, extensive research ic being done and it it likely that a “fifth force” will be discovered soon in the form of “Dark Energy”. As for the quantum theories of the Big Bang, eminant physicists like Steven Hawking are working on them because a singularity in your classical Big Bang theory leaves many un-answered questions. As for the string theory, as it awaits experimental evidence, the idea is to explain many un explained observations.
“The problem is that Buddha or the Mayans never wrote down a single mathematical formula to back up their claims”
Do you find any mathematical equations written down by Jesus or any of the previous prophets to claim that there was a creation? Aren’t you in the same quandary in believing the creator?
Dear SomeWhatDisgusted
As for the sutras where a model of the universe that is close to the modern concept is described I can quote “Maha Sihanaada Sutra”. The model described here is a universe which goes and on with structures within even bigger structures. This may not fit exactly what the modern science knows, but the core concept is the same. and I wiould give it a 75% similarity.
I DO NOT THINK THAT “MAGIC” IS INVOLVED IN THE ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAYANS OR OTHER ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS, eventhough they might have “practiced magic”!
Well, it may be some source of knowledge which they had access to. May be the extra terrestrials who visited here! To simplyfy some of the more puzzling aspects of their knowledge (for example the Mayans did not have a written language,in spite of their arstronomical achievements; they had a complex counting consisted of “knots” called “kiphu”, and now research are being conducted as to know whether these knots carried much more than a counting system)
It’s impossible according to many researchers that such knowledge originated in the normal process of trial and error, as sits beyond their day to day requirements-who wants to know the centre of our galaxy if it doesn’t feed them?- So, all this is apeculative science,but maybe our narrow scope of science still cannot see the things that lie just beyond its scope!
Yapa
The stanza you quote from the Dhammapada is quite interesting, although I’m at a loss as to how it could in anyway help someone to repair his computer! I appreciate if you could explain it to me.
Such teachings are commom in all religions and it doesn’t make an extra-ordinary reading! Those are the good things that the religions have done to the world – apart from the many bad things by the followers!
Whether Buddha arrived in Sri Lanka by “air”-meaning ;re-materilizing himself by means of meditative prowess, is a valid question. As a believer of the Buddha’s super-human powers you are well entitled to believe so, but at the same time you become no different from a catholic who believes in the miracles of Jesus or his resurrection. Questioning the size of Buddha’s alleged foot print on Sri Pada is also valid question, as the same question arose in me when I went to the summit of this beautiful mountain as a kid. The answer that my late grand mother gave me was that the real foot print in hidden under the outer rock! So I was wondering as to why anybody didn’t venture to unearth it so far, as it would have been an invaluble evidence for the Buddha’s visit to Sri Lanka!
Is it because the blind faith-which Buddha rejected- has taken over our rational minds after a phylosophy became a religion?
Behold
I didn’t do it guys, althought you always suspected me of doing it! That’s why you always find fault with me when you forget to take your wallet and say, “oh! God!”
Dear Mr. Yapa,
You were asked several direct and pointed questions, which you evaded blithely. Let me jog your memory.
1. Do you or do you not believe that
a. The Buddha flew through the air, fluttered through the wind, teleported, dematerialized/rematerialized, astrally projected himself, beamed himself through Scottie, used a flux capacitor or whatever you’d prefer to call it, and visited Sri Lanka on at least 3 occasions?
b. That on one such occasion, he placed a gigantic footprint on a hill in Sri Lanka?
c. That he said the Sinhala-Buddhists were the holy guardians of Buddhism and it was their sacred duty to preserve it for future generations?
2. Why do you call someone a woman when you wish to speak in derogatory terms about him? Please don’t give us rubbish answers about plural forms and insult the intelligence of others on this forum. Give us direct, pointed answers.
At least earn some precious Karmic points for honesty, even if you get none for intelligence.
—
As for your repeated lamentation about the Dhammapada. Mr. Yapa, please try to display at least a modicum of intelligence without demonstrating to the rest of the world that a typical Buddhist might be nothing but a brain-dead, scripture spouting muppet. You are taking some philosophical statement about not killing people and then using that to claim the truth of the whole of Buddhism? Are you serious or merely trying to hoodwink the readers of this forum?
No one has challenged the moral philosophy of the Buddha, as that’s not *relevant*. What we’ve repeatedly asked you to do is to verify the *supernatural claims*. Is this difficult to understand in any way? Are you going to believe Newton’s alchemy because he was right about his laws of motion? If not, why do you believe in the Buddha’s stories about Kamma Rebirth and Nirvana because he was right about his moral philosophy?
Seriously, a lack of intelligence can be excused, but deliberate dishonesty and wasting people’s time to carry out holy duties will not be appreciated by anyone. Which is it?
longus,
Why quote from third-rate websites? There is no contradiction between the Big Bang Theory and Quantum Mechanics; this is simply your ridiculous opinion.
http://pirsa.org/08120001/
Quantum Nature of the Big bang in Simple Models.
Abhay Ashtekar
Perimeter video with slides PDF
3 December 2008
“According to general relativity, space-time ends at singularities and classical physics just stops. In particular, the big bang is regarded as The Beginning. However, general relativity is incomplete because it ignores quantum effects. Through simple models, I will illustrate how the quantum nature of space-time geometry resolves the big bang singularity. Quantum physics does not stop there. Indeed, quantum space-times can be vastly larger than what general relativity had us believe, with unforeseen physical effects in the deep Planck regime.”
It’s a well-organized informative talk giving an up-to-date picture of quantum cosmology research into the process surrounding the big bang. Ashtekar is a leader in this field and a mentor to others. He knows most of the people involved and what the latest results are. However he talks fast, so you may need to listen to some parts over again.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=277442
Still the classical Big Bang theory is discribed in the sites I gave you before the more modern theories are described mainly because the experimental evidence for the latter is still forthcoming
Hahahaha… do you mean like STRING THEORY which is considered pseudo-science by 95% of the physics community? You can’t disprove either the Big Bang Theory nor the singularity, no matter how hard you try. Pointing to *future* theories only shows your desperation.
Do you find any mathematical equations written down by Jesus or any of the previous prophets to claim that there was a creation? Aren’t you in the same quandary in believing the creator?
Jesus never claimed to be a scientist or an expositor of any kind of mathematical logic, so your argument in that regard lacks any basis. In any case, whatever knowledge Buddha had (other than his psychological theories) were taken directly from Vedas so Buddhism cannot make any claim to originality. Furthermore, I have already demonstrated that Buddha never denied the existence of a creator god. He was simply “silent” on the issue… no one has ever been able to disprove the existence of God, which is why the non-existence/existence argument never ends.
“In any case, whatever knowledge Buddha had (other than his psychological theories) were taken directly from Vedas so Buddhism cannot make any claim to originality.”
Unless Prof Heshan can provide evidence that the Buddha drew his knowledge from the Vedas, we unfortunately will have to treat his claims as his typical Christian fundamentalist lunatic raving.
Heshan,
You asked Mr Yapa
“I have asked for the direct quote where he (Buddha) denies the existence of God.”
In the unlikely even that Mr Yapa does not respond to your request let me (dutifully!) jump to his defence.
It is true that the scriptures acknowledge a world of gods. This is however not inconsistent with the statement that ‘the Buddha vehemently denied the existence of God’. This is because the existence of a ‘world’ of gods does not necessarily imply that that world has any gods in it. LOL!
Mr Yapa,
The essential point about this god-or-no-god things is, in my feeble ‘woman-like’ observation I have noticed that most people would like to think that there *is* a god (except those intelligent people who prefer to take a realistic and rational view in this regard). So much so that even when their cherished religious leader says there isn’t one (vehemently) they would prefer to ignore that and go with the ‘there is a god, not one but many’ fantasy. They have even promoted the cherished religious leader, in defiance of his own pronouncements, to the status of a god and regard him as always having been one, fully paid-up and card carrying.
Doesn’t this look as if Buddhists in SL in general have rejected the teachings of Buddhism in favour of more of a Hindu belief system? So much for the duty as guardians of Theravada Buddhism! Or is this also a despicable western conspiracy?
(I know you Mr Yapa prefer to disregard the ritualistic aspects of the religion, but that also is additional evidence of the above I think)
Mr Yapa,
To add to the excellent observations of my woman-like western co-conspirators (LOL!) you have so far come out with 2 key reasons for choosing one religious ideology above all others.
viz.
(1) all things are caused by many other things and that they can be grouped into 5 broad groups.
and (2) that harming another is not a decent thing to do.
I’m sure many of the ‘undecideds’ coming across this thread as well as hardened non-believers will immediately head towards the nearest fashion store for their yellow robes and announce that they won’t be home for dinner any more.
Heshan my child
So you are happy with your singularity and you think it is Me! OK, child think for a moment that I was that singularity who created the universe, but do you expect Me to listen to all your teary eyed complaints of how you lost at the stock market, how you lost your girl friend in the college and why you cheated on your wife and find solutions for you? Do you think I have time to grant your wishs for a 16 wheel Limosine, and a condo in the suburbs?
I sent my servants to look after my orchad on earth. My children -the spoilt brats they are- humiliated and tied them. Then I sent my own son Isa and what did you people do to him? You sinners crucified him! See what happened to you after that! You lost your promised land. This may imply that only the Jews are my children! I don’t want to comment on that!
Then I sent you Heshan, to preach the Gospel with a modern touch. See what the sinners of the calibre Wijayapala, Yapa, and Longus did to you? They stretched your nurones to the breaking point and I can see your agony in trying to defend Me and My existence!
You will be definitely looked after well when you come here, son. You will be given my left side seat to eat your divine “wafers”
Those sinners will be put to the eternal flames of hell
Address me by my “name” when you write…
Heshan
Good that you talk about quantum mechanics at the beginning of the universe. What are those quantum fluctuations anyway? Those created the subsequent ripples which turned into galaxies. The moment of the “big Bang” itself is another such quantum fluction of a greater magnitude. So ultimately you are there!
The uncertainty principle states that the position of a particle cannot be a “single point” in space time, because in that case it will have a definite position,thus violates the principle. So what does this conclusion lead us to? A biginning without a “singularity” only!
Further, does this singularity or your God has a “mind” in order to intervene with the earthlings and answer their prayers? Doesn’t this line of thinking takes you to the same abyss of ignorance as believing in the “myths” of Mahawansa?
In your response to Yapa you have told that believing in many “gods” in Buddhism is equivalant to believing in a singlr creator god, and you have given the example of four bananas. Your argument was if you have 4, you invariably have 1!
But the bananas you gave the monkey are “clay” bananas that the monkey can’t eat! Though they look similar the creator God is worlds apart from the “beings of higher planes”. If we ebncounter aliens of higher intelligence can we call them “a creator God’?
Yapa
The basic features (thrilakshana) in of all aggregates according to Buddhism are “impermanance”,-anitta- “suffering”-dukka-and “soulless nature”-anatta. Out of these three “impermanance” stirs the curiosity of a rational mind. Why does things change? Buddha doesn’t give a straight answer to this apart from saying that it is the nature of the things, that everything that has a beginning should have an end! Even the “gods” of the higher realms vanish after their life span is over. But once again Buddha never says WHY “exactly the things change”
( I would have told (if I were Buddha!) that these (the above three features) are not the features if aggregates, but rather “impermanance or decay” is the cause of all suffering and is the only “Great Truth’-not Nirvana!)
SomeWhatDisgusted
The science too says that the entropy of everything is increasing. The entropy is a measure of “disorderliness” or chaos of a system., and it is un-escapable truth that everything obeys this rule. Even a star, a galaxy or even a Black Hole cannot escape this simple law. Why does the neutron and the proton decay? What is the real reason for the decay? Even if nothing interacts with it all matter decays. Science doesn’t answer this puzzle, does it? There is nothing in the universe (including the universe) where the entropy decreases.
It seems to me that both Buddha and science have miserably failed to answer this basic question!
At the “end of everything” what remains, according to the known physics should be the photones only-the heat death!
What happens to the photones? Are those obeying the law of entropy?
BalangodaMan:
This is because the existence of a ‘world’ of gods does not necessarily imply that that world has any gods in it. LOL!
My essential point is that if there is any such thing as “gods”, then the “gods” must be manifestations of a single “god.” It is the most “rational” explanation to the question of who or what created the “gods.” As you have correctly pointed out, there is no point in denying the existence of a creator god, and vouching for the existence of many other gods. Only “god” can create “god.” Evolution cannot create gods (if it could, I’m sure we would know by now).
Of course, if you choose not to believe in any god period, that also works just fine. But I have not met a Buddhist so far (including Mr. Yapa himself) who deny the existence of devas, and other higher such beings. Buddha was therefore clever to remain an agnostic when it came to such a question, although it seems logical to reason that if the whole god-concept was ridiculous, Buddha would have thoroughly discredited it beyond any shadow of a doubt (an ability which our believer colleagues can surely vouch for). The fact that he did not do so is suspicious, indeed.
can provide evidence that the Buddha drew his knowledge from the Vedas,
Can you name a single Buddhist concept that does not have a parallel to the Vedas or some other aspect of Hinduism? All that Buddha did is extract the mere essentials, which he thought were sufficient for “liberation”, and make a few modifications here and there.
Heshan,
“All that Buddha did is extract the mere essentials … and make a few modifications here and there.”
You mean he plagiarised? God forbid!
Well, if he did plagiarise Mr Yapa will surely claim that he was the first to have done such a thing and that science has proved that he did, if not will do so in due course. That no other religion has plagiarised. That we are the best religion in the history of plagiarising. It’s our duty to protect plagiarising from extinction.
I’d like to see if the Hindus start a class action against the entire Buddhist clergy and sue for 2,500 years of royalties and a prominent acknowledgement before each ‘pirith’ ceremony. And for hijacking the devas and incarcerating them in our temples.
Longus,
“but rather “impermanance or decay” is the cause of all suffering and is the only “Great Truth’”
(going waaay off topic)
Excuse me for getting philosophical but your statement above prompted this.
When we place ‘suffering’ as our main preoccupation in our search for the meaning of life as something we seek to avoid, aren’t we presupposing (with no real basis) that we (meaning our prior existence in an extra-Universe plane) had no hand in choosing the kind of ‘life’ we desire to experience? Meaning – did we choose to be what we are? After all, choosing a scary or upsetting experience for entertainment is not a foreign idea to us – so it is a possibility. It is also true that we have no idea what we were prior to our birth here. Were we, could we have been more ‘all seeing’ than we are in our human existence? I’d be grateful to anyone pointing me to any sources thinking on these lines.
God is that ‘life experience machine’ that we are all plugged into. We put a Rs 1 coin into it, selected the experience, donned the helmet and lay inside the pod, just like in Avatar. Next one I might try being Jesus. That should be fun, at least until the final scene, but I can always walk out before the end, no?
Dear Heshan;
Why are you asking the same question again? There are so many and I pointed out some of them in my last post of lengthy answers to you. I feel like you didn’t see it because, you did not respond to them and also and I feel like you have no knowledge about what were in that. If you really did not see it or you felt like embarrassing to go through it will re-post the relevant post for your reference.
1. My post of September 5, 2010 @ 8:21 am
(A): It is funny how you try to make the claim that Buddhism is “original.” Buddha was a Hindu before he was a “Buddhist.”………………………
(B): Again do you really think you are making any case here. It is true that Prince Siddhartha learnt the philosophies prevailed then in Indian society. It may have given him some wisdom, I don’t deny it. But the “enlightenment” is something entirely different from the knowledge he gained through those philosophies. Really he abandoned all those views learnt from them as useless with regard to the goal he was expecting achieve and pursued in an entirely different path, that ie. “Middle Path” that had never been professed by any philosopher before. Are you going to say “Middle Path” or “Noble Eight Fold Path” was a creation of Hinduism?
2 My post of September 6, 2010 @ 8:09 pm
(A): Actually you find the “Middle Path”, “Noble Eight Fold Path”, and all other paths in Hinduism/Jainism, etc. Do you think Buddha was the first to come up with ahimsa?
(B): You say the Middle Path or Noble Eight Fold Path was their in any other religion? Not at all, May be those words are found in them, but not the substance, the doctrine. One may call stone a coconut, but it does not have the creamy kernel inside. Buddha is the first person to show the Eight Fold Path, which paved the way to real enlightenment.
Dear Heshan, you didn’t respond to the above and repeatedly asking the same question.
Heshan, there is a interesting folk lore about cats and their ungratefulness among Singhalese people.
You know cats cats normally have the habit of visiting neighbouring houses no? During those visits they go the masters/ladies of the houses and it is said that cat is asking them for food saying”Gnaaave!… Gnaaave!! It is also said that then the those people ask whether the cat was not given “Rice ” by his owner. It is also said that the cat replies ” I have never seen single a grain of rice for ages”, you know why?
It is also said that at home the cat devours all his portion of rice given to him with his eyes closed.
Did you get the moral of my “folk lore” Heshan?
Thanks!
Thank GOD for putting your two cents here…….!
I consider the questions posed to me by SomewhatDisgusted on September 10, 2010 @ 12:50 am as silly questions that has no any significance other than disrespecting, humiliating and insulting respected things.
He acts with a malicious mind.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“My essential point is that if there is any such thing as “gods”, then the “gods” must be manifestations of a single “god.” It is the most “rational” explanation to the question of who or what created the “gods.””
You are trying to pay a “word game” here. Creator God and the gods mentioned in Buddhist discourses are entirely different “things” though both of them are called by “gods”. Please don’t hide behind words to defend your arguments. It is below the subject matter and the level of the discussion.
Thanks1
Dear Heshan;
You are asking me to show direct reference from Pali canon wrt the rejection of “Creator God” . Heshan that is a well known fact Buddhism is a religion/philosophy based on the belief of non acceptance of a “creator God” or Eeshwara.
You know there is a saying among Sinhalese people that resembles your request, however I am sorry to tell you, my English knowledge is not sufficient to translate it to English. Please get it translated by a friend of yours who know both Sinhala and English well. Or one of our friends in this forum may help.
The saying is,
“Nokerena weda kamata konduru thel hath pattekuth bagayak onelu!”
Always you can find excuses not to accept truths/things that are nor in favour of you.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear longus;
RE: your post of September 10, 2010 @ 12:32 am addressed to me
In your post you have asked me explain about my reference to “help someone to repair his computer” in my post.
That reference was really about the following ridiculous idea contained in one of the BalangodaWoman’s posts.
“Religion needs to keep up with modern needs. As I said before, I do not expect people in 2,500 years time to refer to the Windows 7 documentation to fix their computers.”
Further, with regard to my proposition of Dhammapada Stanza for the discussion serve the purpose in a way because, the Critiques of Buddhism in the forum prefers to criticize Buddhism at a general level not going deep into it for their safety as they know that in- depth analysis of Buddhism would pave the way for them to accept that it cannot be kept together in the same basket with other religions. Despite all the requests they kept to superficial criticisms of Buddhism not to dispute their belief/ view that there is no significant difference in Buddhism than other religions. I made several attempts to bring them to an in- depth discussion, but they avoided all of them by limiting the discussions to advantageous places/ subject areas for them.
I know that Dhammapada is mainly concerned about “Morality”, a concept that is not alien to other religions. Still you can show that the morality in Buddhism is no same as the moralities found in other religions. You can show the “uncontradictory nature, both temporal and spacial universality of that morality,
consistency and the pointedness to its supreme goal etc… etc…, which are more or less lack in the moralities found in other religions.
Even by comparing Moral Systems in other religions with of the Buddhism would show that it is a religion with a difference. By comparing parallel systems in other religions with Buddhism too is a way to choose the better “pedigree”.
But I am sure as usual those big mouthed critiques will again run away from it as usual.
Thanks!
My three ” Thanks” in the post of September 11, 2010 @ 7:16 am was a mere mistake. Sorry!
Dear longus;
“It’s impossible according to many researchers that such knowledge originated in the normal process of trial and error, as sits beyond their day to day requirements-who wants to know the centre of our galaxy if it doesn’t feed them?- So, all this is apeculative science,but maybe our narrow scope of science still cannot see the things that lie just beyond its scope!”
This should be the right kind of thinking any person with some intelligence should have regarding the nature of the world. But swollen headed idiots who had some outdated deterministic viewpoint through their outdated thinking think that everything should be able to sent through their smoke pipes and if not they are have no validity. A tunnel vision has developed in these people due to this little knowledge of theirs.
They try to see the world with their little eyes!
They are still infants.
Thanks!
Dear longus!
“It seems to me that both Buddha and science have miserably failed to answer this basic question!”
It is true that Buddha has not answered the above question. Not only that Buddha has avoided answering some questions when asked from him. Further, he has accepted that he has preached only a few things (Dhamma) and the amount of untold Dhamma is more, equating the Dhamma preached by him to the leaves in the hand of a Bikku and the untold Dhamma to the leaves in the jungle. Buddha has limited his discourses to the things that are essential to his ultimate goal, that is giving the beings the Dhammas that are necessary to liberate them. All the doctrines of Buddha are pointed to this focus alone and the Buddha didn’t waste his time going out of the objective. Therefore there are many things that Buddda has not touched. Therefore, not touching of any subject I suppose does not tantamount to any failure. If one can find something wrong in which he has preached, that is definitely “a miserable failure”, of the Buddha. That is why I have been continuously asking anybody to analyse and see whether there is something wrong in what the Buddha has said. Buddha has invited all to come and explore his doctrine, as Venerable Dr. Rahula Thero has pointed out in What the Buddha Taught,
“Buddhism is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing. The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as Ehi-Passiko, inviting you to come and see, but not to come and believe.”
I think the question you have referred is one the Buddha has named Avyakatha, which has no help to the liberation of people, but may act against that purpose, as unending speculations made on it would deviate his disciples from their real objective.
Really, the Buddha did not preach his doctrines to fulfill the unending curiosity and the balance the demand and supply as once you have said to Heshan. A Buddha does not come to this world to dance according to the tunes of everybody as many of our critiques expect. He does not cater to the materialistic consumer needs of those idiots.
Thanks!
Dear Longus,
I have no problems with what you are speculating. However, we don’t live our lives according to speculative science, we live our lives on established science. Speculation is a wonderful tool in investigating possibilities. But it’s another matter altogether to believe that stuff is the gospel truth. It’s an even stranger affair to believe wholeheartedly and without question *all* the speculations of a philosopher (deified by his followers as some omniscient entity with supernatural powers) who lived 2500 years ago. One has to ask, why do such people not give an equal amount of weight to speculations in Shilboot or the speculations in Hinduism or even speculations in string theory? In that question lies the answer to the origin of “belief”.
Dear Mr. Yapa,
Mr. Yapa, as everyone would have noticed, has once again evaded the question.
Do you do do you not believe Mr. Yapa, that the Buddha came to Sri Lanka on 3 occasions, and on one of these occasions, placed an oversized footprint on top of a mountain and declared the Sinhala-Buddhists the guardians of the Dhamma?
If this is what you believe Mr. Yapa, why are you having a problem with standing by them and declaring the truth?
Mr Yapa,
“and pursued in an entirely different path, that ie. “Middle Path” that had never been professed by any philosopher before.”
If you asked 100 people of 500BC what they would consider to be ‘living a moral life’ I bet all of them would have mentioned all of the 8 though not all by each of them and not necessarily in the same order. So what do you exactly mean by ‘unique’ and ‘original’?
Enlightenment
—————-
“the Eight Fold Path, which paved the way to real enlightenment.”
Pure speculation, M’lad. For a start ‘enlightenment’ itself is not defined.
Mr Yapa, can you direct me to a definitive source where this Holy Grail called ‘enlightenment’ is explained, differentiated from other similar concepts, and preferably if we can see it in action today that would be very nice. For example, how is it different *IN FUNCTION* from Mohammed receiving the word of god and Jesus having direct access to god via cell phone?
What do I have to do to become ‘enlightened’?
Unique Religion
—————-
I agree that Buddhism cannot be put in the same basket as other religions, for this reason and this alone. Mr Yapa, *your* parents are Buddhists. Other religions are those of people who *you* have been taught to despise. Period. Great example of great teachings at work, what?
Dear Longus,
RE: “It’s impossible according to many researchers that such knowledge originated in the normal process of trial and error, as sits beyond their day to day requirements-who wants to know the centre of our galaxy if it doesn’t feed them?”
Yes, but what knowledge of what the Buddha said is *impossible* to have originated from a normal process? I went through the “Maha Sihanaada Sutra”. I couldn’t find this story about a model of a universe which goes and on with structures within even bigger structures? But in any case, why would we elevate that to anything beyond speculation? And secondly, why can’t any individual have imagined that, especially under meditation/self-hypnosis? Did you read my own speculations on Shilboot? Why would you reject that in favour of this?
Now if the Buddha really wanted to demonstrate his omniscience, could he not have told us a quantum physics equation that would have put the entire story to rest? How about at least Newton’s laws of motion? Now there’s something way ahead of his time! Must it always be vague references that could mean practically anything? If that’s the case, wasn’t Nostradamus even more enlightened than the Buddha?
Also, what about all these references to hells and other worlds? Does that mean the Christians were enlightened too and foresaw the existence of Hell somehow?
And apparently, there are four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation. Looks like the Buddha missed cell division for example. Perhaps because that was an inconceivable idea in his time?
Longus, as I said earlier, if a single sentence is taken out-of-context and all the misses are ignored, then yes, the Buddha was omniscient. The problem is, so was Aristotle and Nostradamus for that matter.
Why are you making so many exceptions in the Buddha’s case and accept omniscience as the answer but you feel that Aristotle or Nostradamus were just speculating? Isn’t it because we were conditioned since childhood to believe that?, just like the Christians were conditioned to believe that Jesus walked on water and Moses parted the seas? Aren’t we holding on to beliefs and wishful thinking that we can’t shed in adulthood, just like Christians can’t shed their faith in Jesus? If you say no, I ask again, why so many exceptions for the Buddha only?
“If this is what you believe Mr. Yapa, why are you having a problem with standing by them and declaring the truth?”
Don’t speculate about my thinking. I don’t like speculating about my thinking. I have no problem about doing anything to really I have said.
Thanks!
“Longus, as I said earlier, if a single sentence is taken out-of-context and all the misses are ignored, then yes, the Buddha was omniscient. The problem is, so was Aristotle and Nostradamus for that matter.”
Instant sweeping generalizations, this has been the main problem with you. One minute instant conclusions on anything.
” Now if the Buddha really wanted to demonstrate his omniscience, could he………”
Do you think the Buddha as a magician who wants to demonstrate things? You have to learn basics.
“However, we don’t live our lives according to speculative science, we live our lives on established science.”
We know that consumerist materialists only interest about living. But knowledge and many other things are not only about living.
” And secondly, why can’t any individual have imagined that, especially under meditation/self-hypnosis? Did you read my own speculations on Shilboot? Why would you reject that in favour of this?”
Yes! I have seen your name also mentioned in the same status as the Buddha in all the books and websites. What is the difference between the Buddha and SomewhatDisgusted? That is your high mentality. Pooh!
” Looks like the Buddha missed cell division for example. Perhaps because that was an inconceivable idea in his time?”
How do you say that the Buddha missed it? Arbitrary speculations.
” Why are you making so many exceptions in the Buddha’s case and accept omniscience as the answer but you feel that Aristotle or Nostradamus were just speculating? Isn’t it because we were conditioned since childhood to believe that?”
You don’t have to blindly speculate like this if you put some effort to learn Buddhism at least some effort similar to what you have put to humiliate it. Your arguments are based on randomness only. You have no knowledge that there can be weighted events. Application of general knowledge to each and everything is or poking the nose to each and every unknown corner is your problem. You need some basic knowledge to explore deep into subject areas. Just questioning or doubting capability is not sufficient.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan
Re: “no one has ever been able to disprove the existence of God, which is why the non-existence/existence argument never ends.”
No one has been able to disprove the existence of unicorns, so I think you’ll agree that the non-existence/existence argument has nothing to do with disproving god per se. Instead, it has everything to do with some people insisting on salvaging their infantile beliefs even in adulthood. You and I both agree that the god of the bible is as nonsensical as Zeus, or any other mythical gods that predated them, so there is really no argument there.
The god you are talking about, on the other hand, is a philosophical god who is only god in name, and not in any other conventional sense of the word. As such, it could even be called an Einsteinian god, or to avoid confusion, better named “nature”. Such a god does not heed our prayers or need our genuflections on a daily basis. Such a god, or nature, simply represents the unknown and no one needs to argue about the existence/non-existence of the unknown.
“Looks like the Buddha missed cell division for example. Perhaps because that was an inconceivable idea in his time?”
Ridiculing what you don’t know without any hesitation is one of the other competencies you have. You don’t know any other way to treat them. Ridiculing is one of the main strategies you use to undermine others’ ideas. Please learn to rely on the contents instead of fowl tactics. Learn to play a fair game.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
If, as you say, principles of morality were well established for thousands of years and the Buddha described them in his doctrine … in the same way, coconuts were known about for thousands of years. So if someone describes coconuts in detail does that person achieve absolute ownership of all coconuts and the intellectual property rights in that description?
Miracles
————-
Mr Yapa, I have this question for you !
“Do you or do you not believe Mr. Yapa, that the Buddha came to Sri Lanka on 3 occasions, and on one of these occasions, placed an oversized footprint on top of a mountain and declared the Sinhala-Buddhists the guardians of the Dhamma?”
And this one on ‘enlightenment’, which seems to be the pivotal point in the bona fide of these pronouncements.
How did the Buddha’s contemporaries know that he has become ‘enlightened’? And what did they think that meant? Specifically, do you believe that he performed ‘miraculous’ acts, any visible and obvious and verifiable departures from normal behaviour that convinced his peers? What such events are recorded (on which you rely)?
In your estimation, how many people throughout history have claimed to have supernatural insights, direct link to god, been enlightened? What do we do with such people in the present day when they reveal themselves? (David Koresh, David Icke, Jim Jones, L Ron Hubbard for starters, and many more in psychiatric care)
Mr Yapa, have you yourself experienced even the beginnings of this Holy Grail called ‘enlightenment’ applied in this context? If so how? If not why not? Do you expect to, and when?
Appreciate you sharing this important knowledge with us.
longus,
The uncertainty principle states that the position of a particle cannot be a “single point” in space time, because in that case it will have a definite position,thus violates the principle. So what does this conclusion lead us to? A biginning without a “singularity” only!
The singularity is spaceless, massless, timeless, and has infinite energy. In other words, the singularity exists outside of spacetime. Furthermore, HUP states that at extremely small sizes, the notion of “space” disintegrates all together. So you cannot claim that the singularity violates HUP.
“In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.”59
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
But the bananas you gave the monkey are “clay” bananas that the monkey can’t eat! Though they look similar the creator God is worlds apart from the “beings of higher planes”. If we ebncounter aliens of higher intelligence can we call them “a creator God’?
Why do these higher planes need to exist at all? And who created these other “beings” – evolution certainly didn’t!
Dear Yapa:
You are asking me to show direct reference from Pali canon wrt the rejection of “Creator God” . Heshan that is a well known fact Buddhism is a religion/philosophy based on the belief of non acceptance of a “creator God” or Eeshwara.
I asked you to quote Buddha where he rejected the existence of God. So far you have been unable to do it.
You know there is a saying among Sinhalese people that resembles your request
No doubt there are many sayings among Sinhalese people, but I am more interested in the sayings of Buddha. Particularly one saying involving the existence of God. : )
I think you said your English isn’t good… but it seems you have no problem quoting Dhammapada.
Anyway, Mr. Yapa, I do not wish to press the matter further. We will accept that you are unable to prove the Buddha was an atheist, not an agnostic, and leave the matter there. Thank you for your responses.
longus,
If we ebncounter aliens of higher intelligence can we call them “a creator God’?
Okay that’s a classic. So you believe in aliens, but not God.
Somewhat Disgusted,
No one has been able to disprove the existence of unicorns, so I think you’ll agree that the non-existence/existence argument has nothing to do with disproving god per se.
It depends on how you define unicorn and how you define God. If you define a unicorn as a flying horse, then yes, we can state with sufficient certainty that unicorns have never existed. If you define God as the infinite energy present at the moment of the Big Bang Singularity, however, then it’s not possible to really “disprove” such an existence. Every process in nature involves some buildup/transformation/exchange of energy. Yet energy itself remains hidden. Yet we know that it has existed and has always existed. Conclusion: you cannot use unicorns as a means by which to disprove the existence of God.
You and I both agree that the god of the bible is as nonsensical as Zeus, or any other mythical gods that predated them, so there is really no argument there.
Well, it’s hard to dispute the claim that the mere belief doesn’t hurt. The Jews are probably the most successful people around today. A lot of the promises in the Old Testament portion of the Bible, regarding the fate of the Jews, have actually been fulfilled.
The god you are talking about, on the other hand, is a philosophical god who is only god in name, and not in any other conventional sense of the word. As such, it could even be called an Einsteinian god, or to avoid confusion, better named “nature”. Such a god does not heed our prayers or need our genuflections on a daily basis. Such a god, or nature, simply represents the unknown and no one needs to argue about the existence/non-existence of the unknown.
The impersonal God – yes. For sentimental reasons, humans have tended to desire a more “humane” God.
Dear Mr. Yapa
RE: “Don’t speculate about my thinking. I don’t like speculating about my thinking. I have no problem about doing anything to really I have said.”
I’m not speculating. I’m directly asking you a question, which you keep evading. Is this “amaravikkhepavada” all over again Mr. Yapa, in your own words? Let me jog your memory.
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….”
(courtesy: Yapa)
So tell me, why are *you* not giving a direct answer?
Here’s the question again:
“Do you do do you not believe Mr. Yapa, that the Buddha came to Sri Lanka on 3 occasions, and on one of these occasions, placed a ginormous footprint on top of a mountain and entrusted the Sinhala-Buddhists with the sacred task of preserving the Dhamma for the rest of eternity?”
Which part specifically do you not believe?
Dear SomeWhatDisgusted
Although I don’t agree with everything you say here, I admire your independent mind! Some of the answers to your querries by Mr. Yapa falls far below the line. There are Muslim friends of mine who adopt the same line of argueing when questioned about Allah; and they believe Islam gives a perfect explaination of everything! If you question on something, they would say “read the Quoran, and you will find the answer”.But the answer to the particular question that I’m asking is not there. To cover it up they say ,”read more”. The same thing can be told about some of Mr.Yapa’s responses. In that case I don’t see there is any point in continuing this “intellectual intercourse” anymore!
It is speculative, when it comes to certain things that we have a bias towards. But once again I think one should keep an open mind to accept new knowledge, which may seem absurd at this time!
When the probability of a certain prediction is for too much to be a result of mere chance it becomes significant. This is a basic thing in statistics. But what about the things that just fall below that critical margin? iS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THEY ARE ALL WRONG? In that way how many things are there that science takes for granted.(for example the approximations we use in math, to arrive at important conclusions about the universe)
I think the basic flaw in us humans in trying to find deeper meanings to life, when the obvious is blowing in the air! -which we refuse to believe!-Listen to that great poet and mathematician Omar Quyyam!
Prof Heshan, thank you for breaking your vow by responding to me! (I hope you did not make that vow to God er.. “singularity”)
About this “Singularity” nonsense- doesn’t it contradict Christianity which preaches a “Trinity”?? Does this mean all those hundreds of hours Prof Heshan spent singing hymns and praying to Jesus was a total waste??
“Can you name a single Buddhist concept that does not have a parallel to the Vedas or some other aspect of Hinduism?”
I can name three off the top of my head:
1. anatta
2. Noble Eightfold Path
3. paticcasamuppada
Now the burden falls upon Prof Heshan to draw upon his infinite intellect and find the Vedic parallels to these concepts. Unfortunately he will not be able to draw on the Upanisads given that the Buddha only referred to THREE Vedas in his teachings (meaning that they preceded Upanisads).
“If you define God as the infinite energy present at the moment of the Big Bang Singularity, however, then it’s not possible to really “disprove” such an existence.”
Sorry Prof Heshan, but semantics will not win arguments for you. No theist worships “infinite energy” that lacks a will or consciousness. Your ancestor did not convert simply to worship an unending stream of what comes out of your power outlet.
I recommend Prof Heshan to look at the following HINDU website to get a better idea. (interesting that Jayaram, a theist, has a much better understanding of Buddha’s thoughts on God than Prof Heshan, but that may be due to Hinduism’s more open-minded views compared to Heshan’s Christian fundamentalism).
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp
I like Jayaram’s exposition because he shows that the Buddha was one step further from even an atheist. Instead of merely trying to claim that God doesn’t exist, the Buddha showed how belief in God actually represents a negation of morality (and causality) and is not really compatible with Buddhist practice.
Wijayapala,
“Is it very different from your own logic based on YOUR “fixed conclusion” that the Sinhalese are inherently evil and that the Tamils have always been inherently victims?”
I see–you defend yourself from an accusation of flawed logic by making up illogical beliefs for the other party? I don’t believe that anyone is inherently evil or a victim, unless they have some structural brain damage. Position and circumstances very often determine one’s behaviour. Many Sinhalese are racial chauvinists because they belong to a majority community in political power and are in a position to dominate minorities. If the Tamils had been a majority with political power, no doubt the racial chauvinism and domination would have come from them. That’s why the Constitution becomes all important–this is what can prevent a majority from being in a position to dominate, and prevent the minority from being victims. This is why political action from liberal sections is crucial.
“Ok- so in this case, how would you prove the latter and NOT the former for the Tamils regarding the LTTE and its misdeeds?”
“That doesn’t address my point that anti-LTTE demonstrations were able to be held in Jaffna without reprisal, thus negating your argument that it was not safe to hold demonstrations.”
Anti-LTTE demonstrations were extremely rare, if not entirely absent in the north during the height of LTTE power. However, there were student demonstrations in the early days up to the mid 1980s and then demonstrations after 2005, when LTTE power was on the wane. The patterns and timing of anti-LTTE demonstrations by SL Tamils suggest that fear held them back from expressing their politics during the height of LTTE terror, and also that Tamils are not politically quiescent since they have been known to demonstrate. Is it not significant that the Pooneryn anti-LTTE demonstration occurred only after the Tigers were defeated there? Does that not suggest that the previous lack of demonstrations in Pooneryn were due to fear rather than lack of anti-LTTE feeling or political quietism?
“You mean like how the Tamils did not care about the Muslim minority being driven out of Jaffna by the Tigers? If you would characterize that as an ethical lapse, then I would agree that the Sinhalese have also been involved in similar ethical lapses.”
There’s no evidence to suggest that Tamil behaviour here was an ethical lapse. The LTTE action against Muslims was carried out during a period of LTTE power. Tamils did not demonstrate then, neither against the driving out of Muslims nor against the killing of Hindu Tamils nor Tamil Catholics–out of fear of LTTE. If their failure to demonstrate against this had occurred during a time of peace, then, yes, I would call it a severe ethical lapse.
“LOL- Groundviews apparently has addressed this point in a new thread “The pathetic capitulation of the organised Left in Sri Lanka.” UTHR wrote a very incisive critique of “labour politics” in Broken Palmyra, the best I’ve ever come across:”
It’s irrelevant to my point whether the SL organized left has been successful or not. My point is that even having such a movement at all proves that you cannot claim the political quietism of Sri Lankans. Apparently, Mick Moore’s book is about the failure of Sri Lanka’s “highly politicized smallholder electorate” to place on the national political agenda issues relating to the public distribution of material resources (according to the book description on Amazon). He too does not suggest political quietism in Sri Lanka but rather a distortion of politics.
“Uhh.. why would Sinhala nationalists use violence and humiliation against a Tamil anti-LTTE demonstration?”
I wasn’t talking about a Tamil anti-LTTE demonstration but asking why Tamils did not come out in Colombo to celebrate the end of war.
I can’t believe this–you expect Tamils in Colombo to come out demonstrating against LTTE when the LTTE had already been defeated, and when hundreds of thousands of their community was being incarcerated in IDP camps behind barbed wire, and during a time when the suspicion was rife that innocent Tamil civilians had been mown down by the SL Army during the last phase of the war?
It seems you want to explain away the failures of a majority community that has had the power since the end of the war to change the situation and prefer to point fingers at a minority community that can do nothing about anything except to submit.
“So now you understand why the Sinhalese have never protested on behalf of their “Tamil” oppressors?”
I think my position is very clear on this. The SL Tamils never elected the LTTE and are not responsible for LTTE actions. They were held under hostage by the LTTE, just as Sinhalese were. The Sinhalese have clear political motives in equating Tamils with the LTTE and considering the Tamils to be their oppressors. The LTTE were their oppressors, not Tamils. A minority without political power CANNOT oppress a majority community. It defies logic.
On the other hand, the Tamils do have reason to regard the Sinhalese as their oppressors because they voted again and again for anti-Tamil governments. The only times they voted for those who stood for peace and to end the ethnic conflict was during the LTTE-era, when ethnic conflict became very inconvenient for Sinhalese indeed. Now that the LTTE is dead, the Sinhalese are not exactly coming out into the streets demanding fair treatment of Tamils, are they?
Tamils as oppressors of the Sinhalese, indeed! Considering your knowledge of the history of the ethnic conflict, you expect people to be sympathetic about a majority community with political power fearing a long-disfranchised minority community as their oppressor. Anyone who thinks so should check themselves into an asylum–not have people like you stand up for them and their perverse beliefs.
So, no, I still don’t understand why Sinhalese did not come out to protest unjust treatment of Tamils as fellow-citizens during a time of peace. I wonder why they are able to come out to protest against UN desire to investigate SL government and army for war crimes but not to help fellow-citizens get their rights.
“See that’s the thing, the Tamils actually have NOT been “huddling among themselves.” Oddly enough this is a Sinhala misperception about Tamils and I’m amazed that you’re repeating it. If anything, the Tamils have been divided along many lines, the pro vs anti-LTTE line only the most recent, and in that sense are hardly the monolithic organized anti-Sri Lanka conspiracy that many Sinhalese make them out to be.”
That Tamils are huddling among themselves does not mean that they are a monolithic community in their political convictions. The anti-Tamil line is not the most recent division among them–it has been there all along.
“If Sinhalese had a better knowledge of the divisions between Tamils, they wouldn’t have seen them as a threat and things could have turned out differently. On the other hand, if these divisions didn’t exist then the Tamils may not have had to fear the possibility of the Sinhalese exploiting them.”
Please don’t make excuses for the Sinhalese community. The only reason why a majority community makes out a minority community to be a threat is because it wants to establish dominance over it. A democratic political system would provide sufficient buffers against minorities having too much power. The so-called threat you speak about is merely conjured up to ethically justify their attempt to disfranchise a minority and to claim total power for themselves. It has absolutely nothing to do with the majority community’s perceptions of whether or not a minority community is united or not. It was clear right from the start that the Tamil community was not politically united. The Sinhalese played the game of dominance simply because they perceived it an easy game to win (they did not bargain for terrorists to enter the fray).
Every community has its divisions, including micro-communities. If you go to a school or a church, you will find people there with divisions among them. Even in a family, there are differences in attitudes and opinions. The divisiveness is not something exclusive to Tamils. Even if the Tamils had been impossibly united, it would have been totally irrelevant to a majority community that clearly desired 100% dominance. The only thing that could have stopped (and did for a while stop) that grab for total power was fear of terror.
At any rate, these points are moot. The situation in your country has long gone past the issue of peace and reconciliation. Peace and reconciliation actually was never on the cards as soon as the LTTE was dead. Instead of wondering now whether Tamils should be crucified for not demonstrating against the LTTE, the Sinhalese would be better off watching their own backs–watching whether the danger to them will come from their own ethnic community. Ain’t this just such an ironic turn to the so-called end of the ethnic conflict? Perhaps a lesson here is something that the LTTE learned, and which now the Sinhalese need to learn–the impulse to dominate always returns to bite you in the backside.
Dear longus;
RE: your post of September 12, 2010 @ 1:28 am
You have observed that my answers to SomewhatDisgusted were far below the line. I think my answers to B/Women were not different. I think my answers are in par with their questions, and I did so purposely as I knew that their purpose of questions were not genuine. Please see the air of their questions, they have the humiliating and ridiculing shades in their questions. In a debate one must give due seriousness to it. Please see, Heshan posed more challenging questions to me, but why do you think my answers to Heshan did not fall far below the line.
Dear longus, My answers to them were so because I had the “instinct” to distinguish “Dore handa from p-de handa”. I identified their “handa” from the smell.
Thanks!
Dear Longus
RE: “It is speculative, when it comes to certain things that we have a bias towards. But once again I think one should keep an open mind to accept new knowledge, which may seem absurd at this time!”
I quite agree. I’ve never been of the opinion that things should be dismissed offhand. The world we live in is quite a strange one, and I’m all for investigating possibilities. If someone thought that meditation could lead to further knowledge and attempted to do so, I would have no objections.
What I would protest against, is the kind of blind belief that say Mr. Yapa subscribes to. He has actually convinced himself that asking endless questions is fruitless and we must accept the Buddha’s words as the gospel truth. I think no one would have a problem with such a proposition, *provided* the reasons for accepting it as the gospel truth are clear.
The only reason Mr. Yapa has to offer, is that some of the stuff that the Buddha said was true, therefore, *all* of the stuff the Buddha said must be true – a clear logical fallacy. It’s obvious that such reasoning would only be accepted by someone who was indoctrinated since childhood to believe this stuff, certainly not a critical minded and rational person.
That kind of thinking, clear *hinders* furthering human knowledge. After all, no further questions need be asked, all the answers that matter have already been found by people who had “privileged” access to knowledge, in the form of enlightenment, or by virtue of being the son of God, and it’s all conveniently written down in some ancient holy book, at a time when they weren’t even sure the earth was round! Much to our grave misfortune, these phenomena have so far not been replicable either, usually because we are all “sinners” or “we aren’t trying hard enough”.
This is the general problem with religious thinking. and the standards we expect as human beings in the 21st century ought to be a bit higher! Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of things of great value in the Buddha’s teachings, and I would recommend studying his philosophy to anybody, just as one would study the philosophy of Socrates! But to go ahead and elevate him to omniscience and godhood is simply – unwarranted.
Unfortunately, Mr. Yapa is a true believer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome) and no amount of argument to the contrary would cast so much as a shadow of doubt on his convictions.
RE: “When the probability of a certain prediction is for too much to be a result of mere chance it becomes significant. This is a basic thing in statistics. But what about the things that just fall below that critical margin? iS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THEY ARE ALL WRONG?”
Yes. One can’t dismiss such things off-hand. But there are many complications here. Consider for example evolution. It’s random mutation over vast spans of time, subject to non-random selection. The results are immediately counter-intuitive but statistically probable.
Consider also Littlewood’s law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood's_law)
The point being, the truth value of these things *cannot* be commented upon other than through rigorous analysis. I agree with you that ought to be done whenever possible, as long as the matter under investigation is not presupposed to be true. Unfortunately, what we have in Sri Lanka is a bad case of communal reinforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_reinforcement) and the truth of the Buddha’s words is already a foregone conclusion.
RE: “I think the basic flaw in us humans in trying to find deeper meanings to life, when the obvious is blowing in the air! -which we refuse to believe!-”
Could you please elaborate what specifically you are referring to?
Dear Heshan;
” I asked you to quote Buddha where he rejected the existence of God. So far you have been unable to do it.”
Why Heshan, you can’t believe me? Upon my word the Buddha rejected it. On the other hand if quote, will you accept there is no Creator God? I did not know that you are such a believer of the Lord Buddha.
” No doubt there are many sayings among Sinhalese people, but I am more interested in the sayings of Buddha. Particularly one saying involving the existence of God. : )”
Oh! my, my!!, Heshan has become a pious buddhist disciple.
“I think you said your English isn’t good… but it seems you have no problem quoting Dhammapada.
Anyway, Mr. Yapa, I do not wish to press the matter further. We will accept that you are unable to prove the Buddha was an atheist, not an agnostic, and leave the matter there. Thank you for your responses.”
See Heshan, with my little English knowledge, I have improved my thinking to a certain extent. But see Heshan, with very good English backgrounds that gossiping woman and the accomplice has not improved their thinking even a bit. But you cannot deny that improvement of thinking does not depend on the knowledge of English, you have developed to be an “intellectual brat” with the help of English.
However, Heshan I cannot remember I was involved in a debate to to ascertain whether the Buddha was an atheist or agnostic. However, I don’t like to put the Buddha in the agnostic’s list especially because those two, that woman and the accomplice claimed to be in that list. Anyway Heshan, when I meet the Buddha I will ask your question from him and let you know the answer.
Oh! I forgot, now you are being a Buddhist disciple, you yourself can ask that question from the Lord Buddha.
May Tipple Gems Bless you!, my friend.
Thanks!
“What I would protest against, is the kind of blind belief that say Mr. Yapa subscribes to.”
I have asked you not to speculate on my thinking. Just quote from what I have written.
You never know such ethics, straw man beater.
Thanks!
“The only reason Mr. Yapa has to offer, is that some of the stuff that the Buddha said was true, therefore, *all* of the stuff the Buddha said must be true………..
Only reason?, You and your blatant sweeping whole sale conclusions!
You are only playing word games, you have no strength other than that.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan,
RE: “Okay that’s a classic. So you believe in aliens, but not God.”
Not at all. An alien evolving on another planet is quite plausible, given that the theory of evolution is a general theory which is applicable anywhere. It is therefore, perfectly reasonable to extrapolate from our current data set to conclude that given the large number of planets, life may independently arise in them through the *known* process of evolution.
God on the other hand, is not known, hasn’t been seen (except by raving lunatics) and it is not reasonable to give him as much probability as even an alien because it’s a completely unknown situation without a known parallel.
Mr Yapa,
“However, I don’t like to put the Buddha in the agnostic’s list especially because those two, that woman and the accomplice claimed to be in that list.”
That’s great. So we (that’s SomewhatDisgusted and ‘this gossiping woman’) have power over deciding the Buddha’s intellectual positioning by choosing our own. Didn’t know I’d have such power!
Mr Yapa, doesn’t the Kalama Sutra in some way suggest that the Buddha encouraged us all to be (primarily/effectively) agnostic? Do you not think so?
Aliens and evolution
————————-
Further to what SomewhatDisgusted said, it is quite feasible that beings of other planets evolved faster than us humans on this planet. Consequently it is possible, even most probable, that some (even many) are at a much much greater level of development than we are at today. Telepathic transportation? It is entirely *improbable* that such advanced beings have *not* visited Earth and our Solar System at some point. It then follows that they are most probably still here (and why not?). Perhaps even merged into us, or may even be invisibly standing next to you. (they may even be participating in this discussion. LOL!)
Mr Yapa hasn’t answered whether the Buddha said that KRN applies to all beings in the Universe. Could I have lived on a planet in Andromeda in a previous birth where people are many millennia more advanced than us on Earth, where there is total absence of immorality (even though not being practitioners of the Noble Eightfold Path specifically)? Even if he did not fully explain that, how would such a scenario square up with your understanding of KRN, Mr Yapa?
Poor Wijyapala, proud product of the Sinhala-Buddhist Government school, proudly displaying his Mahavamsa mindset for the rest of us to have a good laugh at:
About this “Singularity” nonsense- doesn’t it contradict Christianity which preaches a “Trinity”??
The Trinity is not exclusive to Christianity. It is borrowed from Greek mythology. As for calling the Singularity “nonsense” it is an accepted scientific theory – unlike, for example, Buddha flying through the air, and Yakka women mating with lions, aka. Mahavamsa.
1. anatta
Beginning with Vedantic Hindu philosophy, the Ä€tman — Sanskrit (masculine nominative singular: Ä€tmÄ) is regarded as an underlying metaphysical self. It is first seen in its current Hindu usage in the Upanishads, some of which date back to 1000 BC. The word “Atman” (pronounced in Sanskrit like “Atma”) is interpreted by some schools as the “Main Essence” of man, as his Highest Self. “A” in this word is a negative particle. One popular, albeit apocryphal, etymology has it that the ‘tma’ of “atma” “Tma” mea …
http://www.experiencefestival.com/anatman
2. Noble Eightfold Path
Dr. Kane seeks to support his thesis by employing a saying of the Buddha. He further observes:
“What the Buddha says may be briefly rendered as follows: “Even so have I, O Bhikkhus, seen
an ancient path, an ancient road followed by rightly enlightened persons of former times. And
what, O Bhikkhus, is that ancient path, that ancient road, followed by the rightly enlightened
ones of former times? Just this very Noble Eightfold Path, viz., right views … … This, O
Bhikkhus, is that ancient path, that ancient road, followed by the rightly enlightened ones of
former times. Along that (path) I have gone and while going along that path I have fully come to
know old age and death. Having come to know it fully, I have told it to the monks, the nuns, the
lay followers, men and women; this brahmacariya is prosperous, flourishing, widespread, widely
known, has become popular and made manifest well by gods and men.’” 13
This passage is cited by Dr. S. RÄdhakrishnan also in support of his view that the Buddha was
re-stating the Indo-Aryan ideals. Commenting on this saying of the Buddha, Dr. Kane says, “It
will be noticed that the Noble Eightfold Path which the Buddha put forward as the one that
would put an end to misery and suffering is here expressly stated to be an ancient path trod by
ancient enlightened men. The Buddha does not claim that he was unique but claimed that he
was only one of a series of enlightened men and stressed that the moral qualities which he
urged men to cultivate belonged to antiquity.
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh150.pdf
3. paticcasamuppada
Can be found in Upanishads:
Whatever is here, that is there.
What is there, that again is here.
He obtains death after death
Who seems to see a different here.
By the mind, indeed, is this realization to be attained:
There is no difference here at all!
He goes from death to death
Who seems to see a difference here.
Hinduism. Katha Upanishad 2.1.10-11
Those who see all creatures within themselves
And themselves in all creatures know no fear.
Those who see all creatures in themselves
And themselves in all creatures know no grief.
How can the multiplicity of life
Delude the one who sees its unity?
Hinduism. Isha Upanishad 6-7
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme079.htm
Somewhat Disgusted:
Not at all. An alien evolving on another planet is quite plausible, given that the theory of evolution is a general theory which is applicable anywhere.
Actually the theory of evolution is highly dependent on the interaction between the environment and genes. No doubt other planets exist, but the atmosphere of Earth is “just” right in order that organisms may survive. Much of this, of course, has to do with the position of the Sun in the Milky Way galaxy. And of course, the presence of water. Of the 12 planets we know of, only Earth can definitively be said to have water.
So while it could easily be the case that other planets exist, the atmospheric conditions of those planets is pure speculation. Whether they have enough water and energy (from the Sun) to support life is also pure speculation.
God on the other hand, is not known, hasn’t been seen (except by raving lunatics) and it is not reasonable to give him as much probability as even an alien because it’s a completely unknown situation without a known parallel.
Erwin Schrodinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game–but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or deduce.
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.
I shall quite briefly mention here the notorious atheism of science. The theists reproach it for this again and again. Unjustly. A personal God cannot be encountered in a world picture that becomes accessible only at the price that everything personal is excluded from it. We know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as real as one’s own personality. As such He must be missing from the space-time picture. “I do not meet with God in space and time”, so says the honest scientific thinker, and for that reason he is reproached by those in whose catechism it is nevertheless stated: “God is a Spirit.”
Whence came I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer for it. –JNC
http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec07/Nobel_Schrodinger.html
Dear Yapa:
Why Heshan, you can’t believe me? Upon my word the Buddha rejected it. On the other hand if quote, will you accept there is no Creator God?
Most likely, Buddha did not consider belief in God a hindrance to enlightenment. After all, God is not a material object and neither does God exist in samsara. One must meditate upon God before there is any “unity.” No doubt, Buddha the Hindu knew all these things and thought it better to focus on that which causes real suffering. In other words, Buddha the Hindu had no reason to reject the existence of God. In fact, Buddha the Hindu never had a reason to reject the existence of God, because he was a Hindu till the day he died. Buddha did not invent a new religion; those who came after him took the fundamentals of his teachings and turned it into a religion.
Dr. S. RÄdhakrishnan’s most mature opinion on this point is summarised in the following statements:
“The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up and died a Hindu. He was re-stating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization.”8 In support of this statement he quotes a passage from the Saṃyutta NikÄya which will be reproduced below. “Buddhism did not start,” he goes on, “as a new and independent religion. It was an offshoot of the more ancient faith of the Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy. While the Buddha agreed with the faith he inherited on the fundamentals of metaphysics and ethics, he protested against certain practises which were in vogue at that time. He refused to acquiesce in the Vedic ceremonialism.” Repeating this idea for a third time in the same lecture, Dr. S. RÄdhakrishnan goes on to say that “the Buddha utilised the Hindu inheritance to correct some of its expressions.”8
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh150.pdf
Dear Heshan,
The fact that Erwin Shrodinger, brilliant as he may be, cannot shed the ideas that he was indoctrinated with in Sunday school, does not move me in the slightest. No legion of people desperate to hold on to their cherished beliefs will affect the truth value of the god argument, which, with the data available so far, is zilch.
RE: “So while it could easily be the case that other planets exist, the atmospheric conditions of those planets is pure speculation. Whether they have enough water and energy (from the Sun) to support life is also pure speculation.”
I quite agree. But the point is, evolution by natural selection is not a concept which is intrinsically tied to water or DNA. It is a general principle for how complexity can arise from simplicity through a process of reproduction, mutation and natural selection. For example, the fecund universes idea applies evolution to the creation of universes. We already know and it has been demonstrated that evolution by natural selection works in principle to create complexity out of simplicity.
Therefore, it is entirely plausible that such a process could take place in another planet if any form of replicating entity is present. Given the “law of large numbers”, and given the mind-boggling abundance of planets, it’s entirely plausible for this to happen. Yes, it’s still speculation, but it’s speculation based on known data. We can reasonably say, “IF a replicating entity exists, THEN natural selection can give rise to complexity”.
A god entity on the other hand, is a complete unknown, and cannot be commented upon in a similar fashion. It is not reasonable to expect or predict his existence because there is absolutely no parallel.
Heshan
To believe in the possibility of extra-terrestrial life is the bread and butter of any scientist and all over the world there are radio telescopes directed at the sky to capture any “contact signal” that any alien civilization out there might send us. It is not in any way tantamount to believing in a GOD. You have shown a great deal of ignorance there.
If there are any intelligent life-formes out there – in our solar system or the 300 odd planets so far discovered out side our solarsystem- they could be quite different from the life as we know. It depends upon the conditions which led to the evolution of those organisms under very different conditions. Once again you don’t need a “Creator” to explain the origin of extra-terrestrial life! There may be non carbon based life out there-eg.Silicon based- or they may not inhale 0xygen and may not need sunlight-for example the ecosystems found in under sea “thermal vents” are totally anaerobic and get there energy by volcanic heat and bigger creatures live there who don’t need oxygen. They convert sulpher based molecules to some other chemicals and act as producers of the food chains there.- So the narrow requirements that you think may not apply to the aliens!
Now The Grand Finale:
Heshan, you are right on the spot light now for me to deal the fatal blow!
By telling that the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP) IS NOT VIOLATED BY A “VERY SMALL SPACE” IN THE “SINGULARITY, you have dug your own grave!
However small the space may be for the HUP to operate it CANNOT BE A “SINGLE POINT” as there will be a “freedom of movement”!
THEREFORE THAT “VERY SMALL SPACE” AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, CANNOT BE A “SINGULARITY”!
a singularity is a single point!!
(By the way how did you know that the “innitial space-time” was contained in the Singularity? Did your Sainted Grandma told you that?)
MISTER HESHAN YOU ARE DONE NOW!
R . I . P.
Heshan,
If there IS a god he would have entered into this discussion and removed any doubt. …. and, oh dear, he has!
Faith
——-
I thought this thread had agreed long ago that ‘god’ is real to the faithful, and no one else? To the faithful god is very real. Just as the Buddha’s omniscience is very real to Mr Yapa and other faithful, and those who’s emotional security will be much damaged if they dared to question it. It’s just ‘faith’.
More Buddhas
——————–
I am intrigued though. If the Buddha spoke of many previous Buddhas that he wished to emulate how many Buddhas have there been since? And why do we not have ‘more recent’ revelations from them, ones that maybe we can better relate to in modern times? Could there have been subsequent Buddhas in countries other than India or Sri Lanka? Could there be one in the USA right now? Or one in Afghanistan who always believed himself to be Muslim? Mr Yapa, why is that not possible?
Heresy
——–
Mr Yapa, the Buddha was born a Hindu (and died a Hindu, we are rightly reminded by Heshan). The Buddha publicly questioned (as you say) the faith of his birth. I (‘this gossiping woman – ie. ‘TGW’) am doing the same. Aren’t I following the Buddha’s example more closely than you who are close minded, Mr Yapa?
(not sure if Hinduism has penalties for heresy, either in this world or another. Anybody?)
Heshan
Many good points! Just a few observations as a response to your points.
1. Trinity is there almost in every religion, including Hinduism except that the way every religion looks at it is a bit different. In Hinduism, Trimurthy or three-Gods Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are considered the first 3 Gods with different roles.
2. Coming to your reference to Anatta (or Anatman in Sanskrit), you are right! But, in Buddhism I am guessing that this is one of the mainly stressed principles, whild in Hinduism (or specific branches of Hinduism) this may or not be so. You may PROBABLY (as I am not sure) come across this in some of Ramanuja’s or Madvacharya’s or even Shankara’s teachings. In fact, the fundamental clash between Madvacharya’s and Shankaracharya’s teachings (1000 years ago) was this concept of “Atma”. However, I have never come across this Anatma being stressed like Buddhism does.
3. On your points on Buddha vs his being a Hindu, it all depends on one’s interpretation I guess. While Buddha never claimed that he had discovered what is called Buddhism and that it should be propagated all around the world, he was a very genuinely self-made man looking at what was going around and learnt from it. And even better was his comprehension of problems of a common man’s life in this world, although he was born in a “kshatriya” or royal family. While I would have personally wanted him to pin-point the problems of casteism of then (and strangely even now) India, he atleast made a sensible case towards a selfless life process where we all could co-exist. So, I am ok with it. But, he neither said he is denouncing Hinduism or not formally announced creating Buddhism, he was going towards a path of enlightenment in a practical way (I am comparing this with Hindu saints of ancient India going to Himalayas to meditate, trying to discover something obscure). And interestingly, in some parts of India, Buddha (not Krishna) is considered as one of 10 avatars of Vishnu. And you are right that his followers spread it as a separate religion all around the world. I think even Jesus probably didn’t say that he was God etc, like Christians would have you believe. But that is my personal opinion I guess.
Frankly, to me Buddha’s teachings are far more relevant than what his followers want me to believe. Same is true of Chris as well.
By the way, how did this re-conciliation turn out to be a debate on Buddha himself?
This fool called Heshan doesn’t even know the number of planets in the solar system;my eight year old son does! And also this ignoramus doesn’t know there are in excess of 300 exoplanets (planets circling other stars, and other celestial bodies) since 1994! Go back to your basics and get educated, or do your sermons at your Sunday school.
Heshan, you cannot quote from Upanishad as they were written after the advent of Buddhism! Vedas of course YES!
Once again, get your facts right before wasting your time in front of your computer!
Hi Belle,
“Many Sinhalese are racial chauvinists because they belong to a majority community in political power and are in a position to dominate minorities. If the Tamils had been a majority with political power, no doubt the racial chauvinism and domination would have come from them.”
At first this statement struck me as fairly enlightened, and it probably is what you would like to believe. After all, if the problem is not specific to Sinhalese but to any community that is insensitive to the suffering and difficulties of others, then it conceivably would be possible for a non-Sinhala like yourself to find the solution to the problem. Actually if that’s all you said, I would’ve stood refuted and would have had nothing more to say.
Unfortunately, you apparently did have more to say which undermined your above statement and revealed your inherent racialism.
“This is why political action from liberal sections is crucial.”
If only you were a liberal.
“Is it not significant that the Pooneryn anti-LTTE demonstration occurred only after the Tigers were defeated there? Does that not suggest that the previous lack of demonstrations in Pooneryn were due to fear rather than lack of anti-LTTE feeling or political quietism?”
It’s more likely that the Tamils are as opportunistic as any other community and no longer wanted to back a losing horse.
“There’s no evidence to suggest that Tamil behaviour here was an ethical lapse. The LTTE action against Muslims was carried out during a period of LTTE power. Tamils did not demonstrate then, neither against the driving out of Muslims nor against the killing of Hindu Tamils nor Tamil Catholics–out of fear of LTTE.”
Nice try, but the LTTE did not target Hindus or Catholics as a community the way they went after the Muslims.
A friend of mine told me how the LTTE tried to enforce saree-wearing while it controlled Jaffna from 1990-95, removing western influence like wearing dresses or skirts. THe problem is, nobody followed the LTTE’s diktat, and the Tigers weren’t able to do anything about it! So much for the “fear factor.”
From your reasoning, I get the impression that the LTTE served as an effective shield against people like you taking any sort of ethical stand on anything. Does that explain why instead of being at least a little grateful to the Sinhalese for restoring your ability to make ethical decisions (as you clearly were incapable of restoring it yourself), you’re so angry with us?
“However, there were student demonstrations in the early days up to the mid 1980s and then demonstrations after 2005, when LTTE power was on the wane.”
Actually there were parents who protested their children continuing to be conscripted during the CFA. The point is that these protests only concerned things that directly affected the Tamils, not anybody else.
“My point is that even having such a movement at all proves that you cannot claim the political quietism of Sri Lankans.”
Sorry, but movements which don’t mobilize the masses don’t comprise evidence of community political activism.
“Apparently, Mick Moore’s book is about the failure of Sri Lanka’s “highly politicized smallholder electorate” to place on the national political agenda issues relating to the public distribution of material resources (according to the book description on Amazon). He too does not suggest political quietism in Sri Lanka but rather a distortion of politics.”
Try reading the book dear.
“It seems you want to explain away the failures of a majority community that has had the power since the end of the war to change the situation and prefer to point fingers at a minority community that can do nothing about anything except to submit.”
Nope- I’m just showing how the Sinhalese aren’t very different from the Tamils. If you cannot provide a single case where the Tamils as a community stood up for another community- with nothing to gain for themselves- then you have proven no difference whatsoever.
“Considering your knowledge of the history of the ethnic conflict, you expect people to be sympathetic about a majority community with political power fearing a long-disfranchised minority community as their oppressor.”
????
“So, no, I still don’t understand why Sinhalese did not come out to protest unjust treatment of Tamils as fellow-citizens during a time of peace.”
Ok let me ask you this- where would Sinhalese living in southern Sri Lanka hear about the plight of the Tamils? From whom? The government-run news?
“That Tamils are huddling among themselves does not mean that they are a monolithic community in their political convictions. The anti-Tamil line is not the most recent division among them–it has been there all along.”
Again, ???? Anti-Tamil line among Tamils???
“The so-called threat you speak about is merely conjured up to ethically justify their attempt to disfranchise a minority and to claim total power for themselves.”
Sorry, but the LTTE was not a “so-called threat” for the last 30 years. It functioned and thrived amidst your silence. Thanks to us, it seems you have recovered your voice.
“It was clear right from the start that the Tamil community was not politically united.”
Not when first ITAK and then TULF swept the polls.
“The Sinhalese played the game of dominance simply because they perceived it an easy game to win (they did not bargain for terrorists to enter the fray).”
The way you make it sound there is no hope at all for the Tamils, since we super-genius devious Sinhalese knew all the weaknesses of the Tamils and brilliantly exploited them. It’s a good thing I don’t take you seriously!
“Every community has its divisions, including micro-communities. If you go to a school or a church, you will find people there with divisions among them.”
Except of course, the Sinhalese, since you clearly lack the ability to make any distinctions among us. Glad to hear we’re all equally evil!
“The situation in your country has long gone past the issue of peace and reconciliation.”
This is not the first time I’ve heard you use the term “your country” as opposed to “our county.” Does that mean you’ve relinquished your right to have a credible opinion on SL, as it is not “your country?”
“Perhaps a lesson here is something that the LTTE learned, and which now the Sinhalese need to learn–the impulse to dominate always returns to bite you in the backside.”
Thank you for the advice. Will you at least celebrate then when that happens to us?
Dear SomeWhatDisgusted
I appreciate once again your open minded views on religion and it’s refreshing to read your comments!
What I meant by “The answer is blowing in the wind – taken from 1950′ Harry Belafonte classic! – is the answer to the age-old question, “is there a deeper meaning to the life? – or the universe-” is a simple one though we refuse to believe it. All the bubbles of water you see at the foot of a waterfall must be asking the same question ; and all the billions of stars that burn out every second must be asking the same question!
When the simple processes became more complex (as you pointed out) by evolution their complexity created the question,”is there a deeper meaning or a plan to all this?” in the mind of the human being. We simply happen to be in this universe, in this solar system and on this planet. We were born by a process that evolved over 4 billion years. If we were not here another species would have dominated Earth and would have thought the same way. There could be other species who are totally cut off from us due to the limitations set by the expanding universe.
Our existence – and the existence of the universe for that matter – started as an outcome of a random process and evolved into a complex structure, increasing it entropy all the way. And then a break down occurs – for unknown reasons, as I explained in an earlier post- and scatters the mater and energy back to the universe. So, is there a deeper meaning to all this? No, is the answer.
Out of all the religious founders and philosophers, only Omar Quayyam (if you can consider him as a philosopher) told something similar to this, and he was branded as a “materialist”. It’s rather through a deep understanding of the world that he came to this conclusion, and he is in quite contrast to teachers like “Purna Kassapa” who lived during the Buddha’s time and preached a materialism.
The other religion that comes closer to this conclusion is Taoism in its original form, which describes the universe as” complete” and “perfect” and knows how to correct itself, whatever you do to it. Buddhism goes one step further (than Omar Quayym) in showing a way out of all, which is based on its own conclusions. This extra step it takes in saying about endless cycles of rebirths and how to get rid of it, unfortunately gives Buddhism a few complications. It gives an “ultimate truth” -nirvana- which is beyond the grasp of the mind. Buddha himself uses the “amara viccepa vaadaya” (using negative-meaning words)which he rejected, to a certain extent to describe this state!
Dear Yapa
In my opinon Buddha did say, that there is no other salvage rather than the salvage of Dhamma and your own hand gives shelter to your head and this implies that believing in an Almighty God is not on. Otherwise he would have said, “go pray for your salvation”!
But I too am unable to find any direct reference where he “vehemently” said, “there is no God”.(as in the case of refusing the “agni pooja”) But in no discourse did he say that he was a messanger of God or asked the people to obey God. In Mahayana Buddhism Buddha is considered a god who comes closer to the monotheistic God of other religions-a transcendent Awalothikeshwara Buddha. But on the other hand Mahayana and Tantrayana forms of Buddhisms are regarded as later outgrowths. This proves one thing ; how insecure the human being is – the frightened cave dweller!- without the existence of a divine power. Buddhism, as we know was undergoing a natural death in India, before King Asoka gave it a shot in the arm. Otherwise Buddhism would have been another one of the thousands of dead “phylosophies” that the ancient Iadian teachers preached!
The same goes with the Christianity with the services done by Saul of Tora (St. Paul) who presented it to the Romans in an attractive package with some alterations so that ultimately Emperor Constantine took it as the state religion around 200AD. Jesus the Jew was born a Jew and died a Jew and he preached a modified version of Judaism. What he preached was salvation of the “chosen people”-the Jews- by total faith in his father,God and selfless sacrifice. What Jesus the Jew opposed was the idea that the Jewish priesthood was not accessible to a non-priest like him and also its corrupt hiarachy. And he paid the price for it with his life. Can a dead man rise from the dead? I have yet to see it!
BalangodaMan
“more Buddhas”
The Buddha is on record as saying that there were 24 Buddhas altogether starting with a Buddha called “Deepankara”. In this epoch we live in (an epoch is considered a “Kalpa” in Buddhist literature, and I don’t know exactly how many years!) already had four Buddhas – namely Kakusanda, Konaagama, Kashyapa, and Gauthama…..and one more to come. He is called “Maithree” – not Wickramasinghe! – and he is supposed to be born 2500 years hence when the world is in utmost turmoil! At the moment he is having an opulent existence in one of the “higher realms of existence” or Brahma worlds, according to Buddhist literature!
So, we may not see another Buddha in the near future emerging from the ghettos of the USA or from Afganistan preaching non-violence to Bin Laden!
BEHOLD
I decided to intervene again as some of you are waiting for my INTERVENTION. In fact I heard that there are tea kiosks in Sri Lanka which offer tea while you children are waiting for the second coming of my son, in a church in De-hi-wela.!
Haven’t I told you in my words in the Bible that Satan can pose as an angel of light with intellectual knowledge, posotive ideas and appealing philosophies; but his intent is delution, entrapment and destruction. And also I have told you in the Bible how I often use evil emissaries to bring judgement or trial. That’s what happened to poor Job! (Job 1;12-22) The poor man lost his7000 sheep,3000 camels,500 oxen,500 female donkeys,lost his house to fire and had his whole pathetic body covered with boils. That is after being an exemplary righteous man who believed in me!
Threrefore Child Heshan, who came as longus and Somewhatdisgusted (yes,I am!) are emissaries of Satan, who broke off with me over a trivial matter when he was ruling as Poseidon. You are just undergoing what Job underwent in the Bible! Anyway this is what my followers say when things go wrong for them!
I would quote another Holy scripture ; “You are blinded by your own knowledge”
– Sponge Bob (Sponge. 4: 1- 16)
via Entangled Quantum transmission form Nirvana:
(the text in ancient Magadha language) reads:
Ahan the sachcha sachcha tathagatho hum se wan ki namamoko? Ekaan wachchantha ramya sulakkanun, sachchththa Buddhaampi saranan. Kankaachariyanum Kusinara adinnate, aham banthe sabbe rakkathu sukhan! Sachchariya wasalanum!
Translation:
Why are you mortals assume things on my behalf, when in fact I didn’t know even half the things that you (awso) argue about? Can’t you remember how I suffered on my final journey to Kusinara after suffering from food poisoning? Don’t you see I was human?
Looks like Longus is another product of the Sri Lankan Government school. This clown thinks there are 300 planets in the solar system.
The solar system consists of the Sun; the eight official planets, at least three “dwarf planets”,
http://nineplanets.org/overview.html
In fact, the total number of planets is closer to 12:
The International Astronomical Union, currently meeting in Prague, has announced a proposal that would boost the number of planets in the Solar System to 12. Under their new classification, the asteroid Ceres, Pluto‘s moon Charon, and the newly discovered UB313 (aka Xena) would join the traditional 9 planets we’re familiar with. Any additional large bodies would also be described as planets. The IAU will make a final vote on this proposal on August 24.
http://www.universetoday.com/472/officials-propose-12-planets-in-the-solar-system/
Heshan, you cannot quote from Upanishad as they were written after the advent of Buddhism! Vedas of course YES!
12 of the Upanishads predate Buddha.
Krish,
Thanks for your insightful reply.
1. Trinity is there almost in every religion, including Hinduism except that the way every religion looks at it is a bit different. In Hinduism, Trimurthy or three-Gods Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are considered the first 3 Gods with different roles.
Yes.. the trinity is actually a god-head. But at least in Hinduism, all three Gods are actually a manifestation of a single god.
2. Coming to your reference to Anatta (or Anatman in Sanskrit), you are right! But, in Buddhism I am guessing that this is one of the mainly stressed principles, whild in Hinduism (or specific branches of Hinduism) this may or not be so. You may PROBABLY (as I am not sure) come across this in some of Ramanuja’s or Madvacharya’s or even Shankara’s teachings. In fact, the fundamental clash between Madvacharya’s and Shankaracharya’s teachings (1000 years ago) was this concept of “Atma”. However, I have never come across this Anatma being stressed like Buddhism does.
I agree with you that Anatma is what is emphasized in Buddhism as opposed to the Paramatma. However, my point is that Buddha simply denied/modified a pre-existing concept. It’s much more difficult to create the concept entirely from scratch, whereas in Vedas the concept is created from scratch. Also it should be kept in mind that anatman and its logical conclusion, Nibbana (enlightenment), do not form a complete system of logic. The Buddha chose to remain silent on the question of exactly where Nibbana leads. On the other hand, if we consider the parallel to Nibbana that exists in Hinduism – moksha – no such difficulty arises. This gap in logic, then, is the price that Buddhism pays for anatman.
3. On your points on Buddha vs his being a Hindu, it all depends on one’s interpretation I guess. While Buddha never claimed that he had discovered what is called Buddhism and that it should be propagated all around the world, he was a very genuinely self-made man looking at what was going around and learnt from it. And even better was his comprehension of problems of a common man’s life in this world, although he was born in a “kshatriya” or royal family. While I would have personally wanted him to pin-point the problems of casteism of then (and strangely even now) India, he atleast made a sensible case towards a selfless life process where we all could co-exist. So, I am ok with it. But, he neither said he is denouncing Hinduism or not formally announced creating Buddhism, he was going towards a path of enlightenment in a practical way (I am comparing this with Hindu saints of ancient India going to Himalayas to meditate, trying to discover something obscure). And interestingly, in some parts of India, Buddha (not Krishna) is considered as one of 10 avatars of Vishnu. And you are right that his followers spread it as a separate religion all around the world.
Remember that Buddhism at its base is a philosophy, not a religion. Most probably, the Buddha did not even consider himself as a teacher of religion, but rather as a philosopher in search of moral truth and an understanding of the world around him, akin to Socrates or Aristotle. Religion entails ritual, quite often of the excessive variety – which was the difficulty that Buddha had with the Brahmans in the first place. On the other hand, Buddha did create a monastic order, for those who wished to reach Enlightenment faster. It is true that he didn’t Hinduism or any other religion for that matter; this just shows you the cogency of his approach. In theory, practically any religion (except say, Islam which is is more of a cult than a religion) can lead one to the kind of Enlightenment proposed by Buddha. No doubt Buddha realized that as well; had he proclaimed the superiority of “Buddhism” over other philosophies, it would have contradicted the entire doctrine. The different variants of Buddhism are indeed interesting. A lot of them are no doubt due to specific geography and the predominating customs of the place; e.g. Theravada Buddhism. Practically every form of Buddhism has incorporated local customs/traditional folklore-mythology/ etc. into its various practices. For example, a Sinhala-Buddhist monk spends a lot of time studying Mahavamsa, even though Mahavamsa has nothing to do with actual Buddhism. Sinhala-Buddhists themselves often believe in horoscopes, devils, demons, various Hindu deities (e.g. Kataragama) and perform such rituals as Bodhi-Pujha which the Buddha would never have agreed to.
I think even Jesus probably didn’t say that he was God etc, like Christians would have you believe. But that is my personal opinion I guess.
Actually, it’s most likely that Jesus did indeed make such a claim. That is why the Jews were so eager to try him for heresy.
Frankly, to me Buddha’s teachings are far more relevant than what his followers want me to believe. Same is true of Chris as well.
I agree. The followers have brought in own their own prejudices/preconceptions etc, resulting in the original doctrine being obscured.
By the way, how did this re-conciliation turn out to be a debate on Buddha himself?
A very good question.
What he preached was salvation of the “chosen people”-the Jews- by total faith in his father,God and selfless sacrifice. What Jesus the Jew opposed was the idea that the Jewish priesthood was not accessible to a non-priest like him and also its corrupt hiarachy.
Totally off the mark. Nowhere did Jesus say only Jews were chosen. Only Jews believe they are chosen. Jesus did not even consider himself human, rather – divine. Putting him into categories only makes sense in a very superficial way. He had problems with the Jewish priesthood, but that is not the essence of his doctrine. The main point has to do with original sin , and that man cannot save himself. The Jewish priesthood was merely a thorn in the side of the flesh.
BalangodaMan,
Faith
——-
I thought this thread had agreed long ago that ‘god’ is real to the faithful, and no one else? To the faithful god is very real. Just as the Buddha’s omniscience is very real to Mr Yapa and other faithful, and those who’s emotional security will be much damaged if they dared to question it. It’s just ‘faith’.
I agree that that is the essence of religion, not hard cold logic. Even moral philosophies, such as Buddhism, at their core, are actually faith-based. That is because these moral philosophies invariably make value-judgments of the likes of good, bad, right, wrong, etc. This is fine for philosophical purposes, but is entirely at odds with the *vision* of science, which is simply to extract the facts and build a theory around the latter, based on rigorous mathematics.
Heshan
Once again wrong judgement,loser!
Who said “exoplanets” are in our solar system? You only make people laugh their heads off!
T H E Y A R E O R B I T I N G O T H E R S T A R S A N D E V E N P U L S A R S !
Are you a product of the Kolpety Bible Society or you went to University soon after your fifth grade?
Longus,
So “there have been 24 Buddhas so far” on Earth. But then, as you say, there are loads of other planets in this Universe. And probably many other forms of life that we cannot even imagine.
I am wondering, were these 24 Buddhas ‘humans on Earth’ or in the whole of this Universe, in all time? I am also wondering where these Buddhas originate from. Where they always Buddhas, living in some other dimension? Since the Big Bang? Even before the Big Bang? If so they are like ‘saviours’ sent, or coming down to Earth, to sort us out – like the guy who’s coming in 2,500 years time. Who sends them?
This doesn’t sit very well with my understanding so far, which is that a ‘human’ becomes a Buddha by turning himself into one through some process (eg. meditation). The ‘second coming’ theory of Buddhism suggests a Christ-like event.
(For example, my understanding was that our Buddha was a human – not a potential heir to Buddha-ness, already primed for the job, that he attained ‘enlightenment’ out of hard work of six years, overcoming much obstacle. Not an appointee.)
I am also intrigued by the ‘there won’t be another one for another 5,000 miles, so get your petrol here at these exorbitant prices’ sales pitch. To me, this is similar to the ‘he is the last messenger of god’ sales pitch.
You see why I’m fascinated with religion. There are so many interesting anomalies. It does not tell us much that is reliable about what it is about – but it tells us a lot about what people really want (then and now) and how they kidded themselves in order to get it.
Dear longus;
Re:The post of September 14, 2010 @ 9:41 am addressed to you
“I am also intrigued by the ‘there won’t be another one for another 5,000 miles, so get your petrol here at these exorbitant prices’ sales pitch. To me, this is similar to the ‘he is the last messenger of god’ sales pitch.”
Dear longus, I told you why my answers to the two people of the forum fell below the line. I think now you must have got an indication as to what their purpose of the questioning is. Do you think the responses of the above post to you carry the due seriousness and due respect to the opposition party of a discussion/debate should have? I have been witnessing this trend from the above two for a very long time, however, you took their reckless doubting and questioning as a merit and I saw you appreciating it as a great competency. I think you must have seen the humiliating and ridiculing air beneath their heart through their writing. Now do you think my answers are below the line of their questions? I think their questions are far below my answers.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan
The point you make there is interesting. According to the Buddhist literature the Buddhas are not sent by someone but they rather appear as a natural occurance. The attainment of the Buddhahood is said to be a rare feat and once in a big blue moon such a person emerges ( the same way that you don’t get Bradmans and Einsteins every few years!) The emergence of this “Guy” called Maithree- meaning:the compassionate one- is said to have been foreseen and predicted by the Buddha by his “all seeing” wisdom.
This raises a few important questions. Firstly ,”is Maithree’s fate to be a Buddha already sealed or pre-determined? If so, it will go against the Buddha’s doctrine of “cause and effect”, as Buddha rejected pre-determinism preached by some of his contemporaries like Makkali Gosala
Secondly, if there have been 24 Buddhas it will clearly go against our current understanding of Human evolution. For example, you can’t expect to have a Buddha preaching you about “enlightenment” at a time when YOU (The Balangoda Man- Homo Balangodesis) was living a hunter-gatherer life, living in a cave in Balangoda and feeding on snails and nuts!
Unless this whole story is a made-up one, the other possibility is that those Buddhas could have emerged anywhere in the universe where intelligent beings exist. Think about an Arthrpoda(like) Buddha or a Molluscan(like) Buddha preaching his “way”!
longus,
Try and fix your blinkered Mahavamsa vision. I only spoke about planets in the solar system in my original post to Somewhat Disgusted.
Heshan
Height of Bigotry once again?
“12 of the Upanishads predate Buddha.”
According to wikipedia -your Gospel- only two of the Upanishads, namely Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya predate Buddha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads
Even if you imagine the Isha Upanishad was written in the first two centuries of the commen era, you can’t conclude “who copied from whom”, can you?
To Mr. “exoplanet”!
Even if we imagine that Jesus was a historical person – as no historical evidence is found in the contemporary accounts as to his existence!- his doctrine cannot be taken as “original” or “taken from the scratch”. Because the Jews in the Palestine at the time of Jesus already believed in an Almighty Creator God. And also they were waiting for the arrival of a Messiah to guide them to victory over the Roman invaders. In some “Dead Sea Scrolls” there is the mention of “twin Messiahs” who were supposed to have emerged ; one a Warrior and another of priestly origin.
Jesus, as a person can be best seen as rebellious, intelligent and bordering on weirdness. He(Jesus) had the royal lineage by his bloodline to King David – according to the Bible- but he didn’t have the priestly birth required by the Jewish priesthood to become a preacher. So, when he claimed,”I am the Son of God” it was blasphemy to the Jewish priesthood.
Going by the Dead Sea Scrolls -not by the St.Paul’s altered Bible- you can get the true picture as far as the “savior” concept is concerned in the Jewish society in Palestine. There was already a resistance movement against the Roman occupation at that time. The main players the Zealots who carried out a violent campaign of liberation against the Romans, and also they seemed to have had links to the mystic cult “Essence” who are supposed to have written the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eventhough a person by the name Jesus or Isa is not mentioned in the scrolls, many researchers believe that there were many characters like Jesus existed at the time and they more or less had links to the movements like Zealots.
Zealots subsequently launched their rebllion against the Romans around 35AD and it was crused brutally by the Roman Army.
Jesus is supposed to have claimed that he was “Son of God” and the savior of the Jews. And he is also supposed to have predicted the calamity that the Jews will undergo in the hand of the Gentiles, when he realized that the Jewish priesthood considered him as a “heretic”. The punishment for heresy was death by crucifixion at that time and Jesus too was dealt with in that manner. The prediction about an apocalypse was anyway not a unique one to him; such apocalypses were readily predicted in Jewish scriptures-even in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In fact as there were two Jewish uprisings (the second one being around 87AD led by Bar Cokbar which was a total miscalculation on the Jewish part and was crushed to dust by the Romans) It is not clear which one Jesus predicted! But the “doomsday” that jesus predicted was to happen” before the end of your(his folloers’) lifetime”. Anyway it may not have been a difficult task for a “political” person like Jesus to predict such an eventuality in that backdrop!
The final utterence of Jesus -as stated in the Bible- is controversial. “O Lord why did you foresake me?”, sounds like a desperate cry from a person who was waiting for “divine intervention”! The believers of the Bible interpret this as “an instance where the HUMAN NATURE of Jesus came to the open. If he was “human” after all, and if all the miracles and the resurrection story were later additions, I see no problem in accepting a person’s agony while dying on a cross!
The Bible says that Jesus died on the cross for the sinners-the original sin of Eve eating the forbidden fruit, when she was alone naked with Adam in the garden of Eden!- In that case, as Jesus has already died on the cross for the sinners -pass,present and future!- how can there be anymore SINNERS?
Mr Yapa,
See how Longus begins his sentence …. “According to the Buddhist literature” and “is said to have”? This is a more healthy way to discuss these things than an absolute ‘certainty’ that what *you* have been told is correct and any other viewpoint is wrong. Your approach goes completely against ‘what the Buddha is said to have taught’ – so, it is therefore debatable exactly who is, and who is not, a ‘Buddhst’, by his measurements.
The questions you have been ducking make you uncomfortable. You are trying to avoid them by rejecting them as ‘frivolous’ but actually there is a point in it all. SomewhatDisgusted has stated his position clearly. As ‘this gossipping woman’ also has. It is quite simply this – WE CANNOT HAVE PEACE AND HARMONY in SL UNLESS WE TREAT OUR FELLOW HUMANS AS EQUAL (read that again). If religion is part of the justification for that (as is clear) then that is where the problem lies.
For as long as you avoid the questions (we simply want to know how *you* arrive at the certainties that you have, which would lead to how you justify the divisive agenda you promote) the readers of GV will know that there are no answers that you can supply – that it is merely ‘religious indoctrination’. Mr Yapa, we can’t run society on that basis – on indeed try and understand what stands in the way of Peace and Reconciliation in our beautiful island.
Longus,
Pretty good analysis.
“Secondly, if there have been 24 Buddhas it will clearly go against our current understanding of Human evolution”
In ancient times they did not know about evolution, dinosaurs, big bang, or that it is impossible to fly through the air and Superman is a fictional character. I read somewhere that ancient stories of dragons some from the discovery of dinosaur bones, and I can believe that. The people who lived in the times of the Buddha would have expected that people (similar to them) have been there forever, and so had no reason to question the idea of Buddhas in the Jurassic period or shortly after the Big Bang.
(I hope ‘Homo Balangodesis’ is not a reference to my alleged sexual orientation!)
“12 of the Upanishads predate Buddha.”
It would be nice if Prof Heshan could give us some evidence for this, preferably not from a Hindu fundamentalist website. Additionally, he would have to show the concepts in those 12 Upanishads that are key tenets in Buddhism.
“However, my point is that Buddha simply denied/modified a pre-existing concept.”
That’s hardly a point at all. That is like arguing that since Muhammed denied/modified the notion that Jesus was the son of God, Islam came from Christianity.
“The Buddha chose to remain silent on the question of exactly where Nibbana leads.”
Yet again, Prof Heshan is babbling without making any sense. Nibbana is achieved through following the Noble Eightfold Path. It is not achieved by a soul but is directly experienced by consciousness for the remainder of an enlightened one’s life.
“No doubt Buddha realized that as well; had he proclaimed the superiority of “Buddhism” over other philosophies, it would have contradicted the entire doctrine.”
Actually, the Buddha did preach that his way was THE way to find the end of suffering, and that in no way contradicts his doctrine.
“For example, a Sinhala-Buddhist monk spends a lot of time studying Mahavamsa, even though Mahavamsa has nothing to do with actual Buddhism.”
Sigh.. why does Prof Heshan have to invent reality to make a point? One could similarly argue that Heshan’s study of child pornography in Sunday School has nothing to do with actual Christianity!
“The main point has to do with original sin , and that man cannot save himself.”
Truly a regressive, useless doctrine that encourages human backwardness. I guess that is how Heshan can explain the Dark Ages!
Dear longus;
Your idea that the “Maithree Buddha is supposed to be born in 2500 years ” is not a “belief” found among Buddhists. Please check back.
I think you have got confused two different “beliefs” among the Buddhists. Though it is not mentioned in Buddhist doctrine, some believe that the doctrine of Gauthama Buddha exists only 5000 years. Now that 2500 years has passed, the “Sasana” (doctrine) will remain 2500years more they believe. They believe that the Sasana of Gauthama Buddha comes to an end in 2500 years and the next Sasana will be of the Maithree Buddha. However, it does not indicate Maithree Buddha’s Sasana starts or the Maithree Buddha’s birth takes place just after the secession of the Gauthama Buddha Sasana. However, it is a very very long time than 2500 years, though I cannot remember, the figure right now. I think you have got these two “beliefs”confused which are found among some Buddhists.
“You cannot expect to see the Maithree Buddha so hurriedly”.
Buddhas do not come to this world so often. It is a very rare fortune.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“Firstly,”is Maithree’s fate to be a Buddha already sealed or pre-determined? If so, it will go against the Buddha’s doctrine of “cause and effect”, as Buddha rejected pre-determinism preached by some of his contemporaries like Makkali Gosala”
It is not so, it does not fall into pre-determinism.
According to the Buddhist doctrine the transmigration of beings in Samsara takes place on five “independent variables” [(Panch Niyama Dharma) that is Uthu Niyama, Dhamma Niyam, Beeja Niyama, Chitta Niyama and Kamma Niyama] according to the Law of Paticca Samuppada (Cause and Effect) to produce the dependent variable that is “Rebirth”.
If I represent this in modern Mathematical notation,
R= f(U,D, B,C,K), where last two independent variables Chitta and Kamma depends on the being concerned and the other three are independent of the being.
Chitta Niyama and kamma Niyama depends on the Chetana (volition) and the effort of the being and hence the future or his rebirths (dependent variable) can be changed and steered towards some goal with his “willful action” or with “right effort”.
This is an obvious fact in day to day life. If you want to enter to the university, you will be able to do it with some right effort, done with that aim at mind. That is willful action can change the course of life and direct it to a definite goal. That “volitional action” changes the course take him to his aspired goal.
To become a Buddha, a “prospective Buddha” (Bohisathva) has to perform his right effort or willful action (volitional action) at least for “Sara asankeiya kalpa laksaya” or for a very very long time in his journey through the Samsara. With that continuous effort you cannot reject the possibility of reaching that supreme goal of Buddha hood.
Hence becoming a Buddha does not fall into pre-determinism and hence reasonably “an achievable goal”.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“Secondly, if there have been 24 Buddhas it will clearly go against our current understanding of Human evolution. For example, you can’t expect to have a Buddha preaching you about “enlightenment” at a time when YOU (The Balangoda Man- Homo Balangodesis) was living a hunter-gatherer life, living in a cave in Balangoda and feeding on snails and nuts!
Unless this whole story is a made-up one, the other possibility is that those Buddhas could have emerged anywhere in the universe where intelligent beings exist. Think about an Arthrpoda(like) Buddha or a Molluscan(like) Buddha preaching his “way”!”
…………
As you have correctly said in your first sentence above “it will clearly go against our current understanding of Human evolution.”
In the situation that has been created through the discussion, we have two things that seem opposing to each other to compare. First, these two may seem opposing, but there is a possibility of not being so in an in-depth analysis. Further, even if they are really opposing we fall into a fundamental error if we decide one theory is more favourable than the other as non of them have not yet been proven true. Evolution is still a “theory”, even many scientists doubt whether it qualifies even to classify as a scientific theory, considering the shortcomings found in it. The Buddhist theory involved here has not been even subjected to critical examination of the scientific world and we are too early to conclude on it as an inferior theory to Evolution, at least in principle. So your conclusion;
“Unless this whole story is a made-up one, the other possibility is that those Buddhas could have emerged anywhere in the universe where intelligent beings exist. Think about an Arthrpoda(like) Buddha or a Molluscan(like) Buddha preaching his “way”!”,
,needs more investigations/explorations in principle before its launch, in my view.
“Off hand mockers” like SomewhatDisguted and that woman mock at anything they are ignorant, with their bravery originated due to their lack of knowledge, and doing a huge damage by preventing aiming the search light of scientific investigations into the “dark corners” which are feasible untouched treasuries of knowledge. They are driving a Bulldozer to remove whatever they feel unnecessary to feed their consumerist pretty minds. With the enormous club they are holding in their hands with difficulty, they thrash each and every idea popping up in front keeping their little eyes closed.
Not only the God, we also must forgive these ignorant people for the sins done with ignorance.
Thanks!
Correction……
“They are driving a Bulldozer to remove whatever they feel unnecessary to feed their consumerist pretty minds.”
Here “pretty” should be replaced by “petty”.
Thanks!
Dear Longus
RE: “So, is there a deeper meaning to all this? No, is the answer.”
I recall Dawkins expressing this same idea quite well in a documentary. No matter how deep-seated our desire to see a goal, the universe is not obliged to provide us with one. The meaning of life is what we imbue it with, it is not a “destiny” forced on us by some celestial Rube Goldberg machine. Indeed, the very concept of free will, in a way, rests on this. If our goal in life was pre-determined, then we are but mere automatons created to *achieve* that goal. As Christopher Hitchens puts it, we would be nothing more than “tools” in the grander scheme of things. How can that evee be a desirable state of affairs?
So I feel that the fact that there’s no purpose to life is a *good thing*. We have the free will to make the best of it – and we are free to give it meaning. We are not just someone’s “tool”.
However, having said this, it does force upon us the question, what do we do? As you’ve pointed out, we seem to have solved one great mystery – why do humans exist? We have one other outstanding mystery to solve – why does *anything* exist?
I would like to know! I dislike religions for that very reason. They claim to already *know* the answers, so no further investigation is necessary. Apart from the sheer arrogance of such claims, the claims are suspiciously hollow. None of these things have ever been demonstrated to be true in an even remote sense, yet people are willing to burn others at the stake for it and stake their lives on it?
A little bit of thought invested in the matter should inform anyone that there is no way to establish a shared reality other than through the scientific method. So until and unless these religious claims are established systematically, we have no way to distinguish it from fantasy and hallucination. That’s why anyone who continues to insist on the truth of their religion are either misinformed, wilfully ignorant or brainwashed since childhood.
Dear Yapa,
You’re the second individual I’ve met who would sooner deny evolution that to admit that the Buddhist doctrine might be a bit off the mark. Evolution is just a “theory” indeed
Dear Longus,
You make a good point about the Buddha and “free-will”. If the Buddha did *not* believe in pre-determination, then, by implication, he cannot see the future, obviously. However, the “Maha Seehanada Sutta”, claims that one of the Thaththagatha’s skills is to see the future.
It must either be sorely mistaken, or greatly exaggerating (as in, the Buddha being wise was confused with him being able to see into the far-distant future). In any case, the Buddha could not have predicted anything about some other Buddha coming along in X number of years. Basically, his ability to predict the future was no different from that of any other reasonably intelligent person.
Conversely, if one says that the Buddha could, in fact, see the future, that means everything is pre-determined. This destroys any notion of free-will.
Could someone familiar with the literature please clarify which it is? Did
a. The Buddha believe in free-will?
b. or did the Buddha actually claim to see the future?
c. Is there a contradiction?
“You’re the second individual I’ve met who would sooner deny evolution that to admit that the Buddhist doctrine might be a bit off the mark. Evolution is just a “theory” indeed”
Why are just mocking at my core idea only? Why don’t you analyze/criticize my arguments to arrive at that conclusion? Anybody can just mock at anything, it is very easy. When the Aristotle’s ideas were challenged in Europe, only a few people were supporting it, many prominent people mocked at it. But you know what happened.
I am the second individual you met doubting the evolution,as you said, I think because your knowledge of science and about the nature of the scientific theories is not sufficient. There are people who are thorough in Scientific Methodologies and Scientists who consider evolution as an incomplete theory. It is not a secret. But for the faithful believers of science like you(due to lack of real knowledge of Science) anything said in the name of Science is true. It is because you have no capacity to doubt anything in Science, it needs some formal knowledge. (I am telling the naked truth here though it may be embarrassed to you.)You need to inculcate some discipline in Science to see its totality. For people who has no proper knowledge about Science it is a panacea and an Aladin’s lamp. For you Science is god. For us it is only one of the tools for gaining knowledge. We don’t see all good in it, we have the capacity to see the weaknesses in them too. There is a saying that its own urine is a river for an ant. It is similarly true for you.
Thanks!
Mr. SomewhatDisgusted;
“It must either be sorely mistaken, or greatly exaggerating (as in, the Buddha being wise was confused with him being able to see into the far-distant future).”
My post of September 15, 2010 @ 6:45 am is against your comment above. Why don’t you refute my arguments contained in it.
You cannot establish your ideas ignoring it. If possible disprove my post and establish your notion. I challenge you.
Thanks!
“I recall Dawkins expressing this same idea quite well in a documentary.”
Dawkins is a western god for this person. He is a Science activist more than a scientist. Dawkins is one of the big clubs you are having in your hand to thrash anything going against what such people say. You are only a faithful body guards of such people who does not have free and independent thinking.You are only faithful a disciple of such people who has no self confidence to think of your own. Do you think there cannot be person who can develop better thinking than Dawkins? Why do you think Dawkins thinking is supreme? Is it because of slave mentality?
Thanks!
“I would like to know! I dislike religions for that very reason. They claim to already *know* the answers, so no further investigation is necessary”
Just the same problem with you.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisguted;
“Conversely, if one says that the Buddha could, in fact, see the future, that means everything is pre-determined. This destroys any notion of free-will.”
You come to enormous conclusions based on petty arguments.
Possibility of seeing a future event means everything is pre-determined?
I have seen high school teachers exactly predicting future events. I have seen them telling their bright students that they would enter the universities and that happens. Can you remember scientists predict their space craft will be landed on moon on such and such a date. Haven’t you seen the airplane schedules at airports? Don’t they reach the destinations on time?
You are mad with unbearable thinking for you.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
As you say, the future Buddha is undergiong countless births to tune his mind with the virtues that are needed to attain the Buddhahood. But he wouldn’t know it (his mission) say, when he is born as an Eskimo in the North Pole, and he might kill a seal in order to survive. Won’t the effect of this act (its Karmic effect) jeopadize the future out come of his mission?
In that case he would never become Maithree ; he would rather spent the rest of his (sansaric) life is Hell-Niraya- according to Buddhism!
Your statement on evolution, I think arises from a lack of understanding, as heaps and heaps of overwhelming evidence has made evolution an irrefutable thoery after 150 years.
Dear All;
There is a saying among Sinhalese people that “Nodanna demaleta gohin warige naha gannawa”. When people try to be too smart in what they don’t know this happens.
Once this particular person, SomewhatDisgusted did it trying to teach a Chemistry lesson, there he said Methyl Alcohol in Kasippu (Moon shine) can be separated by taking the top potion of it out.
Now this person says that predictability of an event falls everything into pre-determinism.
Can’t you really predict events in the future?
Definitely there are many events that can be precisely predicted. For example, I can definitely predict the out come of mixing Hydrogen with Oxygen. Can’t you say what will happen if you put a piece of Zinc to Hydrochloric Acid?
You can exactly predict the out comes of the questions under Charles’ Law, Boyle’s Law or any other phenomena falls under physics. Can’t you predict things under the Newton’s Laws of Motion? Linear Motion, Circular Motion, Harmonic Ootions? You can predict them exactly and precisely.
Really, as I explained in my post of September 15, 2010 @ 6:45 am, if all the independent variables can be identified and the relationship (the Principle between the dependent and independent variables) is known, all the outcomes can be predicted to the point. There are so many outcomes/events that can be predicted precisely.
However, there are difficulties to identify the independent variables and also the relationship in some cases. In such cases, it is not possible to predict the outcomes to the point.
I have advised this person several times, not to tamper with the things he has no knowledge. But his vain takes him to his “predictable destination”.
Ignorance make many people brave!
Thanks!
correction…..
But his vain takes him to his “predictable destination”.
Here in place of “vain” it should be “vanity”.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Evolution and 24
—————–
You are missing the point that SomewhatDisgusted is making about ‘evolution’ and ‘Buddhism’.
It is not about whether evolution is fact (though most people today support the arguments put forward).
The point is, it is hard to fit-in the idea of 24 Buddhas into an imaginable timeframe when you consider evolution. When such a question is raised you adopt the tactic of ‘questioning evolution’, rather than acknowledge the discrepancy.
You did this before with questioning the ‘scientific method’, writing reams to challenge ‘science’ itself when the logic of what you were saying was challenged as nonsensical.
Predicting exam results etc.
————————
Wholly irrelevant.
When NASA predicts the time of landing it stating a design, a plan and the likelyhood of making the plan. Same for the exam result.
In the case of Maithree Buddha, any prediction can only be based on a knowledge of exactly the conditions in which this individual will live over 5,000 years, and his volitional actions, and everything else that would potentially conspire to jeopardise the prediction. Making that prediction is to say that, regardless of what action he takes he will tread the pious path to Buddhahood. This is the same as saying the future, at least as far as this guy in concerned, is fixed. (IOW, whatever road he takes he will get there. With the exam results it is not fixed unless the teacher is able to ‘fix’ it, if you see what I mean).
In the NASA example the outcome is not fixed. If the astronauts decide between themselves to head towards Neptune instead that’s where they will go, to the surprise and dismay of Houston and the TV stations who aren’t covering Neptune.
What Longus is saying is, what if this guy in one of his lives is born in the Bronx and chooses to become a drug baron and pimp? And over 5,000 years what is the likelyhood that such things will happen? If the Buddha is sure it won’t then that means the future is already determined.
Dear longus;
You say (A): As you say, the future Buddha is undergiong countless births to tune his mind with the virtues that are needed to attain the Buddhahood. But he wouldn’t know it (his mission) say, when he is born as an Eskimo in the North Pole, and he might kill a seal in order to survive. Won’t the effect of this act (its Karmic effect) jeopadize the future out come of his mission?
In that case he would never become Maithree ; he would rather spent the rest of his (sansaric) life is Hell-Niraya- according to Buddhism!
Ansawer (B): Not at all. You must know the Buddhist theory with regard to this. After a Bodhisathva takes “Niyatha Vivarana” from a Buddha, his right view generally is set. Just because he does some negative karmic acts, it does not prevent him reaching his goal. Those negative Karma has their negative effects. Though all of have both positive and negative karmas as our “heritage”, we are not definitely destined for Hell. To learn how karmic forces work you will have to learn the nature of Karma, Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada. Just a single bad karma does not destine somebody to hell.
(A); Your statement on evolution, I think arises from a lack of understanding, as heaps and heaps of overwhelming evidence has made evolution an irrefutable thoery after 150 years.
(B): Not at all. It came with my better understanding of the nature of Scientific Theories. It is true that non has refuted it. However, it is a well known fact that The Theory of Evolution lacks some attributes of “good a Scientific Theory”. That is why Richard Dawkins had to support “the Theory” by writing the book ” The Greatest Show on Earth”, after 150years.
On the other hand I don’t think one can support the Theory of Evolution while opposing the Big Bang Theory. Do you think possible?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
The line “evolution is just a theory” is funny because it’s one of the favourite lines of fundie Christians and Muslims. Google to find out why. Perhaps you can feel a new found sense of solidarity with them since you seem to also advocate the “just a theory” position?
Here’s why it’s not “just a theory”: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml
And here’s a nice explanation of what is meant by a scientific “theory”: http://www.notjustatheory.com/
As for your explanation about determinism vs free-will, I think you’ve answered as usual without really bothering to understand the question. As much as I sympathize with your desire to defend Buddhism, this whole “defence first, comprehension later” approach is not that useful to anyone.
“this whole “defence first, comprehension later” approach is not that useful to anyone.”
… but is jolly entertaining!
It says here
http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/List_of_the_28_Buddhas
“The 28 Buddhas are not the only Buddhas believed to have existed. Indeed, Gautama Buddha preached that innumerable Buddhas have lived in past kalpas.”
So, why so long until the next one? Why none in our times? Doesn’t it also prove the futility of ‘trying’ or ‘working towards becoming a Buddha’ if clearly it ain’t going to happen to us unless we live to be 2,500 years old??
Also Dipankara Buddha gave permission to the Gautama to become a Buddha. All this protocol (any secret handshakes?) smacks of the Freemasons to me. Oh dear.
I wonder if this is part of the ‘provable and predictable’ that was mentioned earlier?
C’mon Mr Yapa. It’s just another religion. It works like one. Works very well for those who need a religion. Let it be. Just like Islam and Hinduism is for our brothers in our part of the world. It is not science.
Yes it it possible, Yapa
I opposed the Big Bang theory in its classical form (ie. the singilarity concept believed in the ’60s & ’70s and still believed by the Vatican and people like Heshan…) The quantum model of the Big Bang doesn’t need a creation or a creator.
Evolution too eliminates the need of a creator! Can’t you see the reason why the theistic religions oppose it so much? Buddhism doesn’t say anything about a creation, so is it clear to you now?
“You’re the second individual I’ve met who would sooner deny evolution that to admit that the Buddhist doctrine might be a bit off the mark.”
Who is the first, and how does Buddhism contradict evolution?
“Could someone familiar with the literature please clarify which it is? Did
a. The Buddha believe in free-will?
b. or did the Buddha actually claim to see the future?
c. Is there a contradiction?”
a. Yes, and he explicitly condemned another contemporary philosophical system (now extinct) that preached determinism.
b. I honestly don’t know; I think there was reference of him able to see the effects of one’s kamma which is more or less predetermined.
Now I anticipate BalangodaMan getting excited and bleating that Buddha would not be omniscient if he cannot see the future. The answer I would give is that it really makes no difference whether he was omniscient or not (one could philosophically argue whether it is even possible to be omniscient). The Buddha’s claim to fame was finding the end of suffering. In his own words, his teachings covered only suffering and the end of suffering. That is all that matters.
Krish,
“By the way, how did this re-conciliation turn out to be a debate on Buddha himself?”
Because people like BalangodaMan and Prof Heshan who know nothing about the current situation in SL need something else to speculate about.
“As for your explanation about determinism vs free-will, I think you’ve answered as usual without really bothering to understand the question. As much as I sympathize with your desire to defend Buddhism, this whole “defence first, comprehension later” approach is not that useful to anyone.”
Without just posing whole sale comments please show the flaws one by one in what I said.
Please give counter arguments for my points. It is not possible. You are entangled in outdated ideologies learnt from the Science Activists and Science Fiction writers. You have no firm base in Science. That is your problem.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
Your web line given above ie., http://www.notjustatheory.com/ itself is an evidence that “Evolution is not a complete theory. Supporters of the theory still have to keep on supporting and reiterating it to convince the audience its importance. Further, the facts about Laws, Theories and Principles given in the article in that link are incorrect. It is an article I think written by a novice, I suppose.
However, rather than some hasty conclusions about some processes like evolution of the man, basic principle of evolution is not very incorrect, though it represents only fraction of the reality. Darwin has seen the world like one of the blind men who tried to identify the elephant. Really, Evolution can be considered as a “Sub Theory” of the more profound Buddhist Theory of “Pancha Niyama Dharma” and Paticca Samuppada taken together. I will explain this in detail soon. You are trapped so hard in western theories that you even cannot think of existence of theories outside the western knowledge system. You are mistaken. “Pancha Niyama Dharma” and Paticca Samuppada taken together, represents a very very profound theory to explain nature, including all living and non living things. I think that is the best Principle in Natural Science ever found and it is high time the attention of the scientific community (Not the attention of the Science Activists like you) should be drawn to it.
In your case you are only a tiny shellfish tightly attached to the rock of Science craving for some morsels of food floating in the sea water. You are attached to science only for your advantage of existence. Other than that your attachment cannot do any good to Science.
Further,you are attached to an outdated rock, the ideologies emanated from “Biological Sciences” are now in the back seats and still based on the obsolete regressive Newtonian Ideologies.
What I have to say is you have to learn a lot in Science.
Thanks!
Dear B/ Woman;
RE: your post of September 15, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
You and your nuts. What do you know about Science and predictions? Your “Gura” is also in trouble just as you about “Pre-determinism”. You have no knowledge about Haley’s Comet? Its appearance to the earth is pre-predicted for several cycles. What do you know about Science? You and your accomplice are just “consumers of Science”.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“Evolution too eliminates the need of a creator! Can’t you see the reason why the theistic religions oppose it so much? Buddhism doesn’t say anything about a creation, so is it clear to you now?”
Do you think just because something opposes “Creator God”, it automatically becomes true? Do you believe “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”?
I think you have given up your right view by mesmerizing to the doubting, questioning, ridiculing and humiliating abilities of that “ignorant man”, SomewhatDisgusted.
Such abilities are primitive level abilities one can have even without any knowledge. Any idiot can question anything. You see even that gossiping woman does. Especially when a person is competent in language he can marvel people. But it does not say the contents of their writing is rich. Many substitute semantics for logic, but they do not last long.
What these foolish pandits do in a discussion is exhibiting their semantic, questioning, doubting, ridiculing and humiliating capabilities to counter the arguments. Did you see they are putting forward any valuable arguments instead?
Do you think it is fair to consider such capabilities in the same plane as arguments and knowledge put forward by others? Didn’t you notice how they avoid my arguments by just writing whole sale comments? Did you ever see those people analysing my comments one by one? Why is that? Because they have no that competency, and they have no counter arguments.
They are looking at the world with their little eyes and you are mesmerized to their semantic tricks!
In my case I am more and more firm on my stance seeing their fragility on their ideologies.
Knowledge is power. Not semantics.
Thanks!
Correction……..
“In your case you are only a tiny shellfish tightly attached to the rock of Science craving for some morsels of food floating in the sea water.”
Should be corrected as,
” In your case you are only a tiny “selfish shellfish” tightly attached to the rock of Science craving for some morsels of food floating in the sea water.”
Thanks!
Dear Somewhat Disgusted;
“The line “evolution is just a theory” is funny because it’s one of the favourite lines of fundie Christians and Muslims. Google to find out why. Perhaps you can feel a new found sense of solidarity with them since you seem to also advocate the “just a theory” position?”
Are you going to say that because Theory of Evolution is criticized by fundie Christians and Muslims, “the Theory” becomes strong?
What happened to your free and independent thinking? Your thinking is spoiled with prejudiced by your fondness to Science.
You are a blind believer of Science. You can perform rituals and pay homage to it.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala
RE: “Who is the first, and how does Buddhism contradict evolution?”
The first is someone known to me who preferred not to believe in evolution since that would contradict the fact that Gauthama strived for some “Sara Sankhya Kalpa Lakshayak” (for those who are not familiar: a really great number of years that’s far far greater than the time before even the first home sapiens sapiens appeared) in order to become the Buddha, or some such notion.
RE: ” it really makes no difference whether he was omniscient or not (one could philosophically argue whether it is even possible to be omniscient)”
Clearly does not affect the core philosophy, but it is a sad indictment of popular belief. Is it healthy to believe this stuff? And is there an essential difference between a superstitious and pious Buddhist and a superstitious and pious Christian?
RE: “The Buddha’s claim to fame was finding the end of suffering. In his own words, his teachings covered only suffering and the end of suffering. That is all that matters.”
I can agree with that to a large extent, assuming that the end of suffering = end of feeling/emotion. Is this what you mean by end of suffering?
Secondly, whether achieving the end of suffering is the only worthy goal is not clear. Aren’t there other worthy goals one can conceive of?
Thirdly, there are specific metaphysical claims that are made *apart from ending suffering*, such as knowledge about supernatural things as well as specific claims that ending suffering is the main goal – which is not a conclusion that can be reached without omniscience.
Lastly, what about the religious cult that’s built around the philosophy? Clearly, they believe there’s more to it than that, to the point that it’s the religious identity that defines their existence, and that has nothing to do with “the end of suffering”. Do you agree?
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“Lastly, what about the religious cult that’s built around the philosophy? Clearly, they believe there’s more to it than that, to the point that it’s the religious identity that defines their existence, and that has nothing to do with “the end of suffering”. Do you agree?”
Wrong practices based on a good theory is not a reason for it to throw away. You are only seeing the practical (Consumerist?) aspect of everything. If what you say is correct, Science also have to be thrown away as you have already formed a “Science cult”.
Thanks!
(hope you will answer my posts to you the same way you answered wijayapala above.)
Wiajayapala,
“Because people like BalangodaMan and Prof Heshan who know nothing about the current situation in SL need something else to speculate about.”
The current situation viz a viz Peace and Reconciliation was in full swing on this thread until it became clear that ‘equalness of all Sri Lankans’ was contested by some. This begged the question why not equal? And then came the answer … ‘Mahawamsa’, and that line of reasoning invariably involves the real or imagined sponsorship of the Sinhala-Buddhist people in SL as the ‘legitimate inhabitants’ of SL as decreed by the Buddha himself. That then leads to question the reason why some people in SL regard such pronouncements as gospel, particularly when they frustrate (some say even ’caused’) the real issues facing the country today.
Mr Yapa,
“You have no knowledge about Haley’s Comet? Its appearance to the earth is pre-predicted for several cycles”
BTW it’s Halley.
Halley’s Comet will return to the Solar System every 76 years. UNLESS something else intervenes to prevent that.
When the Buddha says that the next Buddha is coming in 5,000 years he is not saying ‘the next Buddha will come in 5,000 years UNLESS he does not make it because of his exercise of free-will (un-pious) or some external intervention, or UNLESS some other person rises to Buddhahood in the meantime who very well might because it is possible and anyway if my teaching are followed is very probable too’. In the absence of those caviats he is making a definite prediction that overrides free-will and all his pronouncements on ’cause and effect’ that you quote.
In the Halley’s Comet case no one is saying that the comet would return EVEN IF it collides with another object and gets destroyed!
Now if the Buddha actually said, ‘Maithree Buddha will happen in 5,000 years unless he loses his way, and I can’t guarantee that, and anyway if he doesn’t happen no one else will’ …
Predetermination
——————
I have mentioned before, despite the Buddha teaching that ‘there is no god to fix things for us’ (self-determination) most Buddhists pray to a god (even Buddha as a god).
Most Buddhists are also believers in astrology. This is a belief totally resting on the idea that ‘the future is written’. Predetermined.
These two practices alone is strong evidence that most Buddhists in SL have chosen a diametrically opposite set of beliefs to Buddhism, are Buddhist for purposes of ethnic identity only. As Sujewa said on the other thread ‘it is a failed religion in SL’ in that respect (when you also take into effect the nonsensical idea that Buddhists can fight a war).
Dear Yapa:
You made a very interesting point:
On the other hand I don’t think one can support the Theory of Evolution while opposing the Big Bang Theory. Do you think possible?
That is correct. Only the Big Bang explains how the gases present at the beginning of the Universe combined in the correct proportions to create the atmosphere. The same gases that one finds in the Big Bang can also be found in the theory of evolution. And only the Big Bang theory assumes that at one point, these gases were part of a giant ball of potential energy – e.g. singularity. Thanks again for bringing this point up.
Dear Hesha;
RE: Your post of September 16, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
The statement mentioned above in your statement was brought by me as a counter argument to dispute an argument presented by longus. However, the statement does not imply either of those theories are true or I believe so. For me both of them are only “theories” that have not still become Laws, Principles or Theorems to believe as true in Principle. So I am open minded about them and I cannot say whether they are true or not. This is the true stand of scientists as well.
The people like SomewhatDisgusted and the gossiping woman who have no exposure to higher level of science, take theories as “Gospel Truths” and thrash the new ideas coming their way with that “dogmatic club of obsolete view” and dance in the forums triumphantly.
Lack of knowledge is their advantage. They think (scientific) knowledge comes to their mighty heads automatically. They have become “scientists” by reading science magazines and books written by science activists and try to teach grand mothers how to suck eggs.
Sako Balalo! Abuddassa kale! ( These you might not understand, not meant for you)
Thanks!
THE BUDDHIST THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Buddhism does not believe in creation. Rather, it has its own theory of Evolution to explain the origin of the beings on earth and evolution of everything including flora and fauna. Unlike the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in Buddhism it does not entirely depend on a single independent variable but on five independent variables. The Darwin’s theory believes that the evolution takes place when an animal adjust to fit the changes in the environment. It says fittest is survived against the environment and the result is the evolution. Here the single independent variable is environment or the environmental changes.
It is true that non living things like rocks, wood, leaves etc. etc. evolve (change) according to the environment. Rocks erode with the time with the influence of the environment. True, there is no any other factor that causes to the decay of a rock. But do you think environment is the only factor that affects the evolution of the “beings”, including the man with a very advanced mind/complicated consciousness? Can you really believe that man is an passive thing to be inactively exposed to the environment to be evolved? Can you reasonably believe environment is the only factor that makes changes in humans and other beings in the animal kingdom? In other words can you reasonably believe that evolution of animals take place according to the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?
According to the Buddhist theory, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true for non living things like rocks. But any open minded person with some common sense who have the bravery to think independently will understand that the environment alone cannot be held responsible for the fate of the man and the animals in the “universe”.
I expect objections to be raised against what I have mentioned so far if available, before going into the next step.
Thanks!
You’re gotta love this guy!
“According to the Buddhist theory, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true for non living things like rocks.”
Darwin wasn’t trying to plot how living beings are motivated, whether they did good things or bad things, or how to end suffering. His interest was in the similarities between different species and to find a connection between them. His results opened our eyes to things that were never seriously imagined up to that point. Evolutionary biologists further his findings even today and continue to expand on that knowledge.
He did not study rocks.
Mr Yapa, how much research is being conducted by the Universities in SL to study the theories on evolution that was written 2,500 years ago? How much funding has GOSL allocated to this important work? Is this research being done anywhere in the world?
Dear B/Woman;
Mr Yapa, how much research is being conducted by the Universities in SL to study the theories on evolution that was written 2,500 years ago? How much funding has GOSL allocated to this important work? Is this research being done anywhere in the world?
You need a pioneer to initiate something. Until Einstein pioneered as a young man, scientific research on the Theory of Relativity had not been started in any university of the world. Research projects are to follow a pioneering work. I am pioneering the Modern Evolution Theory. Are you feeling jealous?
Cheers.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan
“The current situation viz a viz Peace and Reconciliation was in full swing on this thread until it became clear that ‘equalness of all Sri Lankans’ was contested by some. This begged the question why not equal? And then came the answer … ‘Mahawamsa’, and that line of reasoning invariably involves the real or imagined sponsorship of the Sinhala-Buddhist people in SL as the ‘legitimate inhabitants’ of SL as decreed by the Buddha himself.”
Well you went down the wrong path. The Mahavamsa is NOT the reason for inequality in SL. Unsurprisingly, you have not brought the discussion back to the topic of reconciliation, probably because the topic did not interest you in the first place.
Wijayapala,
“probably because the topic did not interest you in the first place.”
It does. My entry into the discussion is for that purpose which anyone can see, as well as my entry into the previous thread. I have also attempted to bring the discussion back on track on several occasions, also anyone can see.
Perhaps the Yapaese ludicrosity needs a separate thread. Perhaps he will ‘pioneer’ that so we can give him the feedback he needs (not) without derailing this thread. Yes, it is riveting stuff.
“The Mahavamsa is NOT the reason for inequality in SL”
I agree, you mean ‘it shouldn’t be’. But the reality we all know.
Heshan
Welcome back!
I thought you have gone underground and sharing a burrow with a mole!
Don’t worry, people don’t remember things for long!
But, alarmingly as soon after you re-emerged you seem to have dropped a brick on your toes! Why man, didn’t you take your morning medication yet?
By telling that innitial energies and gases all contained in a “giant ball” called a “singularity” you have dug your grave for the second time as well!
How (on “earth”) can a “giant ball” be a SINGULARITY?
Once again, a “singularity” is a single point!
Your assertion that the same gases persisted until evolution took place makes no sense to a sane mind! Soon after the Big Bang all the atoms were in a state of ‘sub-atomic plasma”, not ‘gasses” as you claim!
Dear Yapa
While waiting for your “Buddhist Theory of Evolution” a few thoughts for your mind to improve it….
Apart from the two salient doctrines that you mention about (Niyaama damma and Paticca Samuppada) there is another set of rules that you have hitherto disregard. Those are called “Prayoga Dhamma” -according to Buddha-or “conditions under which the Karma can be avoided”-like getting round tactics or “worm hole” theories in a Black Hole!- This implies that there are ways that you can avoid or evade a Karma, and that Karma is not a kind of “pre-determinism”
These five proyoga dhamma are :
Kala (time), Gathi (physical appearence), Upadhi (affluence), Wayaama (effort) and Ahosi Kamma
Kala:If you are born in a good time ie. peaceful and prosperous (as it is now in Sri Lanka! ) your bad karma can be avoided ; the reverse is equally true as well
Gathi: If you are sufficient affluent, you can avoid your Karma – like Mahinda Rajapakse!
Upadhi: If you have physical charm or beauty you can avoid your Karma. Eg. If you are a beauty queen you may avoid a bad karma and overcome your difficulties -like Rosy or Anarkali…The reverse is also true!
Waayama; If you are a persistent and persevering person you might overcome your Karma.
Ahosi: The Karma doesn’t have a time to bring its effects if the person has attained enlightenment – like an Arahat, according to Buddha.
Dear Longus,
What Heshan is trying to say I believe, is that good ‘ol god set the big bang in motion, so that it would “eventually” create the conditions to create life. So, Christians have had to fall back from god creating man and woman directly, to god seeding life initially, all the way back to 15 billion years ago where god now indirectly acts as the agent that sets the cosmic constants. If we somehow discover the reasons for those, there will be yet another retreat to a point in time before that, and so on ad-infinitum.
The basic pattern I see here, is the inability to grasp the concept called “random”. The reason for this is clear. Human beings are naturally primed to see agency in everything. It does not like the notion of “random” events. This is the way our minds work! Why? Because that’s how we fathom and predict the function of objects around us – we assign agency – cause/effect.
Now clearly, random is not a comprehensible cause, hence, supernatural agency to the rescue. Here are some examples.
1. Early primitive tribes couldn’t understand why even the simplest stuff was happening, therefore supernatural agents like demons etc. had to do it.
2. Then the mono-theistic religions, like Christianity, decided that a ruling demon, God, did it.
3. The Buddhists don’t think the events happening to them can just be random, it had to be their “karma”.
4. For some, it’s asvaha-katavaha (evil eye) that did it.
5. For others, it’s planetary movements (a.k.a astrology)
6. and so on.
The commonality here, is the need to see “agency”. It wouldn’t make “sense” to us otherwise. I mean, how the hell would it make sense if we can’t see a cause and effect?
This I believe, is the very basis of all superstitions. We are not the only animals who are superstitious. Superstitious behaviour has been demonstrated in pigeons for example, when their expected programming is violated. Indeed, any animal which can predict behaviour in its environment *must* be superstitious to some degree. Again, our ability to predict *depends* on cause/effect relationships and our minds banks on predictability for its function. Random events just aren’t a part of our programming.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted
Don’t think that “materialism” originated in the west as claimed by some. The earliest person who preached a doctrine of materialism was Ajitha Kesakambali who was a contemporary of Buddha. His materialism comes closer to the modern scientific view of the universe and I rank him far ahead of Buddha in the depth and complexity of his doctrine. Unfortunately very few referrences of Ajitha’s teachings survive to date and in fact some of them are the scornful remarks of the followers of Buddhism and Jainsm uttered in order to refute them.
In spite of being a materialist Ajitha is never reported to have abused anyone and he lived an ascetic life abstaining from sex and alcohol (for unknown reasons!) In spite of the opposition he faced from Buddhism and Jainism his doctrine survived to be the precurser of Lokayathism or Indian school of materialism.
He preached his doctrine under very difficult circumstances in the ancient India -luckily the “heretics” were not burned alive in ancient India unlike the Christian West in the DARK AGES! – and considering how difficult it is to preach a materialism in the 21st century in America one can imagine how challenging for this Great Man to live his life in the 6th century B.C.
Although there were two other teachers who preached a kind of materialism in India the same time around, they seem to have opposed certain aspects of “soul” in Hinduism (One was Purana Kassapa or the “old one” and the other being Pakudha Kachchayana ) Ajitha’s teachings reminds me of Emmanual Kant, Ebraham T. Kowr of Sri Lanka and a little bit of Carlo Fonseka….
To read more about this genius who lived 25 centuries ahead of his time please go to the following sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajitha_Kesakambali
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=60
Dear Yapa
Honourable Sir, I would like to know whether the following predictions about your personal life are true or not! I hope you will be honest in your reply!
Are you a retired Chemistry teacher, by the way?
Do you wear reading glasses?
Though you spend time writing this blog your Wife – I mean the Hon.Minister of Home Affairs!- often criticizes your practice, right?
You like to have an occasional drink, right?
The above survey was conducted on purely academic grounds!
Thanka
Dear SomewhatDisgusted
My previous post about Ajitha Kesakambali was posted before your last post appeared.
Exactly to the point! Even great minds like Einstein couldn’t escape his childhood indoctrination of God, when he made that famous statement regarding Quantum Mechanics, ie.”God won’t play dice with the universe”!
In fact, he could never erase his differences with Neils Bohr and Heisenberg the fathers of Quantum Physics, regarding the “promiscuous” randomness, that you see in the sub-atomic world!
But the truth has to be accepted and it is, but still it’s a pseudo-science to people who expect the nature to behave the way their religions taught them!
Somewhat Disgusted:
The basic pattern I see here, is the inability to grasp the concept called “random”.
You are correct, but for the wrong reasons. As random as an event may be, the “randomness” can still be minimized. Once the minimization reaches a certain point, however, the notion of randomness simply vanishes altogether. Thus, the atheist may believe the Universe came into being spontaneously, of its own volition, if you will, with no outside intervention. But then, the proximity of the Earth to the Sun was an accident. As was the ozone layer that protects Earth’s atmosphere. As was plants’ ability to perform photosynthesis. As was the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, to begin with (not every planet has oxygen). As is the abundance of water on Earth. As are genes and their ability to mutate. As are the 100 billion neurons in the human brain and their ability to transmit electro-chemical impulses along just the right pathway. As are the 1001 functions of a cell. I could go on and on, but the point is clear enough: if life on earth is “random” it is certainly a collection of organized random phenomena numbering in the several hundred million. The difference between the atheist and the believer is that the believer sees looks for meaning behind the organized. At least for the believer, organization does not go well with randomness. It is like saying, if you leave dishes in a sink, they will wash themselves. There is something called entropy, which states that the Universe tends towards disorder, not order. The atheist, however, attributes even the organization to mere randomness.
There is no objective resolution to the above dilemma. Much of it is a question of perception. Personally, given my familiarity with advanced mathematics, I do not like to think that patterns arise randomly. One should first of all identify the basic structures. And from there, define relations. To do this properly, you need to be precise. There is a methodology – a way of reasoning behind it all, that simply defies randomness.
*The difference between the atheist and the believer is that the believer looks for the meaning behind the organization.
Dear Yapa:
However, the statement does not imply either of those theories are true or I believe so. For me both of them are only “theories” that have not still become Laws, Principles or Theorems to believe as true in Principle.
Again, an insightful observation. It is true that science only provides one description of the Universe. But this description is not absolute. That is why I prefer mathematics; once a theorem has been definitively proved, it has been proved for all time. Once there was a famous mathematician who said, “equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.” A scientist is cynical, for a very good reason – he knows this theory/observations are only an approximation of some higher truth. The very best scientists, e.g. Einstein, never felt that it was possible for one human to understand even half of the Universe and its workings, during one lifetime. Unfortunately, mathematics cannot finish what science is desperately trying to do, which is explain all of reality. That is because mathematics is concerned with abstract objects, whereas science is concerned with the practical. Now, some scientists have made the claim that it is possible to explain reality using just mathematics and mathematical physics, e.g. string theory, but so far have failed in their quest to find a “theory of everything.” Whether they will eventually succeed – at all – is doubtful.
Longus,
Thanks for that expose on the 5 ‘Proyoga Dhamma’.
So, basically what this is saying is, ‘never mind Karma and other effort for influencing a rosy afterlife because loads of other factors will decide whether you have a ball or not’.
To help Mr Yapa with his research, a properly conducted experiment would involve gathering groups of people all born at a good time, good looks, same amount of money in the bank, equally persevering, and not yet reached enlightenment and compare how happy they are (their Happiness Quotient). The differences between the subjects is attributable to their Karma, therefore.
Mr Yapa’s research then needs to find a correlation between these readings and to how closely the subjects followed the Noble Eightfold Path in previous births, or some other process towards salvation (prayer) to arrive at a causal connection. This should be easy.
PS: I would add a 6th item. ‘Hooch’ – the extent to which one may be ‘lifted’ by dope, prescribed or otherwise.
Dear ——–Disgusted;
“3. The Buddhists don’t think the events happening to them can just be random, it had to be their “karma”.”
You and your nuts! If you have no idea,”don’t just jump” (paninna epa). Yhat is your main weakness(panala deema). Wait for my explanation. I will explain that in the course of my “pioneering effort”.
Are feeling shy to learn it from me?
Don’t worry. Take it easy.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
Here are my direct answers to your questions.
(Q): Are you a retired Chemistry teacher, by the way?
(A): You want to make me retire. I am still a young man like you.
(Q): Do you wear reading glasses?
(A): Yes.
(Q):Though you spend time writing this blog your Wife – I mean the Hon.Minister of Home Affairs!- often criticizes your practice, right?
(A): Very correctly! Sometimes the Minister uses a huge club of the size of the one used by SomewhatDisgusted to thrash others’ ideas, to make me behave.
(Q):You like to have an occasional drink, right?
(A): Yes, a heavy drinker, Sorry, sorry, I forgot, I made a mistake, how can I be a drinker, I am a Buddhist?
Thanks!
The above survey was conducted on purely academic grounds
Dear longus;
RE: Your post of September 16, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
Thanks for the kind help and encouragement. I will take them into consideration in writing the article. Thank you again.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“Again, our ability to predict *depends* on cause/effect relationships and our minds banks on predictability for its function. Random events just aren’t a part of our programming.”
Eventually, you seem to see a light in your long tunnel. It seems you are going to be a philosopher, shelving your dogmatic materialistic outfit. However, “random” has been the prominent way of your thinking so far.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
Thanks for the valuable comment.
However, just like the great mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan, could not get rid of his early childhood education of God, your love for Mathematics too could not make you an objective man, taking your religious bias towards the (Creator) God, out from you even it is disproved in a way similar to mathematics(Averroes’ stone). So the sayings like ” equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God”, are still formulas (not even equations) for you.
You must have read Sigmund Freud. He says early childhood experiences contribute a lot in developing the personality of an individual and also it is one of the main attributes of personality/psychological disorders later developed in his adulthood.
Cheers!
Thanks, Heshan!
Balangoda Man,
“I have also attempted to bring the discussion back on track on several occasions, also anyone can see.”
Try harder.
“The Mahavamsa is NOT the reason for inequality in SL”
I agree, you mean ‘it shouldn’t be’. But the reality we all know.”
Nope, I said it correctly the first time. The history of the last 50 years would not have been very different if the Mahavamsa had never existed. Try reading colonial history one more time. Nira Wickramasinghe wrote a great book on the formation of SL identities.
longus,
“His materialism comes closer to the modern scientific view of the universe and I rank him far ahead of Buddha in the depth and complexity of his doctrine.”
How do you know that if few of his teachings survived?
Dear Yapa:
I can explain to you in simple terms. If you let a balloon and a kite go into the air, both go “up.” But the balloon moves much slower and goes much less higher than the kite. That is the difference between science and mathematics. Science is limited to what can be tested… only these tests ensure repetition. So if you want to test the eating habits of mice, you will keep them in a cage of some sort, feed them, and look for a pattern. Other people will do the same thing in different labs. If it is determined within some confidence interval that mice in all the different labs have a tendency to eat X amount of a particular food, then that particular eating habit of the mice will become part of a “theory.”
I think you can see now why I said science is like a balloon, and not a kite. One must have a lab to perform controlled experiments. The “general case” is “proved” by saying that if person A, person B, person C, …. person X perform the same experiment, they will all get the same result.
In contrast, the foundation for mathematics is much stronger. One is dealing with abstract objects, whose existence need not be empirically verified. A proof is always complete, in the sense that you are not relying on statistical likelihood when you claim that a proposition is true. There is a deeper meaning here… it is that science tries to take on the real world, but the tools are never enough. The tools only give a limited picture of what “is.” For example, how many elements are there really? Is it 118? Maybe today – but a new one can be created tomorrow. Yet the science book will say, “everything on the planet is created from these elements.” Such a statement has limited value – it really means that everything that is known to exist on the planet is created from those known elements that are known to man. Mathematics, however, creates its own reality – if the Universe disappeared today, mathematics would still be valid, while science would become meaningless.
So what is the conclusion… it is that science is only a tool – a very limited one. No tool can do every job; different tools are good for different jobs. The good scientist is always aware of these limitations.
Wijayapala,
“Try harder”
Whoa! I’m not the moderator of this forum.
“The history of the last 50 years would not have been very different if the Mahavamsa had never existed”
A legitimate opinion. Whilst disagreeing with what you say, I do agree that some people blame colonial occupation for most things. And some of them write books. Some of those books can be very good ones.
Randomness
—————
SomewhatDisgusted raises a good point.
The contradictions in Mr Yapa’s religious certainties lie in a contradiction between (1) self-determination (2) randomness and (3) pre-destiny.
This is a whole series of analysis, perhaps better in a separate discussion. But in outline, here is the contradiction.
Pious living creates Karma (the Noble 8). However this is negated by random events (eg. those 5 circumstances which are random) and the certainly of the Next Coming confirms a belief in pre-destiny (also a strong tendency of believers to rely on astrology is evidence of this).
(the gods in the temples adds a 4th contradiction)
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “The history of the last 50 years would not have been very different if the Mahavamsa had never existed.”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, given the all-round post-colonial identity crises, if not for the Mahavamsa, some other book would have been found that “substantiated” a Sinhalese claim to the island? Therefore, it is not a problem with the Mahavamsa per se, but the Mahavamsa being misappropriated to support an ideology?
I kind of remember BalangodaMan made a similar point a while back. I’d like to understand whether there’s some disagreement on this matter?
Wijayapala,
Further to SomewhatDisgusted’s piece, on the question of why the Mahawamsa entered this debate, it is irrelevant that ‘some people’ may attribute other reasons for ethnic disharmony in SL. The reason it DID enter THIS discussion is because claims made IN THIS discussion relied on the misappropriation of the Mahawamsa (which reminded us that this has been a popular mindset, and which reminded us of our own history lessons at school, and which reminded us that we can understand why some of us are brainwashed into this mindset, which does not help Peace and Reconciliation, which is what this thread is about and is therefore relevant)
Dear Heshan;
Re: Your post of September 17, 2010 @ 8:14 am
I think we have discussed in the same line in a different thread. Many of the points you brought in here, do not make controversies with my opinion about them. It is true that Mathematics is abstract and gives exact or approximately exact results than Science. It is because Mathematics is based on “Deductive Logic”. If the premise is correct, the deductive logic gives the true conclusions. However, the Science, developed before so called Scientific Method, based on inductive logic introduced to it by the pioneers like Francis Bacon and Galileo, it was based on Deductive Logic. Those days Scientific principles were developed on a series of intellectual reasoning, beginning from a premise. Just as in the case of Mathematics, the conclusions in this case were also correct if the premise concerned is true. So the character of “correctness” in Mathematics too really can be attribute to Logic, really to deductive logic.
However, as I have pointed out in the previous discussion, in the same line in a different thread, while accepting the significance of Mathematics, I reserve my right to say that Mathematics is also a sort of created knowledge by humans and when the human presence is not available, Mathematics also has no existence. Otherwise, dogs and cats we have in our houses also must know some Mathematics. We could have used them as tutors to our children instead of paying a huge sum as tuition fees. It isn’t so. Is it Heshan?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
Now, can you imagine how some clever guessing takes place? Out of my 4 questions only a half of the answer to the first question was wrong! That is after posing only 4 questions. With a bigger sample size and more experience I would have achieved “statistical significance” and what, a “divine state”!
Thanks for your co-operation in the survey!
The puzzling complxety in the nature:
———————————-
The complexity in the structures in the nature could sometimes puzzle the biased mind and the need of a Creator is felt. For example that a complex structure like the eye evolved out of random selection didn’t go well with the people at Darwin’s time and in fact Darwin – leave alone poor Wallace, as he was in the jungles of Indonesia observing spiders and moths! – too did not know the answer.
But, now we know in simple animals the eye started as a simple light sensitive patch, and the next step was the formation of a lense. The outer coverings subsequently becomes the cornea, vitreoshumor, cilliary body and the conjuctiva. This whole process is repeated in the embryonic development of the animal and it shows how the eye became such a complex structure. In the animal kingdom you can see the eye at various stages of its evolution. Some times in insects it has taken an entirely different evolutionary turn.
In the same way the complexity of the structures of the universe may puzzle the biased mind. But when you go back in time – looking at the remnants of early universe – you can see much simpller structures and less complexity.
An event that started as a random fluctuation has evolved into a complex structure!
Dear longus;
“Now, can you imagine how some clever guessing takes place? Out of my 4 questions only a half of the answer to the first question was wrong! That is after posing only 4 questions. With a bigger sample size and more experience I would have achieved “statistical significance” and what, a “divine state”!”
To tell you frankly, my knowledge of Chemistry is poor.
Thanks!
Wijayapala
True. That is the case with Ajitha’s teachings but with the handful of facts that we have – “the handful of leaves in the hand of the monk as opposed to the leaves of the jungle”, to quote a Buddha’s proverb- it gives a very objective picture of “life” as we know it.
If you read the Saman^napala Sutra in Deegha Nikaya (the website :
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html )
you will read an interesting conversation that Buddha had with King Ajasath of Magadha. At one point the king says that he had visited all other six great teachers in India but none gave him a right answer to his question. The answers given by Purana Kassapa, Pakudha Kachchayana and Ajitha Kesakambali were “immoral” according to the king. Immoral or not the answer given by Ajitha Kesakambali cannot be disputed in anyway. In fact the king was prejudiced and wasn’t intelligent enough to understand it!
In here the Buddha appears to be a clever talker and a person who knew how to drive in his point. To the Buddha’s question as to whether he (the king) would take back his servant who decided to be homeless, if the king answered in the positive, I wonder what the Buddha would have said. The Buddha knew the king’s guilt after killing his father (the good and the righteous man)and He (Buddha) merely played on his sensitivities.
The description of the various meditative states of the mind (dhyanas) and how they can be achieved, to me is nothing short of a fairy-tale. A state of self hypnosis and hallucination may be achieved by that way as many such people claim to be doing. The description of the “mind-made body” that travels through space and walks on water, described here – so, that explains how Buddha came to Sri Lanka eh? – totally lacks objectivity.
So, first of all you have to read it…..
longus,
But, alarmingly as soon after you re-emerged you seem to have dropped a brick on your toes! Why man, didn’t you take your morning medication yet?
By telling that innitial energies and gases all contained in a “giant ball” called a “singularity” you have dug your grave for the second time as well!
How (on “earth”) can a “giant ball” be a SINGULARITY?
Once again, a “singularity” is a single point!
Your assertion that the same gases persisted until evolution took place makes no sense to a sane mind! Soon after the Big Bang all the atoms were in a state of ‘sub-atomic plasma”, not ‘gasses” as you claim!
I don’t know who taught you physics, but that person should be thoroughly lynched, as your theories – wherever they came from – are completely off the mark.
This Universe was created out of nothing. This nothingness is called big bang singularity. This singularity had no volume but contained infinity mass and density. All the accepted physical laws did not hold in this singularity. This singularity as we have already seen exploded and still expanding. Immediately
after the big bang the four known fundamental forces of nature namely gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces split from the united single force. The first formation of matter was hydrogen and helium. Latter on, matter, galaxies, stars and planets were made from these gas clouds. The big bang and the expansion of the Universe was firstly pin pointed by the Austrian church priest Lemaitre in 1920. This was verified by the Russian
cosmologist Freedman in 1922. This was further experimentally established by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929. Further experimental investigations have been successfully carried out by the American physicists Penzias and Wilson in 1964. The Nobel prize for physics was awarded for this remarkable invention.
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/41/Space.pdf
On the other hand, the <sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. Without energy from the sun, biological evolution would not have been possible.
Plasma cosmology such as you propose is nonsensical and unproved.
By the way, it’s great to see that people have won the Nobel Prize for their studies on the Big Bang Theory. Meanwhile, atheist nobodies like you can continue to wait for “String Theory” and all other pseudo-physics nonsense to make even one experimentally confirmed prediction!
This morning there was lots of talk about science on BBC Radio 4′s Today Programme — but I think it left many British scientists cringing under their duvets.
Hawking explained that M-theory allows the existence of a “multiverse” of different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. We exist in our universe not by the grace of God, according to Hawking, but simply because the physics in this particular universe is just right for stars, planets and humans to form.
There is just one tiny problem with all this — there is currently little experimental evidence to back up M-theory. In other words, a leading scientist is making a sweeping public statement on the existence of God based on his faith in an unsubstantiated theory…
Physicists need the backing of the British public to ensure that the funding cuts don’t hit them disproportionately. This could be very difficult if the public think that most physicists spend their time arguing about what unproven theories say about the existence of God. This, and other recent pronouncements from Hawking in his new book The Grand Design were debated in a separate piece on Today by brain scientist Susan Greenfield and philosopher AC Grayling. Neither seemed too impressed with many of Hawking’s recent statements and Greenfield cautioned scientists against making “Taliban-like” statements about the existence of God.
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/by_hamish_johnstonstephen_hawk.html
Looks like Hawking made a big mistake using M-theory to try to disprove the existence of God!
Dear longus;
“An event that started as a random fluctuation has evolved into a complex structure!”
The idea “random”, put forward by SomewhatDisgusted seems startled you again. I am not going to say it is incorrect, however, the valuable Sutta you recommended to wijayapala for reading, seems shedding some shade of doubt on it.
” “When this was said, Makkhali Gosala said to me, ‘Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth.
“‘There are 1,406,600 principle modes of origin. There are 500 kinds of kamma, five kinds, and three kinds; full kamma and half kamma. There are 62 pathways, 62 sub-eons, six great classes of birth, eight classes of men, 4,900 modes of livelihood, 4,900 kinds of wanderers, 4,900 Naga-abodes, 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, 36 dust-realms, seven spheres of percipient beings, seven spheres of non-percipient beings, seven kinds of jointed plants, seven kinds of devas, seven kinds of human beings, seven kinds of demons, seven great lakes, seven major knots, seven minor knots, 700 major precipices, 700 minor precipices, 700 major dreams, 700 minor dreams, 84,000 great aeons. Having transmigrated and wandered on through these, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.”
I am not very sure whether the Makkhali Gosala’s teaching is about “random” or pre-determinism.
However, I had the opportunity to read a book titled ” Mysterious Universe” , author of which I cannot remember, when I was a the university student. According to my memory, it contained an article a bit relevant to to our topic of the discussion, whether “An event that started as a random fluctuation has evolved into a complex structure?” as you have said as the conclusion at the end of your article.
As per my memory, the article says that the probability of originating a molecule of Amino Acid ( I am not very sure, it may be a molecule of water) from the elements exist on earth and the whole atmosphere of it on a random event, is similar to the probability of a monkey placed before a typewriter typing the whole set of books in the Encyclopedia Britannica with his random manipulation of the keyboard.
That is how that author (a scientist, I suppose) cast his doubt on “random” to be “the cause of the origin of life”.
However, this suggests the necessity of a “Creator God” (Heshan must be delighted to hear this!) or “some other cause” to initiate the “starting point” of the structure you are talking of. To the dismay of Heshan, it may be “Cause & Effect” or Paticca Samuppada as many scientists and Buddhists bet their two cents for.
Apita Motada Api Das Sil Upasaka, Ibbanne Puchchanne Anith Pita!
Thanks!
I think the title of the book is “The Mysterious universe”.
Thanks!
Here is something good for that “Magazine Reading Scientist” and that “Gossiping Woman” from a distinguished person.
LUCID CRITICS AND LOONY CRITICS
- DR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA
One always prefers the rational to the raving, the literate to the illiterate, and the lucid to the lunatic.
When it comes to opinions I prefer respected serious scholars to unknown ‘researchers’ or unlettered human rights activists, who seem indistinguishable from each other.
Thanks!
Dear longus/SomewhatDisgusted/B/Wman/Heshan;
In terms of my article of September 18, 2010 @ 5:34 am, it seems ” Creator God’ is a more reasonable cause for the “origin” than “Random”.
Are you happy Heshan?
Only snag is that dirty Muslim Philosopher, Averroes, is blocking the path standing across it comfortably, with folded hands on his chest.
Cheers!
Thanks!
BalangodaMan
If I may draw your attention to your disagreement with Wijayapala, where exactly do you differ with him? He is trying to say (as I understand it), that the problems of Srilanka in the post-WWII time have to do more with how things happened in Colonial times than what happened 1000 or 2000 years ago. The fundamental polarization has been due to happenings of the last 200 or 300 years (say for example). Where exactly do you see disagree? I am interested in your viewpoints and hopefully, you will respond. I believe that we can always discuss no matter what our differences are, can’t we? I believe Wijayapala would also contribute towards this instead of distractions like religion and God.
BTW, I am not a moderator here and probably the least knowledgeable person here.
“Whilst disagreeing with what you say, I do agree that some people blame colonial occupation for most things. And some of them write books. Some of those books can be very good ones.”
Why don’t you try reading them and actually contribute some substance here?
“The reason it DID enter THIS discussion is because claims made IN THIS discussion relied on the misappropriation of the Mahawamsa”
And I already debunked that. In any case, you strayed far from the Mahavamsa.
“If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, given the all-round post-colonial identity crises, if not for the Mahavamsa, some other book would have been found that “substantiated” a Sinhalese claim to the island?”
You wouldn’t even need another book. Simply the fact that there have been no Sinhalese in other lands than SL would have been sufficient. That’s my argument for the origin of Sinhala nationalism. The Mahavamsa itself was a product of that, not the cause.
“I kind of remember BalangodaMan made a similar point a while back. I’d like to understand whether there’s some disagreement on this matter?”
A large part of the problem is that he can’t keep track of his own words.
Heshan
Glad if you call Steven Hawking, “atheist nobody……..”
longus, I liked Sanjaya’s answer, reminded me of Balangoda Man:
“When this was said, Sañjaya Belatthaputta said to me, ‘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 doesn’t exist 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.’
“To the Buddha’s question as to whether he (the king) would take back his servant who decided to be homeless, if the king answered in the positive, I wonder what the Buddha would have said. The Buddha knew the king’s guilt after killing his father (the good and the righteous man)and He (Buddha) merely played on his sensitivities.”
Perhaps the Buddha would not have wasted any time with him. However I am afraid I did not understand your argument about playing with the Ajatasattu’s guilt.
To my understanding, King Bimbisara was not a good and righteous man in his youth, and the explanation I’ve heard is that his murder by his own son was his kamma for the suffering he inflicted against all the people he had earlier conquered.
Dear wijayapala;
” To my understanding, King Bimbisara was not a good and righteous man in his youth, and the explanation I’ve heard is that his murder by his own son was his kamma for the suffering he inflicted against all the people he had earlier conquered.”
I think there is a different and more reasonable explanation for the cause of “killing” of king Bimbisara in Buddhism than you mentioned above. According to this the cause of the unfortunate killing by his son cannot be (at least totally) attributed to the suffering he inflicted against the people. That version is more logical and it is explained very well in the ” Milinda Prashnaya”. The argument is given below.
Now as a result of the killing of his father, Ajasattu had to suffer in the hell. If the killing of king Bimbisara was just the result of his past kamma, it cannot make anybody other than him to suffer from them. Here Ajasattu’s suffering is an evident that it (killikg) is a new kamma commited by Ajasattu. Ajasattu cannot be held responsible/cannot suffer for Bimbisara’s kamma.
There is a very good explanation of the behaviour of kamma in the ” Milinda Prashnaya”.
Thanks, wijayapala.
Dear longus;
” The description of the various meditative states of the mind (dhyanas) and how they can be achieved, to me is nothing short of a fairy-tale. A state of self hypnosis and hallucination may be achieved by that way as many such people claim to be doing. The description of the “mind-made body” that travels through space and walks on water, described here – so, that explains how Buddha came to Sri Lanka eh? – totally lacks objectivity.”
I think I have to talk a bit about the significance of scientific thinking/logical thinking /logical reasoning/critical thinking in arriving at reasonable conclusions and negating things reasonably, on the basis of your statement above. Not only in Science, even in Law there is a principle that ” anybody is innocent until he is proven guilty”. I think in a finer discipline like Science, it should be adhered to the point.
Now you have said that ” The description of the various meditative states of the mind (dhyanas) and how they can be achieved, to me is nothing short of a fairy-tale.”
If I ask you why do you say so, what is your reasonable answer for it?
OK, I will device a reasonable answer for you (as per my capability) as you are not in my presence.
” Because, it is very, very , very,…………, very unnatural.”
Then if I ask you again ” why do you say unnatural things cannot happened, what is your answer?
Can you give a reasonable answer?
May be it is like ” I feel like so.”, other than that can you give an answer with reasons for that?
Feel like answers are not good answers for “disciplined people”, I think especially it is not suitable for the people of your caliber. Such answers and questions are the questions of the caliber of “Magazine Scientists and gossiping women”. That is why I did not answer the repeatedly asked, “Mr. Yapa believes that the Buddha actually flew through the air……..”, question by those two novices to Science.
If I asked them back “Don’t you believe? and why?” what answers they could give other than “an I feel like so….” answer.
Such questions and answers do not qualify to the level of a serious discussion. I think I have quoted the following story about ” I feel like answers”, such questions a d answers do not do any good than bad. We must be firm on our questions and answers. That is all about your discipline. Any fool can just question and give answers, but not nurtured with that discipline. Anyway here is the story, enjoy!
That “Scientist” asked the following “mind bobbling” question from a group of his friends.
When a train started from Maradana station there were 80 people in the train. At Fort 10 people got down and 55 people got in. At Kalutara 15 got out and 52 got in and the train arrive at Galle station at 10.23 a.m. Tell me the speed of the train.
That “woman” answered, It is 53.2 kilometres per hour?
How do you know?, the “scientist” asked the “woman”.
The woman replied ” I felt like so”, and further replied if you want I will tell the name of the engine driver, it is Wimalasena.
“…………………………………?”
“………………… ..elt so”
Thanks longus! I hope you enjoyed the story.
Addition………….
Even doubting has to be done with reasons.
Thanks!
Krish,
“The fundamental polarization has been due to happenings of the last 200 or 300 years (say for example). Where exactly do you see disagree?”
Absolutely agree.
(As I wrote some time earlier) the polarisation was greatly enhanced by the tireless work of one individual, for all good intentions, Anagarika Dharmapala at the turn of the 20th century. If not for his efforts SL would now be predominantly a Christian country I think.
As you may know, the (then) recently-translated Mahawamsa featured prominently in his heroic efforts. You can see from his writing how passionately he felt about his mission, and how passionately he promoted the literal word of the Mahawamsa, particularly in relation to how the Sinhalese-Buddhist people relate to Tamil people. Some people attribute the present-day polarisation on ethnic lines to the seeds planted in those times in this way (further driven apart by post-colonial divisive politics also appealing to the same base emotions and divisions).
You are right, and I have always said – it is not what happened or did not happen 1,000 – 2,000 years ago that is at the heart of the problem. It is what we are doing today to bring about Peace and Reconciliation in SL that is relevant. I don’t believe there is a disagreement with Wijayapala on this I am happy to agree.
“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 doesn’t exist 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.’”
LOL!
Evidenty, Sañjaya Belatthaputta was an agnostic.
There were those even then.
BalangodaMan,
If not for his efforts SL would now be predominantly a Christian country I think.
You mean 100K people would not have left as refugees, that the whole ethnic conflict would simply have been non-existent (meaning 100K other people would be alive today), there would be no corruption in the Government, the economy would actually have productive sectors other than tea/garments/exporting village girls to the Mid-East for slave labor…. and best of ALL, that red-scarfed entity in Temple Trees (along with this 1001 relatives) would be UNKNOWN, while Ranil W. (product of the civilized Colombo Anglican tradition) saved the day…. in simple terms, if one wishes to know what Dharmapala did for the country, it suffices to ask what he didn’t do, which is prevent the invariable tide of nationalism from turning the country upside down. Then again, both Dharmapala and the other instigator, SWRD were ex-Christians who converted to Buddhism. Christians (even if they stop practising) usually do not convert to other religions (while the converse is certainly not true). This has to do with the all-encompassing nature of Christianity. SWRD was probably an opportunist who would have sold his mother to get votes (no religion could have *saved* the man). Dharmapala was psychotic, which is evident by his writings. This kind of opportunism and reversion to psychotic tendencies (witness Gothabaya Rajapakse) is now an accepted norm of S. Lankan politics.
longus,
I’m glad you believe that M-theory and plasma cosmology both support Buddhist cosmology. Because neither M-theory nor plasma cosmology have much support in the scientific community – they are at the bottom rung of the ladder. Cheers!
Dear wijayapala;
“longus, I liked Sanjaya’s answer, reminded me of Balangoda Man:”
I think it is “Amaravikepavada” or “Wriggling Eel” answers. The pet form of answers of B.W/Man. You have very rightly identified it.
Thanks!
Yapa
“No nor nor not!” – just joking!
You see Yapa, all these Great Teachers who lived during the Buddha’s time were very wise men.(It appears that Buddha lived in a unique period of truth-seeking in the spiritual sense. How many such geniunely intellectual doctrines can we see today?) If you go the Mahaweera’s doctrine (not the bit of it in this sutra) it too tells about a similar path to tread and how to achieve enlightenment (mind you Mahaweera attainrd his ‘enlightenment after 12 years of “dushkarak kriya”(osterity).
If somebody ask, “why don’t you believe in Mahaweera’s “enlightenment”? what is the answer that you are going to give? Your same answer to that question can be taken as the answers to your question!
Wijayapala
That’s only a minor point! What I wanted to say is Buddha must have sensed that the King would have given an answer like that-in his depressive state.
And how do you like the things that buddha asks the desciple not to do? All those are “daily life ” for our monks!
Did you notice in that description the Buddha doesn’t mention anything about “surameraya” or alcoholic drinks? Did He forget?…..or whether the king was under influence (impaired driving!)……is a question. Anyway a good point for me in the future !
BalangodaMan
It’s interesting to talk about the issue of “future Buddhas”. There is another concept in Buddhism which may be not known to observers (or ancient “Hominids”) like you.-once again nothig to do with your alleged sexual orientation!
That is the “Private” Buddha (Pase’ Budu) concept.
A Private Buddha or a Pase’Budu:
A Pase’ Budu is a Buddha, according to Buddhism, who is similar to any other Buddha that I described earlier, except in the fact that He lacks the faculty of preaching it (the Way to Nirvana) to athers,(why? I don’t know) which Gauthama Buddha had in plenty. In that way you may never know that there is an “enlightened Private Buddha” next door (have a look!) until you see a demonstration of one of His “unique Faculties”. These unique faculties are said to be possessed by only a Buddha or a Private Buddha. These are called Six Unique Wisdoms or Shad Ashadharana Dharma in Pali. An Arhat who has attained the enlightenment is not capable of these Unique Wisdoms of Buddha or a Private Buddha, according to the Buddhist beliefs. Herein I must say according to Buddhism there are three “modalities” of enlightenment.
You can be a Buddha himself – a long shot, considering the”sara sankya kalpa laksha years”, a time when Ardipethicus Ardi reigned Africa!
An Arhat- the state of enlightenment that an aveage person can attain.
A Private Buddhahood – This is the “closet” Buddha that I mentioned and it is believed that there may be four to five of them being born in the time period between the arrival of two Buddhas. May be there is one such Buddha already born and living in a cave in Balangoda or in a basement in the US!
The conditions that makes a person enlightened as a private Buddha are not clear to me, so some of the erudite scholars can elaborate on it.
Prof Heshan
“You mean 100K people would not have left as refugees, that the whole ethnic conflict would simply have been non-existent (meaning 100K other people would be alive today),”
You can take things one step further and argue that none of these problems would have come up if Christianity never came to SL in the first place. After all, wasn’t it European Christians who introduced race theory to the island?
I am sure Prof Heshan wholeheartedly concurs that violent bigotry is at the heart of his religion. How else would you explain centuries of intra-religious warfare between Catholics and Protestants among other instances of a rather unbecoming history? Even today Heshan has a feeling of superiority over Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims because a European converted one of his ancestors with a can of spaghetti. It is sadly incurable because Heshan was indoctrinated from a young lad to believe that everyone not wearing a cross would suffer eternal damnation in the afterlife.
“while Ranil W. (product of the civilized Colombo Anglican tradition) saved the day”
Err.. Ranil W. was part of his “civilized Colombo Anglican” uncle JR’s government that murdered 3,000 Tamils in 1983 and started the war. It would be safe to argue that there would have been no war if these Anglicans had never been allowed to reach high places.
Dear Heshan;
RE: Your post of September 18, 2010 @ 8:34 pm
Scientist Heshan is a reasonable man, I like much! Politician/Lawyer Heshan is useless man, I ……… very much!
Heshan, I think you are a bit too brave and quick to jump into some conclusions. I think you have to do it with some care. There are people watching. Please don’t expect the forum to be an abandoned house.
Cheers!
Thanks!
longus,
I am waiting for your string-theory (pseudo-physics) comeback… or are you still waiting for that *single* magical piece of experimental evidence to back up the nonsense you’ve written here about vibrating strings and plasma cosmology?
Is String Theory BS? (title by Heshan)
The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world’s cleverest men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory – which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations – is an intellectual dead end.
Two new books published in America question its very basis. Far from providing mankind with the answers to the mystery of the cosmos, the theory is bogus, they claim.
As one scientist put it: ‘The uncritical promotion of string theory is now damaging science.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation
Dear Heshan
RE: “Christians (even if they stop practising) usually do not convert to other religions (while the converse is certainly not true).”
The success of its brainwashing operation is no indication of its profundity, don’t you think? Exactly how profound do you consider Islam to be?
In contrast, Buddhism, despite the mindless, cultish way it’s followed in Sri Lanka, at least has some content of philosophical interest. I don’t think it’s an utter waste of time to study the Buddha’s philosophy, just as you might the philosophies of Socrates or Plato, and learn something from it. In contrast, I can’t for the life of me imagine what one could learn from the bible that you couldn’t learn from a barbaric version of Aesop’s fables.
Dear Longus,
RE: “If somebody ask, “why don’t you believe in Mahaweera’s “enlightenment”? what is the answer that you are going to give? Your same answer to that question can be taken as the answers to your question!”
An excellent question. However, Mr. Yapa has been programmed to not question a single one of the sentences in the Tripitaka. Why else would he mount an indirect defence of the question he evaded, amaraviccepavada style, of the flying Buddha theory?
On the other hand…
Dear Mr. Yapa,
would you hesitate for even a moment to ridicule the idea of Jesus walking on water? Aah of course, the Buddha was “enlightened”, therefore having supernatural powers and flying about was a perfectly normal day-to-day occurence, whereas Jesus walking on water is some childish Christian myth, how silly of me.
Once I managed to de-programme myself from my own knee-jerk respect for the Buddha, that I had been indoctrinated with by my environment, I began to ask the following question: what if the Buddha was a bit like Sai Baba? Sai Baba is a charlatan who uses cheap magic tricks to fool his audience about his divinity, but nevertheless, Sai Baba does preach a fairly profound doctrine for living a good life and actually does do a lot of good charity work. Now, can someone tell me, why is this impossible of the Buddha?
The exercise here is, not to actually think that the Buddha was a charlatan. On the contrary, it is to stop being horrified by the “sacrilegious” idea of questioning the Buddha, and actually *think* about the question. It’s to actually *allow* yourself to think of the Buddha as yet another human being, instead of some supreme deity whose goodness makes one fall to one’s knees in mindless respect. Hero-worship and the truth are two completely different things.
Now Mr. Yapa’s reaction will be entirely predictable. Horrified by my blasphemy, he will once again launch himself into a long diatribe about how I’m a decadent, consumerist western conspirator, devoid of all values and devoid of respect for anything that’s holy and while preferring to see me burnt at a stake, he will instead be forced to fall-back on reiterating how the Buddha sasana must be shielded from such incessant questioning!
In the process, he will demonstrate that free-thinking and questioning are what any religion considers its enemy. Blasphemy, holiness and demands for respect are the devices it uses to stop that process and preserve the unchallenged continuation of itself. A religion is a mind virus.
RE: “It’s to actually *allow* yourself to think of the Buddha as yet another human being, instead of some supreme deity whose goodness makes one fall to one’s knees in mindless respect. Hero-worship and the truth are two completely different things.”
Regarding my own passage, let me clarify why I said this. As long as the Buddha is considered to be super-human and not just a human being of above average intelligence, one will *not* be able to objectively evaluate the doctrine he’s preaching. Any rubbish he is said to have preached will be accepted without much protest, because one has already debased oneself psychologically as an inferior. Human beings have a known cognitive bias of unquestioningly accepting the edicts of authority figures.
Dear Wijayapala
RE: “Simply the fact that there have been no Sinhalese in other lands than SL would have been sufficient. That’s my argument for the origin of Sinhala nationalism.”
Sure and that’s not a fact that’s going to change any time soon. So, what do you see as the solution(s)? I recall you mentioned the education route? In that case, isn’t frank discussion and reversal of that nationalism through open debate, also a crucial part of that education? Or are you referring only to education starting from primary levels?
I would like to know what practical steps you think are necessary to solve the issue.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted:
RE: “If somebody ask, “why don’t you believe in Mahaweera’s “enlightenment”? what is the answer that you are going to give? Your same answer to that question can be taken as the answers to your question!”
An excellent question. However, Mr. Yapa has been programmed to not question a single one of the sentences in the Tripitaka. Why else would he mount an indirect defence of the question he evaded, amaraviccepavada style, of the flying Buddha theory?
………………………..
A staled question.
The question is excellent to you because you have no knowledge of Buddhism. That is why you are asking such questions. Buddhism is not another monkey story as you think. It is a non contradictory, consistent and coherent philosophy. I cannot teach you this comprehensive philosophy in this forum as questions and answers. I you want to know such basic things about Buddhism, you have enough ways to know it., without wasting the time that can be used for some in depth discussion. I don’t think this is place to answer whether the Buddha could fly. Further, I think such questions are below the expected level of yours. The questions must be commensurate to your image.
However, if you read “Sandaka Sutta” you will find the exact answer for this. True, Mahavira was an intellect lived contemporary to the Buddha. But there was/ is none, like the Buddha.
Here is the relevant passage;
” 21. “Here, Sandaka, some teacher claims to be omniscient and all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and vision thus: ‘Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake, knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to me.” He enters an empty house, he gets no almsfood, a dog bites him, he meets with a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, he asks the name and clan of a woman or a man, he asks the name of a village or a town, and the way to go there. W-hen he is questioned: ‘How is this?’ he replies: ‘I had to enter an empty house, that is why I entered it. I had to get no almsfood, that is why I did not get any. I had to be bitten by a dog, that is why I was bitten. I had to meet with a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, that is why I met with them. I had to ask the name and clan of a woman or a man, that is why I asked. I had to ask the name of a village or a town and the way to go there, that is why I asked.’
You will not have such naive questions about Buddhism, if you do not dogmatically reject it and learn a bit. Do you think I am mad to be so respectful to the Buddha? I am also considerably learnt man and I do not believe gossips by every nitwit. I have the respect because, I am convinced. Like many, I also did not have any respect to Buddhism until a several years back. But with my all sort of learning I found Buddhism is much more advanced than what I have learnt so far. That is the reason for my respect to Buddha. I am not a blind believer of Buddhism. I am respecting it not because it is my religion I got from my birth. It is worth while for anybody to taste and see. It is “Ehi passiko!”
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“would you hesitate for even a moment to ridicule the idea of Jesus walking on water? Aah of course, the Buddha was “enlightened”, therefore having supernatural powers and flying about was a perfectly normal day-to-day occurence, whereas Jesus walking on water is some childish Christian myth, how silly of me.”
Do you understand how silly of you now? Rally you are silly, trying to guess thing when you have ample chances to test it.
You can compare two of them, their teaching, the stories about them, like who’s who they are and all that. You can see which has contradictions. The base of the teaching, Creator God, itself is a contradiction do not need further investigation. Can you disprove any core doctrine of the Buddhism, instead if you learn them you will find difference in the doctrine compared even to any modern knowledge system.
You can raise various questions about the taste of an orange, but I will never be able to teach you its taste, until you eat it. Just eat a bit and see, you will love the taste. I am not telling lies.
Sabba danam Dhamma danam jinati,
Sabbam rasam Dhamma raso jinati,
Sabbam ratim Dhamma rati jinati,
Tanhakkayo sabba dukkham jinati
Thanks!
In the process, he will demonstrate that free-thinking and questioning are what any religion considers its enemy. Blasphemy, holiness and demands for respect are the devices it uses to stop that process and preserve the unchallenged continuation of itself. A religion is a mind virus.
You have got an anti- religion virus. Poor creature! Get some Dhamma medicine. There is no other cures for viral diseases.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
A THOUGHT FOR YOU
One of your main arguments against us is your pre-assumption that one religion cannot be any better than all others. You have come to this firm view without investigating them. Do you think that assumption, by any chance cannot have a lee..etle bit of error. If you cannot be 100% sure about it, why do you firmly attached to it? Is it correct logically or on any other standard, other than it to be called as “dogmatism”/” obstinateness”? Or it could be attributed to “blind faith”.
Really that argument is not a true one, it is erroneous: Religion A is useless, Religion B is useless, Religion C is use less,………………………………….., religion Y is useless, and therefore religion Z is useless.
What a useless argument?
Z could be a useful religion, as per logic. You cannot over rule the possibilty of a “useful region” on that logic.
Then why do you consider Z is also a useless religion?
” I (dogmatically) FEEL LIKE SO?”
Thanks!
Correction………
Or it could be attributed to “blind faith”
should be corrected as
” Or it could be attributed to “blind faith” of yourself, your love for yourself. Self love or “Saccya Ditti”. Self love is the reason for that “Wrong Ditti” (wrong view) at the final analysis. Sakkaya ditti is the one of the defilements that obstruct the path to the Enlightenment. Those defilements are “Errant Vision” (Sakkaya ditthi), “Uncertainty” (Vichikichcha) and Adherence to Wrongful Rites and Ceremonies (Seelabbatha Paramasa). You will have to get rid of them. Those are the dark curtains (Thimira Patala) that keeps truth separated from you. Break that Thimira Patalaya, you will see the light.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Born Again
————-
“I have the respect because, I am convinced. Like many, I also did not have any respect to Buddhism until a several years back.”
A familiar pattern I found in my journey through the many religions of the world – the Born Again Believer. The genuineness and even fanatical nature of the ‘born again’s’ faith, in contrast to the casual believer, is well known. I commend you for taking the bold step to clarify your own experience.
It’ll be interesting for this discussion for the opportunity to study why you reached this need for ‘re-affirmation’ of your faith. I know ‘born again’ people of many faiths, Christianity, Islam – what are the similarities? If you are kind enough to elaborate on your own experience I can supply what I know. You may find it useful.
Of course there are theories on the ‘born again’ phenomenon. Guilt, a recognition that things haven’t worked out in one’s life, rising emotional insecurity, need for stronger identity, boredom, even mental illness. I don’t believe it’s any of these of course in your case. Therefore like to hear your story.
In your recent post to SomewhatDisgusted you are demonstrating another familiar pattern – that the ‘born again’ believer thinks that some other person will/can have the same born-again-experience. The problem with this is, the ‘born again’ experience is subjective. The other person may not have anything like the same need. To illustrate this, you cannot expect someone to turn into Havelock Road if the road junction they are currently at is at Galle Face. To be able to, or want to, turn into Havelock Road you need to be at the ‘Thungmulla Junction’. You (Mr Yapa) are at Thungmulla while SomewhatDisgusted is at the Galle Face mini-roundabout. He is unlikely to have the same experience as you; he is unlikely to have the same emotional need as you.
(In my observation, the Galle Face area is free, open and has nice sea breeze. The Thungmulla Junction is notorious for nasty accidents).
“In that case, isn’t frank discussion and reversal of that nationalism through open debate, also a crucial part of that education? Or are you referring only to education starting from primary levels?”
More of the former than the latter. Most children don’t remember what they learn in primary level, and in any case much of the racist garbage can be debunked through simple things like ensuring interaction between Sinhalese and Tamil youth (through school integration).
The key task of the liberals is to quit the halfwitted approach of denying Sri Lankan history and instead mastering it to the degree that they can take on and beat the racists on their own terms. For example, anyone having the slightest familiarity with the imperial Cholas who lived 1,000 years ago could easily show how they had hardly anything to do with Tamils living today.
Unfortunately, the standard “liberal” tactic is to ridicule anything Sri Lankan and try to impose alien notions like secularism, only to bawl when nobody takes the liberals seriously.
Heshan
Don’t argue with me…You can blame the wlhole (heretic) world
Hahahaha!
Not only the super string theory that you have to oppose to
The “super Symmetry” and “multiverse” theory as well!
What about concepts like “sum over histories” “entanglement” and “multiple Hiistories” in quantum mechanics.
You’ll have to blame all the leading scientists in the future as “heretice” as your Papal Head did in the dark ages and hide your head in sand!(I hear no evil;see no evil!)
First ao all you can start reading the book “grand Design” by Steven Hawkings.
You may not probably understand it with your “tunnel vision”
By the way you can start a campaign in Britain for spending “tax-payers’” money on the promotion of “heretic” theories!
Don’t you know many people in the 17th century might have argued and died believing that the earth is still the centre of our solar system!
“Really that argument is not a true one, it is erroneous: Religion A is useless, Religion B is useless, Religion C is use less,………………………………….., religion Y is useless, and therefore religion Z is useless.”
No, Mr Yapa.
We know without a shadow of a doubt that …
Religion A is completely useful to the believers of Religion A.
Religion B is completely useful to the believers of Religion B.
Religion C is completely useful to the believers of Religion C.
Religion D is completely useful to the believers of Religion D.
Religion Z is completely useful to the believers of Religion Z.
However,
Religion A is completely useless to the believers of Religions B,C,D,Z and non-religious people.
Religion B is completely useless to the believers of Religions A,C,D,Z and non-religious people.
Religion C is completely useless to the believers of Religions A,B,D,Z and non-religious people.
Religion D is completely useless to the believers of Religions A,B,C,Z and non-religious people.
Religion Z is completely useless to the believers of Religions A,B,C,D, and non-religious people.
All religions are of little use or interest to non-religious people.
The conclusion from this is that religion is a matter of ‘faith’ and not ‘truth’.
And you cannot force religion down the throats of people who do not need or want it, how ever hard you yourself need religion.
Neither can you expect non-believers to agree that *your* ‘faith’ is any more ‘truth’ than any other ‘faith’ (as you are expecting from SomewhatDisgusted).
It is therefore futile to argue with believers of other religions, and non-believers, the ‘truth’ as stated in the dogma of your religion. Futile. Futile. Futile. A waste of time. Has no value. No benefit. Zilch. Nada. Niet. None.
longus,
But string theory has always had a few vocal skeptics. Almost two decades ago, Richard Feynman dismissed it as “crazy,” “nonsense,” and “the wrong direction” for physics. Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a “new version of medieval theology,” and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/02/061002crat_atlarge#ixzz101GXRsAc
Wow…… so Feynman, probably the BEST physicist ever and the inventor of quantum electrodynamics, actually calls your ideas of M-THEORY, VIBRATING STRINGS, MULTI-VERSE, LANDSCAPE, and all OTHER STRING THEORY hocus pocus “CRAZY NONSENSE”.
But Feynman doesn’t stop there! He actually says its the WRONG direction for physics to take… he could SEE it was doomed. In fact his prediction has proved 100% accurate because as you no doubt know, string theory has failed to produce a single falsifiable prediction.
Not even the LHC can save your pathetic attempts to keep string theory alive… another 15-20 years and it will go the way of INFINITESIMAL CALCULUS! I hope you have a good wine to keep you company, as this HOCUS POCUS dies a slow staggering death!
Dear B.W/Man;
“In your recent post to SomewhatDisgusted you are demonstrating another familiar pattern – that the ‘born again’ believer thinks that some other person will/can have the same born-again-experience”
Are you afraid your friend will soon become a Buddhist? Is that the reason you are sending warning signs to him?
Anybody who learns a little bit Buddhism will be attracted to it. Your friend and even you are not exceptions. You avoid learning it in fear of breaking down of your opinion and consequently breaking down your pseudo personality, developed on nonsensical ideologies.
Just read a bit just for a trial and see, I think in a few months yo9ur garment will turn yellow.
For a trial read Aggi Vaccagotta Sutta, tell your friend also to read, both of you will shed your wrong views.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html#F_termsOfUse
May Tripple Gems bless you!
Somewhat Disgusted:
The success of its brainwashing operation is no indication of its profundity, don’t you think? Exactly how profound do you consider Islam to be?
In contrast, Buddhism, despite the mindless, cultish way it’s followed in Sri Lanka, at least has some content of philosophical interest. I don’t think it’s an utter waste of time to study the Buddha’s philosophy, just as you might the philosophies of Socrates or Plato, and learn something from it. In contrast, I can’t for the life of me imagine what one could learn from the bible that you couldn’t learn from a barbaric version of Aesop’s fables.
Learning is a sequential process. It’s best to begin with the simplest concept and move upwards. Teaching/learning morals is no exception. The example of Jesus is very easy to follow… that is really what matters in Christianity. You don’t see 100 people squeezed into a container trying to smuggle across the border into China or Saudi Arabia. People know they won’t get a good deal in those countries. Christian countries actually practice something called *charity* and promote a concept called *equality* that applies to every individual, regardless of background. The populace of most Asian countries, meanwhile, are stuck with a feudal mindset… the concept of *equality*, unfortunately, is just not a part of these cultures or a belief that they subscribe to. The equality and charity that you find in Western countries actually comes from the Bible. For example, it was put into the American Constitution by men with strong Christian beliefs. Now, the concept may be simple enough, but in just < 225 yrs the USA has become a superpower. What about all the Asian nations with their great "past" histories? Well, they are still pretty much stuck in the past, albeit with a now outdated system of morality. The "Laws of Manu" cannot really take India forward, just as Mahavamsa/Dhammapada/Pali Canon cannot take the "homeland of Theravada Buddhism" forward. These philosophical systems are not very practical. Capitalism works much better with Judeo-Christian morality than anything else.
Dear B.W/Man;
“It is therefore futile to argue with believers of other religions, and non-believers, the ‘truth’ as stated in the dogma of your religion. Futile. Futile. Futile. A waste of time. Has no value. No benefit. Zilch. Nada. Niet. None.”
Got fully upset about my argument? There is no a way to refute it? Is that the reason for your repeated excitement, to repeat, strings of sentences? You cannot substitute repetition for Logic. Ask your Guru to try to refute my argument.
Your method of refuting arguments is ” Futile. Futile. Futile. A waste of time. Has no value. No benefit. Zilch. Nada. Niet. None.” and has no basis. It is a “Defense Mechanism” (Sanrakshana Prayoga). Do you know what is named as Defense Mechanisms in Psychology? When people feel insecure, their subconscious mind tries avoid/forget/refuse the cause of it. Now your position is not secured, that is the reason for your abnormal behaviour. Would like to see a Psychiatrist?
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
I think Aggi Vaccagotta Sutta will be a mental exercise for you.
Further to my post of September 20, 2010 @ 6:06 am, I challenge you to read 20-30 Buddhist Suttas and repeat your bold post of September 20, 2010 @ 3:20 am, after that. I think when you do it you will be wearing that “yellow garment”.
Cheers!
I like Heshan’s post of September 20, 2010 @ 7:00 am, containing some honest words. I have some comments on it.
However, with these day to day work, I had to postpone my “pioneering work”. I have to put a thought to it soon.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala (also to Belle)
RE: “…in any case much of the racist garbage can be debunked through simple things like ensuring interaction between Sinhalese and Tamil youth (through school integration).
I hope so. Where I studied, there were Tamil medium classes. Unfortunately, the Sinhalese and Tamil kids had limited opportunity to mix because of the language barrier. Ultimately, learning the “other” language seems critical in actually enabling any form of bonding. Coupled with the concerns expressed by some (i.e. Belle) who feel that too much mixing will dilute the identity of the Tamils (which is arguably true, but IMO, it’s racialist if one tries to prevent it), things become even harder to rectify. What is your opinion on that? Perhaps Belle would also care to respond as to what practical steps she sees fit?
RE: “The key task of the liberals is to quit the halfwitted approach of denying Sri Lankan history and instead mastering it to the degree that they can take on and beat the racists on their own terms. For example, anyone having the slightest familiarity with the imperial Cholas who lived 1,000 years ago could easily show how they had hardly anything to do with Tamils living today.”
I’d agree. But I think that the state must take the lead in doing this, just like CBK took the lead in publicly apologizing for the events of ’83 – which some nationalists protest against as hoisting “guilt” on the Sinhalese. Nevertheless, I believe it did have a widespread effect and a good healthy dose of guilt would doubtless prove beneficial.
RE: “Unfortunately, the standard “liberal” tactic is to ridicule anything Sri Lankan and try to impose alien notions like secularism, only to bawl when nobody takes the liberals seriously.”
Perhaps so but what are the specific “Sri Lankan things” that you see as being ridiculed? or are you lumping all “liberals” together with the much reviled “bada-gosthara” crowd who refused to have any form of fair and principled stance during the critical periods of the war?
I think unnecessarily lumping people together without specifically attacking ideas is the very strategy that the Rajapakses are promoting (successfully). While that may have been “necessary” during a time of war, during these times, it’s merely a political device for personal advantage, so I don’t think you or I should follow the same route.
I disagree with your example of secularism though. Secularism is a concept, and therefore it’s not owned by anyone (i.e. it’s not a “foreign” thing). It also ought not be an alien notion. Why should fairness be an alien notion to anyone? I believe you too have agreed with the indisputable nature of secularism as a concept. The fact that we Sri Lankans don’t see it as a necessity is a cause for shame, nothing else.
Heshan,
RE: “It’s best to begin with the simplest concept and move upwards. Teaching/learning morals is no exception. The example of Jesus is very easy to follow… that is really what matters in Christianity.”
I’d certainly agree that the teachings in Christianity are quite easy to follow. It can be summarized as “do X or you go to hell”. While a fear psychosis may work in a very simplistic sense, I think that it’s clear from the behaviour of Christians through the ages that this is simply not true – Buddhism was never responsible for the kind of dark ages (and the continuing red-neck anti-science fundamentalism) that Christianity unleashed upon this world.
The reason the world is a better place today is not because of Christian values, which is a clear falsehood, but the rise of rationalism and secular humanism during the enlightenment. Till then, much of Europe was shrouded in a feudal mindset and biblically inspired barbarism that people had to fight tooth and nail to overturn. So if you plan to let Christianity take the credit for talking about the “equality of man”, so too must you be unhesitant in letting Christianity take the credit for all the barbarism throughout its 2000 year reign.
Somewhat Disgusted:
Actually it can be summarized as “500 of you get on your wooden boat, come to our (Christian) country through the backdoor, and we’ll feed you, pay your legal services, and let you live with dignity in our country.”
Unfortunately for you, the above attitude did not come from secular humanism:
Secular Humanism does not prescribe a specific theory of morality or code of ethics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
So if you plan to let Christianity take the credit for talking about the “equality of man”, so too must you be unhesitant in letting Christianity take the credit for all the barbarism throughout its 2000 year reign.
I don’t deny that it has an ugly past…. on the other hand, what matters is that it has evolved. The message of Jesus, however, has remained the same – it is the same kind of ahimsa that Gandhi successfully used to drive out the British.
# “Jesus occupies in my heart,” said Gandhi, “the place of one of the greatest teachers who have had a considerable influence on my life. I shall say to the Hindus that your life will be incomplete unless you reverentially study the teachings of Jesus… Make this world the kingdom of God and his righteousness and everything will be added unto you. I tell you that if you will understand, appreciate, and act up to the spirit of this passage, you won’t need to know what place Jesus or any other teacher occupies in your heart.”
# “The example of Jesus suffering is a factor in the composition of my un-dying faith in non-violence. What then does Jesus mean to me? To me, He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had.”
http://jesusgodgoodetcnjay.blogspot.com/2007/05/gandhi-quotes.html
Dear Heshan,
RE: “Secular Humanism does not prescribe a specific theory of morality or code of ethics.”
Are you suggesting that, the only thing preventing you as a Christian from turning into a raping pillaging barbarian is the dubious moral code written down in a holy book by primitive desert nomads? Are you saying that you as a person wouldn’t be able to figure out right from wrong without it? I highly doubt it and sincerely hope not!
How did you figure out that you shouldn’t stone people to death at the drop of a hat as specified in the bible? No Heshan, I think it should be manifestly clear to you that we (ought to) derive our morals through logic and reason, not the demented ravings of prophets and holy men.
Mr Yapa,
You are continuing to evade the question asked countless times.
Do you agree that Christians are very happy with their religion? That Muslim are very happy with their’s? In the same way *you* are very happy with yours?
Your religion does what you expect it to do for you, successfully. To each of you your religion is ‘true’, a subjective perception. Your perception of the speculative aspects Buddhism being ‘true’ is no different from Heshan’s perception of the speculative aspects of Christianity being ‘true’, as is evident from both your writing.
Therefore the best judge of the ‘truth’ of any of these religions is NOT someone who is immersed in it emotionally through ‘faith’ but someone who is outside it who can see the entire phenomenon of religion as a whole *objectively* without bias, make comparisons based on observation and subject it to reason.
In short, if you really want to evaluate your religion in comparison to others (as you are saying that you are doing) you will have to defer to the vantage position of people like SomewhatDisgusted who have no bias towards any. You have to accept that you yourself are an unreliable witness for your purpose.
“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” – from Hamlet, William Shakespeare; Act II, scene ii
Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, a majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that this country belongs only to them, while the Muslim, Tamils and Christian minorities should be seen and not heard!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that they are the greatest race on earth with the greatest culture and language in the world!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that this country can become the “ASSchariya Rai” of Asia, even though countries like Japan, Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, China etc. are far ahead of us, and we would have to go past them to become the “ASSchariya Rai” of Asia!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that we can become the most developed country in Asia, simply by continuing to be an agricultural country!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that pigs will one day fly, hell will freeze over someday soon, and that western women will one day work as ‘housemaids’ in Sri Lanka. (that is once we become the “ASSchariya Rai” of Asia).
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that ‘One Family Rule,’ is better than Democracy!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that Sri Lanka is the most Democratic country in the world, where ‘Wars’ are called ‘Humanitarian Operations,’ with ‘Zero Casualties,’ to civilians!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that just because they are a numerical majority, they can ride rough shod over the minorities and tell them what they should eat and drink and what is the permissible culture and language for the minorities, irrespective of the fact that minorities have their own culture and language!
Now the 64,000 dollar question is, Is there a way forward?
The answer is: Only if the majority is rehabilitated to think differently! If that can be done. There will be real peace and development; and not the ‘kind of a peace’ and a ‘kind of development’ that is happening today!
Dear Heshan,
RE :“I don’t deny that it has an ugly past…. on the other hand, what matters is that it has evolved. The message of Jesus, however, has remained the same – it is the same kind of ahimsa that Gandhi successfully used to drive out the British.”
Thanks for your honesty. Jesus did say a few good things about living a moral life. However, my point is, we cherry-pick right and wrong out of the bible ourselves. We have the capacity to do so. I think you’ll agree that if we did everything according to the bible, the world would be a pretty messed up place. So while affirming your right to be inspired by the kindness of Jesus (just like Buddhists are inspired the goodness of the Buddha), you should acknowledge that the capacity for moral judgement comes from *outside* the bible. How would you know that Jesus was a noble character in the first place?
Secondly, just as one must separate the useful teachings of the Buddha from the ones that don’t make sense (a task at which Mr. Yapa displays a stunning inability), so too must one separate the useful teachings of Jesus from primitive superstitions about him being the son of god. Would you not agree?
Dear B.W? man;
“Your religion does what you expect it to do for you, successfully. To each of you your religion is ‘true’, a subjective perception. Your perception of the speculative aspects Buddhism being ‘true’ is no different from Heshan’s perception of the speculative aspects of Christianity being ‘true’, as is evident from both your writing.”
What nonsense are you talking? No difference? Are you still blind? Even your “Guru” has accepted that Buddhism is a better religion in his post of September 19, 2010 @ 9:01 am. Now don’t you read Guru’s posts?Despite many differences shown and still you are in your rigid blind stance. Subjective? Do you know the meaning of it? You are a f–l and a half who has no any sense about analysis. No difference in religions? Then why there are different religions? Develop your analytical capabilities.
Just because you are allergic to “Religions” it does not mean religions are as bad as you think. Your thinking is subjective. Not only that, it is prejudiced with ignorance.
Thanks!
“No difference in religions? Then why there are different religions?”
Very simple Mr Yapa (and explained before). I’ll try again.
When hungry ancient people in Spain made food. They made paella.
When hungry ancient people in Italy made food. They made pizza.
When hungry ancient people in India made food. They made curry.
Their needs were the same (hunger) but the local ingredients were different. Therefore the food that became ‘their own’ is different, but they all served the same purpose.
Similarly for religion.
It’s an answer to a common need of ancient people.
It is silly to claim that paella is better than pizza, and curry is even better. You like curry because it is what you are used to, tradition, convenience.
Victor’s Song of a Looser
” Secondly, just as one must separate the useful teachings of the Buddha from the ones that don’t make sense (a task at which Mr. Yapa displays a stunning inability),”
Above is a bold (bald?) statement of SomewhatDisgusted. Such sweeping
general merchants’ statements are the way of keeping his morale up especially with the debates with me. He brings up “big arguments” and when countered he keeps quiet without answering them for some time and “sings his Victor’s song” hidden in a post addressed to someone else. I have specifically pointed out 6 or 7 such instances where he had no counter answers and in some cases he had to accept his notions were wrong. Still he has not given up his unethical practice. Not having facts and counter arguments is not an obstacle for him to declare himself the victor. I think he has build up a theory to say that the “party with less evidence, facts and weak arguments is the winner”. With this theory, this “scientist” gave away the trophy to that ignorant B.W/Man several times for his ignorant and wild questioning without having any knowledge of the field.
This victor scientist, raised a question of “pre-determinism” of Buddhism a couple of days back, and when I countered, he kept quiet and singing his usual song. I disputed against his notion that one religion cannot be any better than any other religion and he is still quiet as a mole in the hole and now hiding in a post addressed to someone else, singing the victor’s song. If real Victor Knows about this he will commit suicide. This shameless guy has no conscience.
He avoids specific questions and issues general statements. This is cowardly way.
I challenge him to answer my questions one by one and declare him the winner. Cowards never face challenges. They run away weeping aloud, but try to show others that they are singing.
Thanks!
Mr. Bean;
“Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, a majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that this country belongs only to them, while the Muslim, Tamils and Christian minorities should be seen and not heard!
A majority of the majority have been brainwashed into thinking that they are the greatest race on earth with the greatest culture and language in the world!”
Please prove/back your “brainwash theory” without just uttering it.
Which is more correct notion you think, if the majority suggests that you are brainwashed instead?
All the men and women unfortunately have wide slits under their noses, which can give out noises.
Thanks!
Dear B>W/Man;
“Similarly for religion.
It’s an answer to a common need of ancient people.”
Substantiate your general merchants’ statement above. Prove that It’s an answer to a common need of ancient people “and NOTHING ELSE”.
Thank you for “enlightening me with your “ignorant useless ideas”. Some times useless things guide people into useful paths.
Mr Yapa,
You have asked me to subtantiate this statement …
“Similarly for religion. It’s an answer to a common need of ancient people.”
I would extend that. “It’s an answer to a common need of many people of today also”.
This may come as a shock to you.
Many people, even educated people, think that people primarily need religion because of their fear of the unknown, superstition, wanting assurance that some super-being can and will put their lives right when they go wrong. Religion is created by man, not god – I’m sure you will agree with that. I hope that fully substantiates the statement.
I don’t understand your ..’and nothing else’. Or it’s relevance to the point made.
Please explain.
(religion may, and does, serve other purposes subsequently – eg. control the masses. But those subsequent uses are possible only because religion already exists for the primary need (answer to their fear) as stated above, and holds an audience captive through conformity and conditioning)
So please enlighten us.
To avoid another merry-go-round of futile argument, Mr Yapa, are you saying that ‘we have been given our religion, which is special while others are not, because we are fundamentally born special in a special place’?
Dear B.W/Man;
“I don’t understand your ..’and nothing else’. Or it’s relevance to the point made.
Please explain.”
That is what I have been telling. You see the world with your little eyes. You don’t understand simple logic?
You have said that ” religion is an answer to a common need of ancient people.” Do you say it is the only reason for the arisen of all the religions? Is there no possibility of an exception? Other than that is there no any other purpose of the religions? Is there no any significance other than that?
Further, why do you say “it is an answer to a common need of ancient people.” What evidence do you have, especially with regard to Buddhism?
Give me exact and specific answers for the above questions. You cannot get mad and avoid the questions like you have done several times in the past, when you are trapped.
…………..
” To avoid another merry-go-round of futile argument, Mr Yapa, are you saying that ‘we have been given our religion, which is special while others are not, because we are fundamentally born special in a special place’?”
When you give the answers to my questions above you will automatically get the answer, if you don’t understand many reasons. I have specifically given reasons, if you want you can look back. Even your boss will tell, ask him. He also admitted the fact. I quoted it for you. Didn’t you see it? Are you blind?
By the way don’t like to be transformed into a man again answering my question about “Paticca Samuppada” and ” Pancha Niyama Dharma”. By the way have seen them in any other religion? Otherwise cannot be considered a difference?
Thanks!
Heshan
“Christian countries actually practice something called *charity* and promote a concept called *equality* that applies to every individual, regardless of background. The populace of most …..”
Oh! Really?
Is that the reason why the Church continues to oppose gay marriages and women priests?
Is that why the US border guards annually kill hundreds who try to cross the borders? Canada’s acceptance of Sri Lankan Tamil refugee claimers is heavily debated now.
BalangodaMan
“Fear of the unknown”, as you say is only one reason for man to invent religion. It may be true as to why man invented God or gods.(eg. ancient Egyptian gods, Akanathan’s One God, Jewish, Parsi and Hindu gods and Allah) But on the other hand that’s not the reason for some religions to emerge. For example during the Buddha’s time there seems to be a “spiritual” or an ‘intellectual” revolution in ancient India. It’s rather a quest to find out the truth about the nature and life. What prompted this revolution in not known for sure. Maybe those people were well off in their basic needs, so they were more interested in “truth seeking” of life.
Otherwise how can you explain the emergence of materialistic doctrines of Purana Kassapa, Pakudha Kachchayana and Ajitha Kesakambali, and atheistic doctrines like Buddhism and Jainsm? There seemed to be 62 such philosophies during Buddha’s time! These philosophers were just like their counterparts in ancient Greece who developed their own philosophies. The early scientists of meidival Europe tread the same pathway, but using “tools of perception” rather than “tools of intuition”.
Mr Yapa,
Some day I hope ‘conversations with Yapa’ will be published for future generations to study! Otherwise, why do you think I persevere?
You asked,
“Further, why do you say “it is an answer to a common need of ancient people.” What evidence do you have, especially with regard to Buddhism?”
I think what you are driving at is this. You are saying that all (or most) Buddhists, now and through the ages, became Buddhists as a result of individual uncoerced rational intellectual reasoning, having kept a strict open mind about religion until well into adulthood – in contrast to, you say, followers of other religions who are victims of childhood religious conditioning.
I simply disagree with that view.
Ryadh
——-
You will find the answer to the second question in your answer this one (which you have consistently avoided).
Mr Yapa, do you think you would be a Buddhist if you had been born in Ryadh, Saudi Arabia, to Muslim parents within a Muslim community?
Mr Yapa,
“By the way don’t like to be transformed into a man again answering my question about “Paticca Samuppada” and ” Pancha Niyama Dharma”. By the way have seen them in any other religion? Otherwise cannot be considered a difference?”
Yes I have.
You may remember ‘Shilboot’ described earlier by SomewhatDisgusted. The most Holy Book of the Shilboot believers (known as Shilbootahs) has a chapter that lists the days of the week perfectly – Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday – and in that very order! You have to agree that this is a 100% true reflection of reality, a real week. You do not need quantum mechanics or string theory to prove that Shilboot is the absolute truth. Even all other religions accept that that is true (eg. Christians go to church on a Sunday, one of the Shilboot days of the week). It goes on to describe a ‘day’ as being in two distinct parts – day and night, and does not waste time trying to answer the question ‘which came first’?
You may remember SomewhatDisgusted describing the plant that Shilbootahs smoke in order to see the truth. In Shilboot you can actually *see* the truth, not just read about it or hear about it from monks, or read from what you (Mr Yapa) are writing on GV.
Shilboot is free from any sacrilegious writing by anyone. It cannot be challenged. This is why if you Google Shilboot nothing comes up (except discussions on GV). Such is the power of the Shilboot Gods who control everything. By writing about Shilboot on GV here I risk my life. If you never hear from me again you know what happened. If so my advice to GV readers is ‘don’t mess with Shilboot’ – just smoke it and accept the fact that there are 7 days in the week, in that order. Just get over it.
(Goodbye, just in case)
Yapa,
“I like Heshan’s post of September 20, 2010 @ 7:00 am, containing some honest words.”
Do you mean how he claimed that Christianity preached “equality” despite hundreds of years of slavery in America?? Or despite the fact that the highest job that the European colonizers would give Heshan’s ancestor was to be their doorman, even after converting?
SD
“Coupled with the concerns expressed by some (i.e. Belle) who feel that too much mixing will dilute the identity of the Tamils (which is arguably true, but IMO, it’s racialist if one tries to prevent it), things become even harder to rectify.”
I’ve heard about Tamils in Sinhala medium schools in the 80s having to sit through history lessons about Tamil invasions over the centuries. I can’t say whether it was worse than me in Christian school having to listen to how Singularity died for our sins and that anybody who did not worship Singularity would go to hell.
“But I think that the state must take the lead in doing this, just like CBK took the lead in publicly apologizing for the events of ’83”
The problem is that “the state” doesn’t know history, and I don’t want to wait for them to figure it out. i’d rather debunk pseudo-history wherever and whenever I see it.
“Perhaps so but what are the specific “Sri Lankan things” that you see as being ridiculed?”
Buddhism?
“I think unnecessarily lumping people together without specifically attacking ideas is the very strategy that the Rajapakses are promoting (successfully).”
The reason the Rajapakses were successful was because that generalisation was largely true.
“I disagree with your example of secularism though. Secularism is a concept, and therefore it’s not owned by anyone (i.e. it’s not a “foreign” thing).”
Historically it originated in the West in reaction to the sort of primitive Christian bigotry that Prof Heshan is so delightfully displaying here. In the US in particular, it arose to mediate the tendencies for Protestants and Catholics to abuse each other. It did not arise in reaction against Christian persecution of Jews and other non-Christian minorities, demonstrating that secularism was not historically about protecting minority rights.
“I believe you too have agreed with the indisputable nature of secularism as a concept.”
Where did I say I agree with it?
Dear longus ;
RE: September 21, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Thanks for the very very good answer .Anyway, B.W/Woman must be thankful to you for providing the answer expected from him but he never would answer. He must treat you as a ” saviour”.
Thanks again for the to the point, brief answer.
Do you mean how he claimed that Christianity preached “equality” despite hundreds of years of slavery in America??
I know that most of your history lessons come from Mahavamsa, so let me *enlighten* you: not only the Americans but many other people practiced slavery. If you wish to know who some of these other people are, I refer you to DBS Jeyaraj, your other source of *knowledge.*
Or despite the fact that the highest job that the European colonizers would give Heshan’s ancestor was to be their doorman, even after converting?
Actually they gave people like your super racist champion Banda a chance to study at places like Oxford… I don’t think Mahavamsa mentions Oxford, so let me enlighten you again: it is a university where people go and learn Western conspiracy theories. Much better to study at a dagoba, become a monk, and take part in Honorable Wimal’s embassy agitations.
Dear wijayapala;
RE; your post of September 22, 2010 @ 3:45 am
You know my my definition about ” Heshan”? He is an “Intellectual Brat”.
When he forgets his that “Brat part” at least by chance, he produces wonderful ideas, giving us an opportunity to fight hard with him. We really have to accept that he is one of the contributors, who ignites the forum with deep and broad spectrum of controversial points or ” Philosophical Questions”. Even without forgetting that brat part, some times he un-intentionally enlighten us. We must tribute him for that.
Saying that I have no intention of undermining your contribution, you too have ignited many novel ideas, and we must appreciate the contribution of people like SD, longus, Belle even “that Woman”. However, I always miss my most favourite friend who encouraged my writing at the very beginning, Dear “Off the Cuff”, who contributed immensely to take this forum to this level.
OK, back to the focus. Really agreeing with what you have said in your post, the point I was trying to take into the light in terms of Heshan’s post is I think a more important one. Please look at the following portion of Heshan’s writing.
” The equality and charity that you find in Western countries actually comes from the Bible. For example, it was put into the American Constitution by men with strong Christian beliefs. Now, the concept may be simple enough, but in just < 225 yrs the USA has become a superpower."
This is one of the main points I (with many people) was trying to tell from the very beginning of my presence in the forum, to face a massive opposition from "Secular Fans". They nearly broke me into pieces for telling that the political systems of so called "model heavens" of west are not secular and the their religions (Ideas of the Bible) were embedded in their political systems, even quotings from the Bible it self. Further, I indicated that the "clergy" was separated from their political authority, but the religion was not separated from their political systems. Our "imitator political friends" of west nearly killed me for talking against their pet idea, Buddhism should be separated from the state and Sri Lanka should be made a secular state..
Really unlike in Europe, the clergy of this country (Buddhist monks) did not involve directly in political authority, but acted as advisors to the rulers from the very beginning, the Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka. Arhath Mihindu Thero himself involved in advisory activities and helped even development of economic activities by bringing skilled people from India for industries here. The Thero even helped in planning towns (Anuradhapura).
Many of our political imitators who cannot see the differences and realities in our countries, take the "political traps" in wholes preached to them by their masters, even cannot see the sublte, hidden realities in the countries of their masters. If they at least look at their masters' political systems carefully, they will never preach us that "Secular Panacea" (kokatath thailya) . We must build our systems on our ground realties, not looking at something far from us as which really is out of our sight. In this regard a very deep insight is given in the book, Bhiksuwakage Urumaya", by Dr. Walpola Rahula Thero.
We must think globally, but should act locally. I think we have the capacity to stand on our own feet. We have a competent Human resource for that.
This is the reality which Heshan disclosed to us with his "un-intentional vision" in his post, I said I liked. We must be thankful to his Intellect for his un-intentional vision. I think you will not disagree with me.
Thanks!
Is that the reason why the Church continues to oppose gay marriages and women priests?
You must be another proud product of the village school… did you recieve a standardization scholarship, btw? I hope your course was not physics! To answer your “question”, there are many kinds of Christians. In other words, not every Christian is Catholic.
Is that why the US border guards annually kill hundreds who try to cross the borders?
You mean like drug smugglers who try to fire at border guards?
Canada’s acceptance of Sri Lankan Tamil refugee claimers is heavily debated now.
Like I said before, if you gave everyone in S. Lanka a ticket and a visa to leave the country, 3/4 of the population would exit overnight. Left behind = orange-robed Nazis, politicians, Mr.Yapa…
Dear B.W/aMan ;
September 21, 2010 @ 11:56 pmSeptember 21, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
Please come to the “deep end” of the pool of discussion without just playing in the shallow waters.
Be ready to give up faulty view at least when they are proven. That is the way for intellectual development. Just clinging to your “old ideas”, you are familiar, make you stale and rot. Get rid of wrong ideas and wrong practices. You will see the light.
Thanks!
Dear Hesha;
“Like I said before, if you gave everyone in S. Lanka a ticket and a visa to leave the country, 3/4 of the population would exit overnight. Left behind = orange-robed Nazis, politicians, Mr.Yapa…”
You are right in my case, I don’t know about your Nazis and politicians and others.
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“Further, why do you say “it is an answer to a common need of ancient people.” What evidence do you have, especially with regard to Buddhism?”
I think what you are driving at is this. You are saying that all (or most) Buddhists, now and through the ages, became Buddhists as a result of individual uncoerced rational intellectual reasoning, having kept a strict open mind about religion until well into adulthood – in contrast to, you say, followers of other religions who are victims of childhood religious conditioning.
I simply disagree with that view.
……………………..
You are disagreeing with your own thinking. May be because you cannot disagree with my thinking.
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
What happened to your friend ” pseudo- Victor Rathnayake”?
Cannot hear his harp.
Thanks!
Ryadh
——-
You will find the answer to the second question in your answer this one (which you have consistently avoided).
“Mr Yapa, do you think you would be a Buddhist if you had been born in Ryadh, Saudi Arabia, to Muslim parents within a Muslim community?”
…………………….
B.W/Man’s “Old Kasippu” (moon shine) in a new bottle.
Drink it with your Shilboot.
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
Apologies for not having responded sooner to your queries and insulting comments earlier. I have not been able to access this particular thread for weeks, apparently due to a “content encoding error”—neither from my home or office computers.
“It’s more likely that the Tamils are as opportunistic as any other community and no longer wanted to back a losing horse.”
Then why did they not hold anti-SLA protests at a time when the LTTE was the winning horse? I find your responses truly unproductive. You want to ground this claim that Sinhalese and Tamils are alike, and that both are politically quiescent. All the examples you cite are entirely open to interpretation, i.e. they are not verifiable.
Plus, while I think humans make have many similarities across the board, I also think that different circumstances, different histories, different positionalities also create dissimilarities among them in terms of attitudes, beliefs, and habits of thinking. A besieged minority community’s failure to protest against injustice during a time of war cannot be equated with the failure of a majority community to protest injustice during a time of peace. You can argue till the cows come home, but I think it is highly unlikely that they can accrue from the same character flaw of political quiescence.
“Nice try, but the LTTE did not target Hindus or Catholics as a community the way they went after the Muslims.”
During the civil war, the Tamils were focussed on trying to survive. Little niceties about whether LTTE was targeting someone as a community or as individuals would not have bothered them in the least bit.
“A friend of mine told me how the LTTE tried to enforce saree-wearing while it controlled Jaffna from 1990-95, removing western influence like wearing dresses or skirts. THe problem is, nobody followed the LTTE’s diktat, and the Tigers weren’t able to do anything about it! So much for the “fear factor.””
Actually, the LTTE could have enforced the saree-wearing if they had wanted to deploy Taliban strategies such as stoning people for improper attire/behaviour. Obviously, the LTTE must have decided it was not that important an issue for them. That’s why the women felt free not to obey the command.
“From your reasoning, I get the impression that the LTTE served as an effective shield against people like you taking any sort of ethical stand on anything.”
People like me? Who are people like me? Are we inferior to ‘people like you’? Were ‘people like you’ heroes during this ethnic conflict that you think you have the moral authority to point fingers at me? Your country made a constitutional change on 8 Sept to extend presidential tenure and give your president powers that would clearly have the consequences of severely limiting opposition political participation. And what were you doing at the time while others were busy protesting the amendment? Wasting time arguing with me about whether Sinhalese or Tamils are politically quiescent! I suggest you take a good long look at your own political inadequacies as a SL citizen, and stop projecting your own character flaws onto your national community. Maybe misery just loves company, eh?
“Does that explain why instead of being at least a little grateful to the Sinhalese for restoring your ability to make ethical decisions (as you clearly were incapable of restoring it yourself), you’re so angry with us?”
I assume that since you’re so busily using collective pronouns, that you’re talking about me as a member of a community. Could you please elaborate how SL Tamils and diaspora Tamils now actually have an ability post-war to “make ethical decisions”? And how the Sinhalese have made this possible. Thank you.
I don’t think I am alone in seeing the LTTE as a product of Sinhalese failure to deliver equal rights to minorities. It’s arguable whether it was the LTTE which took away Tamil ability to make moral decisions, or the SL government itself and its millions of Sinhalese voters.
“Actually there were parents who protested their children continuing to be conscripted during the CFA. The point is that these protests only concerned things that directly affected the Tamils, not anybody else.”
Yes, I am so sorry, but in a war, people under attack tend to become rather self-absorbed. They tend to obsess about trying to remain alive.
“Sorry, but movements which don’t mobilize the masses don’t comprise evidence of community political activism.”
How about multiple armed insurrections? Is that evidence that a nation is not made up of politically quiescent citizens?
“Nope- I’m just showing how the Sinhalese aren’t very different from the Tamils. If you cannot provide a single case where the Tamils as a community stood up for another community- with nothing to gain for themselves- then you have proven no difference whatsoever.”
It is a symptom of your majority community arrogance that you expect a minority oppressed group to make sacrifices for a majority group that is in power. Anyone who has life experience of being in a minority community would never make the equations you make. Let’s provide an analogy—would you consider a poor man who refuses to contribute money to charity to be stingy as much as a rich man refusing such contributions too?
“Ok let me ask you this- where would Sinhalese living in southern Sri Lanka hear about the plight of the Tamils? From whom? The government-run news?”
Hey, maybe these Southern Sinhalese did not even know there was a war on? What do you think?
“Sorry, but the LTTE was not a “so-called threat” for the last 30 years. It functioned and thrived amidst your silence. Thanks to us, it seems you have recovered your voice.”
Please elaborate how the SL Tamils have found their voice post-war? Thanks.
“The way you make it sound there is no hope at all for the Tamils, since we super-genius devious Sinhalese knew all the weaknesses of the Tamils and brilliantly exploited them. It’s a good thing I don’t take you seriously!”
Most bullies tend to be idiots. It doesn’t take a huge amount of intelligence to know that you belong to a powerful majority community, and that this means that you can get get away with dominating a minority community.
If you don’t take me seriously, then why this minute scrutiny of everything I say? Don’t you have more politically urgent things to do for your country?
“Except of course, the Sinhalese, since you clearly lack the ability to make any distinctions among us. Glad to hear we’re all equally evil!”
I don’t think Sinhalese are evil. As a polity, they have tended to be evil though. I hope you know how to distinguish between these.
“This is not the first time I’ve heard you use the term “your country” as opposed to “our county.” Does that mean you’ve relinquished your right to have a credible opinion on SL, as it is not “your country?”
I am not Sri Lankan, but a citizen of another country – that’s why I can’t think of it as my country. But why does that mean that I have no right to have a credible opinion on SL? Aren’t you the one who thinks that communities should stick up for other communities? Suddenly, now, you think that you need to be an insider to comment on something?
“Thank you for the advice. Will you at least celebrate then when that happens to us?”
I don’t as a rule celebrate the misfortune of others.
Just to say finally that I won’t be responding to any more of your queries. Some of the stuff you have said here is highly offensive, and I don’t wish to prolong my involvement with your toxicity. I hope you will respect that. I don’t relish either having my time wasted by someone who doesn’t take me seriously.
Perhaps some time when you have had experience living in and occupying a minority position in society, we may be able to make connection in perspective.
B.W/Man;
Belle says;
” Plus, while I think humans make have many similarities across the board, I also think that different circumstances, different histories, different positionalities also create dissimilarities among them in terms of attitudes, beliefs, and habits of thinking.”
Why don’t you take your mighty club. This man is uttering against your equality of all humans.
Thrash him to death with your mighty homogeneous club.
Thanks!
Dear Belle;
“I am not Sri Lankan, but a citizen of another country – that’s why I can’t think of it as my country. But why does that mean that I have no right to have a credible opinion on SL? Aren’t you the one who thinks that communities should stick up for other communities? Suddenly, now, you think that you need to be an insider to comment on something?”
I think it is a foreign conspiracy! Foreign invasion!
Hey! I am joking, take it easy.
Thanks!
Heshan
Oh! Then you must be one who belongs to that”born again phenomenon”, as SD elaborated! Hope your woes have come to an end with “divine intervention”!
The majority of the world christians belongs to the Catholic Church and its leader is known as the Pope. There may be minority Orders who consent the gay marriage or women priests but I’m not bothered about those orders! (or your cult!) I am talking about the head of the Catholic Church! (and he has warned about emerging threat of “atheism” while on tour of Britain! You can join him in the Holy Cruisade
In your own hypocritical statement you have debunked your theory of “western secularism myth”, as righty pointed out by Yapa. I think all your expenses were probably paid by your “evangelists” all the way from your convertion and moving out of your school in Ampara! No doubt you still feel indebtted to your mentors!
Yapa,
“Why don’t you take your mighty club. This man is uttering against your equality of all humans.”
I think you’re failing to distinguish equality and sameness. When I say that people are not the same, I don’t mean at all that they’re not entitled to be treated as equal.
Yapa
“Belle says;
” Plus, while I think humans make have many similarities across the board, I also think that different circumstances, different histories, different positionalities also create dissimilarities among them in terms of attitudes, beliefs, and habits of thinking.”
Why don’t you take your mighty club. This *man* is uttering against your equality of all humans.
Thrash *him* to death with your mighty homogeneous club.”
By the way this person(Belle) is not a “man”, as you claim! She is the female of our species! (according to her own deliberation)
And also, do you belong to the old school with a gender bias? How can BalangodaWoman be “more stupid” than the BalangodaMan?
TO ALL TRUTH SEEKERS:
Does the recent experimental evidence of “Future Causality” points in the direction of Karma?
************************************************************
The future is nothing, but a manifestation of the present, according to our understanding. But according to this series of experiments, verified over and over the future too plays a role in the behavior of-at least “particles”. As our brain too functions at the ionic level, may be our thoughts are linked to the future too. Anyway it’s too early to jump into conclusions. This article which was published in the March issue of Discover Magazine (one of the last places for pseudo-science) gives an idea. Please go to:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
Hi Belle,
“Apologies for not having responded sooner to your queries and insulting comments earlier. I have not been able to access this particular thread for weeks, apparently due to a “content encoding error”—neither from my home or office computers.”
No problem. Which comments of mine were insulting? The ones where I equated Sinhalese to Tamils?
Don’t let the encoding error stop you. Try again and again and you’ll get through. Your comments will still post.
“Just to say finally that I won’t be responding to any more of your queries. Some of the stuff you have said here is highly offensive, and I don’t wish to prolong my involvement with your toxicity. I hope you will respect that.”
It would have been nicer of you to have stated this up front. As you did not specify which of my comments were offensive (and you clearly have no problem engaging in “toxicity” of your own), I’ll have to insist on having the final word.
“I don’t think Sinhalese are evil. As a polity, they have tended to be evil though. I hope you know how to distinguish between these.”
Excellent point that deserved to be moved to the front. Not only do I agree with you, but I think we’re finally approaching the heart of the matter. How would you characterize the SL Tamil polity?
“It’s more likely that the Tamils are as opportunistic as any other community and no longer wanted to back a losing horse.”
Then why did they not hold anti-SLA protests at a time when the LTTE was the winning horse?
Record crowds throng Jaffna Pongu Thamil rally
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=9306
“I find your responses truly unproductive. You want to ground this claim that Sinhalese and Tamils are alike, and that both are politically quiescent. All the examples you cite are entirely open to interpretation, i.e. they are not verifiable.”
Then why are you going to such lengths to verify that I’m wrong? And which comments of yours were productive?
“A besieged minority community’s failure to protest against injustice during a time of war cannot be equated with the failure of a majority community to protest injustice during a time of peace.”
You still haven’t explained the political quiescience of Tamils living outside Sri Lanka, who were not in a war zone.
“During the civil war, the Tamils were focussed on trying to survive. Little niceties about whether LTTE was targeting someone as a community or as individuals would not have bothered them in the least bit.”
Another nice try, but you know very well that targeting the Catholics or Hindus as a community would have turned them against the LTTE and would seriously undermine the cause of (enforcing) Tamil unity. The Muslims were a convenient target because they did not identify themselves as Tamil.
“Actually, the LTTE could have enforced the saree-wearing if they had wanted to deploy Taliban strategies such as stoning people for improper attire/behaviour. Obviously, the LTTE must have decided it was not that important an issue for them. That’s why the women felt free not to obey the command.”
You missed my point- that skirt-wearing but not the Muslims was important enough to defy the LTTE. Again, not too different from the Sinhalese.
“From your reasoning, I get the impression that the LTTE served as an effective shield against people like you taking any sort of ethical stand on anything.”
People like me? Who are people like me?
Err.. people who were dead silent during the war and who only found their voice afterwards?
“Your country made a constitutional change on 8 Sept to extend presidential tenure and give your president powers that would clearly have the consequences of severely limiting opposition political participation.”
You may not have noticed, but it is precisely the lack of opposition that led to that amendment.
“And what were you doing at the time while others were busy protesting the amendment? Wasting time arguing with me about whether Sinhalese or Tamils are politically quiescent!”
You think that interacting with you is a waste of time?
“Yes, I am so sorry, but in a war, people under attack tend to become rather self-absorbed.”
The same goes for people not under attack.
“Sorry, but movements which don’t mobilize the masses don’t comprise evidence of community political activism.”
How about multiple armed insurrections? Is that evidence that a nation is not made up of politically quiescent citizens?
The first JVP insurrection failed precisely because it could not mobilize enough support. The 2nd insurrection lasted much longer because the same government that lost all credibility with the Tamils lost it with the Sinhalese as well. As for Tamil militancy, it began as a result of the Tamils no longer being safe in the island. In both cases each community’s direct interests were at stake. At no time did anybody stick up for someone else.
“Nope- I’m just showing how the Sinhalese aren’t very different from the Tamils. If you cannot provide a single case where the Tamils as a community stood up for another community- with nothing to gain for themselves- then you have proven no difference whatsoever.”
It is a symptom of your majority community arrogance that you expect a minority oppressed group to make sacrifices for a majority group that is in power.
Actually you could have showed how this minority made sacrifices for another minority- like the Muslims or upcountry Tamils? The Sinhalese did not come to my mind.
UTHR in Broken Palmyra identified the Tamil elites’ failure to protest government policies against underprivileged Sinhalese and opposition groups as one of their greatest missteps. Personally I think UTHR was being too hard.
“Ok let me ask you this- where would Sinhalese living in southern Sri Lanka hear about the plight of the Tamils? From whom? The government-run news?”
Hey, maybe these Southern Sinhalese did not even know there was a war on?
They obviously knew there was a war going on, but how would they know about the atrocities you’re referring to? Are you afraid to answer this question?
“Sorry, but the LTTE was not a “so-called threat” for the last 30 years. It functioned and thrived amidst your silence. Thanks to us, it seems you have recovered your voice.”
Please elaborate how the SL Tamils have found their voice post-war? Thanks.
You told me that you were quiet during the war but decided to speak up only afterwards. your welcome!
“I am not Sri Lankan, but a citizen of another country – that’s why I can’t think of it as my country.”
Then why are you so concerned about what’s going on there?
“not only the Americans but many other people practiced slavery.”
Then doesn’t that make Christianity the equal of other religions, at best?
“The message of Jesus, however, has remained the same – it is the same kind of ahimsa that Gandhi successfully used to drive out the British.”
Are we talking about the same Jesus who cursed a fig tree to death for not giving him figs?
Prof Heshan’s comparison with Mahatma Gandhi raises a number of questions:
1) If Christianity was so advanced, how come Gandhi did not convert?
2) Did Gandhi’s refusal to convert mean that he did not go to heaven, according to Christian doctrine?
3) Why did the Indians want to drive the Christian British out?
Dear Belle;
“I think you’re failing to distinguish equality and sameness. When I say that people are not the same, I don’t mean at all that they’re not entitled to be treated as equal.”
I really was not criticizing your stance. I was asking that “woman” from Balangoda area to apply his “universal theory of homogeneity” to your statement. I have no big issue with your stance. Sorry, if I hurt your feelings unnecessarily.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
” By the way this person(Belle) is not a “man”, as you claim! She is the female of our species! (according to her own deliberation)
And also, do you belong to the old school with a gender bias? How can BalangodaWoman be “more stupid” than the BalangodaMan?”
Oh! my, my!, I entirely forgot. As you have said I am a bit biased “towards” female, I am mad over them!
Thanks!
Dear Belle;
Really, in my post addressed to B.W/Man I was agreeing with you. Really I have no any issue with your opinion there. Not only that, that is my opinion too.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
Thanks for posting the article in the ” Discover”.
A similar answer is given by “Nagasena Thero” in Milinda Prashnaya for a quetion asked by king Milinda, about “Karma”. If my memory is correct, he asked where this karma of a being is stored and why can’t we observe its presence.
The Thero explained this with a metaphor.
He say the king ” You know trees bear fruits. Can you tell from where these fruits came? Were they there in the tree before we could observe them? Just because you cannot observe any clue of them before they are “born” as fruits, can you say there was no cause for it? Really only you cannot see the cause. It is same with karma.
(Please note that above is all my writing done as per my memory. If there is any incorrect interpretation it is my fault. Please read the original version for more details. It is available on line.)
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala
RE: “I’ve heard about Tamils in Sinhala medium schools in the 80s having to sit through history lessons about Tamil invasions over the centuries. I can’t say whether it was worse than me in Christian school having to listen to how Singularity died for our sins and that anybody who did not worship Singularity would go to hell.”
I suspect it would have been death by indignation in the Tamil case and death by hilarity in yours
RE: “The problem is that “the state” doesn’t know history, and I don’t want to wait for them to figure it out. i’d rather debunk pseudo-history wherever and whenever I see it.”
Your efforts are appreciated.
RE: ““Perhaps so but what are the specific “Sri Lankan things” that you see as being ridiculed?”
Buddhism?”
a. Why would you see Buddhism as inherently necessary for being a “Sri Lankan”? Shouldn’t that change?
b. Although I suspect you’ll say that once Buddhism is insulted, people’s brains shut down (and I’d agree, as Yapa amply demonstrates), I think that ought to change, don’t you? Why would you wish to perpetuate the idea that to be Sri Lankan, one must not mutter a word against the great holy Buddhism? No concept should be shielded from challenge, that’s the best way it ensures its own uncritical acceptance.
c. What’s wrong with calling a spade a spade? I think Buddhism as practised in Sri Lanka is almost as ridiculous as Christianity in Europe. You’d probably agree too. Should I be dishonest and keep my mouth shut just so I can convince the zealots on the ethnic issue? Well, maybe it is prudent, but I’m guessing I’ll get bad karma for being dishonest and you surely wouldn’t want that
RE: “It did not arise in reaction against Christian persecution of Jews and other non-Christian minorities, demonstrating that secularism was not historically about protecting minority rights.”
Sure, I agree, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do. It’d be an “appeal to motive” fallacy.
RE: ““I believe you too have agreed with the indisputable nature of secularism as a concept.”
Where did I say I agree with it?”
Let me ask you again then. Why is it fairer by all citizens to have a non-secular government than it is to have a secular one?
Dear longus;
Further to my post of September 23, 2010 @ 7:32 am addressed to you, I have another thing I had posted in this forum which is significantly relevant to the article you mentioned and to the present discussion regarding karma. Can you remember I posted an incident of prediction of my horoscope by a friend of mine? Here is that post again,
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/#comment-22550
My friend was able to predict my horoscope through two of my prominent attributes, according to astrologers, horoscope is a note of the past karma of a person.
This shows that my friend was able to detect my past karma that led to two of my present attributes.
Isn’t this a very significant case of “sort of supporting/proving” karma. I think this is a very significant case that should be drawn the attention of truth seekers like, Modern Scientists, Philosophers and Theologians.
(When I posted this, I think many avoided it because it is a real challenge for their rigid views or thinking that an easterner cannot bring up any valuable contribution to the world like westerners. They believe even Science activists in faith, believe any political theory coming from west, and think that we cannot produce any theory which has any value. They worship the west for everything and fails identifying/appreciating a single good thing in us. Instead they take a mighty club “made in USA or Europe” to crush any new idea coming their way to from “under developed countries only having an ancient history” . There outdated rigid views are doing a massive harm to the world.)
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
You said to Belle:
“I really was not criticizing your stance.” and “Really I have no any issue with your opinion there. Not only that, that is my opinion too.”
No Mr Yapa. The issue is, you have a problem accepting that each human life has an equal value. This is understandable as you have already written reams about your belief (er … ‘insightful knowledge’ as revealed by an ancient sage) that different human lives have a different status from even BEFORE they are born, decided by the universal cosmic laws and karma pertaining to a previous existence (which leads to the supposed superiority of birth of SL Sinhala-Buddhist-born people in preference to Christians and Mulsims and Richard Dawkins according to undisputed cosmic laws). So not sure what you are backtracking on here.
You then go on to reveal the following that proves that you are quite serious about that …
“according to astrologers, horoscope is a note of the past karma of a person” and “This shows that my friend was able to detect my past karma that led to two of my present attributes. Isn’t this a very significant case of “sort of supporting/proving” karma. I think this is a very significant case that should be drawn the attention of truth seekers like, Modern Scientists, Philosophers and Theologians.”
Well, I never thought you’d be quite as honest.
Predestiny
————–
But at the same time you claim that you do not believe in predestiny. How does that work? The whole point about astrology (and palmistry) is that the future is written (predestined) and is revealed in the stars (or written in lines on your palm). The future positions of the stars is known, we cannot change that. (astrology is how people ‘shrug off their lot’ and accept that ‘there is nothing they can do, it was meant to happen’. In plain language that is what is called ‘predestiny’. The opposite is ‘free-will’)
When did the various different parts of your brain last talk to each other?
Why we are special
———————–
Here’s the maths.
The world’s population is 6,700,000,000. The population of SL is 20,100,000 of which 70% are Buddhist. Let’s say 10% of these are pious Buddhists who diligently follow the Noble Eight Fold Path (N8) in their daily lives. That is 1,407,000 of us.
This makes the chances of being born again as a pious SL Buddhist in a future life to be .000207216. This means, statistically you will expect to be reborn 4,825.871 times before you will be born as a SL Buddhist again who will be practising N8. At a current life expectency in the world at 64.1 years our next practice/contact/awareness of N8 won’t be for another 308,855.7214 years.
This of course assumes that all rebirths are ‘human rebirths’. Statistics for animal population of the world is not readily available – assuming 1,000 animals for each human is way too little. I think more like 1,000,000 or even much more counting all the bugs and amoeba. Anyway, even at 1,000 this makes our next life in which we have a fair chance of practising N8 won’t be for another 308,855,721.4 years. That’s like the length of time before the dinasaurs, 308 million years.
Now if we factor-in life on other planets. You’ll have to work this one out yourself! If there is life in just 1,000 planets the result says that we won’t be in a position to diligently practice N8 for a long long time and possibly the universe (as we know it) will have shrunk back to a pin head by then.
So what does this mean?
This means that, if in this life you are lucky to be a Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhist (as I am and Mr Yapa) and aware of ‘N8 as a path to salvation’ then this is your LAST practical opportunity to achieve that and we are well adviced to try to achieve that IN THIS LIFE ITSEFT – you will never get another chance in samsara (as shown above). The massive value of spreading this message to everyone you meet cannot be stressed enough, therefore.
We are special … because know about N8 (we thank Mr Yapa for plugging it constantly).
If you miss this chance your destiny will be no different from Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, my pet cat, the microbes on a slice of toast. You will have as much a chance of reaching salvation (nirvana) as being run over by a snow plow in Colpetty on a Poya Day.
Here is my take on this. If someone told me I have a ‘billion billion billion to one’ chance of winning something that I don’t even know exists how much will I bet on that? Zero, I think. I think the Buddha (who from all accounts a very clever person) will have expected me to have reached that conclusion too. (So, I must be a Buddhist after all)
Dear Yapa,
BalangodaMan said: “…aware of ‘N8 as a path to salvation’ then this is your LAST practical opportunity to achieve that and we are well adviced to try to achieve that IN THIS LIFE ITSELF – you will never get another chance in samsara (as shown above)”
Now that’s an issue I’ve been struggling to understand. You have argued vigorously that Buddhism is the greatest truth of all and have tried to convince *all* of us that the noble eight fold path is the path to Nirvana. You have also continued to pay lip service to how much you desire to get there.
However!! You do not seem convinced enough to actually *follow* the path. Why else are you spending time on this forum arguing with us rather than actually following the path to Nirvana? Does that mean that you are not *really* convinced?
Looking forward to a candid answer.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
” However!! You do not seem convinced enough to actually *follow* the path. Why else are you spending time on this forum arguing with us rather than actually following the path to Nirvana? Does that mean that you are not *really* convinced?
Looking forward to a candid answer.”
This again shows why are not able to understand truth. You have gone biased by one of the four biases (Sathara Agathiya) mentioned in Buddhism, “Moha” or in plain words ” Ignorance”. You are ignorant of Buddhist doctrine, so your conclusions about Buddhism and related things are faulty. When you are ignorant or have no knowledge in something one should not repeatedly say that he cannot have correct conclusions/decisions on it. When a person does not have knowledge in Chemistry, you really know, he cannot make correct conclusions in the areas related to it. (He! He!!)
Now you have said that I am not following the path to Nirvana. Really I am in the path.
Really what has happened was due to your lack of knowledge of Buddhism, you don’t even know to compose the correct question to ask from me. I will do it for you. I think what you want to know is “why I am not already in the Nirvana or why I am not enlightened yet”.
To give you a simple answer, to reach the destination one should start his journey in the path. I have already started it, but not reached the destination.
I will give you the answer in another perspective too.
I cannot remember where this has been said, anyway according to what I have read somewhere, Buddha has given the following advice to the monks regarding the duties and obligations towards their parents. If a Bhikku gets a message about one of their parents is sick and needs care, the Buddha has advised to attend to it first, even if he is in the verge of the enlightenment in a single minute. He advised even to leave the Arhathood for fulfilling their duties and obligations.
Do you think my performing duties and obligations has any contradictions?
Sabbam rasam Dhamma raso jinati!
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
Really there is no reason for me to answer you as you almost have never answered my queries and questions, by one of which karma you got your “womanhood”. Can you remember the point of time you lost your manhood? But in compassion to a miserable creature whose next birth most probably will not be a human, due to the volitional bad actions he has done in the present birth, I will answer some of his ignorant questions. Ehi Passiko!
” This is understandable as you have already written reams about your belief (er … ‘insightful knowledge’ as revealed by an ancient sage) that different human lives have a different status from even BEFORE they are born, decided by the universal cosmic laws and karma pertaining to a previous existence.”
True, I agree.
“(which leads to the supposed superiority of birth of SL Sinhala-Buddhist-born people in preference to Christians and Mulsims and Richard Dawkins according to undisputed cosmic laws). So not sure what you are backtracking on here.”
Above does not necessarily follow from the previous statement of your, to which I agreed. I can show you a classic example against the wrongful conclusion of yours.You have said you were born Sinhala-Buddhist, but you are not superior to any of others. OK?
” (astrology is how people ‘shrug off their lot’ and accept that ‘there is nothing they can do, it was meant to happen’. In plain language that is what is called ‘predestiny’. The opposite is ‘free-will’)”
You and your empty head! Read my version of Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Samuppada again. I think you may not have the capacity to understand it.
” This means that, if in this life you are lucky to be a Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhist (as I am and Mr Yapa) and aware of ‘N8 as a path to salvation’ then this is your LAST practical opportunity to achieve that and we are well adviced to try to achieve that IN THIS LIFE ITSEFT – you will never get another chance in samsara (as shown above).”
” If you miss this chance your destiny will be no different from Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, my pet cat, the microbes on a slice of toast. You will have as much a chance of reaching salvation (nirvana) as being run over by a snow plow in Colpetty on a Poya Day.”
You are predicting your destiny. It is not my destiny. Do some good kamma to avoid it at least now. Otherwise when I become a powerful god, you will have to come and worship me, oh! no you cannot, you will be in animal kingdom, at best.
Ada ada ey maru pinkaraganne,
Kelesada heta maru nethi sithanne
” Here is my take on this. If someone told me I have a ‘billion billion billion to one’ chance of winning something that I don’t even know exists how much will I bet on that? Zero, I think. I think the Buddha (who from all accounts a very clever person) will have expected me to have reached that conclusion too. (So, I must be a Buddhist after all)”
How do you know? You felt like so?
Anichche, Dukke, Anaththe!
Thanks! (Do some work with good intention, good kamma, that is the only thing you can invest for your next life.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“Although I suspect you’ll say that once Buddhism is insulted, people’s brains shut down (and I’d agree, as Yapa amply demonstrates), I think that ought to change, don’t you? Why would you wish to perpetuate the idea that to be Sri Lankan, one must not mutter a word against the great holy Buddhism?”
I am always open to fair and reasonable criticisms. I will not bow my head to unethical criticisms. I have told you that I know the difference between “Dore handa and P-de handa. I have a very sensitive nose.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
I must say in retrospect that the topic I gave to the “Discover” article on “future causality” is misleading! Actually that kind of evidence point in the direction of “pre-determinism” or “fatalism” – as preached by another contemporary of Buddha, Makkli Gosaala. If Gosaala’s followers read that they would have jumped sky-high saying that the proof of their master’s teachings were found. Unfortunately I don’t see any of Gosaala’s followers (they are called Aageevakas and Gosaala was with Mahavira at one time before he split up to establish his own order due to ideological differences) to celebrate that!
On the other hand the concept of Kamma is not unique to Buddhism. The same doctrine is found in Hinduism and Jainism too. There are differences from Kamma as in Buddhism, too. One is the Kamma makes its effect in a soulless universe in Buddhism and in other two faiths it is an eternal soul that migrates from body to body with all the karmas bound to it. Another is as you say Buddhism describes a complete “theory” of “cause and effect” (in Paticca Samuppada and Niyaama Damma) in an elaborate way, but this theory too becomes “untestable” for an outsider unless he too attains the same. Therefore it is a unilateral realization which remains “unverifiable”.
The Buddhist “ultimate goal” of Nirvana differs from the Moksha of other two faiths. The Buddhist Nirvana in a state of non-existence, un-made,un-formed and un-describable. The Moksha on the other hand is a state of extremely blissful existence. To describe Nirvana Buddha uses “Sanjaya Bellattaputta’s” kind of “nor not” terms and therefore it remains an UNTESTABLE concept.
This makes Buddhism a complete doctrine on its own but nevertheless not testable at the same time just like Sigmund Freud’s psychological theories. You can argue on these, but can never prove it.(can you prove Oedipus complex or sublimation or Freud’s interpretation of dreams?) It’s the same with Buddhism, but some valid questions comes up in my mind such as these:
1. If Buddha opposed Astrology as a “lowly art” (in Saman^napala Sutra) how did astrologers predict his future when Prince Siddhartha was born so accurately?
2. If astrology is a “lowly art” and “stars can’t do anything”- Buddha, why do you think that it is true? Who is wrong, Buddha or YOU?
3. If all the living beings are destroyed in a cataclysmic event like Ahmeddhinijan and USA engaging in a nuclear show-down, it said that all the beings would be born in a Bhrahma world ( in a body-less extraterrestrial domain) called “Shuddhawaasa”, according to to Buddha(attributed to him). In that case all the Hitlers, Prabhakarans, Pol-Pots, Hirohithos, Harry Trumens and Pino-Chets will have a free ticket to the Bhrahma realm. And thereafter how can anybody be born as a human in order to attain Nirvana?
4. As you described in one of your earlier responses quoting “Sandaka Sutra” Buddha is said to have had faculties that were not possessed by any of his contemporaries, and spontaneous knpwledge is said to have come to him continuously. In that case how come Buddha never knew that King Ajasath had tortured and killed his father, King Bimbisaara,(one of Buddha’s chief patrons) until He (Buddha) heard about it in Magadha? On the other hand he is said to have intervened and prevented the “Shaakya-Koliya” war prevented Vidoodhabha from massacrering Shaakyans twice ( though He(Buddha) couldn’t prevent Vidoodhabha from doing it in the third try after Buddha’s death!),and also come to Sri Lanka to prevent a war between the local tribes! Why didn’t Buddha ever intervene in other conflicts in other parts of the world at that time? For example there were warlords massacreing people in China, Japan, Spatans were engaged with the Greeks, there were wars in ancient Egypt in their Pharoh’s conquests, but Buddha never KNEW? Are all those instances the result of “Akaala Marana” or “Dhamma Niyaama”. In that case how did He prevent some wars?
5. By reading the final few hours of Buddha’s life on how he suffered from dysentry after eating Chunda’s Sukaramaddhawa, I don’t see any super-human qualites but sufferings of a weak old man. He or His enlightenment could not prevent the physical torture of abdominal cramps, bloody diarrhoea and fainting. He was so dehydrated on his way to Kusinaara that He had to lie down four times on his folded robe; had to drink muddy water from a hoof-mark. He was complaining of severe thirst and abdominal pain. I see Him as VERY HUMAN, and it is not a disrespect to Him!
Other questions later, pal…..
After reading what “Longus” or “The Long One” has posted I must say it is one of the best insights of religion that I have ever read, here or elsewhere. Longus must be a modern day “Sachchaka”, if not another Buddha of a different dimention!
In one of his previous pieces on this thread on Sept 14, @11.15pm he has given an equally fascinating account on Jesus which carried his usual trademark of controversy.
I don’t think after studying so much about Buddhism that I would be able to answer some of Longus’ questions. I don’t think Yapa is capable of either, going by the standards he has displayed here!
One thing I can tell is that, Buddha’s omniscience (or for that matter God’s) are nothing but creations of the human mind. A similar question would be,”why didn’t God save my son from cancer, when He could help my daughter to pass her exam?”
I think these are mere cases of coinsidence taken as “causal” or “the fallacy of sequence with consequence”. When Buddha could He must have intervened! When he didn’t know, what can even He do?
And what Longus says about Sigmund Freud is equally sensible. Not only Freud, even Karl Yun and Alfred Adler all had their own theories on human psychology. Some of these are still debated. We can take Buddha’s teachings on human psychology in the same line.
Anyway, Longus has opened a new door to me to tread.
BalangodaMan,
“This makes the chances of being born again as a pious SL Buddhist in a future life to be .000207216.”
Unfortunately your knowledge of kamma is not quite the same as your arithmetic skills. One’s birth is not random in Buddhism.
yapa
Thank you for writing to me, even though you never responded to my points about the Tamils.
“Even without forgetting that brat part, some times he un-intentionally enlighten us.”
When did he do that?
“This is one of the main points I (with many people) was trying to tell from the very beginning of my presence in the forum, to face a massive opposition from “Secular Fans”. They nearly broke me into pieces for telling that the political systems of so called “model heavens” of west are not secular and the their religions (Ideas of the Bible) were embedded in their political systems, even quotings from the Bible it self.”
In this case, the secularists are far closer to the truth than Prof Heshan. The “Renaissance” in W. Europe was inspired not by Christianity but by the “pagan” era of ancient Greece. A great deal of philosophers and scientists who emerged from that faced stiff opposition from the Church. One could argue that western civilization came to be in spite of Christianity, not because of it.
As I told the secularists here, western secularism arose as the result of the atrocities that Christians were inflicting against each other. If they did not create secularism, they probably would have all killed each other. I argued that this situation has not occurred in Sri Lanka and therefore does not apply.
Two Asian examples of secularism can be found in India and Japan. In India it was the result of the need to keep peace between Hindus and Muslims. In Japan it was the result of the state religion Shintoism becoming discredited after WWII. Again not applicable to SL.
“Really unlike in Europe, the clergy of this country (Buddhist monks) did not involve directly in political authority, but acted as advisors to the rulers from the very beginning.”
Not anymore, with JHU.
“We must build our systems on our ground realties, not looking at something far from us as which really is out of our sight.”
I agree with that. Secularism one day may be adopted, but it cannot be imposed.
1) If Christianity was so advanced, how come Gandhi did not convert?
Because Hindus believe all religions lead to the same path. So a Hindu can go to a church, a temple, a mosque, etc. Hinduism is probably the most tolerant religion.
The majority of the world christians belongs to the Catholic Church and its leader is known as the Pope.
Catholics are like Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists. Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists such as yourself try to claim that Buddhism is atheist, but of course Mahayana/Hinayana/Tantric etc. Buddhists will disagree. Once I asked Mr. Yapa to explain why his fellow Buddhists outside of Taprobane are believing in gods, but it seems Mr. Yapa is entirely unaware of the existence of these people, and so the question does not make sense for him. Theravada Buddhists also claim they are the true Buddhists. Similarly, Catholics believe they are the true Christians, and all other Christians will go to a bad place. Conclusion: one should not use Catholicism to make a case for Christianity, just as one should not use Theravada Buddhism to make a case for Buddhism.
Dear Prof. D.G.Harishchandra;
Warmly welcome to the thread and the discussion.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
I think you have opened a new path for a deep discussion on Buddhism, unlike the critics of Buddhism in the forum. I appreciate it though it has some too easy to answer questions, faulty questions and difficult to answer questions too. Any way you have sunk deep into the ocean of Buddhism despite all of them. If I do a ” Cost-Benefit analysis” on your article I give 5 marks for cost and 95 marks for benefits. Your article opens a window to see the deep doctrines of Buddhism. I think your article brought the forum to my long awaiting goal. I am surely not capable of answering all the questions arisen wrt to Buddhism, due to my small knowledge about it, however, it opens an opportunity to a collective effort. You change the the attitude of long lasted “Mere Opposition” towards Buddhism in this forum. This is what I told SomewhatDisgusted in my post addressed to him on September 23, 2010 @ 8:32 pm.
” I am always open to fair and reasonable criticisms. I will not bow my head to unethical criticisms. I have told you that I know the difference between “Dore handa and P-de handa. I have a very sensitive nose.”
I think your article already is indicating the attraction, it has already drawn Prof. D.G.Harishchandra’s attention to the discussion. He can be a valuable resource person who can help exploring the depths of the subject.
Really at the moment I have no time to discuss all your questions and queries. However, really I wanted to answer that deterministic nature of the conclusion of the article in the Discover. That scientist had fallen into that trap because of his lack of knowledge of the “full set of parameters” or independent variables that governs the universe. Western Scientists have identified only a few of them in separate fields, but they were not able to take them together and they are yet to identify the “whole” or the “Totality” or shed a “Holistic View” at the universe. They have identified and studying ” Dhamma Niyama” in one of the branches of Physics (Theoritical physics now a days) and Chemistry, they are studying ” Beeja Niyama” in Biology, “Uthu Niyama” in another branch of Physics and Chemistry and Biology (Study of Nature), “Chitta Niyama” in Psychology, but have not yet properly approached “Kamma Niyama” in Science, though Quatun Physics seems just trying to touch the field. Anyway, we also could become pioneers in that field, who knows?
If Tollaksen ( the Scientist) of your article had an idea of all the parameters that govern the events of the universe, or if he inquired about it from any “Buddhist Gamarala” from a remote village, those “Pancha Niyama Dhama” is of common sense knowledge, that scientist wouldn’t have fallen into that pit fall of “determinism”. No event is predetermined but are effects of different combinations of “Pancha Niyama Dharma” behaving according to the Law of “Paticca Samuppada” or Cause and Effect.
I must pay the due tribute to Buddhism for the wisdom it contains. Only now the greatest Scientist of the world like Steven Horking could argue about the existence of the universe without the interference of a Creator god. Insight of Buddhism has given every simple Buddhist that capability which has to be obtained by great scientists of the west after studying it making knots in their brains. It is said that Hawking has brought that theory in celebrations in the media all over the world, but Buddhist Gamarala’s had that knowledge for ages.
Can you remember, even I have very specifically mentioned the very idea, with some wisdom obtained through Buddhism. Please see what I have written in the post addressed to Heshan on September 6, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
………………..
” So now do you think there exist a necessity of a “Creator God” for the existence of the universe?
Very clearly the universe can exist without the necessity of a “Creator God”.
CREATOR GOD IS AN UNNECESSARY or REDUNDANT CONCEPT.
………………….
Is it not the same thing Hawkings is arguing in his latest book ” Great Design” with celebrations all over the world?Please read my post and also the previous articles related to the argument.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/#comment-22691
This is a simple example for what Buddhism can give to the modern disciplines like Science and Philosophy. The repository is here. We must invite great minds to explore it.
None is comparable to the Buddha.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan, I am glad that you agree that the recent (200 years or so) history has much to do with today’s problems of polarization. Hopefully, your debate with some folks here will continue.
longus – Glad to read your 5-point post! I liked the fact that you mention the limitations of mortals including the Buddha. Unfortunately, he had to endure the same pain that he happened to see in older people when he was very young. I only wish he didn’t go thru what he went thru. Interestingly, in some tales of Hinduism, it is said that Krishna died of natural and painful death too. So, did Jesus. If anything, it goes to prove that the limitations of anyone born as human in this world. And I couldn’t control my laughter on this Ahmedinijad vs US nuclear fight that you mentioned and how that impacts rebirth. That was a very practical way of looking at things.
Wiyapala – Good point (about India’s secularism vis-a-vis this Muslims vs Hindus issue). Just my own perspective about India’s secularim and the movement in such a direction.
1. India is probably the most divided country in the world. The divisions are virtually along the lines of religion, language, caste etc. If you take Hinduism out of equation as a majority religion (which itself is divided because of multiple Gods and ideas and sub-religions), there isn’t much commonality or common identity that binds Indians. Not a single ethnic group or single language (including HIndi) has a such a majority as to try to impose it’s will on the minorities. So, it became inevitable that India went down that path to avoid any more confusions that have been existing historically.
2. India luckily didn’t go the way that Pakistan went (Gandhi was a ardent believer of Hinduism, whereas Jinnah was a secular Muslim) after partition, largely because of secular leaders like Nehru. Interestingly, the 2 major parties after partition, namely Congress and Communist Party of India were both secular. In Pakistan’s case, the religious folks steered their country in a wrong way and Pakistan’s leaders played into their hands. Although India has several flaws, it didn’t quite move that dramatically after partition towards becoming a Hindu state contrary to what some feared might happen after partitition.
Heshan – Not sure if Hinduism is a tolerant religion or not, but surely Hinduism (like most Eastern religions I think) doesn’t bother converting people from other religions like Christianity or Islam do. And Hinduism has it’s fair share of nut jobs all over India who will tell you why their religion is the greatest. I believe that more than the religion itself, it is the individuals who make the difference.
Dear Longus,
An excellent post at September 23, 2010 @ 9:33 pm.
RE : “Therefore it is a unilateral realization which remains “unverifiable”.”
Nicely put. Which is why I personally believe that it is anyone’s right to follow this same path and attempt to verify it for oneself (ehi-passiko as Yapa repeatedly emphasizes), but it is sheer stupidity to insist on the “truth” of these claims.
For all we know, the Buddha might have been under a genuinely mistaken belief, induced by a form of self-hypnosis. Many of the “unverifiable” concepts such as Karma, Rebirth and Nirvana seem to be extensions of already prevalent beliefs, rather than something radically new, suggesting that either
a. Enlightenment was quite common back in the day since others also regularly stumbled upon the same truths (and strangely absent today, despite so many people like Yapa treading the “path”)
b. The Buddha’s own pre-conceived notions were rationalized and he convinced himself through mistaken hypnotic delusion
c. A mixture of both a degree of enlightenment and genuine hypnotic delusion
I think the strongest cases can be made for possibilities B and C, certainly not A.
As such, on average, we are better off extracting the useful aspects of his teachings and treating the “unverifiable” aspects with a healthy dose of scepticism.
The capacity of the human mind to be deluded is *well established*, and I see no reason that the Buddha should be an exception, especially not when there is also a clear link between meditation, self-hypnosis and hypnotic delusion.
On the other hand, if one nevertheless desires to tread this path towards enlightenment, on the offhand chance that it’s right (I must emphasize, not a single datum suggests any form of supernatural enlightenment), nevertheless, any individual has every right to do so, after all, no one knows enough to claim a monopoly on truth.
Dear Yapa:
I must pay the due tribute to Buddhism for the wisdom it contains. Only now the greatest Scientist of the world like Steven Horking could argue about the existence of the universe without the interference of a Creator god. Insight of Buddhism has given every simple Buddhist that capability which has to be obtained by great scientists of the west after studying it making knots in their brains. It is said that Hawking has brought that theory in celebrations in the media all over the world, but Buddhist Gamarala’s had that knowledge for ages.
Hawking has not proved that the Universe was not created by a God. He cannot prove it because he is relying on M-theory, a subset of String theory. String theory does not have any credibility among mainstream physicists today.
In any event, I have disproved all the nonsense physics put out by longus in this thread. He thinks that (I) vibrating strings created the Universe, (II) he believes in plasma cosmology, and (III) he thinks M-theory can be used to disprove the Big Bang singularity.
You don’t have to believe me at face value… you can do your own research and you will come to the same conclusions. As you know, I am not a follower of crackpot physics or pseudo-science. That is why I have always maintained that science and religion are mutually exclusive and have nothing in common. I have always quoted from experts and provided web links to back up my scientific arguments. So my advice to you is that you don’t subscribe to the crackpot science of certain individuals in this thread.
Krish:
Heshan – Not sure if Hinduism is a tolerant religion or not, but surely Hinduism (like most Eastern religions I think) doesn’t bother converting people from other religions like Christianity or Islam do. And Hinduism has it’s fair share of nut jobs all over India who will tell you why their religion is the greatest. I believe that more than the religion itself, it is the individuals who make the difference.
Well, the reason for conversion is because Christianity is a very active religion. It is not passive like Hinduism/Buddhism. Perhaps this is a question of simplicity; deep insight into Hinduism and Buddhism are not easily accessible to the average person; much study is needed. So at the end of the day, most Hindus and Buddhists know more about the ritualistic aspects of their religion than they do about the actual underlying philosophy. With Christianity, however, the opposite is true. The philosophy is relatively simple; what takes precedence, however, is the actual application (practice). That is why you find people like missionaries, who are eager to convert others.
Correction: *Perhaps this is a question of complexity
Wijayapala,
We are special – Part 2
—————————
“Unfortunately your knowledge of kamma is not quite the same as your arithmetic skills. One’s birth is not random in Buddhism.”
Thank you. You walked straight into the very point I am trying to make.
According to my maths a person reborn will expect to be born as a ‘pious SL Sinhalese Buddhist’ every 308 million years. (see my assumptions in previous post)
… UNLESS rebirth is skewed in favour of such people being reborn as such people, or I would even say, such people are ONLY reborn as such people and nobody else, as taught in Buddhism.
This means that all (and I mean ‘all’) pious SL Sinhalese Buddhists were pious SL Sinhalese Buddhists in past lives. This must be true (if the rebirth bias is true, otherwise the 308 million years applies which you reject).
(I am guessing that) This is why Mr Yapa claims that WE ARE SPECIAL. High born. A cosmically decreed higher form of human being to be born in SL as Sinhalese Buddhist who will continue to be reborn as such. Only SL Sinhalese Buddhists will be reborn in SL. By this mechanism, in the fullness of time SL’s population will increase in its purety.
I am ready to hear how this argument is refuted. Mr Yapa, how did the Buddha answer this, or indeed is this the very point in his teachings? Did he know that the only people on the path to enlightenment will be born in SL?
BalangodaMan,
“UNLESS rebirth is skewed in favour of such people being reborn as such people, or I would even say, such people are ONLY reborn as such people and nobody else, as taught in Buddhism.”
You are also missing that a non-Buddhist can find the way on his/her own, the way Siddhartha did. Being a “Buddhist” by label confers barely a slight advantage in that the general path is laid out. Following it is the hard part.
Any non-Buddhist who is serious about finding the end of suffering will eventually run into Buddhism, and he/she would be free to accept or reject it. Conversely, any “Buddhist” who really isn’t interested in the end of suffering will not find it.
The only claim to “specialness” by Sinhala Buddhists is that their culture had preserved the oldest Buddhist teachings in the world.
Wijayapala,
“You are also missing that a non-Buddhist can find the way on his/her own” and “Any non-Buddhist who is serious about finding the end of suffering will eventually run into Buddhism.”
Remembering that we are dealing with very large numbers of galactic proportions …
How does this work within the step-by-step logic I describe? Except for a tiny tiny tiny proportion these non-Buddhists are mostly animals and beings of unknown composition that may exist in other parts of the Universe. For them to ‘run across N8 by chance’ is quite bizarre. Forgive my having to elaborate – I cannot visualise a single-cell intelligent life form in the outer reaches of a far off galaxy floating in space treading the Noble Eight Fold Path by accident and being rewarded by ending up as a Sinhalese Buddhist in SL. If (as Mr Yapa says) the Buddha’s doctrine is ‘Cosmic Law’ then it must apply to the whole of the Universe and not just for us Sinhalese Buddhists in SL.
Even ignoring that, what you’re saying DOES agree with my inference – that anyone progressing towards enlightenment and Nirvana through the long journey of Samsara must at some point invariably be born as a SL Sinhalese Buddhist, and when having done so will only continue as SL Sinhalese Buddhists in subsequent rebirths if they are to reach the destination of Nirvana. Those who are subsequently reborn as non-Buddhists clearly have digressed from the path of N8 while in a rebirth as a Sinhalese Buddhist.
In other words, the logical conclusion is *ALL* SL Sinhalese Buddhists today come from a pious previous life and are privileged – or dare I say blessed.
Hence my headline ‘We Are Special’. Please show me where I am wrong.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
“Nicely put. Which is why I personally believe that it is anyone’s right to follow this same path and attempt to verify it for oneself (ehi-passiko as Yapa repeatedly emphasizes), but it is sheer stupidity to insist on the “truth” of these claims.”
Don’t jump into hasty conclusions. Have you heard of ” Principles of Natural Justice”? One of them is “listen to both parties”. Listen to me too. I am on the way.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted;
” For all we know, the Buddha might have been under a genuinely mistaken belief, induced by a form of self-hypnosis.”
This may well applicable to you as well.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
“This may well applicable to you as well.”
Now steady on old boy!
SomewhatDisgusted does use the expression “the Buddha might have been under a genuinely mistaken belief” – ‘genuinely’ being the operative word.
How come you are quite comfortable with Longus, even commending him, for pointing out the Buddha’s fallibility and ‘human-ness’ while you seem quite UN-comfortable with the same in this case?
The God Helmet
—————-
You may want to look up the research studies done by Michael Persinger. Here scientist have studied the changes that take place in the brain when we are in a meditative trance, pray, or have a spiritual awakening. In 80% of the cases the result can be induced in a laboratory by the God Helmet (stimulates the brain with fluctuating magnetic fields). The results are the same regardless of religion.
It then is the subject’s particular religious preconditioning that makes the subject interpret his experience according to Buddhism, Christianity etc – as ‘enlightenment’, ‘meeting god’ or ‘having some revelation’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Dear longus;
Even poor answering is more difficult than clever questioning.
I think you agree with me. (That has been the relationships between me and SD and me and B.W/Man)
However, there cannot be many questions without answers I suppose. Therefore I will try to answer your questions, which attracted applauses from SomewhatDisgusted, I think he “felt like” it gave yapa a good beating. I think it is too early for him to be too sure. He had built “many mansions” in the sky in the past, and I think you cannot see a single in the sky now. His bad intentions would give him the results back. Behold!
You say (A): ” Another is as you say Buddhism describes a complete “theory” of “cause and effect” (in Paticca Samuppada and Niyaama Damma) in an elaborate way, but this theory too becomes “untestable” for an outsider unless he too attains the same. Therefore it is a unilateral realization which remains “unverifiable”.”
Answer (B): Not so. In all day to day activities it is “testable” and “verifiable” in the “present meanings” of them too.
(Your verifiability and testability and considering testable things as true/correct is an axiom believed in ” Empiricism” I suppose. You are so used to this ideology that you have taken it for granted. Anyway it is a separate matter for discussion, however, I will stop talking about it for the moment asking you a few simple question. On what grounds do you say that testable/verifiable things are true and correct? Cannot such things be false and incorrect? And explain me that perfect methods of testing and verification.)
For example you can easily test/verify that the decay of a rock is due to Dhamma Niyama and Uthu Niyama. You can easily test/verify that a particular mango tree bears mango fruits with particular characters, under the influence of Uthu Niyama, Dhamma Niyama and Beeja Niyama.
(A): The Buddhist Nirvana in a state of non-existence, un-made,un-formed and un-describable. The Moksha on the other hand is a state of extremely blissful existence. To describe Nirvana Buddha uses “Sanjaya Bellattaputta’s” kind of “nor not” terms and therefore it remains an UNTESTABLE concept.
(B): Your notion above again is a “tunnel notion” that only the methods known as scientific methods are true. What are the mighty reasons you have to accept that the man has already developed all the knowledge gaining systems? I have already shown that there is no method developed so far under “Science” to verify/ test or gain the knowledge of personal realities such as the “horoscope case” I have mentioned. Further it has no proper system to verify/test non material things. However,it does not prove that non material things do not exist. Science simply has no methodology to test/ verify these “existing things”. That is all. Further, it cannot verify “super mundane things”. It cannot effectively test/verify things in or related to “mind” or “consciousness. Does it say mind or consciousness do not exist? Can you read what is now in my mind?
“Sinawen ho kathawen Be maninnata minisa,
Hithe ati de…// kawda danne kiyannata wimasa?”
Do you still believe everything really exist can be testable/verifiable by the available methodologies of Science? If not do you say they are non existent or do you say such things should be ignored?
Can you remember, I mentioned in a recent post that the Scope of Science should be widened to accommodate the presently existing things out side of its scope? We should widen its scope to accommodate non material things. We should device new methodologies to investigate and acquire personal/subjective knowledges such as “Astrology”. If Science did not accommodate ” Inductive Logic” in Europe what would have been the state of Science today. I have mentioned tis in a previous post. Science is ever ready to accommodate new methodologies, but not its ultra conservative blind believers.
Do you think lack of methodologies is an advantage? Your mistake here according to my understanding is that your belief that Science has already developed every methodology to handle anything in the universe. I think you have assumed that Science has already finished its evolution and achieved its final goal.
No my dear longus, Science still is a new born child who really cannot see beyond our planetary system. Don’t you think you are mistaken?
If there exist things and you don’t have methodologies to verify/test them you cannot blame the existence, but you have to bravely think for devising new methodologies. If the mountain does not come to Mohamed, Mohamed should go to the mountain.
Further you have said that the nirvana is non existent, I am not very sure about it. Can you elaborate it a bit and let me know the sources.
Further, why do you say that ” nor not” terms” is incorrect? Do you know how the concept of “zero” was developed, and why it was developed in the East not in the West?
Do you still want test every thing with the poor set of limited tools in Science?
Science is a mythical belief for many. Do you think SomewhatDisgudted knows Science more than what I know inf Buddhism? Still he calls my belief in Buddhism as “Blind Faith” and His belief in Science as “Objective”. Can you justify it?
For them ” I feel like so ” are true, but for us even “verifiable/testable” things are untrue/myths.
Mona deyyanta kiyannada? (Whom to tell?)
I remain for the moment. Please submit your queries if available before my next post.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted (Pseudo Victor Rathnayake);
“For all we know, the Buddha might have been under a genuinely mistaken belief, induced by a form of self-hypnosis. Many of the “unverifiable” concepts such as Karma, Rebirth and Nirvana seem to be extensions of already prevalent beliefs, rather than something radically new, suggesting that either
a. Enlightenment was quite common back in the day since others also regularly stumbled upon the same truths (and strangely absent today, despite so many people like Yapa treading the “path”)
b. The Buddha’s own pre-conceived notions were rationalized and he convinced himself through mistaken hypnotic delusion
c. A mixture of both a degree of enlightenment and genuine hypnotic delusion”
………………
How do you know? You felt like so?
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
I answered your queries in my post of September 23, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
Do you have any further clarifications?
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“Hence my headline ‘We Are Special’. Please show me where I am wrong.”
Show me where you you were correct.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
” Hawking has not proved that the Universe was not created by a God.”
No fool is going to do it again.
Averroes did it about 900 years ago and Epicurus did about 2300 years back.
This is the interesting argument of Epicurus, my young son sent to me. Please read.
[6:16:41 PM] Pramodh : Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Re. “We are Special”
“Show me where you were correct.”
LOL!
I have set before you a step-by-step argument which supports your continuous (implicit and explicit) pronouncement that there is something very special under ‘Cosmic Laws’ in being born as a Sinhalese Buddhist (which I am thrilled to note BTW for being born as such myself).
In asking “Show me where you were correct.” either (1) you have not followed my construction or (2) you simply disagree for the sake of it depending on who is saying it, even when they agree with you!
To put this simply, either
(1) rebirth (if it happens, which you do not dispute) is NOT skewed in favour of the pious Buddhist – in which case it would take 308 million years to have the next stab at working towards Nirvana – which makes Nirvana a practically unattainable goal.
or
(2) rebirth IS skewed in favour of the pious Buddhist (as Wijayapala points out) in which case all those reborn in SL as Sinhalese Buddhists (yesterday, today and tomorrow) got/get born in SL as Sinhalese Buddhists by practising N8 in a series of former rebirths leading up to this one. ie. we are Special in the whole of the Universe.
This both highlight the absurdities in religious dogma when applied in a ‘different place, different time’ as well as the logic behind the mindset highlighted by PresiDunceBean that we (Sinhalese Buddhist in SL) are some super-class higher-form of human along the path to Nirvana, superior to all other humans on this planet and the entire Universe as in no other place in the entire Universe has accessibility to the Dhamma (ie. all the stuff you are citing).
Correction …
“superior to all other humans on this planet and the entire Universe”
I mean, of course, “superior to all other humans on this planet and ALL BEINGS OF ALL KINDS in the entire Universe”
Mr Yapa,
Epicurus
———-
Your continuous attacks on the poor defenceless Creator God is distracting you from examining the ludicrosity in your own religiosity.
Please leave God alone and tell me whether ‘We are special’ or not.
Dear Yapa:
No fool is going to do it again.
Even most of your fellow Buddhists outside of SL believe in God. If you believe in God, then you automatically believe in a creator God. Because the definition of “God” – a being who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent – implies that that the “God” was not created by the Universe. Has the Universe ever created a cat or a dog that has lived forever? It is impossible, because whatever is alive on the plane of *existence* called “Earth” is subject to the processes of biological decay (what you call as samsara). This decay is part of many other cycles that sustain *life* by creating balance. If the cats and dogs lived forever, there would be so many cats and dogs and not enough food to feed them – evolution would not be possible. But actually “living forever” by itself contradicts the definition of evolution. It would mean that a species evolved within an infinite lifespan, whereas evolution leaves open the possibility of extinction. So very simply I can say that the Universe cannot create a God because any living thing created by the Universe is subject to the laws of evolution.
Even your Pali Canon does not tell us where “gods” originated from. If you try to answer the question, the most logical answer is the one I have given above – that all of these gods – what you call as devas in your Pali Canon – were created by a single God. But “created by a single God” implies that that single God is a creator. So now we have a Creator who is a God. It is only one more step to say that if this God could create other Gods, he could also create the whole Universe.
Please go through the argument and ask if you have questions. It is a common-sense argument, not an argument based on 22-dimensional string theory, such as some crackpots try to make here.
Yapa
Yes! your point is taken, in the context that all my conclusions were based on current scientific methodology ; in the future science would take unthinkable turns to the dismay of “single tracked programmed frogs- in- the well like Heshan.
Maybe still we are trying to grasp the really advanced science of the “intelligent beings of the universe” like a child meddling with a computer. Maybe that’s why they are keeping their distance from us!
I’m always ready to keep an open mind; otherwise I’ll be like a member of the “Flat Earth Society” who would split hairs to defend his out-dated theory – reminds me of some “know-all” mortals who write here.
Dear wijayapala;
Thanks for the response of September 24, 2010 @ 4:19 am. I appreciate the new ideas you added there. I will try to talk a bit about it if I get a chance. Now it is emergency, I am under attack of the questions from various quarters. Any way, I enjoy them. As I have been telling challenge is a respect for a brave man. Cowards hurl stones hiding behind corners. They are not more than child’s plays. I will first attend to them and come to you a bit later.
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“Please leave God alone and tell me whether ‘We are special’ or not.”
Why not? You are very specially foolish.
Thanks!
Dear SomewhatDisgusted (P. V. Rathnayake);
“……….nevertheless, any individual has every right to do so, after all, no one knows enough to claim a monopoly on truth.”
How do you know?
You felt like so? Is the engine drivers name is Wimalasena?
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“Even your Pali Canon does not tell us where “gods” originated from. If you try to answer the question, the most logical answer is the one I have given above – that all of these gods – what you call as devas in your Pali Canon – were created by a single God. But “created by a single God” implies that that single God is a creator. So now we have a Creator who is a God. It is only one more step to say that if this God could create other Gods, he could also create the whole Universe.”
Row, row, row the boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Life is but a dream
Play, play, play the words
Gently down the stream.
If you see a crocodile,
Don’t forget to scream.
Argh!
Cheers!
Dear longus,
“Yes! your point is taken, in the context that all my conclusions were based on current scientific methodology ; in the future science would take unthinkable turns to the dismay of “single tracked programmed frogs- in- the well like”
I like your ways. Unlike many you accept others’ views when convinced.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“No fool is going to do it again.”
Are you going to do it again?
Cheers!
Dear longus;
Do you think I need to continue with my answering anymore?
Thanks!
THE BIBLE, NEWTONIAN SCIENCE, MODERN SCIENCE AND BUDDHISM
I would like to quote some writing from a post of Heshan to start my article.
” The equality and charity that you find in Western countries actually comes from the Bible. For example, it was put into the American Constitution by men with strong Christian beliefs. Now, the concept may be simple enough, but in just < 225 yrs the USA has become a superpower."
Really all the development and achievements in science in the western world streamed though the "Renaissance of Greece" took place before the birth of Jesus Christ. Judeo- Christian Tradition shaped and nurtured the "Greek Wisdom" to make the West a materialistic heaven through Newtonian Science..
Really as Heshan said, the vision of the Western world came from the Bible, from the greedy core of the Bible's "Human Centralism" and its view of "determinism" came through the "myth of creation". The Bible says God created the man in his image and the other thing were created to support the survival of his son. Further, the Bible says everything is a plan of the "all mighty father". I think even the Big Bang Theory contains the seeds produced in the Bible, which believed everything should have a beginning and an end. Why we ought to think so? Just because " I feel like so", the formula of P.V.S. or Honourable SD, the Scientist? In that case the God must be able to guess the name of the " Engine Driver" too. God, is his name Wimalasena?
Deterministic Science catered to the greedy objective of the Bible and gave them the "treasures" they expected, by allowing them to exploit the whole world with the empowerment endowed by the mighty power of Newtonian Science driven by the greedy consumerism, inherited from the Bible. Newtonian Science really was developed according to the vision of the Bible.That was the main reason for almost all the leading Scientists in the world of Newtonian Science were from the Judeo- Christian- Muslim world, they were compatible to it.
However, the lessons learnt from the losses of the two World Wars reminded them (people of Judeo-Christian tradition) to turn back and see their back track. The losses were unbearable to them and they realized that they have their own enemies originated in their own tradition, like Muslims and Communists. How can they counter it? Marshal Plan, Invasions, conspiracies, hit men, and finally for some, giving up the tradition itself. That is why many westerners are becoming "religionless" people. They cannot bear the burden of the consequences of a faulty vision. That is why Heshan has to fight so hard to protect his belief.
As I said the beliefs in the Bible was a futile ground for "Deterministic Newtonian Science" to grow. However, with the burdens it had to face at the later stage, the western world had to turn its back to the "Newtonian Science", embrace the "Modern Science" which is a mighty "Paradigm Shift". Judeo- Christian Tradition and its core beliefs no more hold or valid in this "Modern Art" of Science, and contradictions are brewing at an increasing speed among them. They are not anymore compatible with Modern Science.
You can see the "Freedom of Thinking" or flexibility in modern Science compared to the outdated old Science. You can see the its adaptability to different environments. You can see how its focus and scope is changing freely.
What advantages we can see from this new scenario?
Did you see some shades that this trend in the modern Science creates an opportunity for a growth of a free and new tradition as its vision? Is it wrong if I guess that the "Buddhist Tradition" has a potential to fit into that and fill the vacuum? I guess and believe so, and ample indications and examples are already there. You must have seen unlike in the Newtonian era the attention of many Modern Scientists like Einstein were drawn to Buddhism. I think it is the right signal for us to wake up to reap the ripen fruits of the future.
Why don't you prepare and train your sons and daughters to accept the top most positions in the Modern Scientific Hierarchy? The chairs will not be chaired by Jews, Christians or Muslims Scientists in the future.Those chairs are waiting for you, prospective Buddhist Scientists. The vision of the future is in your hands.
Enna Sama Mal pipedai Balanna!
Thanks!
correction…………
” As I said the beliefs in the Bible was a futile ground for “Deterministic Newtonian Science” to grow.”
The word “futile” should be replaced with ” fertile”
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
Have you heard this one?
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Pali Canon is but a dream……….
It looks like you have no answer as to how the devas were created.
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“According to my maths a person reborn will expect to be born as a ‘pious SL Sinhalese Buddhist’ every 308 million years. (see my assumptions in previous post)”
You know only Western Maths taught to you by your masters. That also I don’t think you know it beyond the High School Level. Have you heard of our maths?
It has a “Heart” !
In our maths one divided by four is not essentially 1/4.
Do you believe me? I also learnt this long time after I obtained my Mathematics degree in the university.
Please read.
The mathematics teacher of grade six gave the following sum to the students and asked to raise the hands who know the answer. Here is the sum,
Your father went to the boutique and brought a bun and gave your mother to share it equally among the members of the family. You have your father, mother, you and your brother as family members. What is the portion you get as your share?
One hand was raised, it was a tiny skinny “girl hand”.
“Tell the answer” the teacher said.
” One third”, the shaken feeble voice murmured.
“What? How come?”
“Mother is like that, she didn’t eat.”
Have you ever shed tears in a Maths class?
Thanks!
Oh! sorry, Correction in my post of September 25, 2010 @ 8:11 am………..
It is not,
“Enna Sama Mal pipedai Balanna!”
It should be ” Malani enna mal pipee dai balanna”.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
YES, YOU MAY CONTINUE TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS IN YOUR CAPACITY. They may not be the ultimate answers! For ultimate answers, ask those “frogs in the well”!
“It looks like you have no answer as to how the devas were created.”
I don’t think it is a significant question to answer. What is the big point?
Thanks!
There’s another issue to be considered here. Any human being living today has access to more knowledge instantly than someone living in the period of the Buddha would have had in his/her entire lifetime. This is something to think about very carefully. The Buddha lived at a time that people still thought the world was flat.
This does not mean that the Buddha didn’t make better sense of a virtuous life than most of do today, but don’t forget that during his time, there was no ready access to any of the vast libraries of knowledge we have either. The people in his time had little or no knowledge of cosmology, no knowledge of modern biology or evolution, no knowledge of quantum mechanics, no knowledge of modern psychology, no knowledge of the scientific method etc.
Of course, even in such primitive times, the Buddha was a remarkably insightful human being, as were Plato or Epicurus in their times. His intuitions about human psychology were also very perceptive. But can we actually assume he had access to more knowledge than what the knowledge of his time and his own reasoning could give him? Very importantly, did he have access to knowledge about our own multitude of cognitive biases, so that he could counter them? Saying yes would be to posit omniscience.
To illustrate, and also because I think this short video captures Yapa’s and Heshan’s attitudes quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0sNmLH_IQ&feature=grec_index
So the question becomes, did the Buddha know enough to compensate for his own cognitive biases and lack of knowledge during his time, or is it necessary to posit sudden omniscience to get out of that trap? If the Buddha did, in fact, achieve sudden omniscience, what evidence can be pointed out from the Suttas to dispel all doubt? Your thoughts are welcome.
Dear Yapa:
I don’t think it is a significant question to answer. What is the big point?
If you cannot explain the origin of all the created, then you are leaving open the possibility of an unknown Creator.
Dear Heshan;
“If you cannot explain the origin of all the created, then you are leaving open the possibility of an unknown Creator.”
Entirely wrong assumption/conclusion. Back your argument. I will definitely refute it. Upon my words, Heshan. You have no game here.
Thanks!
Dear SD (PVR);
What does the short video tell us?
One of the things I understood through it is your slave mentality towards the west again. You need turning your head to the west even to find such things.
Secondly, I agree with the core contents of the lecture. Perception differs the way you look at it. I agree. For you an ant in the west is an elephant in the concrete jungle in New York while an elephant in an eastern jungle is a black ant lifting a grain of sugar in your kitchen.
The lesson learnt here suggests you should get your perception corrected.
Will you be thankful to that lady lecturer? I think you will at least not hate her for poking her nose into your personal affairs.
Thanks!
Dear SD (PVR);
RE: Your post of September 25, 2010 @ 10:40 am
I will answer your question with a metaphour. Behold!
Say you want to learn how your Blood Circulation System works. You know that it has been discovered by an olden day Biologist called William Harvey, about 400years ago. There is no reason for us to care about this ancient man, and therefore you started learning Quantum Physics which is a startling Modern Science. You read all the books in all the libraries in the whole world, and get a marvelous knowledge on Quantum Physics. Now you are the NO:1 man in the world for Quantum Physics.
Does your mastery of Quantum Physics give you the knowledge of your expected knowledge of Blood Circulation System?
You don’t have to turn to west always to gain wisdom. It is at your nose’s length. Only thing you need to do is to change your “perception”, as suggested by the lady lecturer in your short video.
Look at the video with a correct perception. In Eastern Gamarala’s words, it is “Sammyak Drushtiya” or “Right View” or first of the Arya Sathyas. What that lady asking you is to shed your wrong view or in Gamarala’s words “Mithya Drushtiya”.
I think you will respect the advice of the ” “Lady” Lecturer”.
Thanks!
Dear SD (PVR);
“Of course, even in such primitive times, the Buddha was a remarkably insightful human being, as were Plato or Epicurus in their times.”
You are comparing Plato and Epicurus to the Buddha? Compared to Buddha, they are not more than a mole and a rat lived in a small hole dug in the back yard of Greece. I know that at night you take tuition from the grand grand grand ….children of those two living in your back yard holes to insult the Buddha.
Keep in mind the Buddha is nothing less than a Buddha, and none is comparable to him.
Oonna Mun Kivva! Do you understand what I say?
Thanks!
Continuation of answering the questions asked by longus on his post of September 23, 2010 @ 9:33 pm- PART- III
(A): ” This makes Buddhism a complete doctrine on its own but nevertheless not testable at the same time just like Sigmund Freud’s psychological theories. You can argue on these, but can never prove it.(can you prove Oedipus complex or sublimation or Freud’s interpretation of dreams?) It’s the same with Buddhism, but some valid questions comes up in my mind such as these:”
(B): I have said in a discussion in a different thread in this blog that Science has deviated its course to a certain extent by opting to study “Psychology”. It deviated from its traditional subject of materials, a bit towards idealism. That was the reason for the contents in Psychology cannot be “proved” with the tools, Science had developed. However, Science did not reject Psychology being a Science subject despite its non Science nature, that is the non material nature of its contents. Psychology has devised new tools/strategies to developed the subject. The different schools of Psychology like Structuralism, Behaviourism, Functionalism, Psychoanalysis and Gestalt Psychology devised new approaches/methodologies to study it Scientifically despite the above mentioned short coming.
Obstacles do not rule out possibilities, but show opportunities to the deserved person. “Hitha Athnam Patha Kudada?” Necessity is the father of invention!
However, Buddhism is not an idealism as many mistakenly taken for granted. There are many mundane things that are subject to normal investigation and verification methodologies, and it also contains Transcendental things that should be comprehended through developed personal wisdom and prescribed practices. With some wisdom and inculcated knowledge, one can explain these transcendental things too to a certain extent. Further one can experience their reality though their non contradictoriness, consistency and coherence. The problem with the tools of science in identifying them is that these tools were developed on the ” Two Valued Logic” and the those concepts extend even beyond the “four Valued Logic”, which I debated at length in several discussions in this blog in different threads. Off hand mockers used to laugh at me when I introduced them to the forums and later found that “pittu” was stuck in their wide slits below the noses.
I think the above scenario supports my proposition that the scope and the scope/methodologies/ tools/approaches used in Science should be broadened and increased to accommodate new dimensions exist in nature and our social nabourhood.
However, I found the theories of Sigmund Freud in his Psychoanalysis are very much akin to Buddhist doctrine on mind/consciousness and his analysis of dreams too is somewhat akin to the analysis of dreams in Buddhism. However, all those concepts discussed in Freud’s Psychoanalysis are more profoundly and finely explained in Buddhism. You can read the fine Buddhist Dream Analysis in the Milinda Prashna. You will never see such a profound description and explanation in any other subject area of the world.
I think I am not unreasonable to guess Freud must have read Buddhism before building up his theories. It is almost impossible to have such parallels in his theory if he didn’t have the influence of Buddhism.
Remain for the moment. The Minister of Home Affairs is holding the club up in the sky.
Thanks!
A discussion about discussions
——————————-
There are two parallell arguments here. On the one side is Mr Yapa and Heshan. On the other is SomewhatDisgusted and TGW.
Again, the two camps are polarised as ‘dogmatists’ and ‘agnostics’.
The D’s take ancient revelations and try to explain modern knowledge and observations in terms of these ancient revelations. Whereas the A’s take modern knowledge and observations and try to test the validity of ancient revelations against them.
Normally the discussion would end there. However, it does not.
This is because, the D’s claim that ancient revelations had the benefit of purer thought and superhuman authors, whereas modern knowledge and observations are the brainchild of lesser beings (humans). The D’s of both varieties in this discussion (Buddhist and Christian) regard modern and continuing knowledge will never reach the completeness and accuracy of ancient revelations.
Given that the gaps in science is a characteristics of the nature of science, D’s of both varieties come up with a new discipline – Christian Science and Buddhist Science, both tactically the same, as a mean of filling these gaps.
For example, Christian Science introduced Intelligent Design – a ploy for getting round the ban on teaching religious ideas as fact/science in the USA. (As a farsical abberation of known world history there is a theme park/museum in the US where dinosaurs appear alongside Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden)
How will the proposed Buddhist Science fare in modern society and education? Will it, for instance, campaign for the ban of certain types of scientific study and branches of mathematics?
Anomalies and Absurdities
————————–
The problem facing the Christian Scientists primarily is chronology. Large numbers like 300 million years when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and the creation of the universe 6,000 years ago do not sit comfortably. Similarly, the mathematical connundrum I posed in relation to Buddhist Science in the recent post (We Are Special, 308 million years) lead to two possible outcomes only, both thoroughly absurd.
Even if the SL Govt saction the teaching of Buddhist Science it will need to also get through the intellect of the average 12 year old starting to learn mathematics and astronomy and putting them all together. In my case the teacher of Buddhism and Mathematics was the same, and he had an interest in astronomy also. In this case ‘no, it does not make sense’ was an easy conclusion for all of us to reach.
The Value of Religious Science
——————————-
Having said that, the study of Religious Science is should be high up on the ‘human survival’ agenda in modern times, along with climate change and poverty and hunger.
Why do young men fly aeroplanes into tall buildings? Why do people blow themselves up along with innocent others? Why do adults lie to their children about things they themselves cannot verify?
Why do some people abandon reason in favour of (as Longus noted) ‘unverifiable’ hear say?
(TGW = This gossiping woman)
Dear Heshan/longus;
I think your discussion should be a peaceful one, if both of you come together and engaged in a healthy discussion, you can do a huge contribution especially because both of you are good in Science. Science and Mathematics are very specific and subtle and therefore even small differences in them are very significantly highlighted. Therefore two different views in those subjects, clash very hard compared to the other subjects. That is why it is said that Mathematicians quarrel over a number like 0.0000000000001. This fighting is not the fault of the mathematicians, but the elegance of the subject. Then why do you quarrel for no fault of yours.
Please engage in a healthy discussion, so that we also can benefit from it.
Thanks!
“The D’s take ancient revelations and try to explain modern knowledge and observations in terms of these ancient revelations. Whereas the A’s take modern knowledge and observations and try to test the validity of ancient revelations against them.”
Pooh! GD (PVR) and B.W/Man take Modern knowledge? What are you talking?
That man who have never learnt Science in his whole life and you I think not gone beyond high school level in Science represent modern knowledge, while an Engineer (Heshan) at least with a basic Engineering degree and I at least with a basic Mathematics degree represent only ancient revelations?
What a fool is this?
I think your notion of modern knowledge should be “Ignorance”. This is explainable as the PVR tried to teach the forum that included Heshan and me, about Science. Who will try to teach their grand mothers how to suck eggs other than fools?
Thanks!
Here is an answer to that “somebody’ who racked his autistic brain to ask, “who created the devas?”
It could very well be a case of “a far advanced alien civilization” who began their journey in technology some million years before the humans started their journey, and this could be their status now-Deavs or gods! Who created them? Nobody. They too would have evolved according to their own rules of their “nature’!
Dear BalangodaMan
Methinks the trolls are being fed overmuch, what say ye?
Dear Yapa:
Entirely wrong assumption/conclusion. Back your argument. I will definitely refute it. Upon my words, Heshan. You have no game here.
Beginning, middle, and end…. let us see how these three fit in the context of various religions/philosophy:
Buddhism: only the Universe is infinite (only the Universe has always existed). Creator God does not exist but other gods exist. Since only the Universe is infinite, the other gods are finite. Does not answer the question as to how these gods (devas) were created.
Hinduism/Christianity: God created the Universe. Therefore, the Universe is finite (time dimension). Does not answer how God was created, in order to avoid the trap of circular logic.
Science: Big Bang created the Universe. Therefore, the Universe is finite (time dimension).
As you see, we have three systems of logic. Both of them try to address an existence question. What is different is the assumptions they make. Different assumptions lead to different consequences. But more importantly, a particular assumption can easily make the system of logic incomplete , depending on the context. For example, by assuming the Creator God has always existed, one leaves open the question of how the CG was himself created. On the other hand, such assumptions may be necessary for logical consistency, e.g. to avoid certain fallacies in reasoning. If I say the house was built from brick, is the explanation complete?
Actually the explanation will never be complete…. one must list all the chemicals used in the manufacture of the brick… one must then list all of the atoms and molecules in the chemicals… one must then list all of the subatomic particles that make up the atoms… but as I said, the list will never be complete, because one must leave open the possibility that the subatomic particles (293) can be furthered divided, and a new particle will be found tomorrow (or created in a reactor).
The above example illustrates why asking who created the Creator God is a superfluous question. It is the same as asking, what created the brick that built the house? It is much easier to assume the house was built by the brick. Denying that the house was built because the existence of the brick cannot be proved because of not knowing what created the brick is a circular logic trap.
So it is really a question of consistency. But as I have pointed, consistency can lead to certain inconsistencies. However, most of these inconsistencies (who created the creator god) are secondary issues, if not altogether trivial.
It could very well be a case of “a far advanced alien civilization” who began their journey in technology some million years before the humans started their journey, and this could be their status now-Deavs or gods! Who created them? Nobody. They too would have evolved according to their own rules of their “nature’
Yet Master Gautama, while meditating in the supreme lotus position, was able to somehow infer the existence of these devas, who obviously live hundreds of light years away, assuming they exist at all. Actually, he did not have to meditate at all, since the devas are clearly mentioned in Vedas. All he had to do is mention they exist and then remain totally silent about why they should exist in the first place, or more importantly, how they could exist in the first place (against all the fundamental laws of nature). Ironically, his refusal to answer such a question (Avyakatha) has been taken as a first rate intellectual achievement by future followers, e.g. Mr. Yapa.
Dear heshan;
Ok! Ok!! Heshan, for instance say all what you have said in the two post above are correct. But tell me how could you possibly solve the rivalry of Creator God with Averroes and Epicurus. You solve this first, otherwise you have no way to talk about his existence, because as I said earlier, “Abortion” of takes place before his birth.
I think this is the first pre-condition to talk about the Creator God. I will never ask for any other pre-conditions to discuss about him if you satisfy this condition. I must firmly tell you that I will never consider an abortion a birth. Do you consider so?
When you satisfy the above condition we will talk about the Creator god until the world’s end Heshan. I will become your slave and will walk to the world’s end discussing Our Lord of the Creator God.
You agree?
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
“Methinks the trolls are being fed overmuch, what say ye?”
ATTACK! Don’t leave a single enemy! Take all your bows and arrows! B.W/Man you lead that monkey tribe. I will lead this bear clan. Enemies said to have a weapon called ” multi barrel gun”, they do not know the power of our bows and arrows and our mighty clubs. We will teach them a good lesson this time who are armed with that clownish weapon. ATTACK! Don’t spare a single enemy.
Oh! Gods of the jungle and the mighty mountain, I will sacrifice the blood of the enemies to you. Only the flesh will be consumed by us. Please help us to kill these unscrupulous enemies.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
I don’t think you are capable of refuting any of my arguments. That is why your responses are always foolish. I have already countered Averroes arguments:
The first argument is as follows. If the world had been created, there must have been something determining its existence at the moment it was created, for otherwise it would have remained in the state of pure possibility it was in before. But if there was something determining its existence, this determinant must have been determined by another determinant and so on ad infinitum, or we must accept an eternal God in whom eternally new determinations may arise. But there cannot be any new determinations in an eternal God.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/averroes01.htm
The Big Bang theory accepts that the Universe was created. If the Universe was created, then it had a starting point. This is not my opinion, this is accepted science. Averroes argument contradicts Big Bang, so Averroes was obviously wrong. Therefore, there is no value in using Averroes’ argument to refute the existence of God.
SomewhatDisgusted,
“Coupled with the concerns expressed by some (i.e. Belle) who feel that too much mixing will dilute the identity of the Tamils (which is arguably true, but IMO, it’s racialist if one tries to prevent it), things become even harder to rectify. What is your opinion on that? Perhaps Belle would also care to respond as to what practical steps she sees fit?”
You’ve seriously misunderstood my perspective. I’ve never been against mixing, and if any ethnic or even racial identity is diluted by VOLUNTARY mixing among groups, I have absolutely no problem with that. But at this point in time in Sri Lanka, where preserving and growing their ethnic cultures and maintaining their ethnic cultures appears to be important to people, (and let’s face it, where there is distrust of the other community), I would urge that Tamil-dominated areas be allowed to remain so that it provides a place of cultural repository and development of their culture, and a place of safety. I am totally against government attempts to break this up because of the clear political agenda behind it of disempowering a minority community. Also, in a country where there isn’t equal political representation of minorities, being in one place helps the community have some political and economic traction.
That however doesn’t mean that I’m saying this place must be closed to other cultures or that other groups can’t live there, as long as the latter is a voluntary preference of individuals, and not a group-organised political act. I think citizenship education must include the learning of other languages and cultures and histories prevailing in the country.
But if you want integration among people, nothing can get you that but the giving of equal rights and opportunities to all people. When people feel included in a nation, they will reach out to other groups–naturally. This is when inter-culturalism happens. Even language/cultural education cannot bring about bonding if the root causes of distrust have not been addressed. When their rights have been assured, it may well be that Tamils, especially the younger generation, may prefer to escape their enclaves and see no need for them. So be it–let these racialised places dissolve of their own accord. But cultural evolution and development must be the people’s choice, not the government’s.
SomewhatDisgusted,
“Methinks the trolls are being fed overmuch, what say ye?”
I suspected that too.
But, nevertheless …
Mr Yapa,
Alien
——-
To pick up on a very relevant point raised by your ardent fan, if an alien life-form 100 million years more advanced than us came face to face with you, how would you sell (your interpretation of) Buddhist doctrine to him/her/’it’?
How would you convince ‘it’ that, ever since the Universe began (ie. an infinite eternity if the ‘universe was always here’) the only person that ever knew the truth about the Universe and its mechanics lived in *our* time, in *our* land, and spoke *our* language, and looked like us?
How would you further convince ‘it’ that according this ‘truth’ all life-forms that followed his (the Buddha’s) path since infinitely are now those who are born in SL as Sinhalese Buddhists with access to the Dhamma now (proved through deduction in previous post ‘We are special’) and in the infinite future to come?
How would you sell to this life-form 100 million years ahead of us that *we* have the key to salvation (Nirvana) whereas he hasn’t despite being 100 million years ahead?
Neanderthal
———–
In answering this you might want to consider how a Neanderthal might approach the same subject if he came face to face with you and tried to convince you that his contemporary had the ‘key to all knowledge’ – though he is only 500,000 years apart from you and not 100 million years. That is, the Neanderthal has an easier job than you convincing this alien.
Advanced Maths and Science
——————————-
The argument I put forward requires the intellect of a 12 year old. Sometimes our ‘advanced’ knowledge is a barrier to common sense?
In short, any 12 year old can tell you, the size of the Universe is *huge*. The size of eternal time is *huge*. The number of people with access to the Dhamma is *tiny*. It’s not hard to work out that, under the doctrine of karma and rebirth (your version) all those who followed the path N8 in the whole of the universe since eternity will at some point be born in SL- because it is the only place where one has access to the Dhamma. Not much in the Andromeda galaxy.
Faith vs Fact
—————–
“Different Buddhists believe different things, but the nature of belief is itself an important issue in Buddhism. Belief is to be seen as belief, not as fact. When we see our beliefs as facts, then we are deluding ourselves. When we see our beliefs as beliefs, then we are not. Seeing things in their true light is the most important thing in Buddhism. Deluding ourselves is the cause of much suffering. So Buddhists try to see beliefs as beliefs. They may still believe in certain things – that is their prerogative – but they do not cling to those beliefs; they do not mind or worry about whether their beliefs are true or not, nor do they try to prove that which they know cannot be proved. Ideally though, a Buddhist does not indulge in any kind of belief.”
Yew Han Hee
Dear Heshan;
Heshan! hora, oya mava ravattanai neda hadanne? ( Heshan! naughty boy, you are going to trick me?)
Eva koheda, mama mariyakade Jorage Duwa. ( It is not possible, I am the daughter of Jora of Mariyakade)
“That is why your responses are always foolish. I have already countered Averroes arguments:”
I don’t take it serious, I know you are joking.
…………………………
If the world had been created,———> (1). this determinant must have been determined by another determinant and so on ad infinitum,
OR
(2). we must accept an eternal God in whom eternally new determinations may arise
Above (2) is correct only if (1) is incorrect. Isn’t it?
Dear Heshan, tell me the big reason for rejecting (1) and accepting (2).
Further, what if it had not been created, as in the case of your premise(1st sentence started with ” if” )
Have you got a case here?
You have only created a doubt among some possibilities that included your ” not yet completed conclusion”. Who is that ignorant man writing for you? He has no knowledge of Logic or he is trying to play dice with the God.
………………………..
“The Big Bang theory accepts that the Universe was created.”
BY……….?
……………….
“Averroes argument contradicts Big Bang”
How come?
Your argument is,
Averroes contradicts Creator god, therefore Averroes contradicts Big Bang.
For this to become true, god’s creation must be the Big Bang. Which objective Scientist told you that Big Bang was done by your C.God?
Heshan, what a culprit you are. However, Heshan,
“Oyage lunu goraka madi mawa thambanna” (You have no sufficient spices to make me tasty.)
So, the rest of your mighty valuable article,
“so Averroes was obviously wrong. Therefore, there is no value in using Averroes’ argument to refute the existence of God.”
Does NOT arise from your faulty argument.
Heshan,
Have you heard of the Story of ” Raigamaya and Gamploya”? If you are Raigamaya, I am none other than your friend Gampolaya.
Shall we stop this useless Raigamaya Gampolaya play?
Thanks!
Dear Belle;
Dear Belle;
” But if you want integration among people, nothing can get you that but the giving of equal rights and opportunities to all people. When people feel included in a nation, they will reach out to other groups–naturally.”
It is true that anybody should be treated innocent until he is proven to be guilty. But don’t you think that suspects sometimes have to be in the “remand prison”, for some time, before they are proven innocent?
You want to file a Fundamental Right case for keeping the suspects in the remand prison?
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/comment-page-15/#comment-23551
Cheers!
Dear B.W?man;
” Ideally though, a Buddhist does not indulge in any kind of belief.””
Thanks, for the above sentence.
Dear BalangodaMan
RE: “It’s not hard to work out that, under the doctrine of karma and rebirth (your version) all those who followed the path N8 in the whole of the universe since eternity will at some point be born in SL- because it is the only place where one has access to the Dhamma. “
Afaik, the Buddhist doctrine does not mention that the Buddha is the only enlightened one. Rather, it specifically seems to claim multitudes of them. Therefore, the rebuttal would be that these aliens would also have a local Buddha who would explain N8 to them.
I think we’ve discussed the need for protecting the dhamma before. A clear answer was not given to the question of whether, ideally, the whole of earth should turn Buddhist to ensure efficient dispatching of souls to Nibbana.
Dear Yapa,
You claim that following N8 is a sufficient condition for going to Nibbana. That means you, spending your time arguing with us “Pruthagjanas” on this forum, are well on your way to Nibbana while those poor forest monks meditating all day long seem to be taking the hard route! Are they idiots? If not, why aren’t you also under a tree meditating to accelerate your journey to Nibbana?
Dea B.W/Man;
RE: post of September 26, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
You have not understood the deep meaning of the above article. The author has completely destroyed your views without leaving a single.
IT IS TOTALLY A SUICIDAL ATTACK!
Oh! my my, bumpy head.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Re. Yew Han Hee
“You have not understood the deep meaning of the above article.”
Disagree. I shall try again.
‘Faith’ (belief) works very well for a defined group of people, for a defined purpose, in a defined localised place. For example, if a group of people living 2,500 years ago suffer from insecurity (as people often do) then they can be told some story to help them feel more secure – like ‘if you smoke this you will be protected. or if you chant this mantra’. We have seen that his works. Even now it works with ‘pirith’ chanting, for example, for people who have faith in such rituals. They feel better. Maybe helps you too.
Problems start when people begin to treat their ‘faith’ as ‘fact’.
For example, the concept of karma and rebirth is a good construct for keeping the morals in society in check. KRN was plausible, given the extent of generally accepted knowledge in ancient times. eg. the ‘entire population of the universe’ was to them, the few thousand people they came across within the 20 miles radius that was their entire life experience. So being reborn as the boy across the street was entirely ‘plausible’.
With today’s knowledge, the concept of karma and rebirth does not add up. To us today the total number of ‘beings’ is not 1,500 villagers but billion billion billions of ‘beings’ of unimaginable form all over the Universe. The universe (to us today) is not confined to your village.
So when you say that a particular religious doctrine as originated in a small locality in India 2,500 years ago ‘completely describes the workings of the entire Universe’ (?????) we have a problem when we try to *apply* it to the entire Universe as we understand it today (as I have in my ‘We are special’ post). The absurdity continues when we try to convince someone 100s of millions of years more advanced than us.
Yew Han Hee puts it in a nutshell.
It’s like, you tell your children that Father Christmas will come down the chimney (‘faith’) to keep them from being naughty. And then you show that you believe your own Shilboot by spending Rs million on building works to enlarge the chimney so he can get down it!
But, Mr Yapa, we have put this to you in a dozen different ways. You still don’t get it?
Actually, who cares what you believe? Nobody. But you need to know (and I think this is what Yew Han Hee is getting at) that other people have their own ‘faith’, their own stories, like belief in God (and Shilboot!). They all do the same thing. None of them are ‘fact’. They are ‘faith’. Like your faith is to you.
Dear PVR (SD);
“You claim that following N8 is a sufficient condition for going to Nibbana. That means you, spending your time arguing with us “Pruthagjanas” on this forum, are well on your way to Nibbana while those poor forest monks meditating all day long seem to be taking the hard route! Are they idiots? If not, why aren’t you also under a tree meditating to accelerate your journey to Nibbana?”
Haven’t you heard the old proverb ” All roads lead to Rome (Idiot?)?
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
” They all do the same thing. None of them are ‘fact’. They are ‘faith’. Like your faith is to you.”
How do you know?
You feel like so? Know Wimalasena well?
OR
Are YOU the omniscient God?
What nonsense are you talking? Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“With today’s knowledge, the concept of karma and rebirth does not add up. To us today the total number of ‘beings’ is not 1,500 villagers but billion billion billions of ‘beings’ of unimaginable form all over the Universe. The universe (to us today) is not confined to your village.”
You have only that big mouth? You don’t have eyes and ears to see and hear? Didn’t you read my answers to longus for his list of questions?
There are “six” sense organs, you are using only one. Try to use at least a few more of them in the future.
Thanks!
My Dear B/WoMan;
Sihi kara oba gena bawun wadai sitha,
“Andaya denayana, bihirya desawana”,
Taj mahalak bandawanna be mata,
Obe senehasata sudu,
His ahase gewenna thatamata,
Gee seyak bandimi
(H.R. Jothipala)
Thanks!
BalangodaMan,
“For them to ‘run across N8 by chance’ is quite bizarre.”
I find even more bizarre your attempts to discuss “N8″ without even knowing what it is.
“Forgive my having to elaborate – I cannot visualise a single-cell intelligent life form in the outer reaches of a far off galaxy floating in space treading the Noble Eight Fold Path by accident and being rewarded by ending up as a Sinhalese Buddhist in SL.”
Up until I read your post, I believed that a single-cell life form would have to be reborn countless times to simply be reborn as a multi-celled life form. After reading your post, I now think it is entirely possible for a single-cell organism to make a single jump to become a human being.
“Even ignoring that, what you’re saying DOES agree with my inference – that anyone progressing towards enlightenment and Nirvana through the long journey of Samsara must at some point invariably be born as a SL Sinhalese Buddhist”
Sadly your theory would fall flat when Sinhala Buddhists cease to exist. They are after all a phenomenon which has existed for only over 2300 years compared to the unknown number of eons that have passed.
Now instead of making further insipid comments, why not at least attempt to steer the conversation back to “Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka?” Here’s a question I’m really hoping someone here can answer: What good can “secularists” having single-cell brains provide for Sinhalese, Tamils, and others in SL that non-secularists cannot?
Dear Yapa,
RE: “Haven’t you heard the old proverb ” All roads lead to Rome (Idiot?)?”
More evasion and filibustering? I hope your answers are not representative of the average Buddhist faith-head because I’m not sure you’re giving them a good name.
Why are forest monks taking the *hard route* when they too can take the easy route like you, get married, satisfy their earthly desires and write off-point answers on forums? Can we have a direct answer? Or must we watch you beating about the bush as usual?
Dear Belle,
RE: “You’ve seriously misunderstood my perspective.”
Ok. Glad to hear that.
RE: “I would urge that Tamil-dominated areas be allowed to remain so that it provides a place of cultural repository and development of their culture, and a place of safety.”
Can you clarify what you mean here? If by “cultural repository”, you mean a demarcated area frozen in time to serve as a museum for Tamil culture and to protect it from the influence of other cultures, then I disagree. I think I’ve explained my own views on culture.
RE: I am totally against government attempts to break this up because of the clear political agenda behind it of disempowering a minority community.”
I think it is unethical to attempt to wilfully dilute the Tamil population with the specific aim of destroying their culture and assimilating them. I, like you, am all for natural cultural cross-pollination. Evolution of culture is inevitable and only conservatives like Yapa will think that living in a cultural mausoleum is the ideal state of affairs. I’m very much in favour of introducing measures for better education and cross-cultural exposure.
Dear Wijayapala,
I answered you post on September 23, 2010 @ 9:02 am. I hope you didn’t miss it.
I am specifically interested in one specific question.
You side-stepped expressing a direct stance on secularism as a concept with the following rejoinder:
“Where did I say I agree with it?”
Let me ask you again then. Why is it fairer by all citizens to have a non-secular government than it is to have a secular one?
Wijayapala,
“why not at least attempt to steer the conversation back to “Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka?”” and “What good can “secularists” having single-cell brains provide for Sinhalese, Tamils, and others in SL that non-secularists cannot?”
That’s easy. It has been the theme of both SomewhatDisgusted and TGW’s posts (and Sujewa Ekanayake on the other thread) from the outset.
I shall outline it for those in a hurry.
Dignity
—————
For ‘Peace and Reconciliation’ it is necessary that the dignity of all people in SL is upheld.
The dignity of some of the people is undermined when an agenda exists that promotes a mindset (for example) that the Tamils are Tamils because they have been bad people in past rebirths. Shocking I know, but this is implied by the standard religious conditioning of the average person in SL. There is a concept of ‘inequality of birth’ which is a philosophical concept from ancient Indian culture that we have unfortunately inherited.
So, what good can “secularists” provide for Sinhalese, Tamils, and others in SL that non-secularists cannot?
Clearly, the religious establishment, which has a huge influence on the masses cannot or will not take the initiative to break that mindset.
(It would appear that their agenda is largely self-serving. Promoting a lie that worshipping them will bring salvation to us and our dead relatives, that promoting divisive messages is somewhat ‘holy’ so much so that Mr. Yapa regards it his ‘duty’. All this within the framework that such acts will guarantee, for example, rebirth in a good place like ‘Sinhalese Buddhist’ and not a bad place like ‘Tamil’).
So, the non-secularists are impotent in countering this.
Only secularists can and will explain the above (and we do!). Hopefully that answers your question ‘what can secularists do that non-secularists cannot do’.
Only secularists have the emotional strength to challenge bad things in religious messages.
Non-secularists are prisoners of their religion.
Some ways for Buddhists
————————–
Secularists can explain what the Buddha actually taught. eg. compassion, equality of birth (the Buddha is known to have attempted to dismantle the caste system), objectivity, rational examination of one’s belief system, a peaceful nature, avoidance of conflict.
Secularists can encourage religious establishment (Buddhist, Hindu, Christian) to teach their followers that all religions endeavour to achieve the same thing for their followers. That no religion is superior. Non-secularists are impotent in this.
In Buddhism, secularists can help separate the *useful* teachings of the Buddha from those that are (attributed to the Buddha that are) divisive, speculative and grossly untrue. IOW, secularists can stop some non-secularists from debasing Buddhism like we see all too often.
Only secularists can really challenge and stop the likes of Mr Yapa.
I hope that answers “What good can “secularists” having single-cell brains provide for Sinhalese, Tamils, and others in SL that non-secularists cannot?”.
(sometimes having a single-cell brain is an advantage!)
Dear PVR;
“Why are forest monks taking the *hard route* when they too can take the easy route like you, get married, satisfy their earthly desires and write off-point answers on forums? Can we have a direct answer? Or must we watch you beating about the bush as usual?”
I am a man with a lot of good kammas done in my previous births. You also don’t have to be jealous of me at least in your next birth, if you do some work with some good intention, leaving your wrong views and unwholesome deeds you are engaged in now.
You are responsible for your destiny, not me.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“Ironically, his refusal to answer such a question (Avyakatha) has been taken as a first rate intellectual achievement by future followers, e.g. Mr. Yapa.”
Have you heard of possibles and impossibles, Heshan?
Buddha knew possibles as possibles and impossibles as impossibles, that is one of the reasons why Buddha did not answer them. That was his unique intellect/knowledge as a Buddha.
Do you think you or any other person can answer any of them? If you or anybody answer even a single of them, I will convert into your religion.
Avyakathas are avyakaths not because they were first said by the Buddha, but because they are really avyakatha.
Heshan, do you take the challenge? Are you ready to challenge that “old hermit lived 2500 years ago”?
This challenge is open to PVR (SD) and the Gossiping Woman (B.W/Man) too.
Are you going to take it or leave it?
Thanks!
Heshan & others;
Here are the ten Avyakatas as per the Pali Texts, for your easy reference.
1. The world is eternal.
2. The world is not eternal.
3. The world is (spatially) infinite.
4. The world is not (spatially) infinite.
5. The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.
6. The soul is not identical with the body.
7. The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
8. The Tathagata does not exist after death.
9. The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
10. The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan and Wijayapala, you guys seem to agree that the recent history (200 years or so) of SL is the major reason for today’s problems. And looks like you both want to discuss the reconciliation part more than these single-cells and multi-cells. I request/urge you guys to continue the reconciliation part. I am partly guilty of discussing religion when things got off-track. So, you can yell at me as well.
Mr. Yapa
RE: “I am a man with a lot of good kammas done in my previous births. You also don’t have to be jealous of me at least in your next birth”
All very good, but that’s not the question I asked (Koheda yanne, malle pol).
Why did the Buddha, the arahats and these forest monks have to try so hard to find Nibbana while good ‘ol Yapa can do so by doing nothing but sitting in front of a computer and writing completely off-topic? Do you really believe that this heightened state of conciousness can be achieved by nothing but the good kamma of your privileged birth?
I really wonder whether you know a darn thing about Buddhism sometimes.
“(It would appear that their agenda is largely self-serving. Promoting a lie that worshipping them will bring salvation to us and our dead relatives, that promoting divisive messages is somewhat ‘holy’ so much so that Mr. Yapa regards it his ‘duty’. All this within the framework that such acts will guarantee, for example, rebirth in a good place like ‘Sinhalese Buddhist’ and not a bad place like ‘Tamil’).”
This is your idea and never of mine. You are fighting with your “soft enemy” created by you. You cannot fight hard enemies like me. If you think can answer my posts directly, without just keep on asking irrelevant questions.
You know poorest answering is more difficult than smartest questioning. Your poor questioning is very easy.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Simple questions that you keep ducking.
The ONLY thing that stands obstructing Peace, Reconciliation and the dignity of Sri Lankans are these questions. Please answer them honestly.
Do you or do you not consider yourself ‘of a higher birth’ purely from the fact that (according to your karma accumulated in previous births) you were born into a Sinhalese Buddhist family?
Do you or do you not consider the Tamils as having had lesser accumulated good karma (even much bad karma) than yourself in previous births?
Do you or do you not consider all Sinhalese Buddhists to have had higher accumulated good karma in previous births than Tamils?
Do you think anything will change your feelings about that?
Have you ever questioned why you feel as you do?
Do you feel the monks promote the equality of all Sri Lankans?
What is more important to you, Peace and Reconciliation in SL or upholding your unfounded arrogance?
Are Buddhists the world over famous for their arrogance, or are they famous for compassion?
What is more important to you, the real teachings of the Buddha or the aberration of his teachings that’s a scandalous disgrace to him and all Buddhists worldwide?
In your posts in this forum do you think you exemplify a person who has benefited from the Buddha’s teachings?
Do you think you will be remembered for bringing Peace and Reconciliation by your attitude, say in 50 years time? Or for obstructing it?
Are you willing to submit a paper to the United Nations promoting a claim that Sinhalese Buddhists in SL are inherently superior to all other people in the world by virtue of the accumulation of past karma in previous births, showing evidence as well as evidence of how widespread such a notion is, or would be, according to the propaganda promoted by SL Nazis?
Last question, don’t you realise that you come across as a typical Neo-Nazi?
So, it looks like Yapa is going to have a long long journey in the Sansaara ! What Buddha told as “avyakatha” is the focus of many scientific investigations. The problem is maybe that they don’t believe these are un-answerable. We can wait and see who is right! We might be in the grave when these matters are sorted out! So, why bother – once again it is “avyakatha” situation.
One thing that stands in the way of “Peace and Reconcilliation of Sri Lanka”, is jobless old men writing rubbish on internet !
Dear Yapa:
Your argument is,
Averroes contradicts Creator god, therefore Averroes contradicts Big Bang.
That is not what I said. I said Averroes contradicts Big Bang. Averroes does not even believe the Universe has a starting point. Averroes believes the Universe has always existed. The Big Bang does not say that God created the Universe. The Big Bang does not reveal the source of the singularity that created the Universe. However, the Big Bang does not deny that God created the Universe – it remains silent in regards to to this issue. When Averroes says the Universe does not have a starting point, he is automatically contradicting the Big Bang theory. Therefore, IF one believes the Universe has a starting point, then it is clear that Averroes is WRONG, regardless of whether or not one believes that GOD is the origin of that starting point.
Please read the above several times. Print it out and carry it in your pocket. If you have problems with the English, I can refer you to some people in Colombo. If you have problems with the logic, I can refer you to some tuition masters in Colombo. Do not reply until you are 100% sure you understand the argument. If you disagree with the argument, make sure you do not MISQUOTE the argument.
Dear Yapa:
1. The world is eternal.
2. The world is not eternal.
3. The world is (spatially) infinite.
4. The world is not (spatially) infinite.
5. The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.
6. The soul is not identical with the body.
7. The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
8. The Tathagata does not exist after death.
9. The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
10. The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.
That is just like the description of Brahma in Upanishads. Yes, Master Guatama was clever indeed… he has borrowed the Vedic system of logic, and the “Sons of The Soil” do not even recognize it. Perhaps if you read “Upanishads”, you might see what I mean when I say Buddhism is not at all original.
Dear Yapa:
“Ironically, his refusal to answer such a question (Avyakatha) has been taken as a first rate intellectual achievement by future followers, e.g. Mr. Yapa.”
Have you heard of possibles and impossibles, Heshan?
Buddha knew possibles as possibles and impossibles as impossibles, that is one of the reasons why Buddha did not answer them. That was his unique intellect/knowledge as a Buddha.
I am familiar with such questions, as they arise naturally in mathematics. For example, the continuum hypothesis. However, the difference is that in mathematics it can be proved that the hypothesis can neither be affirmed nor denied. In other words, it can be proved that the question has no solution. But just remaining silent, such as the Buddha did, does not constitute a valid proof. For example, he did not *prove* that the Universe has neither a beginning nor a non-beginning… on the other hand, the present scientific evidence leads one to believe that the Universe has a definite beginning, as described in the Big Bang. Since Buddha did not actually deny the latter, it is rather silly for Buddhists to pretend the Universe has no beginning. At the very least, if they follow Buddha to the letter, then it is certainly a logical possibility.
“Do you or do you not consider yourself ‘of a higher birth’ purely from the fact that (according to your karma accumulated in previous births) you were born into a Sinhalese Buddhist family?”
I consider being a Buddhist as a fortune. I don’t consider being a Sinhalese as a special fortune. Still I like it. There is no other option either.
…………..
“Do you or do you not consider all Sinhalese Buddhists to have had higher accumulated good karma in previous births than Tamils?”
No, I don’t see any reason to think so.
………………
“Do you or do you not consider all Sinhalese Buddhists to have had higher accumulated good karma in previous births than Tamils?”
Being a Buddhist is a fortune, that is all I can say for sure.
……………………….
” Do you think anything will change your feelings about that?
“Have you ever questioned why you feel as you do?”
I think not applicable.
………………………
“Do you feel the monks promote the equality of all Sri Lankans?”
There can be a few back sheep
……………………
“What is more important to you, Peace and Reconciliation in SL or upholding your unfounded arrogance?”
You are talking of what you don’t understand. Gossip won’t help anything.
…………………..
“Are Buddhists the world over famous for their arrogance, or are they famous for compassion?”
I know that you don’t know answers for such simple questions.
……………..
“What is more important to you, the real teachings of the Buddha or the aberration of his teachings that’s a scandalous disgrace to him and all Buddhists worldwide?”
What do you know about Buddhism? You are the man who attributed the break down of your car to past kamma.
……………………
“In your posts in this forum do you think you exemplify a person who has benefited from the Buddha’s teachings?”
Yes, of course. That is why you are coming behind me without loosing me from your sight day and night. To me even my own shadow is more distance than you.
………………..
” Do you think you will be remembered for bringing Peace and Reconciliation by your attitude, say in 50 years time? Or for obstructing it?”
I don’t think you have an idea about complex social issues.
………………………..
“Are you willing to submit a paper to the United Nations promoting a claim that Sinhalese Buddhists in SL are inherently superior to all other people in the world by virtue of the accumulation of past karma in previous births, showing evidence as well as evidence of how widespread such a notion is, or would be, according to the propaganda promoted by SL Nazis?”
UN/USA is your prime destination. Not ours. It is your heaven.Not ours. I “feel like” some of the SL Nazis are living in the USA, as second class citizens.
…………………..
Last question, don’t you realise that you come across as a typical Neo-Nazi?
Really I “feel like” I came across one or two in the forum.
Take it easy.
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
“All very good, but that’s not the question I asked (Koheda yanne, malle pol).”
You answer my questions posted to you properly. Then that “karma” will make me do the same thing and you will get the due results of your karma..
You are always running away from difficult questions, like an eel NO?
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“So, it looks like Yapa is going to have a long long journey in the Sansaara !”
I also “feel like so”. A bad karma of the past of mine seems following me without giving me a moments freedom in the guise of an old woman (B.Woman).
Mamabohoma baya una,
Mage pana epa una,
Re dolahata holmanakata,
Mawa ahu una
Thanks!
Dear Heshan;
“That is just like the description of Brahma in Upanishads. Yes, Master Guatama was clever indeed… he has borrowed the Vedic system of logic, and the “Sons of The Soil” do not even recognize it. Perhaps if you read “Upanishads”, you might see what I mean when I say Buddhism is not at all original.”
That has no any relevance to my question. I ask you to disprove Avyakathas if you consider they are not correct.
Then I would be a good Christian friend of yours.
Thanks, my friend!
Dear Heshan;
“Please read the above several times. Print it out and carry it in your pocket. If you have problems with the English, I can refer you to some people in Colombo. If you have problems with the logic, I can refer you to some tuition masters in Colombo. Do not reply until you are 100% sure you understand the argument. If you disagree with the argument, make sure you do not MISQUOTE the argument.”
It is already in my pocket, don’t worry I will look after it well.
Thanks Heshan for offering your help to me. I would be happy if had a better English command to counter the Semantics of our Semantic Expert (PVR), however, I would like to learn it from you, not from anybody else. You English command is exceptional.
However, Heshan, with the help of Western Science, Mathematics and Buddhism, I developed my analytical skills to a very high level. Socrates would take me as one of his students if he comes to know about me. With my logic and knowledge Heshan, I think I can tackle many “Ustads” with their good command of English.
Anyway Heshan, answer or disprove Avyakatas as invalid questions. You may take the help of those two –ols.
Thanks!
Dear Heshan/PVR (SD);
Did you notice the “last two options” of “Four Valued Logic” I introduced to the forum in the 9th and 10th Avyakatha questions.
Both of you must be thankful to me for the lesson learnt from me.
Cheers!
Dear Yapa:
See if you can find the similarity to your Avyakathas:
Now this Purusha has four seats, the navel, the heart, the throat, and the head. In these shines forth the Brahman with four aspects: the state of wakefulness, of dream, of dreamless sleep, and the fourth or transcendental state. In the wakeful state, He is Brahma; in the dreaming state, He is Vishnu; in dreamless sleep He is Rudra; and the fourth state is the Supreme Indestructible One; and He again is the Sun, the Vishnu, the Ishwara, He is the Purusha, He the Prana, He the Jive or the animate being, He the Fire, The Ishwara, and the Resplendent; (yea) that Brahman which is transcendent shines within all these !
In Itself, It is devoid of mind, of ears, of hands and feet, of light. There neither are the worlds existing nor non-existing, neither are the Vedas or the Devas or the sacrifices existing nor non-existing, neither is the mother or father or daughter-in-law existing nor non-existing, neither is Chandala’s son or Pulkasa’s son existing nor non-existing, neither is the mendicant existing nor non-existing, so neither all the creatures or the ascetics; and thus only the One Highest Brahman shines there.
16. The One Lord (self-effulgent) in all beings remaining hidden, all-pervading and the Self of all beings, controlling and watching over all works (good or bad), living in all creatures and the Witness (i.e. neither the doer of any acts nor the enjoyer), the Supreme Intelligence, the One without a second, having no attributes.
24. The Sandhya by meditation is devoid of any offering of liquids and so also of
any exertion of body and speech; it is the unifying principle for all creatures, and
this is really the Sandhya for Ekadandis.
26. From which without reaching It, the speech falls back with the mind, that is
the transcendental Bliss of this embodied being, knowing which the wise one is
released (from all bondage).
26. (And this Bliss is verily) the Self which pervades the whole universe, as the
butter diffused within the milk.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13800128/brahma-upanishad
Mr. Yapa, Buddha the Hindu, a high-caste Hindu knew Vedas very well. Surely he would have known the Vedic answer to the so-called “Avyakathas”: all is Brahman. It is unfortunate the monks hid this knowledge from you. I do not think Buddha the Hindu would have done so.
Dear Longus, Wijayapala
Perhaps one of you can answer the question that Yapa ducked.
Why did the Buddha, the arahats and these forest monks have to try so hard to find Nibbana while good ‘ol Yapa can do so by doing nothing but sitting in front of a computer, aided by his “privileged” birth?
Isn’t a heightened state of conciousness (achieved through meditation) a pre-requisite for Nibbana or is Nibbana automatic through the mere act of following N8? Or is it that Yapa is planning to achieve Nibbana in a few million more lifetimes once the process of following N8 eventually imbues him with the “desire” to sit under a tree and meditate?
This is further complicated by the concept of Anatta I guess, since, technically, there will be no identifiable aspect of Yapa left anymore, so whoever is sitting under that tree, it won’t be Yapa. Further, it’s interesting to speculate on how exactly the total state of one’s brain is reduced to a few fleeting thoughts (Ghandabba state?) that are passed on without violating all known laws of information theory. How subsequently, is the information of previous births accessed when one recalls past lives? Does that not overturn entirely our current understanding of neurobiology since memories are no longer stored in the brain, but accessed via the ether?
I think this will be good to know both for my information and that of Yapa.
Dear Yapa,
RE: “You answer my questions posted to you properly. Then that “karma” will make me do the same thing and you will get the due results of your karma..”
I’ve not ducked direct, to-the-point questions addressed to me. If you have such questions, please feel free to write them down in point-form, clearly and concisely. Do not blame me for not commenting on rambling, irrelevant rubbish – I can’t figure out what it is you want me to address. Further, you should realize that most of your posts are not questions, they are baseless statements of conviction and mindless devotion to something you have hitherto miserably failed to substantiate.
Mr Yapa,
Looks like you needed the questions explained.
First few questions refer to your well documented stance on inequality of birth. Sentiments like ‘invaders do not have rights’ and equating our Tamil brothers and sisters to ‘prisoners on remard’ are simply disgraceful.
Next questions point to this mindset being widespread and how it becomes even more entrenched. (only a secular approach can counter that, as explained to Wijayapala).
Next, to see whether you realise that your attitude is quite un-Buddhist. By that I mean you do not appear to have much compassion. Perhaps you regard ‘compassion’ to be a western form of Buddhism?
Next, to see whether you realise that your rhetoric is no different from other Neo Nazis in other countries.
However, you have answered all the questions by evading them. Thank you.
Heshan and Mr Yapa,
Science, Buddhism and Devas
—————————-
It’s all explained here. The author is a professor from a Faculty of Science and Technology.
http://www.ayezay.com/fourdevakings.htm
Dear Heshan;
Re: your post of September 28, 2010 @ 9:35 am
I think you are going to say “Avyakatas” were in Vedas.
I didn’t raise a dispute about the ownership of avyakatas, if we have something like that we will settle it later, and will focus our attention to the current issue. Even according to the Buddhism these questions do not belong to Buddha, they are belong to Malunkeyya Putta and Vaccagotta. I think I have clearly set the focus saying,
” Avyakathas are avyakaths not because they were first said by the Buddha, but because they are really avyakatha.”
at the beginning of my reference.
Really the issue is,
Whether THE AVYAKATAS HAVE ANSWERS OR NOT.
If somebody can answer them, as you have observed earlier YOU CAN CONTRADICT THE BUDDHA. Because Buddha considered them as not helpful to one’s liberation and especially for naming them as avyakata.
Please target your gun to the point. Don’t shake your hand.
Thanks!
Dear B>W/Man;
You very well know that I am for “naked truths”, and for nothing else. I do not lie down in Ambalamas (guest houses) on my way.
Thanks!
“Isn’t a heightened state of conciousness (achieved through meditation) a pre-requisite for Nibbana or is Nibbana automatic through the mere act of following N8?”
You are boastful of everything like the Mahabrahma, but you haven’t heard of Suneetha , Sopaka and Angulimala. Did they do meditation to be Arahath?
Without knowing such simple facts how one can talk of the philosophical aspect of Buddhism? See how Heshan engaged in the discussion. Despite being a Christian he gets some deep knowledge whether it is Buddhism, Hinduism or whatever it is. Born as a Buddhist you must be ashamed to ask very basic and naive questions.
There is a saying in Sinhala “bokka honda venna oana”, your intention is evil, your questions are meant for insulting, that is why you do not see the truth. You need some Sradda to see the truth in Buddhism. Sradda does not grow through insults, that is what has happened to you and your “apayasahaya miththa”.
Thanks!
“This is further complicated by the concept of Anatta I guess, since, technically, there will be no identifiable aspect of Yapa left anymore, so whoever is sitting under that tree, it won’t be Yapa.”
This is how this “huge Image” understands “Anatta”. I think a grade five student of a Dhamma School knows better.
Without knowing basics, how can he engage in a discussion in Buddhism? Only thing he can do is to keep on asking naive questions insulting and wasting our time.
Thanks!
Addition……………….
PVR (SD);
You are no different to Malunkeyya Putta.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
RE: “This is how this “huge Image” understands “Anatta”. I think a grade five student of a Dhamma School knows better.”
Sure. But since you claim to be quite erudite, why don’t you enlighten us all on the topic? So far, all we’ve got are statements on how great your own knowledge is and how little we know. I’m willing to accept that, but why don’t you demonstrate your knowledge by answering the question and showing why the statement is incorrect? So far you’ve only given us bollocks, leading us to believe that you don’t really know the answers, but want to carry out your holy duties anyway.
“Further, it’s interesting to speculate on how exactly the total state of one’s brain is reduced to a few fleeting thoughts (Ghandabba state?) that are passed on without violating all known laws of information theory. How subsequently, is the information of previous births accessed when one recalls past lives? Does that not overturn entirely our current understanding of neurobiology since memories are no longer stored in the brain, but accessed via the ether?”
“UMBAE”!
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
RE: “You are boastful of everything like the Mahabrahma, but you haven’t heard of Suneetha , Sopaka and Angulimala. Did they do meditation to be Arahath?”
Yes. I know the fairy tales. That’s precisely the reason I asked the question. I’m highlighting a contradiction and asking you to resolve it. You say that sitting in front of a computer claiming to follow N8 thanks to your privileged birth will get you to Nibbana (Wow, didn’t know it could be so easy!).
Meanwhile, Angulimala spoke to the Buddha and understood the truth (at least plausible I guess). I think I’ve even heard a story about some guy who become an Arahath after hearing just one phrase from the Buddha (certainly violates information theory and might pave the way for a brand new data compression algorithm, so I’m all ears).
You were also claiming earlier that it is a heightened state of conciousness that allows you to see the “truth” and reach Nibbana. That’s why I ask, how can you reach this “heightened state of conciousness” without even trying? And why are some people, like the forest monks, taking the hard route, when they too can follow the easy route you seem to be taking? Seems pretty daft to me. I’d be happy to be enlightened.
Have you reached a “heightened state of conciousness?”
SomewhatDisgusted
Absolutely correct. What Buddha says on how to attain Nirvana is amply explained in “Saman^naphala Sutra” and you can go back to it and read what Buddha is supposed to have said :
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
The follower of His doctrine should renounce all his worldly links and become “homeless” -sited as a fruit of ascetic life- and survive on a simple meal given by the people. After that he starts to meditate thus:
“Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty”
“In the same way, when these five hindrances are not abandoned in himself, the monk regards it as a debt, a sickness, a prison, slavery, a road through desolate country. But when these five hindrances are abandoned in himself, he regards it as unindebtedness, good health, release from prison, freedom, a place of security. Seeing that they have been abandoned within him, he becomes glad. Glad, he becomes enraptured. Enraptured, his body grows tranquil. His body tranquil, he is sensitive to pleasure. Feeling pleasure, his mind becomes concentrated”
“Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman’s apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
“Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman’s apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal”
Like this, this follower goes on up the ladder to enlightenment, according to Buddha. A person who follows this N8 is supposed to avoid numourous things that are part of our “fruitless” existence. Arguments on various topics, astrology, politics etc etc etc are some of those described in this Sutra. After violating all the rules how can you expect someone to win a race?
The the people who waste their time in front of a computer (its anybody’s right and choice ) can be anything, but a “follower of N8″, as preached by the Buddha!
As for your question on rebirth and memory, yes, I too have similar questions as to how the memory can exist without a brain. This is “beyond” the current understanding of Neuro-Physiology, if not “total garbage”. Yet I would keep an open mind as we can never predict the future of any science.
There are some instances where somewhat “loose” evidence have been found of “rebirth”, but not verifiable because the pictures don’t totally match. But on the other hand some details told by the person -or the child- who is alledged to have the memory of his previous birth, cannot be just regarded as mere coincidence due to the specific nature ot the details that match.
The same goes with the UFOs and ghosts. You may discard 90% of the UFOs as natural phenomena and hoaxes. But, what about the instances where there are overwhlming evidence of “unexplainable events”? ( for example the “jumping balls” around the space shuttle, and the radar evidence of “an object chasing a pilot at an incredible speed with manoeuvres that breaks all the laws of aerodynamics”? – taken from a recent report) What about all the “normal’ people who claim to have seen ghosts? Sometimes a whole group of people has seen these, and you can’t simply get away saying something like “group hypnotism”!
We can only hope that they will be explained one day, but if you don’t keep an open mind you may very well miss it, when it comes!
Longus,
Unexplained Mysteries
—————————-
‘Unexplained mysteries’ are everywhere. But I think the argument is about things that are unexplained today (even with all the technology we have) that were, according to our learned friend, apparently explained to everyone’s satisfaction in ancient times. Pity the explanation got lost in the mists of time but there is no doubt that scientists will find the explanation again that will corroborate the explanation that was given in ancient times. So we just have to wait
Mr Yapa, I too would like to hear your exposition of Anatta. The answer I constantly get is that it cannot be explained and it cannot be understood.
Correction, the sixth paragraph of my previous posting is a repitition of the fifth, it seems! It should be this:
“Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from the east, west, north, or south, and with the skies supplying abundant showers time and again, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure”
and then….
“And furthermore, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. Just as in a lotus pond, some of the lotuses, born and growing in the water, stay immersed in the water and flourish without standing up out of the water, so that they are permeated and pervaded, suffused and filled with cool water from their roots to their tips, and nothing of those lotuses would be unpervaded with cool water; even so, the monk
permeates… this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded with pleasure divested of rapture”.
and then…
“And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure nor stress. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness”
and then…”With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He discerns: ‘This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.’ Just as if there were a beautiful beryl gem of the purest water — eight faceted, well polished, clear, limpid, consummate in all its aspects, and going through the middle of it was a blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread — and a man with good eyesight, taking it in his hand, were to reflect on it thus: ‘This is a beautiful beryl gem of the purest water, eight faceted, well polished, clear, limpid, consummate in all its aspects. And this, going through the middle of it, is a blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread.’ In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He discerns: ‘This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.’
and then…”With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: ‘This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.’ Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: ‘This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.’ Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: ‘This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.’ In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.”
and then…..
“With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers… He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.
“This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
Clairaudience
“With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far. Just as if a man traveling along a highway were to hear the sounds of kettledrums, small drums, conchs, cymbals, and tom-toms. He would know, ‘That is the sound of kettledrums, that is the sound of small drums, that is the sound of conchs, that is the sound of cymbals, and that is the sound of tom-toms.’ In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far…..”
and Yapa is going on this path……..!!!
.
“Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled.
Surely Dr. Phil could have given the same prescription! By the way, how is “ill will” defined in the universe? Is ill will composed of matter? Same for covetousness, anger, sloth, etc. If you want to claim the above is science and not something Deepak Chopra might mumble while emptying his bowels on the lou, you’re going to have to abandon all the subjective terminology.
Nobody has told here this is science! That’s a quote from a Sutra only.
If you consider subjective terminogogy used is Psychology like elation,euphoria, manic phase, depressive phase, self esteem, thought insertion, thought broadcasting, morbid jealousy, paranoid delution as “matter” you’d better request your family physician to increase the dose of neuroleptics you are taking
Thanks, longus!
I am angry, because you know if they don’t know they should not insult. I am angry because I know their intention. They must be fair in a discussion.
Thanks for the explanation.
Dear B.W/Man;
What is this “ancient ” argument of yours?
Do you know what is the best book written on “WAR” so far and when it was written?
Are you going to reject the “Renaissance of Wisdom” took place around 6th century BC in many places of the world?
Please use tour kidney if you don’t have a brain before putting out “the whole lot” you are having. Please be knowledgeable. Please be sensible.
Thanks!
Dear All;
The first step of the ladder of “Noble Eight Fold Path” is “Samma Ditti”. That is “Correct view”. None can skip it and jump into other steps.
Thanks!
Dear Longus,
RE: “The the people who waste their time in front of a computer (its anybody’s right and choice ) can be anything, but a “follower of N8″, as preached by the Buddha!”
Thanks for confirming. Yapa is going to have to actually put in some effort to understand the “concept”, without spouting out the surface level garbage and devotional fairy tales that the neighbourhood monk told him.
RE: “As for your question on rebirth and memory, yes, I too have similar questions as to how the memory can exist without a brain. This is “beyond” the current understanding of Neuro-Physiology, if not “total garbage”. Yet I would keep an open mind as we can never predict the future of any science.”
I quite agree. Never had a problem with an open mind, only with a closed mind masquerading as an open one. (i.e. If one has reason to believe something is possible, so too must one entertain the notion that the same notion might be false)
We discussed quite a few issues like this at length on another thread, although Yapa was able to shed no light, only insults for having asked “invalid questions”.
RE: “There are some instances where somewhat “loose” evidence have been found of “rebirth”, but not verifiable because the pictures don’t totally match. But on the other hand some details told by the person -or the child- who is alledged to have the memory of his previous birth, cannot be just regarded as mere coincidence due to the specific nature ot the details that match.”
I believe Stevenson is the popularly cited paper? We discussed it at some length on the other thread. Are there any other works you are referring to?
RE: “We can only hope that they will be explained one day, but if you don’t keep an open mind you may very well miss it, when it comes!”
I quite agree. But I also think there are limits to how much time we should spend doubting established knowledge. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u6eJB9GLY
“I answered you post on September 23, 2010 @ 9:02 am. I hope you didn’t miss it.”
I didn’t miss it. It just wasn’t worthy of my time.
“a. Why would you see Buddhism as inherently necessary for being a “Sri Lankan”? Shouldn’t that change?”
I never said that Buddhism is inherently necessary for being a “Sri Lankan.” Only a halfwitted “secularist” who can’t read and hopes to win arguments through strawmen would’ve come to that conclusion.
“b. Although I suspect you’ll say that once Buddhism is insulted, people’s brains shut down (and I’d agree, as Yapa amply demonstrates), I think that ought to change, don’t you?”
Why should people take someone who insults them seriously? This is the basic point that the secularists and civil society types have utterly missed.
BalangodaNeanderthal,
“I shall outline it for those in a hurry.”
Sorry, but getting to the point hasn’t been one of your strong areas.
“Only secularists can and will explain the above (and we do!). Hopefully that answers your question ‘what can secularists do that non-secularists cannot do’.”
Actually that is a lie, and it does not answer my question.
“Only secularists have the emotional strength to challenge bad things in religious messages.”
But you haven’t, while non-secularists most certainly have challenged incorrect statements by others.
“Secularists can explain what the Buddha actually taught.”
As I indicated earlier, I have yet to see any post from you that demonstrates a basic knowledge of the Buddha’s teachings.
“Secularists can encourage religious establishment (Buddhist, Hindu, Christian) to teach their followers that all religions endeavour to achieve the same thing for their followers.”
Why should any “religious establishment” that you clearly loathe take you seriously?
“In Buddhism, secularists can help separate the *useful* teachings of the Buddha from those that are (attributed to the Buddha that are) divisive, speculative and grossly untrue. IOW, secularists can stop some non-secularists from debasing Buddhism like we see all too often.”
That’s very nice, but once again wouldn’t you have to know at least something about Buddhism to pull this off?
“Only secularists can really challenge and stop the likes of Mr Yapa.”
Actually all that you’ve seem to have done was to **provoke him into writing MORE**. You have also clearly missed the fact that Yapa did not challenge my defense of Tamils as a harmless people. He would’ve remained silent if you hadn’t dropped all your secularist verbal diarrhea in this thread.
“I hope that answers “What good can “secularists” having single-cell brains provide for Sinhalese, Tamils, and others in SL that non-secularists cannot?”.
(sometimes having a single-cell brain is an advantage!)”
In this case, it hasn’t been an advantage. you have shown absolutely nothing as to what good secularists have done. In fact, all you’ve done has been to unleash “Mr Yapa” and divert the discussion completely from the topic.
Conclusion: secularists are utterly useless for the goal of peace and reconciliation. Thank you for proving that point.
Dear Wijayapala,
RE: “Why should people take someone who insults them seriously? This is the basic point that the secularists and civil society types have utterly missed.”
Because the insult was to a concept, not to you as a person. If somehow, you cannot separate an intellectual concept from an attack on your person, that is your own problem. Personal insults were something you started. This is precisely why your brand of “buddhism” cannot reflect on a concept in a detached manner, despite paying so much lip service to the Buddhist doctrine of being “detached”.
And once again, you evade the question, by taking refuge in a display of being offended.
Why is it fairer by all citizens to have a non-secular government than it is to have a secular one?
Wijayapala,
I agree secularists are not best equipped to influence the religious establishment (I cannot see the Church bending to satisfy Dawkins). However, they can help educate the people by encouraging them to take a balanced view of things. The people can then decide.
Insults?
———
Also, to add to your discussion with SD, ‘democracy’ cannot work properly in a non-secular society. Democracy expects critical analysis of issues that affect the country. If religion plays a big part in how people decide then it is a major issue that requires discussion. If people feel insulted because their ‘cherished religious truths’ are being challenged these things cannot be openly discussed and democracy will only be ‘cosmetic’. In this regard openly discussing the views of Yapa-types is necessary. By claiming to be ‘insulted’ you have demonstrated the validity of this point.
A theocracy would work but many may not wish to live in one.
Wijayapala,
“Secularists can explain what the Buddha actually taught.”
In most discussions with western people during the ethnic conflict I am asked this. ‘How can a Buddhist country have a war?’
There is a belief among non-SL people that Buddhism teaches us to cultivate an attitude of mind that … does not get upset, insulted, angry whatever the provocation. Of course this has not worked in SL.
So why is this?
What I mean by ‘what the Buddha actually taught’ I mean ‘how to develop compassion/loving kindness’ – whereas your definition of Buddhism seems to be ‘knowing what’s in the Sutras and being able to recite it verbatim’.
Fine. Let’s then invent a new religion called Western Buddhism, a movement more relevant to the needs of today. But wait. I think I hear many contemporary western writers already have.
Dear B.W/Man;
“Only secularists can really challenge and stop the likes of Mr Yapa.”
It is a day dream.
I have answered your your “quest” on September 29, 2010 @ 6:27 am and it has counter quests.
Will you please unleash your brainpower on it?
Thanks!
“Also, to add to your discussion with SD, ‘democracy’ cannot work properly in a non-secular society. Democracy expects critical analysis of issues that affect the country. If religion plays a big part in how people decide then it is a major issue that requires discussion. If people feel insulted because their ‘cherished religious truths’ are being challenged these things cannot be openly discussed and democracy will only be ‘cosmetic’. In this regard openly discussing the views of Yapa-types is necessary. By claiming to be ‘insulted’ you have demonstrated the validity of this point.”
Preaching “bana” is easy. That is the fashion today. Every nitwit preaches, but no answers for arguments. Cannot build up an argument. Try to preach whatever comes to their minds.
Counter my arguments if possible.
I saw you criticized my argument in the last post to Belle. Tell me if there is any flaw in the argument. Flaw is it does not “going” with your view? Or you “felt like so”?
I have never seen a single argument of yours other than ” I feel like so” type. Try to produce some “intellectual product”, without giving out “General Merchants’ Statements”..
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
” Because the insult was to a concept, not to you as a person. If somehow, you cannot separate an intellectual concept from an attack on your person, that is your own problem. Personal insults were something you started. This is precisely why your brand of “buddhism” cannot reflect on a concept in a detached manner, despite paying so much lip service to the Buddhist doctrine of being “detached”.”
This is a man who have not done any personal insults.
Can’t you remember you asked the Buddha “flew” to Sri Lanka?
Can’t you remember you asked me to do “Irdi Prathiharya”.
Can’t you remember these
1. Seems pretty daft to me. I’d be happy to be enlightened.
Have you reached a “heightened state of conciousness?”
2. I’d be happy to be enlightened.
Have you reached a “heightened state of conciousness?”
3. You claim that following N8 is a sufficient condition for going to Nibbana. That means you, spending your time arguing with us “Pruthagjanas” on this forum, are well on your way to Nibbana while those poor forest monks meditating all day long seem to be taking the hard route! Are they idiots? If not, why aren’t you also under a tree meditating to accelerate your journey to Nibbana?
The list is very long. If you want I can give everything.
Fabricating nick names like N8 for Noble Eight Fold Path, KRN for karma, rebirth and Nirvana do you think sacred duties of yours?
We have different ways to treat different things. We give due respect to respectable things.
Do you treat your mother or your wife in the same way you treat a prostitute, as all of them are women?
We know Dore handa and P-de handa. I am not a mutt like you.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan
“How can a Buddhist country have a war?”
You could have asked your western friends: “How can a Chriatain country have a war?” Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying: “Love your enemy” “If your right cheek is slapped, turn your left cheek!”
In that case only the Muslim countries have right wage war as Muhammad is said to have engaged in war!
It will create an unfair world!
Survival of the fittest!
Dear Heshan;
“Ironically, his refusal to answer such a question (Avyakatha) has been taken as a first rate intellectual achievement by future followers, e.g. Mr. Yapa.”
Tell me please do you still have a doubt about my notion above after my post of September 28, 2010 @ 7:10 pm, addressed to you.
Looking forward to settle the matter early as possible. Your kind (early) co-operation is appreciated.
Thanks!
SD
Yes, there have been one such credible research apart from Dr. Stevenson’s:
“University of Southampton Research”
http://www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/u_k__study.html
And there are many theories among Neuro-Psychiatrists regarding “afterlife”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation
Longus,
‘Turning the other cheek’
—————————-
While many ancient sages have advised their followers to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts it is only ‘a suggestion’. Often that message runs alongside another one directing their followers (a commandment) to beat hell out of other people when it suits!
Buddhism on the other hand is well known (at least outside SL) for being different in this regard.
In Buddhism compassion/pacifism is not just advice. It teaches a method to be followed in order to achieve compassion and pacifism internally. This comes from meditation, the mental conditioning we discussed on the other thread (which I and others attributed to hypnotic suggestion as its active agent). It is known to work very well and much demonstrated on live TV.
This is one of many features of Buddhism that sets it apart from other religions – the practical aspects that followers of any religion and non-religious people can put to good use (researched, tested and well understood). Also, it is the main reason (in my experience) why Buddhism is held in high regard around the world so far.
The reality
——————-
Sadly, the reality is, in SL meditation is not high on a person’s agenda. Why?
A western Buddhist teacher I heard on the radio put this nicely, when asked to describe how he has changed after regular meditation. He said ‘I feel anger, but I am not angry’.
My point was, whether we actually practice Buddhism in SL or not is evident in our behaviour in times of conflict. Our history in the past 60 years reveals a lot.
(this is not an invitation to Mr Yapa to claim contradiction. This aspect of Buddhism that is different is not about ‘why people need a religion’)
Longus,
“University of Southampton Research by Mike Pettigrew” is not about rebirth or reincarnation. It is about ‘life continuing’ when someone is clinically dead. It is not about someone’s life reappearing in another body.
Mr Yapa,
re. Buddha flying to SL etc.
No decent person has an interest in insulting a ‘faith’.
But when you apply a ‘faith’ for political reasons, then try to justify that with scientific arguments then you will have most decent people challenging your viewpoint.
Furthermore, there are philosophical aspects to all religions that merit philosophical discussion.
The problem is not with the discussion. It is the spin your mind is putting on it. Suggestion – take religion out of politics – which is what SomewhatDisgusted has been calling for. You have proven why that is needed. Some day our President will be anointed as a god (in the 20th amendment still to come). A new version of the old religion will be born. Do you think he should therefore forever go unchallenged?
“The problem is not with the discussion. It is the spin your mind is putting on it. Suggestion – take religion out of politics – which is what SomewhatDisgusted has been calling for. You have proven why that is needed. Some day our President will be anointed as a god (in the 20th amendment still to come). A new version of the old religion will be born. Do you think he should therefore forever go unchallenged”
I don’t expect your preaching, but your explanation.
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“My point was, whether we actually practice Buddhism in SL or not is evident in our behaviour in times of conflict. Our history in the past 60 years reveals a lot.”
First try to identify at least the basic characteristics of Buddhism. Even without that knowledge how do you prescribe mighty recommendations, what Buddhist should do, what it should be like, what Buddhists should eat and at what and what time, whether they should sleep or not………….?, Teaching your cave dwelling grand mother to teach to suck mighty dinosaur eggs?
First learn, then teach!
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“No decent person has an interest in insulting a ‘faith’.”
Is that the reason you chose to insult non-faith Buddhism, you cynic?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
Whether THE AVYAKATAS HAVE ANSWERS OR NOT.
If somebody can answer them, as you have observed earlier YOU CAN CONTRADICT THE BUDDHA. Because Buddha considered them as not helpful to one’s liberation and especially for naming them as avyakata.
Please target your gun to the point. Don’t shake your hand.
Thanks!
As I said, Buddha was quite the clever chap. He did not deny the existence of God, but many of his followers in S. Lanka seem to do so. You cannot use Avyakatas to prove that Buddha denied the existence of God.
Mr Yapa,
“Is that the reason you chose to insult non-faith Buddhism, you cynic?”
Non-Faith
———–
That’s the whole point that you are missing!
If it is NOT a faith then it is NOT sacrilegious.
In that case it is open to scrutiny like everything else. If it affect the running of the country, as it does, then it is a matter for all of us. It is our duty to take it apart and pin point strengths and weaknesses.
If it is a science (as you say) then science-minded people will surely like to take it apart.
You cannot have it both ways!
The problem is your refusal to accept (the speculative religious aspects of) Buddhism being a ‘faith’ just like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism to its followers.
(You do not seem to known that ALL religions try to make out that they are the TRUTH and above the rest. Buddhism is no different. You have not shown Buddhism to be any different, though you keep saying so)
Dear Heshan;
“As I said, Buddha was quite the clever chap. He did not deny the existence of God, but many of his followers in S. Lanka seem to do so. You cannot use Avyakatas to prove that Buddha denied the existence of God.”
You missed the target again!
Please try again, you can make me your best Christian friend. (Don’t try to be like those PVR & B.W.M.’ who always avoid difficult questions. I have a special regard for you.)
Please answer Ayakatas, or accept that the Buddha was right, naming them as questions answers of which are not grasped by the average humans.
Further, a Buddha is not needed to disprove the existence of a creator god, it was already taken care of by Epicurus and Averroes.
Thanks!
Dear B>W/Man;
“(You do not seem to known that ALL religions try to make out that they are the TRUTH and above the rest. Buddhism is no different. You have not shown Buddhism to be any different, though you keep saying so)”
Why cynic are you blind? Did you disprove Pancha Niyama Dharma and Paticca Smuppada? You avoided it. Did you, Heshan or PVR show Avyakatas were invalid? Why didn’t you come for a discussion on Dhammapada? Why didn’t you dispute my arguments on Buddhist Theory of Evolution? Were you able to disprove anything in Buddhism, but we have totally invalidated the Creator God based religions. Apart from that I have done various comparisons in the past discussions.
Still you don’t see the differences between Buddhism and other religions?
Are you totally deaf and blind or totally dishonest?
Thanks!
Dear B>W/Man;
You were boastful of that an ancient man cannot know truth more than what we know in the modern era. I answered it. Read it again.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/#comment-23777
You level big allegations against things, bur when countered, you hide like a mole. I think you a “mola:
I am expecting you to negate what my counter argument or accept what I said as correct, as a decent responsible man, though you have never shown the qualities in the past.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
I have already refuted Avarroes argument. I have demonstrated that Averroes argument, which states that the Universe has always existed, contradicts the Big Bang Theory, which states that the Universe is finite (has a starting point). So if you accept that Averroes is correct, then you also accept that Big Bang is wrong. But if you accept that Big Bang is wrong, then you are a hypocrite, because you have spent much time on this forum arguing that Buddhism is scientific (in fact, even greater than science).
As for the avyakatas, it looks like you missed my earlier. Read the following closely and see if you can find the connection. I have provided links earlier.
1. The world is eternal.
2. The world is not eternal.
3. The world is (spatially) infinite.
4. The world is not (spatially) infinite.
5. The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.
6. The soul is not identical with the body.
7. The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
8. The Tathagata does not exist after death.
9. The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
10. The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.
————————————
In Itself, It is devoid of mind, of ears, of hands and feet, of light.
There neither are the worlds existing nor non-existing, neither are the Vedas or the Devas or the sacrifices existing nor non-existing,
Neither is the mother or father or daughter-in-law existing nor non-existing,
Neither is Chandala’s son or Pulkasa’s son existing nor non-existing,
Neither is the mendicant existing nor non-existing,
So neither all the creatures or the ascetics;
And thus only the One Highest Brahman shines there.
The Tatagatha you speak of is really nothing but the highest knowledge attainable – the god-knowledge. There is only one thing that exists before death and after death – energy. The same energy that was there at the start of the Universe in the form of a singularity, and which will always be here (as per the conservation of energy law). It’s too bad your friends in orange did not teach you this.
Heshan
You talk sense here (without sarcasm!). The Big Bang Theory says of a definite beginning -mainstream science according to you- The idea that the universe always existed was largely discarded after the findings of the scientist called Hubble that the universe is expanding. And all the experimental evidence of “background radiation” suggests that. But the question that nobody has answered is where was this universe before it started expanding! Space and time has a beginning at the Big Bang. What was the “bigger container” which contained the universe? And what is outside the edge of the present expanding universe? The answers to those questions lie beyond the scope of physics and therefore “an-answerable (avyakatha)
One way out is to imagine that it is only “our part of the observable universe” that is expanding and there are other “areas” in the universe which we can’t observe that were always there, and some more and some more universes – the “hocus-pocus Multiverse Theory hailed by Hawking!”- somewhat like the air bubbles inside a loaf of bread! But once again where is this loaf of bread situated becomes an un-answerable question!
Mathematically you can prove that the early universe was finite but endless (the four dimentional equivalent of a surface of a ballloon) and by tideously calculating the “sum over histories” using imaginary numbers – an accepted mathematical method- you may avoid a “singularity”, thus a Creator, but once again “what existed before that?” becomes un-answerable.
Though the scientists do not believe these are un-answerable questions and strive day and night to find answers that only takes the question to a farther level only, where the same question comes back again!
Mr Yapa,
A necessary lesson in comprehension.
This sentence
“(You do not seem to know that ALL religions try to make out that they are the TRUTH and above the rest. Buddhism is no different. You have not shown Buddhism to be any different, though you keep saying so)”
The first sentence has this phrase “ALL religions try to make out that they are the TRUTH and above the rest”. This is the key statement this paragraph is dealing with.
Then it says “Buddhism is no different”.
Let’s use some logic on this.
Does Christianity make out that it is the truth? Yes.
Does Islam make out that it is the truth? Yes.
Does Buddhism make out that it is the truth? Yes.
(You agree, because you have been promoting this line ad infinitum)
Therefore, is the statement “Buddhism is no different” a true statement in this context?
Yes!
Then “You have not shown Buddhism to be any different”. You have tried but the reasons given are the same as the reasons a regular Christian would, or a regular Muslim would in relation to their religion – ‘because that’s what my religion says and everybody I know and trust agrees with it’.
So, its ‘true’ to you for the same reason as it is for a Christian.
Circles
———————
Mr Yapa, a lot of this ‘going round in circles’ is happening because you are not stopping to understand what the other guy actually *means*.
When I keep saying ‘all religions are the same’ I have clearly explained what I mean by that. It’s not that the yellow frocks that the monks wear come from the same line of fashion as the pope’s purple frock, or that Mohammed and Jesus are really one and the same person. What I have explained quite clearly is something we all need to understand about religion.
viz.
It is a very important thing for those who follow religion, equally.
All those who follow a religion embrace it for the same reason.
The followers of all religions are equally (highly) satisfied with what their religion gives them.
They all believe its teachings to be true.
The differences are only in the detail – the author, books, the frocks. The cosmetic.
The *significance* of religion in modern society is of far far greater relevance to us than the authors/books/frocks.
Questions like … does it interfere with democracy? fundamental freedoms? common decency? the right to live without fear of being blown up by some nutter in a hurry to enter paradise (because he believes that reward to be true)?
Mr Yapa. Think.
Longus,
You mean ‘Avyakatha’ is quite simply ‘agnostism’.
Heshan, Mr Yapa is calling for proof of agnostism! Either we need to explain what we call ‘proof’ or what we call ‘agnostisim’.
Or try this.
Ask me ‘did it rain on the 21st of January last year’?
I would answer ‘I don’t know and frankly I don’t care because it has no relevance to what is important to me right now’.
I wish Mr Yapa would explain what ‘disproving’ such a statement would mean? That I don’t know? That I don’t care? That its not important to me? That we cannot know? Nobody?
In my opinion, the Buddha was an agnostic. In ‘avyakatha’ he was saying that there is a boundary beyond which there are things that are unanswerable.
longus,
Nice try but the expansion of the universe within a finite-time universe has already been answered by physics:
While Hubble’s words were forgotten, the notion of the expansion of the universe became consensus. Until the theoretical developments in the 1980s no one had an explanation for why this seemed to be the case, but with the development of models of cosmic inflation, the expansion of the universe became a general feature resulting from vacuum decay. Accordingly, the question “why is the universe expanding?” is now answered by understanding the details of the inflation decay process which occurred in the first 10−32 seconds of the existence of our universe. It is suggested that in this time the metric itself changed exponentially, causing space to change from smaller than an atom to around 100 million light years across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Now you may go back to your stringy universe made possible by plasma cosmology and aliens in unknown planets light years away. Cheers!
*expansion of the universe within a finite-time framework
Dear Heshan;
RE: Your post of September 30, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
Please calm down Heshan. You don’t have to be hurry in a very subtle and sharp situations. Will take the things one by one and throw irrelevant things away for the clarity of the question.
1. You are talking about an Averroes’ argument that he had said universe is infinite. But I did not mentioned about this argument of him and even if you refute this argument, it does not say that Averroes is wrong in all his arguments and especially his argument ” Disproving Creator God” has no any affect.
2. You say as Big Bang has a beginning it is (temporally) finite. In the first place you cannot refute anything based on a “controversial theory”. Even if we consider it is “temporally finite”, disregard of all those controversies, if you cannot prove further that it is finite in “spacial dimension”, still it is incorrect to conclude that the universe is finite.
3. You say ” The Tatagatha you speak of is really nothing but the highest knowledge attainable – the god-knowledge. There is only one thing that exists before death and after death – energy. The same energy that was there at the start of the Universe in the form of a singularity, and which will always be here (as per the conservation of energy law). It’s too bad your friends in orange did not teach you this.”
You should not do such narrations off hand. You have not given any evidence to justify the above narration which hides mighty arbitrary conclusions that would unduly weight your pan of the balance.
Therefore the above narration has no value and totally irrelevant.
So, in the view of above you haven’t put a single step towards answering “the question”, but trying to dazzle me with your marvelous magic. Heshan, I have very well concentrated and meditated on “the point”. It is not very easy to deviate me from the focal point. Therefore as honest men, who try to find “Objective knowledge”, whether it is belong to Christianity or Buddhism or east or west shall we make an honest attempt in this regard?
You know even Aristotle was not always correct. If he were alive he would accept that Galileo was right and he held a wrong view about 2000years back. Accepting faults itself is a finding of a correct and novel thing.
I think you will add honesty to your intelligence. It is an essential part of a good personality. Can you remember, I was telling that Educationists say that education consists of developing knowledge, skills and attitudes. Education without good attitude is a steering wheel locked 100000HP bulldozer. You have no control over it. Therefore it is necessary for all, especially those who have special competencies to develop good attitudes including honesty, and integrity. Really my addition to education is it should include ” virtues” in addition to the above mentioned three components.
Please learn to give the due respect to truth by saying it is true.
Please target your gun again to the point. Don’t let your handshake.
TELL ME WHETHER DO YOU HAVE ANSWERS FOR ” TEN AVYAKATAS” OR DO YOU ACCEPT AVERAGE HUMANS CANNOT GRASP THE ANSWERS OF THEM.
That is the target.
Thanks!
The first sentence has this phrase “ALL religions try to make out that they are the TRUTH and above the rest”. This is the key statement this paragraph is dealing with.
Then it says “Buddhism is no different”.
Dear B.W/Man;
You say;
Let’s use some logic on this.
Does Christianity make out that it is the truth? Yes.
Does Islam make out that it is the truth? Yes.
Does Buddhism make out that it is the truth? Yes.
(You agree, because you have been promoting this line ad infinitum)
Therefore, is the statement “Buddhism is no different” a true statement in this context?
Yes!
…………….
Mutt, do you say similarities rule out the differences?
Don’t forget to answer my queries.
Thanks!
BalangodaMan,
“I agree secularists are not best equipped to influence the religious establishment (I cannot see the Church bending to satisfy Dawkins). However, they can help educate the people by encouraging them to take a balanced view of things. The people can then decide.”
Unfortunately, the people won’t listen to you if they cannot identify with you. That is why President Obama is so insistent and loud that he is a Christian by choice. If he wasn’t, nobody would vote for him.
That is why a liberal religionist has a far better chance of effecting change than a self-important secularist, like you!
“Also, to add to your discussion with SD, ‘democracy’ cannot work properly in a non-secular society.”
Then it must be working in the very few places in the world that are secular.
“In most discussions with western people during the ethnic conflict I am asked this. ‘How can a Buddhist country have a war?’”
Maybe for the same reasons why “secular” countries have wars?
“What I mean by ‘what the Buddha actually taught’ I mean ‘how to develop compassion/loving kindness’ – whereas your definition of Buddhism seems to be ‘knowing what’s in the Sutras and being able to recite it verbatim’.”
The problem with your arbitrary definition, other than allowing any illiterate dingaling like yourself to proclaim himself an expert, is that the Suttas were nothing more than the Buddha’s own sermons. They may not have been preserved 100% accurately over the millennia (that would contradict the teaching of impermanence), but the Buddha’ was repetitive enough that it’s not too difficult for a non-dingaling to figure out what he was teaching. Compassion and loving kindness are means to an end, not the end itself.
I missed this “gem”:
“A theocracy would work but many may not wish to live in one.”
If that’s true, then it’s a good thing Sri Lanka is not a theocracy!
SD,
You haven’t done a wonderful job explaining how “secularists” like yourself can effect change among people who aren’t. You and your comrades however have done a splendid job diverting the topic and chasing away Tamils like Burning_Issue. It is your behavior that makes me believe that loudmouths like you and BalangodaMan ultimately will only strengthen Sinhala racism, not weaken it through your insipid confrontational approach.
“Why is it fairer by all citizens to have a non-secular government than it is to have a secular one?”
Because it is a government that more of them would be able to identify with. Secularists never could figure out the obvious.
Dear Yapa:
Thanks for avoiding the question again. You seem to have quite a talent for that.
Let’s start over. Do you see the similarity between the two paragraphs?
Paragraph 1: Buddhism
1. The world is eternal.
2. The world is not eternal.
3. The world is (spatially) infinite.
4. The world is not (spatially) infinite.
5. The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.
6. The soul is not identical with the body.
7. The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
8. The Tathagata does not exist after death.
9. The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
10. The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.
————————————
Paragraph 2: Upanishads (Hinduism)
In Itself, It is devoid of mind, of ears, of hands and feet, of light.
There neither are the worlds existing nor non-existing, neither are the Vedas or the Devas or the sacrifices existing nor non-existing,
Neither is the mother or father or daughter-in-law existing nor non-existing,
Neither is Chandala’s son or Pulkasa’s son existing nor non-existing,
Neither is the mendicant existing nor non-existing,
So neither all the creatures or the ascetics;
And thus only the One Highest Brahman shines there.
—————————
Your Avyakatas are nothing more than a description of Brahman. Read the two paragraphs again; compare the lines and you will see how obvious it is. The solution to your Avyakatas is Upanishads. Thanks!
— My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
– Albert Einstein
*Correction: The solution to your Avyakatas is Brahman, as described in Upanishads.
It is reported that Ariyawathi worked under an employer named Al Samaid hi Ismile Abdulla Ibrahim Bin Bajaj, based in Riyadh.
“They had a daughter who was very cruel. She inserted most of the nails. When I screamed, they threatened to slash my throat. Therefore, I patiently waited without screaming. I somehow managed to remove the nails driven into my foot as the pain was unbearable. I did this so I could walk. When I screamed that I wanted to go to Sri Lanka, they struck me on my head and legs, so that I could not even get up.” said the Ariyawathi.
http://www.newsfirst.lk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12826:suspicion-on-how-nail-ridden-worker-was-undetected-at-saudi-airport&catid=97:news-items-2&Itemid=294
If Sinhala-Buddhism is so great, why do village girls have to go overseas and be treated worse than animals, for slave wages? When the *Christian* British ruled the island, no one had to go overseas to find work. People like Wijayapalung complain about foreign conspiracies but the fact of the matter is that Sinhala-Buddhism is actually worse. I know for a fact that if expat Americans are treated like animals in some foreign country, the US Government will take steps to free them or implement diplomatic pressure against said country. But in the case of Ariyawathi, the pathetic 100% SBhist Government will simply let the incident slip by, and continue letting village girls get abused, just so that His Royal Highness, the Great Incarnation of Dutugemunu, Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse and others in the ruling elite can get rich off the remittances.
The whole point of a religion is to teach respect! Respect for God , respect for one’s parents , and respect for one’s neighbor. . Clearly, SBism has failed to do this.
Wijayapala,
But the religious establishment CAN and should teach common decency to the masses. (I have clarified later that I too agree the secularists cannot influence the religious masses)
To regard a section of our population to be ‘already condemned before birth by past sins’ (Mr Yapa and his like are convinced of this, and he is not alone) is not decent – it stands in the way of Peace and Reconciliation. The monks must tell the followers that this is wrong. Very wrong. They won’t. No one but the secularists would tell them that they should. How many religious Buddhists have made the point that it is unacceptable to regard some of our fellow citizens as ‘lesser humans’ from before they were born?
This is no different from the Catholic Church justifying slavery hundreds of years ago. Effectively the same reason given. It’s very wrong to propagate such a socially divisive message. We should petition the Buddhist establishment to change it.
Dear Heshan;
“Your Avyakatas are nothing more than a description of Brahman. Read the two paragraphs again; compare the lines and you will see how obvious it is. The solution to your Avyakatas is Upanishads. Thanks!”
*Correction: The solution to your Avyakatas is Brahman, as described in Upanishads.”
OK! OK!!, Heshan for instance say I believe that solution to avyakatas is Brahma.
Then again directly answer my Question,
TELL ME WHETHER DO YOU HAVE ANSWERS FOR ” TEN AVYAKATAS” OR DO YOU ACCEPT AVERAGE HUMANS CANNOT GRASP THE ANSWERS OF THEM.
Thanks!
Heshan
You have missed the main point in my previous post. What I questioned was not the expanding universe, but the un-unswerable question of “what was the bigger container which contained the universe at the start?” and “what lies outside the edge of the presently expanding universe?”.
As BalangodaMan has correctly told, beyond a certain boundary certain questions become ununswerable. This was told by the Buddha too and it’s a tribute to his wisdom.
By the way, can you prove that Brahma upanishad was written before Buddha? Only two of the upanishads pre-date Buddha ; namely Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya . Even if you imagine that the Brahma Upanishad was eritten in the first two centuries of the common era how can you prove that Buddha copied from the Upanishads and not vice-versa?
site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/upanishads
Mr Yapa,
The *similarities* evidence the ‘raison d’etre of religion’. (the reason why they exist).
Once this is accepted (no one has challenged it) the differences become irrelevant.
The kind of frocks is irrelevant.
What the books say is irrevant.
Arguments about existence of a creator god become irrelevant.
Arguments about ‘avyakatha’ becomes entirely pointless.
The possiblity of Peace and Reconcilliation in SL becomes possible.
This is in response to your comment
“Mutt, do you say similarities rule out the differences?”
“When the *Christian* British ruled the island, no one had to go overseas to find work.”
It seems that Jesus (aka Singularity) never informed Prof Heshan how the Upcountry Tamils came to SL during the colonial period.
Perhaps Heshan can refute this argument by pointing us toward the prevalence of famine in India during the Christian colonial era. It would appear that Heshan supports Christian activities that led to the deaths of tens of millions and probably drove thousands more out of India into SL.
After all, if it wasn’t for Christian-induced famine, Heshan’s ancestor might not have gotten converted in exchange for a piece of bread. So all praise to Singularity!
BalangodaMan,
“But the religious establishment CAN and should teach common decency to the masses. (I have clarified later that I too agree the secularists cannot influence the religious masses)”
So you’re finally pulling a full 180 turn and admitting that secularists really have zero ability to improve things, compared to liberal religionists.
Now you only have to take the next step by acknowledging how you’ve actually have impeded reconciliation by provoking yapa and derailing the discussion. This thread proves that secularist arrogance only strengthens, not weakens Sinhala nationalism.
Heshan – While I have great respect for your knowledge, I have to express my reservations sometimes about the direction that you drive the arguments toward. Not that I agree with Yapa or anyone else entirely. You are asking, “If Sinhala Buddhism is so good, why do Buddhists go overseas to get treated so badly?”. My answer is, it has nothing to do with religion. A big chunk of prostitutes in middle-east are from Philliipines (and Kerala state in India), who are likely to be Christians. Most child slaves who are tied to camels there are from Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are predominantly Muslims. A huge population of Indian Hindus work are construction labours, road-workers, cleaners etc. So, in each of these cases, does religion have to do anything with what they do? Obviously not! I guess we should de-hyphanate religion of a group of people when deal with a certain issue. That is why I object to terms like “Sinhala Chauvinists” or “Tamil terrorists” in painting a certain set of people whom you condemn. I guess that doesn’t quite contribute to a discussion so much. Sorry if I am very offending in how I say.
Longus – Regarding your question on the dates of Upanishads (or more precisely when they were written), do you have links that talk with a sense of authority on the subject? It seems to me that nobody knows when exactly these were written. Even in the best case, there is often a debate/disagreement about that. Part of the problem is, these things have been propagated from teachers to their students (Gurus to Sishishyas) orally and not much of a written record is there. If you have one, please share.
And now back to “Peace and reconciliation in SL- Is there a way forward?”. The answer is yes.
Dear B.W/Man;
“This is in response to your comment
“Mutt, do you say similarities rule out the differences?””
Then give a similarly marvelous answer for the next part of the post, ie.
“Don’t forget to answer my queries.”
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
W/Man says
{Longus,
“University of Southampton Research by Mike Pettigrew” is not about rebirth or reincarnation. It is about ‘life continuing’ when someone is clinically dead. It is not about someone’s life reappearing in another body.}
It is not H2O, it is called water, longus. How do you say it is water?
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
This is the question that was asked of you.
“Why is it fairer by all citizens to have a non-secular government than it is to have a secular one?”
Your answer was: “Because it is a government that more of them would be able to identify with. Secularists never could figure out the obvious.”
The answer you’ve given is typical of a mobocracy and certainly not a democracy.
Instead of avoiding the question by either
1. Hiding behind the skirts of the mob and presenting yourself as a more “pragmatic” individual
2. Trying to brand people and dismiss them as secularists etc. (I guess you aren’t dumb enough to say decadent western conspirator, but it’s no different essentially)
3. Attempting to foist a guilt complex that the discussion is being derailed and thereby preventing the issue of Sri Lankan Buddhism being exposed (I assume that no one here is juvenile that they can’t continue a conversation independent of this issue. It’s not like we forcibly stopped anyone)
4. Taking refuge in offence to prevent further exposing the issue
please state your honest intellectual position and defence of why it is FAIRER by all to have a secular government than a non-secular one?
My “insipid, confrontational” approach, whether I’m a secularist or not, the nobility of your own delicate approach and your own superior abilities at self-reflection and subsequent humbleness is *orthogonal* to the issue. As much as I love seeing your performing an even more contorted tap dance than Yapa to skirt around the issue, I think you should realize (preferably using your superior self-reflectiveness) that you are not the only one who can be pugnacious and rude behind a computer screen
Wijayapala,
RE: “You haven’t done a wonderful job explaining how “secularists” like yourself can effect change among people who aren’t.
Calling me a secularist is the tactic you used. I’ve never campaigned for secularism in govt. I only stated that secularism is the *fair* thing to do by all. I’ve stated clearly that secularism by name is pointless.
What secularists can do, is to raise public conciousness. To make individuals like yourself realize that you are hiding behind a mob, saying “Oh! it’s not me who wants Buddhism in the constitution, it’s just that the rest of the public would be more comfortable that way. And what the majority wants is what goes in Sri Lanka, fairness by all be damned! I’m just being pragmatic!”
As long as people think this status quo of “what’s good for the majority is what’s good for all” mindset persists in Sri Lanka, we will never have peace and reconciliation or any kind of a fair government in Sri Lanka.
RE: “It is your behavior that makes me believe that loudmouths like you and BalangodaMan ultimately will only strengthen Sinhala racism, not weaken it through your insipid confrontational approach.”
Perhaps so, except that this forum seems to be populated by “elites”, “columbians”, “decadent western conspirators” and other forms of “unpragmatic riff-raff” who are unlikely (or too ashamed) to openly endorse Sinhala racism.
On the other hand, it is also quite possible that fanatical belief in Buddhism by individuals like yourself and Yapa are what prevents Sinhala people from ever realizing that Buddhism too is yet another religion and it is not its preservation that should define their existence as human beings, and therefore, it’s better to live with dignity and be fair by all.
Dear B.W/Man;
” I wish Mr Yapa would explain what ‘disproving’ such a statement would mean? That I don’t know? That I don’t care? That its not important to me? That we cannot know? Nobody?”
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
In addition to you, I would be happy if Heshan too will understand this fact soon.
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
We have the same objective, why not combine our efforts?
Re. “securist arrogance” and “180 turn”.
I never said secularists are any less arrogant than religious people. See how Richard Dawkins comes across for instance! And what about TGW (me)?!
The discussion is about ‘secularism’ and ‘religion driven/governed society’ – the ideological concept.
Clearly, you see racists as a barrier to Peace and Reconciliation as I do. The religious establishment have the power to influence the masses. You have the power to influence the religious establishment, in a way we (secularists) do not have. Would it be possible that you will spearhead a public campaign to urge the religious establishment to eliminate racism from the SL mindset?
This would focus on ‘clarifying’ aspects of religion that the masses believe are ‘differences that make us superior by operation of Cosmic Law’ (karma).
What do you say?
Mr Yapa,
The University of Southampton Research by Mike Pettigrew is to research ‘near-death experiences’, not rebirth as in Buddhism.
The Buddhist belief is a person been reborn in some ‘other’ body, at some ‘other’ time in the future.
Near-death experience research is not concerned with a person appearing in ‘another body’. And certainly not concerned with this happening over a period of time like weeks or years, or over some distance. Near-death experiences are found in people (the one body!) who were clinically dead for a few minutes, in the same room (!)
On the contrary, if anything, the near-death phenomenon tends to support the idea of something continuing in ‘consciousness’ after death. A ‘soul’ like concept that Buddhist thinking does not acknowledge.
(therefore, not sure what your point is)
Heshan,
I too (as Krish does) bow to your knowledge and your great contribution to the discussion. And also agree that comparing east and west is playing into the hands of people who seek to divert the difficult topics to a ‘east vs west’ conflict. IMO there are good people and bad people, good things and bad things throughout the world, throughout history. We even had Genghis Khan.
SL people going to the Middle East to work is the result of globalisation. I’m sure many poor staving people in Africa would love to move to SL right now.
re. your discussion with Mr Yapa on ‘Avyakatha’ – regardless of who first came up with the idea of ‘agnosticism’ the important point is the acknowledgement that some things are beyond our power to comprehend. I note that Mr Yapa has yet to agree that ‘Avyakatha’ clearly supports my belief that the Buddha was primarily an agnostic on an intellectual journey to discover ‘what is possible to discover as a human’ and possibly eager to push the limits, but confining his interest to human perception in the context of existing belief systems in India of his time (and not cosmology or race theory).
(I think it is those people since his time that have created a religion out of it – per the ‘raison d’etre’ of religion. As I said, it could have happened with any ancient philosopher Plato, Socrates et al)
Dear B.W/Man;
” To regard a section of our population to be ‘already condemned before birth by past sins’ (Mr Yapa and his like are convinced of this, and he is not alone) is not decent – it stands in the way of Peace and Reconciliation.”
Facts are senseless. They do not behave according to your (consumerist) wishes or needs. Even most unfavourable facts to you, have their own existence, against your detest.
World is like that. It is anicca, ducca and anatta. Suffering exists mainly because the world does not always work according to our wishes. The Buddha advised us (including you) to understand this reality. Understanding suffering helps us to get rid of it.
Don’t you like to have a suffering free life, my dear W/Man?
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
To you your opinion is ‘fact’. To us it is poppycock.
The point is, it is unhelpful in the quest for Peace and Reconciliation in SL. The Buddha would never have given us a recipe that would cause division among humans. In fact he was reputedly against such division. You have got it wrong. Or simply have not bothered to join the dots. Or cannot.
This is response to your “Even most unfavourable facts to you, have their own existence, against your detest.”
Dear PVR;
“As long as people think this status quo of “what’s good for the majority is what’s good for all” mindset persists in Sri Lanka, we will never have peace and reconciliation or any kind of a fair government in Sri Lanka.”
Is the appropriate mindset is “what’s good for the minority is what’s good for all?
……………..
“Buddhism too is yet another religion and it is not its preservation that should define their existence as human beings, and therefore, it’s better to live with dignity and be fair by all.”
Are you blind to what we have pointed out in the forum? Otherwise you could have refuted them. For example I can remember you were saying wrt to avyakatas that “Accepting what he did not know is not a merit for the Buddha”. Why didn’t you even touch this time the discussion on avyakata and, why do you issue “General Merchants’ Statements?
Do you have anything to say against my calling you are totally dishonest? PVR is the most suited name for you.
Try to be bit honest.
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
“As much as I love seeing your performing an even more contorted tap dance than Yapa to skirt around the issue, I think you should realize (preferably using your superior self-reflectiveness) that you are not the only one who can be pugnacious and rude behind a computer screen”
Please leave this innocent yapa alone.
Thanks!
BM,
“We have the same objective, why not combine our efforts?”
No we do not have the same objective. My objective is for Sinhalese and Tamils to learn more about each other to prevent politicians and others from exploiting their ignorance. Your objective is for SL to be “secular” whatever that means, which hardly will make any impact on ethnic relations.
In any case, you have amply demonstrated your soft spot for Christian fundamentalism (i.e. Heshan) which seriously tarnishes your “secular credentials.”
Dear B.W/Man;
“You have got it wrong. Or simply have not bothered to join the dots. Or cannot.”
I never want to join your ” Baby Brigade” that builds high risers on emotions rather than facts.
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
” re. your discussion with Mr Yapa on ‘Avyakatha’ – regardless of who first came up with the idea of ‘agnosticism’ the important point is the acknowledgement that some things are beyond our power to comprehend”
Thanks for accepting something against your belief for the first time. At the same time you must have realized what a waste you have done in writing in several forums asking material proofs for transcendental things like karma, rebirth and nirvana insulting them as KRN with your two accomplices, ” Non Scientific Scientist General, and the Plastic Film Maker called Sujewa Ekanayake. In the discussions we told you that there are many things that are not perceivable by the ” feeble gifts of god” bestowed to the man. You were in the rigid view that the “God” had given “his son” the everything he possessed including “omniscience” and anything not perceivable by ” you and your friends” is wrong and demanded the “whole pound of flesh” not less than a milligram from us with regard to the Buddhist doctrine. Eventually now you acknowledge that some things are beyond our power to comprehend”.
Now what are you going to do? To set an elephant to draw the shit you spread in those forums back? You must have heard the Sinhala saying “giya nuwana aethun lava wath addanna baerilu” ( By- gone wisdom cannot be drawn back even by the elephants)
See the harm your shortsighted materialist outlook has done to the viewers of this forum. At least are you going to apologize to the readers?
We have repeatedly told you there are many things beyond the perceivable domain of the man and gave you many living examples. Now you accept avyakatas belong to that set. Karma, rebirth and nirvana also cannot be directly perceived by average humans but can be deduced, inferred, implied, recognized, felt and realized through various methods. We offered some methods but you rigidly stuck on to your unyielding view that they be empirically proved. You put your all eggs in the tunnel vision basket of “Science”, really “Outdated Newtonian Science”. That “Scientist” who had never studied Science, was a great strength to you and you danced when your strings were pulled.
Really you must understand that there non perceivable things by human, and also there are thing that are perceivable by some men, but not by you. You will realize many more novel things in the future.
Until then please learn to cut your coat according to your size. Don’t poke your nose to everything you don’t know. All the people appear as friends are not necessarily friends. Especially that “scientist” made use you as a “Billy Boy”.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
What a joke!
Look up the meaning of ‘agnostic’! Agnosticism is a belief that there are things beyond our comprehension. You will see the subject line of the last thread you refer to has the word ‘Agnostic’ to identify the camp that I (along with others) argued for.
‘Avyakatha’ is an example of ‘agnosticism’ which you yourself describe as such.
Again, I do not see what your point is?
I am merely pointing our that, if you also agree that there are things beyond what we have the power to comprehend then you too are an ‘agnostic’. As the Buddha also believed so he is also an agnostic.
Welcome to agnosticism.
Wijayapala,
“Your objective is for SL to be “secular” whatever that means”
Your objective is the same as mine.
The aim that “the Sinhalese and Tamils should learn more about each other to prevent politicians and others from exploiting their ignorance” perfectly encapsulates the primary purpose of secularism.
All ‘securalism’ means is that people are not unduly influenced, coersed, manipulated by religious pressures.
On paper SL *is* a secular country because freedom of religion is guaranteed (eg. it is not a theocracy). However, in practice religion plays a big part in how ignorant people can be manipulated by unscrupulous people such a politicians, as you rightly point out.
We both want the same thing. And, as I said, you have a greater chance of success than I do, for reason I have stated. Being a follower, you have the credibility and so a greater chance of influencing the religious establishment.
I should clarify…
On paper SL *is* a secular country BY LAW because freedom of religion is guaranteed. However, in practice … etc.
Dear longus/Heshan & All;
Stephen Hawking talks about the origin of the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSUsXYcQ5qA&feature=related
Thanks!
Really this is the PART-1 ( I made a mistake in my last post)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd1tgLQg4ZU&feature=related
Thanks!
Dear B.W/Man;
“I am merely pointing our that, if you also agree that there are things beyond what we have the power to comprehend then you too are an ‘agnostic’. As the Buddha also believed so he is also an agnostic.”
(THIS MAN IS BORN AGAIN, ANYWAY BEWARE OF YOUR OLD FRIENDS PVR AND SE.)
Then why did you vehemently opposed karma, re-birth and nirvana, writing miles in the cyber space of this blog. Were you really mad?
Thanks!
“And, as I said, you have a greater chance of success than I do, for reason I have stated.”
And I’ll have the greatest chance of success if I do not associate myself with you (who have in turn made common cause with Christian fundamentalists like Heshan).
Mr Yapa,
To answer your question (see below), it’s very simple.
Agnosticism is acknowledging that ‘there is a boundary beyond which we cannot know’.
(as illustrated in ‘Avyakatha’)
Since 6 months ago, in the last thread we were arguing that karma, rebirth and nirvana are concepts that lie beyond that boundary. Any such theory, though interesting, can only be pure speculation.
If you want to convince an agnostic regarding things such as this you will need to provide proof that would satisfy them – the proof that satisfies *you* is insufficient, and anyway, irrelevant to them. (However, the reason why *you* believe it to be true would shed some light on why you are making the statement. This is useful to know when it fits a familiar pattern, thus further compelling agnostics and skeptics to disregard it)
The Buddha’s advice to the people of Kalama goes something similar. He advised that ‘you should not believe things just because it is in the religious books, or because the monks say so’ etc. His advice was (and this is important) that we should ‘study the evidence FOR OURSELVES and reject those things when we are not convinved about their benefit’.
In that previous thread we were saying that we are not convinced. We were also saying that no proof exists that would convince a non-believer. (you could not provide any. Note: that is ‘convince a non-believer’ not ‘convince someone who is already a believer’)
(To apply the advice in the Kalama Sutra – Does belief in karma and rebirth have a beneft? To many ‘yes’ perhaps, but I have written here about the tendency for some of us to promote a supremacy agenda based on various religious theories. Hence, to apply the Buddha’s good advice – religious theories are NOT beneficial IF you use it to regard minorities, the disabled, the poor and other disadvantaged people as lesser-humans than the rest of us – which is what the racists and bigots are doing)
Mr, Yapa I can see why you are confused. The three people who were consistently opposing your arguments had all three of these characteristics – agnostic, skeptic, and secularist. You already know that ‘avyakatha’ is an AGNOSTIC position. The advice described in the Kalama Sutra is advice for us to be generally SKEPTICAL about religious theories. And the Buddha reputedly sought equality in the feudal society of his time – something in today’s world is frustrated if unscrupulous politicians can use religion to hoodwink and manipulate the ignorant amongst us. So if he lived today he would be a SECULARIST also, as well as an agnostic and promoting skepticism.
Which is totally consistent with what we have been arguing for in the past 6 months!
(The above is in response to “Then why did you vehemently opposed karma, re-birth and nirvana, writing miles in the cyber space of this blog. Were you really mad?”)
Dear B.W/Man (Born Again);
“I should clarify…
On paper SL *is* a secular country BY LAW because freedom of religion is guaranteed. However, in practice … etc.”
Then you are not anymore in the campaign to separate religion from the state, especially, in the campaign to separate Buddhism from the state?
Are you betraying your friends? OR Are you enlightened listening to my “bana”?
May Triple Gems Bless you!
Dear B.W/Man (B.A.);
Now you can talk with Mr. Visvanathan Rudrakumaran, the “Prime Minister” about Peace and Reconciliation. He is in your country, USA no? We will see what the reaction of those earnest Tamils brothers.
As I said earlier the main problem facing the peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka is to “go hunting with dogs while running races with rabbits”.
I think our Tamil brothers will organize mighty campaigns against the “extremist elements” of their community which oppose the Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka.
You can head a delegation to meet the PM.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Buddhism mentioned in the constitution does no damage to SL. It is only when that mention is usurped to cause division in society that bad things happen. And you know exactly how that happens.
(in response to “separate Buddhism from the state?”)
Wijayapala,
I’m not asking that we have a joint press conference holding hands. The question was, will you lead a campaign to explain to the religious establishment that the mindset they (some of them) are propagating stands in the way of Peace and Reconciliation in SL? (which in turn enables the racists to dishonestly manipulate the masses)
Dear B.W/Man;
” The question was, will you lead a campaign to explain to the religious establishment that the mindset they (some of them) are propagating stands in the way of Peace and Reconciliation in SL? (which in turn enables the racists to dishonestly manipulate the masses)”
Can you define the term “racist” so that we can identify them when we walk on the road?
According to my understanding you are a racist. Do you agree with me?
By the way, will you answer that “ancient argument” that you are more enlightened than Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Thales, Lord Buddha etc. etc..who lived over 200years, back in the ancient time? Can you also please tell me how you achieved that noble state? I think you will not ignore my humble request this time.
Thanks
Very interesting…..how peoples’ minds can be so biased and blind to the truth. B.M, do you think that the ordinary folk in Sri Lanka who profess to be devout Buddhist know about “Kalama Sutra?”. To the villager and the average city dweller the Buddha is another “god” who can give grant their wishes; just like god Katharagama, St Anthony,Seenigama Deviyo or Martin Wickramasinghe’s “Hirigal Deviyo’ in Koggala. See the number of vows(panduru) tied to the Sri Maha Bodhi fence! The average Buddhist apart from few people of the calibre of late E.W.Adikaram is as intolerent of the criticism of Buddha and his super-human powers as a an average Christian of the criticism of Jesus’ powers or (any) Muslim of the criticism of Allah’s supreme powers.
If you can’t apply Kalama Sutra -one of His most intellectual discourses-to his own teachings, what is the big point in knowing it? If you exclude Buddha’s own doctrine to the test of Kalama Sutra, you are in fact betraying Buddha; you are nothing but a biased and a blind follower. I don’t see any difference between such a person and a fundamentalist Mullah in Iran!
Dear Longus,
RE: “If you can’t apply Kalama Sutra -one of His most intellectual discourses-to his own teachings, what is the big point in knowing it? If you exclude Buddha’s own doctrine to the test of Kalama Sutra, you are in fact betraying Buddha; you are nothing but a biased and a blind follower.”
Well said.
However, I have been informed in no uncertain terms by Wijayapala, that the Buddha didn’t really intend for the Kalama Sutta to be taken seriously. It was just a ploy used to convince the rather skeptical people of Kaalama, because at the end of the Kaalaama Sutta, none of the people remained skeptics, they all shaved their heads and became monks.
Now, the above is not my explanation. It is the implication of the explanation given by Wijayapala here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16995
He states that ” (a lot of “Buddhist critics” have problems understanding that Sutta). In that Sutta, the Buddha was NOT talking to followers of his system. He was advising normal people the best way to choose a belief system. For those who choose not to believe in an afterlife, the Buddha gave this advice. It was NOT something that he himself believed in.”
In other words, the Buddha didn’t really *intend* for the Kaalaama sutra be applied to Buddhism itself.
Frankly., I don’t know how to counter-argue that. If Wijayapala’s understanding of the mind of the Buddha is correct, then the words in the Kaalaama Sutra are quite hollow. Now, we must either assume that either
a. Wijayapala has understood the intent of the Buddha, and the Buddha was *not ok* with the Kaalaama sutta being applied to Buddhism itself (as in, it was a ploy to trick the skeptics)
b. The Buddha used those words and did mean it seriously and he was *ok* with it being applied to Buddhism itself.
If it’s case “a”, Buddhism degenerates into yet another blind belief system, entirely unworthy of any respect. Also, the whole deceit thing doesn’t go down very well with me.
If it’s case “b”, then, neither Wijayapala nor Yapa are proper Buddhists, since they do not appear to apply the concept to Buddhism itself.
What’s even more interesting, is that the study of the Buddha’s scripture, carried by word of mouth for at least 300 years, has given the “true Buddhist” the ability to grasp the mind of the Buddha (just as some Christians understand the mind of God after reading the bible) and know exactly and unambiguously what he meant, even after 2500 years. Amazing!
RE: “I don’t see any difference between such a person and a fundamentalist Mullah in Iran!”
I don’t see any difference either.
“The question was, will you lead a campaign to explain to the religious establishment that the mindset they (some of them) are propagating stands in the way of Peace and Reconciliation in SL?”
How do you know that I’m not doing this already, hence my opposition to how you’ve derailed the discussion here?
Ha ha Longus!
I shall assume it is rhetorical? Well said and well written and nicely summarises what some of us have been saying for months!
To any readers who may be confused. The piece is addressed to Mr Yapa who claims that his racist ‘supremacist’ agenda is consistent with Buddhist teachings. I hope he has now re-thought.
Sure, the average man on the street is unaware of some of the really useful stuff (agnostic, sceptical, secular) that the Buddha’s teachings imply. Hence my suggestion that the educated amongst us may want to consider urging the clergy to promote these teachings to the masses. Then we just might have taken the first steps in ensuring upholding the dignity of ALL Sri Lankans on a road to having real Peace and Reconciliation?
(I might even suggest that if the masses need a God to fix things for them they go seek some other religion ‘cos Buddhism ain’t got none. It’s got like Rent-A-God)
“If you can’t apply Kalama Sutra ….. you are nothing but a biased and a blind follower. I don’t see any difference between such a person and a fundamentalist Mullah in Iran!”
Agreed.
Mr Yapa, how would you respond to Longus?
SD,
I am familiar with a direct translation from the Kalama Sutra (the Pali itself is very brief). I can confirm that Wijayapala’s account is consistent with it.
The Kalama’s were asking how they should evaluate the sales pitch of some other religion salesmen. He was saying ‘study it carefully for yourselves and then come to your own unbiased rational conclusion that it is a load of bollox. Fly me!’.
However, many who quote from it seem to ignore the origin, or are more likely unaware of it. I quote it in the popular sense, but I don’t know which interpretation Mr Yapa subscribes to. Either is a problem.
(IMO the quote itself is useful in isolation, ignoring the reported context)
AGAIN UNCEASING LAMENTATION OF IGNORANTS!
Opinions of longus, Heshan and mine on Science cannot be compared to BWM’s and PVR’s. Opinions of wijayapala, longus and mine on Buddhism again cannot be compared to BWM’s and PVR’s.
There is a vast difference between knowledgeable opinions and ignorant opinions. Only expert opinions are accepted in a court of justice, because others’ have no much value. This is same for the queries too.
Those two people of three letters have been questioning, doubting, ridiculing, humiliating, insulting,mud slinging Buddhism for over one year. I saw Heshan and some times longus too questioning and doubting Buddhism. But it is different. They have acquired some knowledge before questioning some doctrines and they maintained some standard of their questions. It is very natural and reasonable for anybody to have doubts on anything. Really they should clear their doubt. However, doubts at the very basic level of anything should be asked in an appropriate place for them. Grade five students do not need to go to university professors to ask about “Sama Jathakya”. They can find a lot of story books to learn it. The questioning of the three letter people is no better than in one perspective and worse in another perspective. These old men (women?) asked the questions similar to the standard of grade five in this forum, exhibiting their ignorance about the subject. The other thing is their objective of asking questions. Really their objective was rotten, smelling.
Some people’s questions are ignorant, that is ok to a certain extent. When they are ignorant, rotten and ill willed?………….. God Bless them!
Thanks!
SD (PVR)/ B.W?Man and others;
With the PVR’s back reference of wijayapala’s article above, directed me to an answer I had provided relevant to the unethical problem of PVR, that is “whether the Buddha flew to Sri Lanka?”
They asking such questions again and again not for any other purpose but to ridicule and insult Buddhism. Please read.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17007
Thanks!
Dear longus;
If you exclude Buddha’s own doctrine to the test of Kalama Sutra, you are in fact betraying Buddha; you are nothing but a biased and a blind follower. I don’t see any difference between such a person and a fundamentalist Mullah in Iran!
An excellent argument.
These consumerists want the tasty parts of Buddhism, throwing away the parts they don’t like.
They want “katu Nethiva “Mush” !” (meat without bones).
Thanks!
“Also, the whole deceit thing doesn’t go down very well with me.”
Then why does SD have to make up s— to prove a point??? Read on:
“Frankly., I don’t know how to counter-argue that. If Wijayapala’s understanding of the mind of the Buddha is correct, then the words in the Kaalaama Sutra are quite hollow.”
Or more likely, it is SD’s understanding of the mind of Wije which is quite hollow, which neatly explains his inability to counter-argue his own strawman.
SD correctly cited me as saying that the Kalama Sutta was directed towards non-Buddhists, although he rather typically jumped to the conclusion that the Sutta was a ploy to get the Kalamas to become Buddhists simply by the record that they became Buddhists (unless SD can cite any part of the sermon itself that demonstrated an intention of deceit or manipulation, we will sadly have to conclude that SD once again has made a fool of himself).
“In other words, the Buddha didn’t really *intend* for the Kaalaama sutra be applied to Buddhism itself.”
Correction: the Buddha did not intend for Kalama Sutta to be applied to Buddhist faith- namely faith in the Triple Gem. As I stated in the Akon thread, faith by its very nature cannot be evaluated in terms of a reasoning process (like that laid out in Kalama Sutta) if its axioms are beyond empirical observation- like reincarnation.
“What’s even more interesting, is that the study of the Buddha’s scripture, carried by word of mouth for at least 300 years, has given the “true Buddhist” the ability to grasp the mind of the Buddha (just as some Christians understand the mind of God after reading the bible) and know exactly and unambiguously what he meant, even after 2500 years. Amazing!”
Personally I find SD’s imagination when it comes to non-secularist thinking to be more interesting and amazing. Such imagination is necessary for one who lacks any sort of substantial knowledge of a topic, whether it be ethnic reconciliation in SL or Buddhist doctrine.
SD’s strawman falls flat when history reveals that Buddhists after the passing of the Buddha did not always agree on what exactly he said, which explains the rise of various schools of thought over time. “Vibhajjavada” which later became Theravada was the only one of them to survive and thus it is impossible to evaluate it using the other schools as a reference. However, one of Theravada’s claims to authenticity was to provide a history from Buddha’s Paranibbana until King Asoka’s time. This historical tradition came to SL and became the basis of the Mahavamsa.
Now being familiar with SD’s aforementioned sense of imagination, I anticipate him joyfully foaming at the mouth with my “admission” that there are no “true Buddhists” who can read the mind of someone who had passed on 2500 years ago. To clarify his anticipated strawman, a Buddhist most certainly can apply a process of reasoning such as that found in Kalama Sutta to decipher the essence of the Buddha’s teachings. This process of interpretation most certainly will lend itself to debate between knowledgeable scholars (versus ignorant secularists) that can bring us closer to the truth.
Having said that, one does not need to be a genius to read the Suttas himself and pick out the consistent themes that the Buddha would repeat again and again. Someone with the stunted intellect of a secularist might have difficulties, though. As one can see in the Akon thread, for example, SD had problems comprehending that the Buddha’s ethical system would be rendered logically inert if reincarnation is removed from it.
Part of the problem, other than relying on strawmen, is that the secularists have a view of reality that is based on their own faith, only they refuse to acknowledge it properly as faith (as doing so would require them to admit their hypocrisy), and they get squeamish when they encounter a faith that more honestly acknowledges itself as such. Hopefully they will one day recognize their shortcomings and maybe even contribute something to the topic of Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka.
Dear BM,
“Sure, the average man on the street is unaware of some of the really useful stuff (agnostic, sceptical, secular) that the Buddha’s teachings imply.”
But don’t you think it would be so much better if emptyheaded secularists like yourself would become aware of what the Buddha’s teachings imply?
Dear BalangodaMan,
In that case, doesn’t case “a” become the truth?
The point I was getting at is this. I’m not doubting the context in which the Buddha said it. I knew that Wijayapala was honest and that what he said was right. The question I had was, did the Buddha not want the Kaalaama sutta to be applied to Buddhism itself?
The reason I ask is this. Now, back in the day, Buddhism might have been the only game in town. So the Buddha wanting people to follow his way is perfectly understandable. Why would the Buddha have taught his way if he didn’t believe in it? But to say that he didn’t really mean those words to be applied to Buddhism itself, changes the game altogether. It means that he himself was not in the slightest bit a humble man, skeptical of his own teachings and he never thought that he could be wrong in the slightest.
In a modern day context, the Kaalaama Sutta is probably the best piece of advice that can possibly be given to anyone. In fact, the real reason that I respected the Buddha was because I thought he was humble and willing to put his own understanding to the test and revise it if necessary. That’s why I was always quite lenient and flexible in interpreting his words. I assumed that he could be wrong, by his own admission!
What Wijayapala is implying, is that Buddhism was set in stone the moment it left the Buddha’s mouth. It is an unchanging and absolute system of knowledge, beyond criticism or revision. Not very different from the divinely inspired edicts of a tyrant. I can now understand why Yapa was going around claiming that Buddhism was a naked truth etc.
But if the Buddha *can’t* wrong, I have double the reasons to doubt his words, just as I’d doubt the words of any divinely inspired jackass claiming to be in communion with God. I don’t see any evidence for claims of “absolute knowledge”, especially not “absolute knowledge” *devoid* of proof and completely at odds with modern knowledge. This kind of infallibility, is the very definition of fundamentalism and insanity. And I thought the only person who was infallible, was the pope!
Mr Yapa,
I’m glad you brought this up while discussing rationality and scepticism.
“They asking such questions again and again not for any other purpose” etc.
Re. “Flying through the air”
The question is not about anything other than how *you* satisfied yourself that your interpretation (of the Buddha’s transmigration to SL) is sound according to *your* yardstick. In the Kalama Sutra (regardless of his aim) there is good advice on rationality and the need for a healthy dose of scepticism in these matters. Assuming you have followed the Buddha’s advice we are simply asking to learn what your reasoning was.
It’s not an unreasonable request considering you appear to be from a discipline that works with rational thinking all the time (eg. science, engineering, maths).
If on the other hand, if you consider (as SD suggests) in your opinion the Buddha specifically *not* wanting rationality/scepticism applied to his teachings, or his claim for credibility, then that would be a valid answer also (in which case, to you, it’s a matter of faith). Just asking if you would share your reasoning with us. That’s all.
SD,
Infallibility and omniscience go hand in hand, no?
Wijayapala,
Cleaning up politics
——————-
We may disagree on many things, but where we do agree is this – that unscrupulous politicians should not be able to exploit, manipulate, coerce the masses.
Religion is the one hook on which this has been done on a grand scale in SL – not poverty, not hunger, not the economy. In our history of the past 150 years four people stand out strongly in this regard. First Olcott and Blavatsky, then Don David Hewavitharana (later known as Anagarika Dharmapala), and SWRD Bandaranayke. All four saw the gap and were able to drive through their own agenda by exploiting religion.
What did they all have in common? There were all Christians, born and brought up! They saw the opportunity, adopted Buddhism. Their results show how easy it is to mobilise the masses using religion as a hook. They have left their legacy for us to sort out.
The point is, if you want the Sinhalese and Tamils to understand each other things like the writings of Anagarika Dharmapala must be confronted. This was a former-Christian putting down our fellow brothers (Tamils) in the name of Buddhism. SWRD did the same.
If it’s wrong to let Christians (or any other) to manipulate the Buddhist population for political gain why is it ok to let Buddhist politicians do that?
This is the question to ask.
Wijayapala,
“unless SD can cite any part of the sermon itself that demonstrated an intention of deceit or manipulation”
Firstly, in his sermon the Buddha does not make any reference to ‘faith-based’ aspects of Buddhism. However, it is most likely that the OTHER sages that the Kalamans were asking about had a significant element of faith-based concepts – because this is what people did in those days – they went from village to village selling things, snake oil, healing, quickfixes with a divine dimension, witch doctors ‘thovil’.
It is clear that the Kalamans were asking about the OTHER sages and their ‘wares’, not about Buddhism. However the Buddha was there to sell his doctrine. The Sutra describes the dialog that took place. The dialog describes the technique of obtaining a series of affirmative answers, in this case answers to items that the Buddha’s doctrine contains. Any decent sales training course will teach you this technique (there is a theory that if you get ’6 yeses in a row’ you have the sale guaranteed, which is why a door to door salesman will start with ‘do you live here’? The 7th question is where you close the sale ‘would you like to pick it up or have it delivered’?).
Whether the scenario described in the Kalama Sutra can be classsified as (1) ‘effective, masterful but ethical influencing’ or (2) ‘blatant manipulation’ is open to debate.
But the important things to take-away from this is, the Buddha was making a distinction between ‘faith-based/divine/healing’ type of ‘fix’ versus answers obtained from some rational scrutiny/scepticism/examination by ‘oneself’ (not relying on things transmitted through other people. eg books).
What is true is, people in their hoards WANT ‘faith-based fix’ type of thing. You yourself mentioned the Tripple Gem – a faith-based construct. Mr Yapa demonstrates his strong faith in matters that he now agrees are beyond the boundary of our capacity to understand. Longus mentioned it.
So, where does this leave us?
It seems to me, if he is asking the Kalamas to reject faith-based ideas then he is also asking US to reject faith-based ideas in Buddhism, whether such ideas existed in those days or were invented/borrowed since. (eg. flying through the air, karma, rebirth, nirvana)
But, as Longus highlighted, ordinary people in their masses want a ‘saviour’ who they can pin their emotional well-being on. So much so that they will invent one (eg. ‘the Buddha’, even though he does not exist today), or borrow some from neighbouring religions (like from the ancient Hindu traditions).
So I think the ‘dishonesty’ is where the religious salesmen of today (monks) sell to the flock something that does not exist in the religion that they are selling!!!
(PS: why don’t we have a system where people can state their ‘religious requirements’ and they can be pointed to the religion that has that? eg. if they feel that ‘society will be more orderly if governed by god’s law’ (even if it’s pretend – it will work) then they should become Muslim. If they want to pray to a personal god they should become Christian. If they choose to have no god they should become Buddhist etc. It’s a bit like choosing Windows 7 when what you really want is a plate of rice – so do we make Windows 7 edible? Or misrepresent Windows 7 as ‘a plate of rice’? …. or do we do the ETHICAL thing and tell them ‘if you need a god then you are looking in the wrong place, this is not the religion for you’ …)
Wijayapala and SD,
Re. “sermon” Part 2
—————–
Actually, for the sermon to be ‘balanced’/unbiased he should have also asked the Kalamas this question: ‘Will you be better served if there were things that you cannot prove for yourself, that no one can, but you feel better if you believed that they exist, whether they do or not? Like a God? In which case you should go with the other guys, not me’.
See transcript here to read the above in context.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
SD (PVR);
“What Wijayapala is implying, is that Buddhism was set in stone the moment it left the Buddha’s mouth. It is an unchanging and absolute system of knowledge, beyond criticism or revision. Not very different from the divinely inspired edicts of a tyrant. I can now understand why Yapa was going around claiming that Buddhism was a naked truth etc.”
What does this man know? He has no knowledge, and don’t want to learn, but issues General Merchants’ Statements. How do you know that Buddhism is not a perfect system of knowledge, if you know nothing about it?
If you say it is not a perfect system, burden is with you to support/ prove it. Please prove your statement. Just as I challenged Heshan I challenge you to show any flaw in any of the doctrines, not just rituals or hearsay. I offered you to discuss “Dhammapada” but you were blind and deaf to it. OK, now choose something at your election from Buddhist doctrine and show it is wrong. Then I will accept that it is not a perfect knowledge system as proposed by you. Don’t just issue ” I feel like statements”. How do you say that it is not a perfect system of knowledge? It is a challenge.
Thanks!
B.W?Man;
I demand you to answer my query about your boastful statement at least as a woman. Otherwise I will not be able to call you even a woman. I will compose another suitable name.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/#comment-23987
Thanks!
“Actually, for the sermon to be ‘balanced’/unbiased he should have also asked the Kalamas this question: ‘Will you be better served if there were things that you cannot prove for yourself, that no one can, but you feel better if you believed that they exist, whether they do or not? Like a God? In which case you should go with the other guys, not me’.”
Pooh! A super Buddha, to amend the sermons of the Buddha? See high mindedness of this fool. Does not know what kamma is and have not heard of Noble Eight Fold Path, still going to propose amendments to Buddhist doctrine. I have never heard of a fool of this caliber. Ahethu kalena kajjena gahena, puhulena bimena!
Thanks!
RE: October 5, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
This fellow has gone mad again! Otherwise who will talk such third class insulting words to a respected person. For people like this there is no difference between mother and prostitutes.
B.W?man;
I will never write to you again if you don’t learn to give due respect to respected things. You should not behave like a mad clown.
Krish
I think wikipedia is an authentic source although it may not be the Gospel Truth, as some believe!
Mr Yapa,
The answer you requested. You asked.
“Can you define the term ‘racist’ “?
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
“Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] Racism’s effects are called “racial discrimination.” In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.”
Mr Yapa, may I respectfully point out that you have refered to some of our SL brothers as ‘invaders’ purely on the basis of race (saying that they do not have rights for that reason). You have justified your belief on the doctrine that people are born according to their past sins, particularly revealing your belief in the superiority of being ‘born Buddhist’ – as granted by irrefutable cosmic law, no less. If you agree that this is a true account of the sentiments in your posts then according to the definition in Wikipedia (above) you qualify as a racist with distinction. Respectfully so.
However I am not sure why you ask. I thought you are quite *happy* to broadcast your belief in the superiority of your (and my) race. Anyway I have answered your question though you could have just looked it up.
Mr Yapa,
This is a discussion on an important sermon called the Kalama Sutra. The meaning of this sermon has a bearing on many issues discussed on this thread. This is a discussion on theology. It is a normal activity that some people like to engage in. Surely you have studied the issues raised by the Kalama Sutra yourself, or been in previous discussions about it at school , at uni? Can’t you contribute something valuable to it rather than saying that its discussion should be banned or something? (it is ironical because the Kalama Sutra is known as ‘the Buddha’s advice on free enquiry’). How can we ‘enquire freely’ if you won’t let us …er … enquire freely?
Do you have a view on the matters raised?
“Whether the scenario described in the Kalama Sutra can be classsified as (1) ‘effective, masterful but ethical influencing’ or (2) ‘blatant manipulation’ is open to debate.”
Not really.
“What is true is, people in their hoards WANT ‘faith-based fix’ type of thing. You yourself mentioned the Tripple Gem – a faith-based construct.”
Faith probably plays a greater role now, when the Buddha is no longer around, than when he was walking around because people could actually see the man for who he really was. The Buddha himself opened for challenge anyone to show that he was not the “enlightened one.” The Triple Gem- especially the last one- gained relevance largely after his passing. Try again.
Dear B.W?Man;
“Mr Yapa, may I respectfully point out that you have refered to some of our SL brothers as ‘invaders’ purely on the basis of race (saying that they do not have rights for that reason).”
Show me that specific place.
Dear B.W?Man;
“How can we ‘enquire freely’ if you won’t let us …er … enquire freely?”
Inquire freely? You have tons of eggs in your stomach (Bade biththara).
B.W/Man;
“You have justified your belief on the doctrine that people are born according to their past sins, particularly revealing your belief in the superiority of being ‘born Buddhist’ – as granted by irrefutable cosmic law, no less.”
When I say “Cat” you understand it as “Rat”. It is not my problem. However, can you disprove or have any evidence against “the cosmic law” of re-birth, that rebirth is taken place according to the past kamma? Do you have a better theory in this regard? Or is it again your typical “I feel like so” type ignorant random idea? You have not Change bit from your GOSSIPING WOMAN status.
“However I am not sure why you ask. I thought you are quite *happy* to broadcast your belief in the superiority of your (and my) race”
Don’t tell nonsensical lies woman. Show me a place where I displayed such an attitude unreasonably? I am not a mutt like you to say that elephants and ants are alike, how can you tell that difference between elephants and ants is a superiority complex? You have no capacity to understand complex issues.
Yapa
I take up the challenge of disproving something that the Buddha has preached in one of his Sutras. But, it’s in no way diminishing Buddha or his remarkable intellect which I think, He gathered after years of contemplative life. For example He has come up with a remarkably sensible theory of beginning of life on earth in Aggn^na Sutra. Though it’s a rough and a patchy account at least it gives the idea that life began in water and then moved onto earth.
That is not the Sutra I’m going to quote here. Once I remember SomewhatDisgusted came very close to my point, but due to perhaps “clowdy mind conditions” prevented him from taking that extra step. When SD mentioned in an earlier post that in “Maha Seehanaada Sutra” the Buddha didn’t mention about “cell division” eg. Bacterial, as one method of how beings are born he was almost there. But, of course we can’t mention things that haven’t been told as proof of disproving something, so I have to quote something that HAS BEEN TOLD and UNTRUE at the same time!
According to the Buddha there are four ways of birth:
1. Andaja (by coming out of an egg); As we know all reptiles, all birds and TWO mammals namely Duckbilled Plattypus and Spiny Echidna are born in this way.
2. Jalaabuja (by coming out of a womb); All mammals including the bats and whales are born like this
3.Opapaathika (Spontaneous); We don’t know of any such creatures born this way. They just materialize themselves in a flower as told in some Jathaka Stories. But, yet I’m NOT questioning that because “just because we don’t know we can’t say it’s wrong!”
4. Sansadaka (born in moisture in rotting food etc.); Until the 17th century people believed that worms are born in mud and the maggots are born in the rotting flesh. Not only that even the rats are born in dirty moist rags. Even now some 21st century folk, like my grand mother still believes the worms are born in rotting mangoes. This was proven untrue,as you know, by Louis Pasteur in the 17th century by his famous experiment and ever since that NOBODY has ever proven that new life originates spontaneously from rotting things. This is 100% and there will be no going back on this in the future, just like that there is no way that somebody would find that the earth is flat again someday in the future!
The Buddha says in Maha Seehanaada Sutra: “Vasettaya, when fruits like melons rot and flesh becomes putrid, due to the moisture, some life-forms originates there..” Here the Buddha is not talking about the chemical evolution in the early “carbonic soup” which would have taken 3billion years. He is specifically talking about how new creatures originate out of non-living things. I can’t find fault with the Buddha for taking the creatures born by eggs as being born by “moisture” taking into consideration the theory everyone believed at that time. By the way if He knew that there were no such creatures born “out of moisture” He would not have mentioned this category at all!
If the Buddha had an Omniscient knowledge there is no way that He could miss this point. If He gathered His knowledge by carefully observing and contemplating on the nature and life there is a very good chance of Him being misled into believing that there are “creatures born out of moisture”, as that would have been everybody’s observation.
Say, by the way that He knew it and yet did not want to confuse people by telling something unknown to them at that time ; that argument doesn’t hold water as He could have just kept without mentioning it. Have the people seen the category 3 (Opapathika) beings? Yet He mentions it! It looks like the Buddha really thought that there are “creatures born out of moisture” WHICH IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT INCORRECT!
Dear SD (PVR);
To prove your notion that Buddhism is not a perfect knowledge system, I challenged you to disprove any Buddhist doctrine chosen at your election. I am not sure whether you have not seen it or you are busy with some other work. However, longus has submitted some very good questions in response to my challenge leveled at you. I will try my best to answer them with my little understanding of Buddhism. I have no time now to answer them, because I am at home after some hectic hours of my hard labour for earning my living. Anyway, I would be happy if you too can make your queries early if available so that I can answer both of your questions together. I f you have no queries too please be kind enough to inform me. Now, 11.10pm.
Thanks!
Dear longus/Heshan/SD (PVR)/B.w?Man and All;
1. There were lengthy discussions about religions in this blog through many threads.
2. SD(PVR) and B.W?Man along with Sujewa Ekanayake tried to say Buddism is just a faith like any other religion and has no significance in this era of science. They maintained that an ancient man lived over 2500 years cannot have knowledge like the people in the modern era and has no any value especially in the epistemological plane. They tied to ridicule Buddhism though their knowledge of Buddhism is very poor. They called themselves “Agnostics”. They just challenge Buddhism with some superficial arguments, but when challenged to disprove the doctrines of Buddhism, they always shifted their topics and never took up the challenge.
3. Heshan maintained that Buddhism is a philosophy that cannot be understood by average people and on the basis of simplicity for believers it is a more practicable religion. He continuously tried to maintain the existence of a creator god, but he could not establish it due many arguments came up against it and also it was properly disproved using Averroes argument and Epicurus’s argument. He tried to challenge and tried to disprove some doctrines of Buddhism.
4. From the very beginning Off the Cuff and myself with the help of some other people maintained that Buddhism has definite distinctions from other religions and offered many examples and arguments. By disproving Creator god based religions which is the faith of about 75% of the world population we showed that the core of those religions are based completely on faith and epistemologically almost have no value. Further, we show that many of their knowledge systems are contradictory to the present knowledge system and logically inconsistent and those religions create contradictions and fallacies within and among them. We further offered to see the number of God and Bible fallacies and contradictions for found in the internet. We further showed that nothing in the Buddhism is disproved so far; no fallacies found no contradictions and offered to disprove any doctrine in Buddhism. Only Heshan took the challenge and he tried to say and later prove that Avyakatas were not an indication of intellectual excellence of the Buddha. SD insulted it and didn’t offer any argument when challenge. Heshan tried his very best to break up the intellectual distinction of Buddha using “his intellectual competencies”, but I think he is absent from the forum for the first time for a very long time, without showing his mastery of arguments. B.W?Man never offered any arguments except trying to counter arguments with his air of humiliation and insults. Except for Heshan, none took any challenge posed by us to discuss any doctrine in detail or to disprove them.
5. Later longus joined the discussion and made some very good contributions in this effect. Though he took the side of Buddhism, some times he leveled a very big challenge by posing very fine questions. A very different quality I observed from was he was always ready to accept the correct answers, when offered to his questions. He helped to take the discussion of Buddhism to a deeper level.He helped to show that Buddhism has the potential to be a theory of status of the modern science or more, covering a wider scope and different knowledge gaining systems still alien even to modern science. We showed that the “Four Valued Logic” very recently introduced to Western Science was used amply in Buddhist doctrine to explain many concepts. We also showed that the transcendental domain of Buddhism is out of subject of Science, especially Newtonian science. Further we showed that the similarities of the conclusions of Buddhism and Modern Science in many spheres and that such similarities are growing fast. Further, Buddha was the only person who gave definite answers for the very fundamental questions of human mind has been occupied for a very long time, the questions named as Avyakatas by the Buddha. No any philosopher or scientists was ever be able to give a single define definite answer to any of them. They are still uncertain about all of them. Further, none was so far able to say that Buddha’s answers were not the best fitted answers for them. Further, I declared that Paticca Samuppada taken together with Pancha Niyama Dharma resembles the theory of everything Scientists are eagerly looking for to discover. Only longus brought some queries against them, but when I explained he agreed to what I said. Really, Buddhist cosmology, theory of evolution is much better in every aspect than the modern notions of them of Science. The attention of modern scientists should be drawn to them. Further, as a moral system and also as a sustainable vision for the future world, I don’t think any body has discovered anything to offer to the world comparable to the Buddhism.
OK! I will try to discuss the questions posed by longus very soon. I hope all will help to fill the gaps of my knowledge in Buddhism, as I am only an ant in the ocean of the Buddhist doctrine.
Thanks!
Correction………
“Heshan maintained that Buddhism is a philosophy that cannot be understood by average people and on the basis of simplicity for believers it is a more practicable ”
Should be corrected as
Heshan maintained that Buddhism is a philosophy that cannot be understood by average people and on the basis of simplicity for believers Christianity is a more practicable.
Thanks!
SORRy! SORRY!!
I completely forgot to write about wijayapala’s contribution to the discussion. I must personally apologize to him for my grave mistake done in my typing in haste.
He has been a very close companion of ours from the very inception who rendered an immense service in the discussion. Some people even turned their angry eyes towards him when they could not digest his arguments. I must say he has done a marvelous contribution and he deserves a separate paragraph written solely for him by me. Sorry again wijayapala about my mighty mistake.
Thanks!
I think Heshan is EMPLOYED now………….!
An addition to my post of October 7, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
I for got to mention some of the arguments put forward by PVR, B.W?Man and SE against Buddhism.
1. They argued that if Buddhism has better features than other religions it would be harmful to the sentiments of the other people. Therefore Buddism cannot be any better religion than any other religion. This is an argument mainly and continuously put forward by B.W?Man and SD (PVR).
2. According to B.W.M and PVR (SD), Buddhism should adjust to the provide the present wants of the people. The doctrines that are not accordance with the present wants of the people should be thrown away and what can be used in the present context should be “utilized”.
3. They argued, it is only the components that can be proved in terms of “Science” should be accepted and hence Buddhism should be rejected as Buddhism totally cannot be proved in terms of Science. Their bench mark for everything was outdated Newtonian Science, though PVR has never learnt Science in his whole life. For them this outdated Newtonian Science was the bench mark for anything.
4. Both PVR and BWM held the view that they did not want any knowledge of Buddhism to discuss, analyze, criticize or to give general conclusions and recommendations on Buddhism. They vehemently rejected our suggestion to have some awareness before and during the time of the discussion to improve the stranded of the discussion. Their lack of knowledge led them to keep asking very basic and naive questions about Buddhism and they had to choose humiliation and insults to Buddhism as a mode to counter arguments. They asked ” Buddha flew to Sri Lanka, and show us Irdi prathiharya if Buddhism is correct” level question. They insulted Buddhism at every opportunity they had.
5. They argued that religions in the western countries were separated from the state and therefore in Sri Lanka too religion should be separated from the state disregarding the nature of the religion or the service it has rendered to build the civilization or disregarding the present contribution it is rendering to the masses and the closeness of it to the lives of the people of this country. They wanted this country to be religion free and a secularist. They were not able to see the principles of religions embedded in to the laws of the western countries though the clergy is somewhat distance from the politics. Really we showed them that the whole civilization including Politics, Law, Science and technology was originated from Greece, highly molded by the theology based on “Creator God. That the western civilization is nothing but a product of Greek-Judeo Christian-Muslim tradition. The knowledge/value system produced so is not tolerant of the knowledge/value systems based on any other philosophy. The blind believers of the former knowledge/value system which was taught to them by their masters but have no free inquiry to think unbiased barks at their own mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. For them everything is a commodity consume. As I have said several times these people are not even parrots repeating what was taught to by their western masters, but only tape recorders played when their western masters push their buttons. However, it seems making them similar to an inactive non living item is wrong. They are doing a massive harm and damage to the whole world, talking big with ignorance.
Thanks!
Religion is important to most people in SL. Our history has shown it is a strong factor in mobilising the masses into a particular way of thinking. Therefore, religion can (and has) become a dangerous tool in the hands of dangerous people.
A stable society needs to have checks and balances. It is the duty of every citizen to provide this if intellectually able to do so.
Furthermore, the topic of this thread is ‘Peace and Reconciliation in SL following the 25 year ethnic conflict’. Religion has played a significant role both in the origins of the conflict itself and its aftermath. Therefore analysis of the part played by it is entirely valid.
Lastly, in any debate, where specific items are put forward as true, consistent, logical, rational, supportable, valid, unchallengable, observable, irrefutable, unique, gospel, and absolute there will (and should) be a party that would challenge them. Otherwise there will be no debate.
The arguments put forward by SD (‘PVR’) and this writer is a challenge to ALL religious theories and not to promote any one religion over another. Secularism is to highlight the dangers of ANY religion when it can be a tool in the hands of bad and dangerous people.
Mechanics of a Religion
————————
It is not necessary to undertand the workings of a cell phone to know its utility. Nor it is necessary to understand the workings of a nuclear bomb to know that it can kill thousands of people. Simlilarly it is not necesary to know the content of religious scriptures in any great detail to understand how it works in society, good and bad, as noted above.
Absurdities
—————
Anything taken out of context has the potential to be absurd. Religion is no exception. Whereas in the context of ancient times many things may be true or relevant, they can show absurd outcomes when applied in the context of today and tomorrow, taking into account the level of scrutiny we expect today, taking into account knowledge mankind has gained in the millennia since, taking account of billions of thinking people who have lived since and pondered over such things.
Mr Yapa, you have specifically challenged this debate to ‘disprove’, ‘find inconsistencies in’, even ‘find fault with’ religious theories. It is therefore quite wrong to describe the responses as ‘insults’ and ‘humiliation’ if you do not like the answers. Your challenge itself is an invitation to generate arguments that would sit uneasily with a person of strong religious faith such as yourself.
Does your recap mean that you will not now be respoding to (eg) Longus’s analysis of the four origins of life, or ‘how do you reconcile some of your pronouncements in relation to the Kalama Sutra’, or indeed theories (by implication) of inherent superiority of some human races over others ‘as decreed by cosmic law’?
Dear B.W?Man;
Does your recap mean that you will not now be respoding to (eg) Longus’s analysis of the four origins of life, or ‘how do you reconcile some of your pronouncements in relation to the Kalama Sutra’, or indeed theories (by implication) of inherent superiority of some human races over others ‘as decreed by cosmic law’?
Wait a bit and see, have I ever given empty promises in the past.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
“Does your recap mean that you will not now be respoding to (eg) Longus’s analysis of the four origins of life, or ‘how do you reconcile some of your pronouncements in relation to the Kalama Sutra’, or indeed theories (by implication) of inherent superiority of some human races over others ‘as decreed by cosmic law’?”
Wait a bit and see, have I ever given empty promises in the past.
Thanks!
Last post of my summary of the discussion………
Another argument leveled at Buddhism by PVR with ignorance was that it fall into a pre-determinism on its acceptance of karma as a determinant of life. However, his lack of knowledge did not permit him to think that there are four more determinant that have control over life.
Really, the debate was not spanned around religion alone, it had many relationships to many major issues and concepts of the country and the world even in intellectual sphere.
B.W?Man and PVR tried to argue that there is no any difference between individual human and groups of humans in whatever the context and they are equal by birth, which again is a pre-determinism, to which they opposed “if it was a Buddhist pre-determinism”. On the basis of this notion they tried to iron out all the differences among the nations, ethnicities and races and wanted all individuals to be treated equally, disregarding their good and bad acts. If this is the case criminals cannot be treated differently, and that may be the reason why they supported/ or felt like supporting the immediate release of LTTE terrorist suspects in captivity.
On the basis of notions they submitted, the history of this country is irrelevant and therefore their notion justified and helped ” Mahavamsa Bashing” to undermine the rights of the majority, promoting the undue aspirations of the minorities creating an ideological/physical conflict among the ethnicities of this country. The ideological division and hatred so created against the majority of this country went so far that Heshan went as far as to say that the invasion that destroyed thousands of lives of the people of this country and brought a massive distortion and harm to the social institutions and all other aspects of this country, as a “fortune” sent by the British God. This notion went as far as to divide this country to two pieces giving 1/3rd of the land and 2/3rd of the sea belt to the 12% of the minority population.
We did not believe in accepting rights by subjugating somebody else’s rights. We always recognized the true differences and believed in ” Unity in Diversity”. We never believed and will never believe in only homogeneity, rejecting heterogeneity. We believe both these aspects exists together disregarding their opposition to each other, as per the principle of “Four Valued Logic”, which cannot be understood by the believers of ” Two Valued Logic” or the middle excluded Aristotelian Logic. Really the western thinking is based on the Two Valued Logic and the Bible. That outlook, that is, Greek-Judeo-Christian-(Muslim) out look was the main guideline of the present system of the world. It is a model of development based only on humans and not respecting anything else. It does not accept the rights of any of the billions of the species of beings living on earth. That is the reason why millions of cows, pigs,goats and chickens go into the guillotine “willingly” for alms giving of their flesh to “customer satisfaction”. For these cows and pigs “Customer is the King”.
On this shallow and greedy world view, thousands of species of animals and plants go missing on the daily basis. World is becoming warmer. Ice caps are melting. Ozone layer is depleting. Oceans, rivers, jungles and our door step are becoming heaps of refuse. We are depositing our refuse in the ocean beds and also in the outer space. Can the man survived for millions of years to survive for another 200 years with this “marvelous mode of development” guided by the greedy “Man is the God’s Son” principle of the west?
I firmly believe that human kind is urgently in need of a more sustainable world view, philosophy to guide its activities. It should be a more tolerant one towards humans, other beings, plants, rocks, rivers and mountain and the whole environment, that is the universe. We should preserve them for the future generations ours too. In this regard Buddhism, its Middle Path, seems to be a potential future world view, despite its origination in the far history. One can see “Seattle’s statement” to their white masters to understand whether “old age” is a reason of disqualification. For those who don’t understand deeper language, they must think about the saying that “Cheese is better when it is old”.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
Sorry that I took some unusually long time to answer your question in your last post. That was because I wanted to pass the message of the final outcome of the whole lot of challenges/arguments leveled against Buddhism by various interested parties. It was the final outcome because almost all the parties and individuals that have been engaged in a verbal/ written fighting for over one year with more than 5000 posts in this forum, I suppose came to an end silencing all the critics. It is a fact that all the valiant heroes fell in the battle field with their mighty arms are scattered in the battle field. Buddhism has shown the “Irdi Prathiharya” again to them on their request. As Heshan once said “truth is a killer”. Dhamma has broken all the arguments brought against it.
None is above Dhamma and all are entitled to be benefited from it. It is “Rule of Dhamma” (Rule of Law). He who lives by Dhamma is protected by Dhamma.
Now longus, you have taken up the challenge posed to SD (PVR), that to show any flaws/disprove any doctrines in Buddhism and you have posed a very specific question. I must really admit that my knowledge of Buddhism is very minute any even my inability to answer a question in Buddhism does not necessarily tantamount to an error/flaw of Buddhism. However, I will try my best to answer the seemingly “grey area” according to my little knowledge of Buddhism.
You have correctly quoted that there are four ways of birth according to Buddhism, andaja, jalabuja, opapaathika and sansadaka (sansedaja). As you have clearly pointed out first two of them are very obvious to anybody. Third and forth are seemingly not clear as the first two.
With regard to Opapaathika or spontaneous birth, it is obvious that anybody would have a “empirical doubt” as this mode of birth is not very common among the beings we come across on the daily basis.
According to Buddhism, in addition to the observable realms of humans and animals life there are different realms of life we are not familiar with. The realms of Deva, Brahma, Pisacha and the beings suffering in the hell are not in the domain of our communication. These realms may be equivalent to the Cosmological concept of “Parallel Universe” or “Multiverse” in Modern Science. The births of the beings of these realms are taken place spontaneously according to Buddhism. They have no childhood, born spontaneously as adults. By the way, have you ever heard about the parents of Devas, Brhahmas, Pisachas or beings suffering in the hell? According to Buddhism this method of birth is known as “opapaathika”.
Again you have raised the question about the births taken place by cell divisions, citing the example of bacteria. According to Biology bacteria represents a broad of living things, however, they are not sure whether they are flora or fauna, but scientists categorize them in a separate category as neither flora nor fauna. According to Buddhism, “Sathva” or beings are the entities comprised of a consciousness. I have no sufficient knowledge to ascertain whether a bacteria has a consciousness or not to say whether bacteria is a being or not according to the Buddhist classification of things in the universe.
However, there are single celled “sathvas” like “amoeba” that grows in millions by the mode of cell divisions. If you put a drop of stagnated water under a microscope and see, you will be able to see many types of quickly moving “micro beings” under your very nose. Haven’t you heard that the growth of microbes increase with the humidity of the atmosphere. These micro life include “micro beings” too in addition to the billions of types of bacteria, fungus, viruses etc. etc. Now don’t you feel like that micro organisms’ growth is taken place with some relationship with water or at least with some moisture? Have you ever heard of the growth of any micro organism, without the presence of moisture? This shows that the growth of micro organisms takes place in moisture. When a cell of micro organism floated in the air or water is deposited on a melon or exposed flesh, do you think it is wrong for Buddha to say “: “Vasettaya, when fruits like melons rot and flesh becomes putrid, due to the moisture, some life-forms originates there..”?
Really births of “micro beings” take place by cell divisions and some life-forms originate in moisture. The Buddha called this method “ Sansedaja”, do you have any doubt now? Do you still think “if He knew that there were no such creatures born “out of moisture” He would not have mentioned this category at all!” is still valid? Do you still think “ Buddha really thought that there are “creatures born out of moisture” WHICH IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT INCORRECT!” still hold?
(However, I also must tell you that the Buddha has never preached that worms are born in mud and the maggots are born in the rotting flesh or rats are born in dirty moist rags or the worms are born in rotting mangoes. This “ancient man” lived 2500 years ago had the wisdom not to think the way the future ignorants of the modern era think.)
Dear longus; Really the Buddha had an Omniscient knowledge. There is no any doubt about it, and do not have any doubt in the future. He is Buddha and if anything he has preached is found to be incorrect the whole Buddhism becomes invalid. If one doctrine is disproved the destiny of Buddhism will not be different from what happened to Creator God based religions once the Creator God was disproved. Do you now see the reason for my arrogance it the discussion?
Through my experience, I have never come across any incompetence or shortcoming so far in any doctrine of Buddhism. You know about the “Mathematical Induction” which says if a formula is correct for one (1), and if we take it is true for “n” and then if we can prove that it is true for “(n+1)”, then the formula is true for any number? That is the principle I have been using with regard to Buddhism. I have read one doctrine in Buddhism, and have not found flaws in it. Read ten and found no faults, have now red hundreds and still I have not found any fault. So I am now mathematically confident that Buddhism cannot have flaws and the Buddha is omniscient. With this anybody must understand my firm belief on Buddhism is not based on just faith as many used to accuse me, but it is based on ” Akararawathi Sradda” that is “belief based on knowledge”.
You know longus, the first step of “Noble Eight Fold Path” is “Samma Ditti”, the correct view, and without having that first step one cannot proceed in that path to achieve its ultimate goal of realizing truth. Correct view is that to know the “Four Nobel Truths” and the “Paticca Samuppada”, to know how things really happen in nature. You must have this clear, true and unshaken vision to grow your wisdom in your journey in the path and to realize the ultimate truth. A shaken mind cannot achieve this end.
The Buddha has preached that there are “Neevaranas” that obstruct a person and shake his mind perusing in this path, in the middle of the path. You must have heard of these, Saccaya Ditti, Vichikicca and Sellabbath paramatha. Vichikicca is the uncertainty, doubt or suspicion about the doctrine of the Buddha. Do you think I am wrong if I tend to think that you are faced with “Vichikicca” in your path way of seeking thruth?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
Thank you for your response. Actually the person to whom this Sutra was dilivered was not Vasettya, but Saaripuutta, one of Buddha’s chief desciples.
Mahaseehanaada Sutra comes in the Majjima Nikaaya (the medium length dicourses) and if you go to the following link you would be able to read the Sinhala translation:
http://www.buddhadhammasangha.com/Ranjith/Files/MN_12_Maha%20Sihanada.pdf
Now go to the verse 26, and it says(translation,mine): “Saariputtaya,I know how the beings are born and there are four such ways………..,What is Sansedaka? If a creature is born in putrid meat or putrifying bodies,stale food, garbage dumps, in places where the cattle(buffalos) wallow or in places where unclean water flows those creatures are born out of moisture and therefore called Sansedaka”
If you analyse this carefully, you would probably see that what the Buddha is describing here is not unseen bacteria, viruses, prion particles or amoeba as those were not known by the people at that time. Even if the Buddha meant “micro-organisms” by this,( as you say) to say that “micro-organisms are born out of moisture” is a wrong statement as well. The multiplication of bacteria or amoeba is helped by moisture but to say they are born out of moisture is a falty argument. In that case the eggs too have water in them and sustains the growing embryo inside, and you can say “the moisture gave birth to the growing embryo”. In the same way you can say as water plays a major role in the gestational sack in the womb, that water is the cause of that life (the growing embryo in the womb!)
Now do you understand just because water helps the amoeba to come out of its spore, you can’t categorize amoeba as being “born out of moisture”?
Apart from all what I said here if the Buddha was referring to the bigger creatures like the maggots and the worms here – as there is no reason for him torefer to “unknown creatures” at that time- they are born by eggs of adult creatures and not by the “moisture” and therefore, it still becomes incorrect only!
Dear longus;
Thanks for the post. Now I feel I should have extended my explanation a little bit more. Anyway I will take this opportunity to rectify that mistake of mine.
I think your doubt about Opapaathika was cleared. Really there is no even a shade of dispute about Sansedaja too. If you had given a bit more logical thought to your writing, before posting it, I think you wouldn’t have disputed it. You yourself would have understood it clearly.
However, I think in haste you have made some small mistakes in your arguments, I will show them to you first as an example as to what happens when you are slightly moved away from “yoniso manasikaraya” (contemplation), to show the importance of meditation.
Now see you have said ” Apart from all what I said here if the Buddha was referring to the bigger creatures like the maggots and the worms here (– as there is no reason for him to refer to “unknown creatures” at that time- )they are born by eggs of adult creatures and not by the “moisture” and therefore, it still becomes incorrect only!”
@ brackets are mine
Now if maggots and worms you mentioned above are born by eggs, the Buddha has reserved a separate “slot” for such creatures that is “ANDAJA”. Therefore you cannot say that what the Buddha meant by “SANSEDAJA” were maggots and worms.
Furthermore, you have said that “eggs and gestational sack in the womb” have water, surrounding embryo, and hence such births also could be considered as SANSEDAJA. In this case too the Buddha has clearly put them clearly into the birth modes of “ANDAJA” and “JALABUJA” and hence you have no chance to categorize them under SANSEDAJA.
I will show you the “logical fallacy” which brought you to the above wrong conclusions.
It is true that WATER is a “NECESSARY CONDITION” for all three modes of above births (ie. andaja, jalabuja and sansedaja), but WATER is not a “SUFFICIENT CONDITION” for the MODE OF SANSEDAJA.
That water has to be dirty, foul, contaminated and polluted to be qualified for a sansedaja birth. On the other hand such water is a disqualification for andaja and jalabuja births.
I think you were not clear about the difference between “Necessary and Sufficient conditions” in the instance you were composing your arguments.
Further, can you kindly, explain me if cell division mode of birth cannot be classified under andaja, jalabuja and opapaathika modes, where can you classify that particular mode of birth except in the only remaining option, that is Sansedaja?
Above all, all of your counter arguments were based on your misconception that “Buddha had no knowledge of the micro organisms and micro beings”.
You have made a mighty mistake, dear longus. He is Buddha, He is omniscient, and He does not make mistakes!
Please read the 35th stanza of the Sinhala Seehanada Sutta in the link given by you in your post. I will write the relevant portion of it using English letters. Here the Buddha mentions about the creatures living in a drop of water.
“Sariputhraya, maage papayata pilikul bawa mese wei. Sariputrhaya, e mama sihi ethiwama idiriyata yami.Sihi ethiwa perala emi. Mama nusudusu thaenakata paemineemen kuda praneen vinashayata path nokarannemiy kiya diya binduwak kerehida maage dayawa paethira sitiya wei. Meya maage papayehi pilkul bawa wei.”
Again here is the 47 th stanza of the English translation of Mah Seehanada Sutta by Ñanamoli Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi
“Such was my scrupulousness, Sariputta, that I was always mindful in stepping forwards and stepping backwards. I was full of pity even for (the beings in) a drop of water thus: ‘Let me not hurt the tiny creatures in the crevices of the ground.’ Such was my scrupulousness.”
Here is the link,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html
Will anybody believe that “the Buddha was referring to the bigger creatures like the maggots and the worms here.” as you said in your post?
Further, in the Karaneeya Meththa Sutta, the Buddha advises Bhikkus to spread loving kindness to all the beings in the world (universe), explicitly describing the nature of the creatures of the world. Here the Buddha talks about unseen (not visible) creatures. Please read.
Ye kechi pana bhuthaththi,
(Whatsoever living beings that exist)
Tasa va thavara va anava sesa
(Weak, or strong, without exception)
Digha va ye mahanta va
(Long, stout or medium)
Majjhima rassa kanukathla
(Short, small or large)
Dittha va yēva addittha
{Those seen (vsible) or unseen (not visible)}
Yecha dure vassanti avidure
(And those dwelling far or near)
Bhuta va sambhavesi va
(Those who are born and those who are to be born)
Sabbe-satta bhavantu suki-tatta
(May all beings, without exception, be happy minded)
Please note “Those seen (vsible) orunseen (not visible)”
Not only about not visible creatures, he advises Bhikkhus to radiate meththa (loving kindness) even to (creatures) “those who are to be born”.
Dear longus, do you still say that,
1. If you analyse this carefully, you would probably see that what the Buddha is describing here is not unseen bacteria, viruses, prion particles or amoeba as those were not known by the people at that time
2. Even if the Buddha meant “micro-organisms” by this,( as you say) to say that “micro-organisms are born out of moisture” is a wrong statement as well. The multiplication of bacteria or amoeba is helped by moisture but to say they are born out of moisture is a falty argument.
3. Apart from all what I said here if the Buddha was referring to the bigger creatures like the maggots and the worms here – as there is no reason for him torefer to “unknown creatures” at that time- they are born by eggs of adult creatures and not by the “moisture” and therefore, it still becomes incorrect only!
4. Now do you understand just because water helps the amoeba to come out of its spore, you can’t categorize amoeba as being “born out of moisture”?
I am looking forward for you feed back please.
Thanks!
P.S.:-
Your statement “The multiplication of bacteria or amoeba is helped by moisture but to say they are born out of moisture is a falty argument.”
To clarify what was meant by “born out of moisture”, please read the Sinhals version too. It says, “Theth thaen wala hataganna sathwa wargaya”, I don’t know how it is mentioned in the Pali canon.
Thanks!
Dear B.W? Man;
You showed some interest about my answer to longus’ questions. Will you too give your feedback on my answer(s) please?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
It is enlightening to read your response -like the answer to the King Miaander’s question by Ven Nagasena -, but it’s rather difficult to grasp the following logic:
“It is true that WATER is a “NECESSARY CONDITION” for all three modes of above births (ie. andaja, jalabuja and sansedaja), but WATER is not a “SUFFICIENT CONDITION” for the MODE OF SANSEDAJA.
That water has to be dirty, foul, contaminated and polluted to be qualified for a sansedaja birth. On the other hand such water is a disqualification for andaja and jalabuja births.
I think you were not clear about the difference between “Necessary and Sufficient conditions” in the instance you were composing your arguments.”
The uni-cellular organisms live and multiply in all environments ranging from dirty stagnant sewers to crystal clear water in mountain springs. They even live in the deep sea. Contaminated water is not at all a sufficient or a necessary condition for their proliferation. In that case didn’t the Buddha mean the free living uni-cellular flagellted or ciliated organisms? Why did He mention about contaminated water and stale food at all if He knew that uni-cellular micro-organisms make the bulk of aquatic life? Even bigger creatures likethe sponges who live in the sea and look more like plants reproduce by budding.
Then you say:
“Further, can you kindly, explain me if cell division mode of birth cannot be classified under andaja, jalabuja and opapaathika modes, where can you classify that particular mode of birth except in the only remaining option, that is Sansedaja?”
That is if you believe that the Buddha was correct in His classification! Where could He have classified them? The Buddha’s classification may be correct for YOU, but not correct for ME! Maybe He could have classified these creatures as “the creatures who are born by DIVISION!”, or “BUDDING”!. Not as “creatures born out of moisture!”
I too appreciate what the Buddha says in the above quoted stanza 47. I have in fact read that MahaVeera, the founder of Jainism had adopted a similar extreme form of compassion as far as the micro-organisms are concerned. In that case even Maha Veera seems to have known about the existence of “micro-organisms”.
SELF RELIANCE
By ourselves is Evil done,
By ourselves We pain endure,
By ourselves We cease from wrong,
By ourselves become We pure,
No one saves Us but Ourselves,
No one can no one may,
We ourselves must walk the path,
Buddhas merely show the way
Thanks!
I too have a mystery about the ‘origin of life’. I’m sure Mr Yapa can help clear it.
2,500 years ago, and for over 1,500 years after that, the population of the world stood below 1 billion. But, in recent centuries it rose by a staggering 7 times to 6.7 billion.
My question is, under the doctrine of karma and nirvana, how did so many humans suddenly ‘originate’? I pondered over this and I come up with these possible explanations.
Explantion No 1.
A human can be reborn as more than one person – that is 7 people reborn from 1 on average. But there is no mention of this in the scriptures, although being quite a big aspect of rebirth I am surprised that it is not mentioned.
Explantion No 2.
Beings of the animal realm suddenly discovered the way to have a human birth. If this is the case, why now? How is it that suddenly after 500,000 years of human’s existence, and billions of years of animal existence, this happens in a few hundred years? What triggered the animal beings to have this important knowledge same as or similar to the Noble Eighfold Path, all of a sudden?
Explantion No 3.
Beings from other planets are being born as humans on Earth in hoads. This is similar to No 2, but it disturbs me that this means nearly 85% of the world’s human population came from other planets where they also had access to the Dhamma, but only in the past 200-300 years. Again why was this not mentioned in the scriptures?
Explantion No 4.
These 85% of ‘new lives’ of the recent 300 years are indeed ‘new lives’ – that is, they are beings born for the first time in Sansara. But why? What is the reason why they were born at all? Now if we concede that life is suffering (under the 1st Noble Truth) then what really is the meaning of life? Why are these 85% and indeed all of us, here? Again, why does the ‘universe’ think the world needs more people now?
Explantion No 5.
The 85% of ‘new lives’ are an illusion. That the population of the world today is STILL less than 1 billion despite the modern day measurements that indicate it is nearer 6.7 billion. If so the question arises, which of us are real and which are ‘unreal/ghosts’?
Analysis
—————
In those days world population had always been largely static. So massive population growth is a scenario only an omniscient person could have foreseen or even imagined. Was it foreseen?
The theories on rebirth known at the time were sufficient in the context of what was known at the time – and given that the Buddhist theory on rebirth evolved out of the existing and prevalent Hindu mindset of reincarnation. But the Buddha in his omniscient wisdom could have put forward a more sustainable alternative or a refined theory that works for all time, a theory that would stand the test of time and be consistent with what we will know in the future (this is similar to the discoveries of Louis Pasteur in the 19th century highlighted by Longus). So … Do we reject it? Or, do we try and explain what he ‘may’ have meant?
Mr Yapa, how would you explain this mystery?
DeA
Dear Longus,
Thanks for pointing out some interesting issues. It’s a pity you were not present in the previous threads, where your input would have been very valuable. Apart from the issues you point out here, some others that came up were
1. How does a human notion of morality apply to Karma and Rebirth? For example, is it rational to talk about a higher or more ethical mental state in a lion? Does a lion kill another out of anger and hatred? Or merely to sustain its life? If not, why is it that human value judgments about morality seem to affect the universal cosmic laws of Karma and Rebirth?
2. At what point does an animal gain consciousness? You seem to be quite familiar with biology, so I’m sure that you are familiar with the biological viewpoint of seeing animals in a continuous spectrum of evolution. Different features in different species are at various stage of complexity in their evolution (although I don’t mean to suggest that there’s a hierarchy). They provide us a view of different stages of evolution we might have already passed.
From such an analysis, it is quite clear that cognitive abilities have a direct physical correlation to brain complexity. In fact, it’s very hard to say what creatures are conscious, or even to define what consciousness means, because they all appear to be in a smooth, continuous spectrum. If so, at what discrete point does this Buddhist notion of a Ghandabba start invading a physical body? Does a bacteria have a discernible mental state? What about a crab?
3. How does one explain a child with mental retardation? Or a person with psychological issues? Assuming that the latter is attributed to a messed up “stream of consciousness”, how does one explain a child with Down’s syndrome? Isn’t this mind-body dualism theory already quite bankrupt?
4. Assuming that evolution is a universal phenomenon, how does one explain an increase in the number of conscious beings? Where did the “streams of consciousness” for these beings come from? If we import souls from other worlds, it doesn’t help much, because it doesn’t explain how a population could have grown in *that* world. We are forced to, in a way, assume that souls (or streams of consciousness) already exist in abundance to inhabit bodies at will.
5. Finally, I draw your attention to the Agganna Sutta, which flips evolution upside down entirely
To quote: “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.”
Rice is a grain domesticated by humans, how can it have appeared before whatever it was that ate it? (were those beings humans?) Wasn’t sexual differentiation already achieved by the time rice came to the scene? (I mean, rice itself uses sexual reproduction) So what’s all this about sexual differentiation happening later in the “beings” that ate this rice? Does this extract not show an utterly wrong passage to Yapa’s complete satisfaction?
I think there were a few other things, but I can’t recall them off the top of my head.
cheers!
What baffles me is how the Yapas (or whatever guise Nalin de Silva appears on blogspace) can reconcile their bookish Buddhism with their brook no quarter attitude towards Tamil demands for a little self rule.
Dear B.W?Man;
RE: the post of October 12, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
I would like to ask you a simple question. Have you heard of “Learning Process” or Process of Perception or in simple language, “knowledge gaining process? Even if did not study it in depth, I think you can answer the following questions.
If somebody does not know some thing what is the best method from the followings, he should follow to gain that knowledge.
1. Fantasizing about the innumerable number of possible answers, thinking that anything would appear in a clean slate.
2. Start off hand analysis, insulting the questions and preaching arbitrary conclusions and recommendations.
3. Learn it from somebody or somewhere, giving due respect to the source.
Mrs. B.W?Man; Our world compared to the universe is not bigger than a peck of dust on earth. On the knowledge you have of the peck of dust don’t try to arrive at mighty conclusions about our world.
It is too naive, too silly for a person with some intelligence to engaged in. You want to know how the human population of that peck was increase during the recent time?
Further, how do you so surely know that 2,500 years ago, and for over 1,500 years after that, the population of the world stood below 1 billion. Who supplied the statistics to you?
You need some discipline (Vinaya) in understanding anything. It is a prerequisite for proper knowledge gaining. Get your path cleared before you set your foot to start your journey.
Thanks!
The two sets of questions posed by BM and SD about the population growth are somewhat similar in context. In fact I too posed the same question once I visited a well known person who is supposed to have attained “the first stage of enlightenment”(Sowan) a few years ago in Sri Lanka.
I had to make an effort to make him understand my question in the first place, and when he did, first he told that as there are billions and billions of beings in the universe (both seen and unseen, including the spiritual forms) any of them could be born as humans. But, when I asked in order to keep population growth ratio up how do more of those creatures become humans (either more and more animals,prethas,and Hell-dwellers should have their good Kammas effected or more and more Devas and Brahmas would lose the effects of their good Kammas or both) now, he said as there are more and more worlds there are enough creatures to be born this way! So, when I asked that how do those worlds get more and more beings now than they used to be, he said that his knowledge was not enough to answer that and when I tread along the Buddha’s pathway to enlightenment, I will find answers to my questions! mm.. Interesting.
Even if the reason for the increase of the human population is a combination of both processes (namely more from the animal realm being born as humans and more from the higher realms being born as humans) who regulates their rate of “chuthaveema” with the rate of population increase? At the same time considering the fact that it is extremely difficult for a worm to be born as a human we have to assume that the majority of those beings who are born as humans must be coming from the higher realms- devas and brahmas. Now how do those worlds get more and more devas and Brahmas in order to be born as humans? The same question in another way!
I’ll discuss the consciuosness of the animals in a separate post.
Dear SD (PVR);
” Does this extract not show an utterly wrong passage to Yapa’s complete satisfaction?”
I know you have never appreciated what I have done in any of the discussions but tried somehow or other to find faults with them and insult them. I have no worries because I never expected any appreciations, especially from you as I foresaw the inside of your heart. However, I know that “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”, and therefore I am happy.
However, I would like to tell you my general opinion about your questions.
Those questions arose due to following factors. (In my view)
1. Your wrong notion that taking “the contemporary knowledge of human kind” as “a sufficient yardstick to understand” the universe and its activities.
2. Your lack of knowledge in Buddhism.
3. Your vanity or egoism or “sakkaya dittiya”.
Taking above into consideration please think back whether your questions above has a real existence or not.
In my case I have wasted a lot of time answering your basic and naive questions and arguing them. For me, now, “kivva de nahana eka udaha yathoth udaha, pahala yathoth pahala giya den”.
” Apita motada api dasa sil upasaka,
Ibbanne puchchanne anith pita
Thanks!
Dear longus;
Thanks for your sincere response.
The concept of “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions” is a very subtle tool of knowledge gaining. This method is used in mathematical concepts to arrive at very subtle conclusions. I have been using this in day to day mental work too and if some body masers this methodology, many cloudy areas come across in knowledge gaining will not arise. Due to lack of knowledge of this subtle tool, people face with non exiting questions and problems. Many dark curtains existing in front of your vision can be removed if this method of logic is used.
I will try to explain that particular logic and the clarifications wrt your queries in my next post.
Thanks!
To add to my last post……
According to the Buddha there are five domains where beings can be born: Niraya(hell), Animal kingdom, Pretha(ghost), Human and godly(divya)
These Nirayas are divided into 4 subworlds
One Animal kingdom
One Pretha world
One ghost world(Asura)
The Real Hell with “burning fires”
One Human world
The Heavens are diveded into six Divya and Seven “mind only” existences and seven “form only” existences (altogether 6 Divya realms and 14 Brahma realms!)
All in all there are only 25 choices for a being to be born according to his or her “janaka kamma” (the kamma that causes birth), so not many. Now we can go back to the argument I posted in my last post….
Population Growth
—————–
To help this discussion along:
5000 BC - 5 million
1000 BC – 50 million
1800 AD – 900 million
2000 AD – 6,078 million
Source: Atlas of World Population History
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/index.cfm
and see here also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
If Mr Yapa was unaware that World Population has increased by 7 times in the past 200 years (and doubled in the past 50 years!) he can be forgiven for not considering that all-important pivotal question – ‘where did all these people come from in such a relatively short time according to the Law of Rebirth’?
Mr Yapa, you asked
“Further, how do you so surely know that 2,500 years ago, and for over 1,500 years after that, the population of the world stood below 1 billion. Who supplied the statistics to you?”
Mrs Wijeweera. She was our Geography teacher in Balangoda. But you can find it by Google also.
Will you be getting back to my question now please?
Dear B.W?Man;
““Further, how do you so surely know that 2,500 years ago, and for over 1,500 years after that, the population of the world stood below 1 billion. Who supplied the statistics to you?”
Mrs Wijeweera. She was our Geography teacher in Balangoda. But you can find it by Google also.”
Mrs Wijeweera must have been your Montessori teacher.
Thanks!
Dear All;
I think following article will help, please read,
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AmF5HiJ72qMdp2KwoRtGU9_d7BR.;_ylv=3?show=6vXZZgOQaa
Thanks!
Difficult to find?
Question:-
Hungry ghost, god, etc right? What about millions of years ago before humans evolved? What did we reincarnate into? Just animals and the other non-enlightenable realms? Could I be that this human existence (here on earth) is not the only human existence? you know what I am saying??
5 months ago
Additional Details
Please, serious answers only…….thanks
Answer:-
John P (I’m only a bug)
Best Answer – Chosen by Asker
Good morning Joe
You asked an interesting multi-faceted question.
As I understand, all life is held “sacred” in this realm of existence from the most simple one-celled animal to that of human. This is why we are taught that all beings at one point or another have been our mothers. With this in mind we believe taking a life, any life, is unskillful except in the most extreme of situations.
“The various realms of existence are completely open to most living beings. Human beings or deities can be reborn as animals. Animals can occasionally be reborn as human beings or deities. For most human beings, there is little likelihood that they will be reborn in the human realm again after death. The last thought-moment is the deciding factor. Only those who have realised nibbÄna are assured of rebirth in the higher realms of existence. Most human beings and deities are facing downwards, since the foolish majority are much more inclined to indulge in sensual pleasures than to do wholesome deeds. Being reborn in higher realms is rarer still for animals since they live by primitive instincts, which means lustful, aggressive, and deluded kamma. Some pets may live a life of luxury, enjoying the company of compassionate and intelligent human beings, but how can they donate things to others, study religion, or practise meditation?
The human realm is therefore a very precious opportunity to make wholesome kamma, which most people squander due to their lack of insight. To meet the Buddha’s teachings is even rarer than to gain human rebirth, but many born in Buddhist countries pay little heed to the teachings of pious and learned monks. Among those who practise the Dhamma sincerely, most do not have sufficient confidence, effort, mindfulness, concentration, or wisdom to gain liberation in this very life. Most good Buddhists are self-satisfied with doing pious deeds, since they lack a deep and thorough knowledge of the scriptures.” [sic] (from http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/rebi… )
In the other five realms of samsara there is either too much pleasure or too much suffering to permit one to attempt to enter Nirvana. It is only in the human realm that there is enough suffering to desire its ending and enough pleasure where one is not totally seduced by it as in the higher realms. This is why the Buddha called this the precious human rebirth. It is only as a human that one can seek liberation from samsara.
Many presuppose that this planet alone holds intelligent (human?) life. Modern science is beginning to catch-up to some of the teachings in the Abhidhamma; namely, that life (and intelligent life at that) most likely exits elsewhere in the universe. “According to Buddhism the earth, an almost insignificant speck in the universe, is not the only habitable world and humans are not the only living beings. Infinite are world systems and so are living beings. Nor is ‘the impregnated ovum the only route to rebirth’. ‘By traversing one cannot reach the end of the world’ says the Buddha.” (from “A Manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhammattha Saïgaha)” by Venerable Nà rada Mahà Thera see http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidh… ) It is plausible therefore, assuming one believes in actual and not metaphorical rebirth, that one could be reborn on another planet just as one could have been reborn from another planet onto this one.
Thank you for a thought provoking question.
May all be at peace.
Source(s):
As cited in the response.
Thanks!
Dear dingiri;
Tamils should give up their demand for undue advantages they have been engaged in with the connivance of the foreign elements, and must settle for a solution based on justice. They must radiate loving kindness towards their fellow men and women of the majority of this country, keeping their mis-(ill)-conceptions aside. You will only reap what you sow.
That is the only way for Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Yes, there is a way forward.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
The Answer you have copied/pasted (by John P the Bug) repeats my analysis exactly.
It still does not answer the question (and it questions the validity of rebirth and it nature as explained in ancient texts): why this sudden increase in human birth in the past 200 years suddenly after12 billion years of the existence of the universe?
This question is closed as you do not know the answer. Nobody does.
Now please get back to Longus’s point about ‘Sansedaja – born out of moisture’.
Dear B.W?Man;
” The Answer you have copied/pasted (by John P the Bug) repeats my analysis exactly.
It still does not answer the question ”
…………
Do you think I have no any other work than answering your naive questions free of charge?
If you cannot find whether the Buddha flew or not to Sri Lanka before 2500 years back, how could you possibly supply the populations of the world from 5000 BC to 2000 AD? Did you go to the past and count them?
Did you also cont the number of years after the universe was born?
Man (sorry, sorry, woman), all those numbers and statistics are correct, only if we certainly know that the version of science about the “beginning of the universe” as said in the Big Bang theory and the speculations of science about history of the past 5000 years of the world is true. Are you sure Scientists exactly know what happened during the last 5000 years? You ask from your pet scientists and tell me what happened to the civilizations of Viracochas, Maya, Olmecs, Toltecs. If they are too far tell me what happened to the Mohan Jodaro, Harrappa civilizations, in India.
Ok!, if your scientists know that much about the past, ask from them and tell me the population pf Sri Lanka, just 500 years back. I need the exact number, not guesses, right?
Just think back and see if you and PVR are not just blind believers of some humans called “scientists”? Do you have any reasons to believe they are telling nothing but the truth about the past and they are sure about what they say?
Just ask your “Scientist Gods” and tell me.
Then I might answer your naive questions.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
“Most human beings and deities are facing downwards, since the foolish majority are much more inclined to indulge in sensual pleasures than to do wholesome deeds.”
Do you and your friend PVR belong to the above category? Samsara is a very dangerous place to play fool. Take the maximum benefit from your rare human birth. You might not get any after this. ” Bana nam niboruya muniwarayanne”.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Woman;
If you think that you belong to the most prestigious civilization ever had with all your heads are filled with the wisdom generated from science within a period of about 500 years and ancient people were all fools as you say (or as you are) how do you explain the things given below, my dear swollen headed blind believer of science?
http://www.google.lk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haktanir.org%2Fandreea%2Foldciv%2F&ei=2p61TIuLCIq3cKTfyLQI&usg=AFQjCNHprwrGrpbQas07-zg-VDgpjcOf4A
Thanks!
Dear B.W? Man and All;
I would like to draw your special attention to the following paragraph found at the end of the article.
Thanks!
P.S. All we can do is wait… Wait and see how many of the theories will survive. Maybe some time we will find one single truth in all the books that want to explain the mysteries of the old civilizations. And maybe, one day archeologists will join forces with astrologists and geologists and will stop contradicting each other. And they’ll try to see farther than they do now. This would be nice if it happened before something else happens to what we have left from these cultures.
But my opinion is: read all, give yourself a break, read again… read all their books with a completely free mind. It’s not possible what they say? You don’t believe them? Doesn’t matter. Keep in mind only sure things (like how many meters a building had). And if you want to know more, start from almost zero and build your theory slowly slowly. Do you realize how wrong you could be and what a wrong conclusion you could reach if you took for granted some theories — absolutely wrong — which blocked the further evolution but no one realized it? It always happens like this. Just look back at our history. How much do you think that the human race changed?
Thanks again!
Dear PVR & Ohters;
“At what point does an animal gain consciousness? You seem to be quite familiar with biology, so I’m sure that you are familiar with the biological viewpoint of seeing animals in a continuous spectrum of evolution. Different features in different species are at various stage of complexity in their evolution (although I don’t mean to suggest that there’s a hierarchy). They provide us a view of different stages of evolution we might have already passed.”
Have you heard of “Baka Brahma” or the common man’s version of ” Baka Pandithaya” ? Where does he live?
Yonder……!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Yapa
You seem to be unable to answer my question posed on 12 Oct@7.39a.m.!
I AM ASKING IT FOR THE SECOND TIME!
IF BUDDHA CONSIDERED THE LIFE-FORMS THAT ARE BORN IN CONTAMINATED,FOUL,STAGNANT WATER,PUTRID MEAT AND DECOMPOSING BODIES AS “SANSEDAKA”, DIDN’T HE KNOW ABOUT THE SIMILAR LIFE-FORMS BORN IN NON-CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENTS?
You said this on 11,Oct @11.58pm :
“I will show you the “logical fallacy” which brought you to the above wrong conclusions.It is true that WATER is a “NECESSARY CONDITION” for all three modes of above births (ie. andaja, jalabuja and sansedaja), but WATER is not a “SUFFICIENT CONDITION” for the MODE OF SANSEDAJA. That water has to be dirty, foul, contaminated and polluted to be qualified for a sansedaja birth. On the other hand such water is a disqualification for andaja and jalabuja births.I think you were not clear about the difference between “Necessary and Sufficient conditions” in the instance you were composing your arguments”
For the birth of creatures who are born by budding,contamination is not a necessary condition!
Here the Buddha was talking about the modes of birth of creatures. After telling three such ways, He seems to be going off the track here, (a bit like you!)
It’s like when you are asked,”how are the chickens born?”, you answer,”they are born in the farms!”
And you go on telling me, that a farm is a necessary condition for a chicken’s birth!
Who the hell asked you about the conditions or the environment?
Its a bit like what King Ajasath says about the six teachers! ” When I asked about a mango, they tell me about a bread fruit!
And the Buddha says the same thing here!
It is obvious that He had no idea how these creatures are born!
Yapa
The answer given by this bug called ‘john P”, which you quote is NOT VALID according to the Dhamma (it is in fact sad to see you stooping to such levels in finding an answer!)
Buddha has never told that there are more than ONE human domain!
There is ONLY ONE human world, and being born as a human is extremely difficult!-according to the Buddha.
So the question on population increase can’t be brushed aside!
Even if you consider all the stasistics about the world population in ancient times as “total garbage” and all the science is “crap” can you explain the massive increase of the world population in the LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS?
You seem to be unable to answer that as well!
Yapa,
“I completely forgot to write about wijayapala’s contribution to the discussion. I must personally apologize to him for my grave mistake done in my typing in haste.”
No problem at all. Actually I haven’t been participating recently because the secularists here refuse to discuss anything associated with Peace and Reconciliation. Thank you for being the only one here to answer dingiri’s post although I think we Sinhalese have to fix a few things as well.
Dear dingiri,
“What baffles me is how the Yapas (or whatever guise Nalin de Silva appears on blogspace) can reconcile their bookish Buddhism with their brook no quarter attitude towards Tamil demands for a little self rule.”
What is your definition of “a little self rule?” ISGA?
Dear longus;
I am attending day to day urgent , not that important but should not be avoided matters/queries. I am being bombarded with such questions.That is the reason for the delay in answering your question. If am not able to answer a question, I will admit that without any hesitation. Therefore don’t think ” You seem to be unable to answer my question posed on 12 Oct@7.39a.m.!”, I will come back to it soon. On the other hand they may be resolved in my answers to day to day questions too. Please give me a little bit time. I don’t think your question is a difficult one.
Thanks!
Dear dingiri;
In addition to my answer of October 13, 2010 @ 7:04 am, I felt I should add a bit more to it. There I said Tamils should settle for a solution based on justice. However, later I found that there is some mystery that prevents that solution, because many Tamils are trying hard to find that ” justifiable solution”. So I had to put a thought to the issue and formed my opinion why that ” solution” does not come into being.
Really, Tamils are too looking for that justice, but in the wrong place. They are looking for that in ” western political theories”. That “justice” is a “biased justice” towards them and those who have similar interests. Therefore you should look for justice in the “correct context”. Then you will find the correct solution.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“IF BUDDHA CONSIDERED THE LIFE-FORMS THAT ARE BORN IN CONTAMINATED,FOUL,STAGNANT WATER,PUTRID MEAT AND DECOMPOSING BODIES AS “SANSEDAKA”, DIDN’T HE KNOW ABOUT THE SIMILAR LIFE-FORMS BORN IN NON-CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENTS?”
Ok! OK!! To start answering your long lasting quest, give me the answer for the following question.
Q:- Please give me an example where life-forms are born in non-contaminate water. In pure water, OK? I think you understand what I mean. IT is PURE WATER, H2O.
Thanks!
Dear Longus,
RE: “In fact I too posed the same question once I visited a well known person who is supposed to have attained “the first stage of enlightenment”(Sowan) a few years ago in Sri Lanka.”
This individual, did he claim to “see” these answers because he was Sowan or was he just coming up with an answer as best as he could? I’m interested in knowing the source of his knowledge.
Yapa
I think the bacteria which can multiply in hot springs in temperatures ranging from 70-80C can come very close to your idea. Unless you distill pure water from water vapour there in no “pure water’ found as such in the nature.
Then if your next argument is going to be: “That’s what the Buddha has said, there is no place where life is born without “contamination”,I must say in that case the Buddha should not have mentioned about foul, dirty water at all! He should not have mentioned “stale food and putrid flesh” at all!
The question here is not the place they are born-(the”farm” that the chickens are born), but the WAY they are born! And you keep talking about the FARM like a dementic old man!
Dear longus;
I am expecting the answer to my question to answer your question please.
Thanks!
Longus, I too am interested, and in meeting this person.
“well known person who is supposed to have attained “the first stage of enlightenment”(Sowan)” – if well known you can mention his name on the forum? Or any person who has gone public with attaining Sowan or any stage of enlightenment. Thanks.
Dear longus;
I am ready to answer your next question reproduced below, just after finishing my answer to the first above.
Your next Question:-
Even if you consider all the stasistics about the world population in ancient times as “total garbage” and all the science is “crap” can you explain the massive increase of the world population in the LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS?
You seem to be unable to answer that as well!
Thanks!
Dear longus;
You have said;
“That is if you believe that the Buddha was correct in His classification! Where could He have classified them? The Buddha’s classification may be correct for YOU, but not correct for ME!”
……………..
If you like I would touch upon “classifications” too. If necessary please indicate so.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
I have several times said I am for ” Naked Truths” and for nothing else.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
You said;
“IF BUDDHA CONSIDERED THE LIFE-FORMS THAT ARE BORN IN CONTAMINATED,FOUL,STAGNANT WATER,PUTRID MEAT AND DECOMPOSING BODIES AS “SANSEDAKA”, DIDN’T HE KNOW ABOUT THE SIMILAR LIFE-FORMS BORN IN NON-CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENTS?”
………………………….
REALLY THE BUDDHA DID NOT KNOW. DID/DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SUCH LIFE FORMS?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa
A Post Script to my last post:
This is what you said on 11 Oct 2010 @11.58pm:
“It is true that WATER is a “NECESSARY CONDITION” for all three modes of above births (ie. andaja, jalabuja and sansedaja), but WATER is not a “SUFFICIENT CONDITION” for the MODE OF SANSEDAJA.
That water has to be dirty, foul, contaminated and polluted to be qualified for a sansedaja birth. On the other hand such water is a disqualification for andaja and jalabuja births.”
By saying this you yourself categorize water into two sets
1. The contaminated water where “sansedaka” birth takes place
2. Non-foul,non-dirty, non-contaminated and non-poluted water which is a sufficient condition for the other two kind of births to take place
In the category 2 do you mean pure water? Where can you find pure water in the gestational sack or the egg? I mean pure H2O, OK?
Dear longus;
“I take up the challenge of disproving something that the Buddha has preached in one of his Sutras.”
…………………..
Hadn’t you heard of the story of the Donkey who undertook the duties of the Dog?
Umba nandan, umba nandan, owwa umbata honda padan
I think here after you will not tell my answers are enlightening.
From the very inception I identified the Dore handa and P-de handa, my dear longus, you thought not?
Thanks!
S.D.
I really do not know how he answered, as I couldn’t read his mind. Anyway the impression I got was that he had never thought of that question before.
In his sermons he was telling that he could see the world (matter) as constantly being scattered, and underlined the fact that he had got rid of “Sakkaaya Ditti” or the illution that there is “person” or “self”
He looked a fairly intelligent guy and I think he used his common logic to answer it.
Mr Yapa,
Social Justice
———
you said …
“Really, Tamils are too looking for that justice, but in the wrong place. They are looking for that in ” western political theories”. That “justice” is a “biased justice” towards them and those who have similar interests. Therefore you should look for justice in the “correct context”.”
You are making this a ‘Western justice’ vs ‘Eastern justice’ thing. So let’s get this sorted first.
Western thinking (in this context) in the modern day regards All People of Earth to have equal value, whether they are a rich Texan or a hungry child in Africa. It took many centuries to reach this level of civilisation.
Eastern thinking is still a mindset that believes that the status of everyone born on Earth is determined before they were born – ie. a person born into poverty is due to some form of cosmic justice. (BTW a rule made up by those of ‘privileged birth’!)
The West too had such a mentality in the past. Someday the East will also abandon unhelpful and unproven social norms. The Buddah reputedly did not like the caste system (but did not clarify how that sits with the law of karma) and we still have social discrimination in many forms.
The ‘biased justice’ you are talking about is called ‘justice’ (look up the word). The justice you are promoting is called ‘injustice’ according to both the dictionary and the Buddha’s teachings.
Contradiction No 3: ‘how did the Buddha expect society to be equal and just (caste system) while it continues to believe in the ancient Hindu tradition of the Law of Karma and Rebirth’?
(but let’s solve the 2 issues already posed first.
No 1: Maggots
No 2: Human Population
… then
No 3: Social Justice
)
Dear All;
My mission accomplished. I think I should go now. However, if the Buddha Sasana or Sri Lanka is threatened, I might re-appear. Until then may Triple Gems Bless you.
Bye!
‘How to argue a point’ by Mr Yapa.
Step 1: make some outrageous claim.
Step 2: insist that it is the absolute truth supported by scientific findings such as quantum physics, Stephen Hawking.
Step 3: challenge the world to present arguments against it.
Step 4: then answer these arguments with one of the following -
(1) ‘you are not enlightened enough to understand the outrageous claim’
(2) ‘current knowledge/science/reality is faulty’ (while using current knowledge/science/reality to support the outrageous claim where it suits)
(3) ‘the questioner has a bad intention’ (bad intention defined as ‘any questioner that has taken up the challenge’)
(4) ‘the question is insulting’ (insulting defined as ‘any question that has taken up the challenge’)
Step 5: when all the tactics in Step 4 have failed resort to personal attacks.
S.D.
At what point in their “complexity” does life begin to get a “consciousness?
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
A very interesting question! No wonder Mr. Yapa considers it a “Baka Panditha” question, as it will further complicate matters for him!
Here, I used the word “life’ instead of “animals” because when you go down the ladder from complex animals to simple animals you come to a grey area where you are not sure whether the organisms in question are in fact plants or animals (Yapa points this out with regards to Bacteria) When you go further down you are not sure whether the “things” in question are ‘living” or “non-living” even.
Anybody can point out that the difference between a coconut tree and a dog, but it becomes not so easy a task to say whether a unicellular organism is a plant or an animal. Some organisms show both animal and plant features. For instance some mono-cellular organisms can move about on their own with the help of a flagelle or a “whip” and perceive sensations through a light sensitive patch on their cell and react, but at the same time make their own food by photosynthesis! And on the other hand there are bigger creatures who are very much animals by all other means like Sponges (Phylun-Poriphera) who totally lack any kind of a nervous system and live their whole life attached to rocks. They can be cut,burnt and crushed without any sign of pain perception (just like a tree)and most of the time the cut pieces will grow into a complete animal. They are true animals because their larval stages are free living worm like creatures,before they settle into a mindless eternity!
To avoid this problem scientists have classified Bacteria, Blue-Green Algae, and Archia-an ancient form of primitive Bacteria- into a group called Pro-Karyotes depending on the features on their Nucleas and cell wall. The true plants and true animals go into another group and the viruses into another. The viruses don’t belong to plants or animals and they are definitely living things only. The problem became even more complicated when they discovered Prion particles which causes C.J.D or Mad Cow Disease and a rare disease called Kuru. These are just protein crystals which don’t show any signs of “life” until they start multiplying inside a host. They lie somewhere between living and non-living worlds maybe just like the original life born out of the “Primodial Organic Sea” 4-5billion years ago!
Among the true animals, apart from the Sponges, there are other animals who do not have a “nervous system”, but reacts to stimuli because they have scattered nerve cells in their bodies. Animals like Comb Jelly Fish, Hydra, Sea Animony and Corals are examples and their main mode of reproduction is by budding.
Now if we consider that a nervous system or at least nerve cells are not an essential part for a creature to have a “consciousness” we have to concede that uni-cellular organisms like Amoeba and paramesium too have a consciousness; that’s why they react to stimuli. If we accept that we have to concede that photosynthesysing uni-cellular organisms like clamidomonas and euglina too have a “consciousness” because they too respond to stimuli.
Do Plants Have a Consciousness:
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Before answering that, do Sponges have a consciousness? We can cut a plant and it will just submit to it. But the plant too responds to stimuli in a slower way like the foliage growing towards light, roots growing towards water. But one can argue that these are mediated by the changes in the concentration in certain chemicals -hormones- and not by nervous impulses. But, on the other hand what makes an amoeba move too are chemicals, not nervous impulses! Some plants respond extremely quickly like the leaves of Mimosa plant (Nidikumba) and certain carnivorous plants like Venus Flytrap, Bladderwort, Trumpet Picher Plant and the Sundew Plant move their parts in a flash in response to touch and catch their prey. These are caused by the changes in the hydrostatic pressure of the cells in the “trap” in response to touch.
What is the Problem?
”””””””””””””””””””
The problem lies in “us” in trying to define a consciousness! Plants too must be having a consciousness on their own and that’s why they are living. Just because the Buddha said plants don’t have a consciousness it doesn’t mean they don’t; Ameoba too and the sponges too; Viruses too and Prion particles too; that’s why they multiply! This is becoming absurd…so we have to discard the concept of “consciousness” altogether! Instead of “consciousness” we can take the “functions associated wth a nervous system” as a measure of differentiating higher life-forms from lower ones.
Then What Do We Have In Our Hand?
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Somewhere in the animal kingdom when the animals begin have a developed nervous system, they are capable of higher brain functions, but the exact point where this happens is unclear.
Hon.Yapa
Your answers are still enlightening, such as:
On Oct 14 @ 7.36pm I highlighted the trap that you are in in your description of “sufficient and necessary” conditions. What is your answer?
Then your question:
Q:- Please give me an example where life-forms are born in non-contaminate water. In pure water, OK? I think you understand what I mean. IT is PURE WATER, H2O
A: When the rain drops form in the clouds from the condensation of water vapour the spors of bacteria get in and they make the nucleus around which the tiny rain drops form and come out of them- in other words “born”. This water I am telling Yapa Saamaneraya (Behold!) is free from any contamination by way of solvents or impurities and thus, Samaneraya qualifies to be pure water to satisfy your condition. How do I know? Why shouldn’t anybody?The very first bacterial spore that enters such a prestine water droplet and comes out of it is born in virtually pure H2O. If the Buddha didn’t know it His omniscienct knowledge is in jeopardy!
Now can you please answer what you meant by the above mentioned category 2 ? (Please go back to my question on 14 Oct @ 7.36pm)
By the way who are you to read the mind of Buudha to say that He didn’t mean the bigger creatures like maggots are not born by “sansedaka”? For the arguments sake I made that allowance out of sheer sympathy for a senior citizen! (D.O.M -Dementic Old Man) Did Buddha tell you or you “saw the answers” in your mind? In either case you need some treatment, D.O.M!
Hon.Yapa (D.O.M)
“October 14, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
Dear All;
My mission accomplished. I think I should go now. However, if the Buddha Sasana or Sri Lanka is threatened, I might re-appear. Until then may Triple Gems Bless you.
Bye!”
Are you going to take your night dose?
Are you going to re-appear in a mental hospital?
Thanks-D.O.B!
Mr Yapa said,
“My mission accomplished. I think I should go now.”
Does this mean Mr Yapa has now conceded that the points raised so far are VALID? Or despite his air of confidence that he never had coherent ANSWERS?
“Western thinking (in this context) in the modern day regards All People of Earth to have equal value”
Except when they are non-Western and non-white.
Dear Yapa
You started your “victory march” by giving a resume of the arguments that took part so far and boasting about your victory over the “heretics”, in true Mohammad Ali style. But every Tom, Dick and Yaapa can’t be Mohommad Alis, as it turned out to be!
Now you say that you have “accomplished” your mission, with all the questions posed by me, SD and BM remaining unanswered! Do you want me to repeat the questions, D.O.M (D.O.B)?
What an accomplishment and WHAT A JOKER?
BalangodaMan
That person which I mentioned has a younger brother who is in the cricket record books as the first person to score a Test century for Sri Lanka!
longus (foolish pruthajjana human);
You made me come back by posting a “Baka Panditha” article, man, animal is an entity composed of ” Five Aggregates” or “Panchaskanda”, ie. rupa , vedana, Sanna, sankara and VINNANA (consciousness).
If especially the final one of them is missing their is no “life” there, and it is nor a “sathva” (animal/being) according to Buddhism. This consciousness consists of mind, memory and the capability to “contemplate” (THINK).
Otherwise those “animals” you define as “functions associated with a nervous system, without consciousness” are NO DIFFERENT ANIMALS FROM YOU.
(Please don’t call me again!, I have important matters to attend. Mind your own silly businesses.)
Thanks!
Dear longus;
“A: When the rain drops form in the clouds from the condensation of water vapour the spors of bacteria get in and they make the nucleus around which the tiny rain drops form and come out of them- in other words “born”. This water I am telling Yapa Saamaneraya (Behold!) is free from any contamination by way of solvents or impurities and thus, Samaneraya qualifies to be pure water to satisfy your condition.”
ANOTHER NICE TRY!
Try a bit harder. I have given you a “hair to be straightened”. When you finished the job, call me. Don’t disturb me, otherwise. I have important matters to attend. However, if you are reeeeaaaally of the need of a help, please do a small sacrifice of a ” two legged animal”.
” Balu walige una puruke laewath nae aede aerennne”!
Do your work with good intention, I am on vigilance, some people have to be disciplined by punishment.
May Triple Gems Bless you!
Longus,
Looks like ….. nobody knows
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_got_the_first_century_in_test_cricket_for_sri_lanka
Dear longus;
I have a bad habit , may be coming down from my last birth, I must admit. I must have been a domesticated cat in my last birth. You know longus, cats have that bad habit of playing with their preys before they are devoured. I had to do this with several people, Heshan had to park his luxury car in a parking lot inside my tommy. Second prey I identified when you supported B.W?Mans notion that Sacred Tooth Relic should be made available for scientific testing. I got you trapped as my plan and let you play while I was watching and playing. Prof. Harishchandra issued a warning signal, but I was well aware that it was only a rat an d it was already in my trap. Anyway, longus did you enjoy you play with me? There is a parking lot for your little tricycle reserved next to the parking lot of your friend Heshan.
(dont disturb me, I am pretty busy)
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
I said
“Western thinking (in this context) in the modern day regards All People of Earth to have equal value”
… and you said
Except when they are non-Western and non-white.
We were discussing the level of compassion. The people of the West’s response to matters like the tsunami and the ongoing hunger in Africa is immense. Compare that with the plight of the IDPs in SL – I didn’t see people in Colombo out in the streets protesting or wanting to do something for them.
Omniscience (re. maggots and population)
————————————-
In the history of the world many millions of people may have either claimed ‘omniscience’ or been regarded as ‘omniscient’ by his followers. My agnostic approach is willing to accept that ‘some’ of them ‘may’ indeed have been omniscient. However that is no use to us.
The question is, HOW DO WE KNOW *WHO* IS OMNISCIENT AND *WHO IS NOT*?
Mr Yapa has failed to provide answers to this, taking the Buddha’s supposed omniscience as an example.
The criteria he has used in relation to the Buddha is no better than Heshan may use in relation to Jesus – ie. ‘because he said so’!
(but more like ‘his followers thought so’, ‘or his followers wanted to think so’, or ‘it seemed like a good idea to say he was omniscient’ when this stuff was written many centuries later by people who were never there!)
BalangodaMan,
The answer is easy to find …
http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/engine/match/63312.html – so I guess the person Longus is referring to is Mitra Wettimuny(?)
However, the suggestion that someone who has attained the state of Sotapanna (a.k.a. Sowaan) *should* have the answers to the questions posed by Longus is misleading.
The core of the Buddha’s teaching is the Four Noble Truths, which is about Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and the path to eliminating Dukkha. The state of Sotapanna is a step along the path to eliminating unsatisfactoriness. Sotapanna is not a way point on the path for achieving omniscience. The Buddha’s teaching is not about achieving omniscience!
Thank you Arosha. Yes I did my little Google research and got the same answer. And I see your point about ‘omniscience’. As you know, personally I think anyone claiming omniscience in any time of history is bogus, or genuinely deluded, or mad. But I am ready to be proved wrong
Dear Wijeyapala,
“What is your definition of “a little self rule?” ISGA?”
No. Please allow me to copy and paste one of my posts in another thread.. Tell me what you think..
My opinion on the 13th amendement is that it gives too little devolution to too much land.
Any new constitution enshrining unity, freedom and equality should guarantee the following for all citizens..
1. Equal entitlement to the resources of the country especially land.
2. Free movement for all anywhere within the contry where anyone can live, work and travel freely anywhere without any controlls.
3. Free trade within the country.
I believe every citizen is an equal shareholder of the landmass of the country. That Jaffna and Batticaloa have a distinct Tamil culture and are inhabited almost entirely by Tamil people who resent being ruled by Sinhalese from Colombo. That these sentiments should not be taken negatively as they can be acommodated while maintaining the above 3 points. So we dont need to keep quarreling with them as there is one solution that is staring us in face.
If we go back to the 1981 census and demarcate three regions proportionately as follows (any later census will be unfair to Tamils as many have now left our shores).
1. A new northern province for the Northern Tamils equivalant in size to whatever the proportion is of the Northern Tamil population.
2. A new Eastern province for Eastern Tamils equivalent in size to whatever the proportion is of Eastern Tamils.
3. A second Eastern province for Eastern Moslems also equivalent in size to the proportion of Eastern Moslems in the population.
Within these provinces the Tamils and Moslems will have full federal powers. Their own Police Force, Raise their own taxes and decide how those taxes are spent providing their own Education, Heathcare and upkeep of public property. Let the Army Garisons in Palalai, Karainagar Remain, but start recruiting Tamils so the Army is more representative of the national etnnic mix. Set a trget for when to achieve it.
I am certain this formula is guaranteed to work. Because it even addresses right wing Sinhalese fears that any devolution will result in future cessation. Forcing Tamils to accept that their entitlement is no greater than the Sinhalese’ or the Moslems would also make them realise how dependent they are on the rest of Sri Lanka. The disproportionate size of Tamil Eelam with 4 times as much land per capita as what they were prepared to give the Sinhalese had a lot to do with the popularity of separatism. Take that away and they’ll be brought down to earth pretty fast.
Asoka Bandara
Well,you are right. Neither did I expect. I just wanted to mention the incident. You are right in your guess too
The “rightous’ man who used to fly by “mechanical” means tried to fly by meditative means, ended up “fondling” another “panchaskanda” and losing his wife…….
Anyway it doesn’t mean the others who tread the same path would face similar consequences eg.Yapa -anyway he looks too old….
Re. your omniscience, yes the attainment of Buddhahood is not the “only” way to end the sea of Sansaara(according to Buddha) There are Arhath and Private Buddhahood modules too.
I want to know why any Tom,Dick and Yapa cannot be a Buddha. Do we have to believe all the “saaraa sanka kalpa lakshayak” seasoning, as told in the scriptures? In that case the humans would have to live alongside the dinosaurs in order to get the “training”!
Hon. Yapa (D.O.B)
You came out of retirement twice like Imran Khan to disturb others, but ask others not to reply to you! Are you so insecure or do you have a panic attack? I can refer you to Prof. Harishchandra!
This is what you say in your last Holy Scripture: on 15 Oct @7.00am
“If especially the final one of them is missing their is no “life” there, and it is nor a “sathva” (animal/being) according to Buddhism. This consciousness consists of mind, memory and the capability to “contemplate” (THINK).”
In that case HOW ON EARTH did you argue LEFT,RIGHT AND CENTER of your rectum that the Buddha was referring to micro-organisms with regards to the “Sansedaka” mode of birth?
OBVIOUSLY the Buddha was talking about lager animals born in rotting and decaying matter out of “moisture”!
AND
HE WAS WRONG!
Therefore I have already proven one instance that the Buddha had gone wrong.
AND His supposed Omniscience is Disproven!
I am out of this now!
The surname of that pruthajjana man going to retire must be ” Sunakkhatta”.
(Oh! my stone seat was heated, so I had to look at the world again, sorry)
Thanks!
Longus,
“AND His supposed Omniscience is Disproven!”
Saying the Buddha is ‘not omniscient’ is like saying ‘the Pope is not Catholic’! Doesn’t the ‘Buddha’ means the Enlightened One. It’s an oxymoron. Are we saying that the Hindu monk Gautama evidently remained a ‘man’ all his life? (You’ll upset Mr Yapa even more now) But did he ever claim to be omniscient? Has any man or woman ever managed to prove that they were anything other than ‘human’? Doesn’t the whole of Buddhism rest upon the Buddha’s reported enlightenment? (as does the whole of Christianity rest upon Christ’s resurrection and Islam rests on whether Mohammed did indeed receive the word of god)?
Dear Longus,
What an excellent exposition on October 14, 2010 @ 11:31 pm. It should be mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to discuss this issue at any serious level. Yapa, please read and benefit from it and make your own contribution in a rational way. Try to make it an exercise in understanding the truth, not an exercise in defending belief.
Consciousness – is it a stream?
—————————-
I’m curious about this whole notion of a “stream of consciousness”. I’m led to believe that this is the Buddhist view of consciousness (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose it is further bolstered by the concept of the “maraneeya chiththaya” (penultimate thought at the moment of death), which seems to be what, somehow or the other, gives rise to the next “stream of conciousness. That seems to imply a serial process, but I could be wrong.
Now, afaik, a popular scientific theory about consciousness (championed by Dan Dennett for example) is that consciousness viewed as a “stream” of serial events, is in fact, an illusion. The brain is like a massively parallel computer, designed to process sensory input and other input in parallel. There’s little or nothing really that we do serially. That part should be patently obvious to anyone. Even our consciousness, which intuitively appears to be a serial process to us, most likely operates in parallel, as Dennett argues quite compellingly.
For example, it’s been demonstrated in certain studies that “a person’s brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. Early studies found delays of about half a second, but with contemporary brain scanning technology scientists in 2008 were able to predict whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made the choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#cite_note-0
There is a high chance that, contrary to our intuitions, our consciousness operates in parallel, while providing the illusion of operating in serial. It’s no different from the fact that, although our intuitions tell us that the chair we are sitting on right now is solid, it in fact, consists almost entirely of empty space at an atomic level. Our brains are clearly geared to mislead us, so why would anyone be overly trusting of its intuitions?
What I would like to know is, what is the Buddhist explanation for consciousness? Is it explained definitively, as a serial process? a stream? And what would drive someone to believe that whatever it is that we believe subjectively (i.e. say enlightenment) is any kind of a reflection of objective truth? Don’t our brains fool us enough for us to know we should be suspicious of its “intuitions”? Is it not important to demonstrate the objective truth of these claims, especially the ones that go on to make statements about the nature of reality?
BalangodaMan,
Enlightenment in the Buddhist context does not refer to omniscience, it refers to the overcoming of all unsatisfactory experience (Dukkha) by eliminating Greed, Anger and Delusion.
The Gotama Buddha is considered special because he (re)discovered the path of how to achieve this state without the benefit of a teacher to guide him (which is why he is called Sammasambuddha – Self Enlightened); and also because he had the ability to explain his method to others in a way that could be understood.
When you make statements equating the Buddha’s enlightenment and omniscience, it suggests that it might be an idea to spend a little more time away from this forum and actually learning about Buddhism.
Perhaps then this thread will return to the topic of peace and reconciliation!
Dear Arosha,
RE: “The core of the Buddha’s teaching is the Four Noble Truths, which is about Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and the path to eliminating Dukkha. The state of Sotapanna is a step along the path to eliminating unsatisfactoriness. Sotapanna is not a way point on the path for achieving omniscience. The Buddha’s teaching is not about achieving omniscience!”
Quite right. But what does eliminating unsatisfactoriness mean? Is it the abolishment of “dukkha” in this life? or does it also entail the abolishment of “dukkha” in the next life?
For an average person to be motivated enough to follow the path at the fantastic level of effort required, this dukkha must be a persistent issue hounding the individual across multiple lives. Otherwise, it should be quite sufficient to practice something like a little bit of meditation, the benefits of which BalangodaMan provided an excellent description of. Therefore “enlightenment” would be of dubious worth (and more of a personal choice), unless there is a next life. Would you agree?
But then, there is a specific scientific claim that is being made! On the existence of future lives and our mechanism of rebirth there in. How would someone know this, other than through a claim of (some form) of omniscience or if omniscience is too strong a word, at least an ability to “step outside the matrix” and have access to inexplicable knowledge? So is it right to say that the Buddha’s doctrine is only about the abolishment of unsatisfactoriness, when the need to achieve that rests on specific metaphysical claims?
However, I will readily agree, that for those who are already dissatisfied with this life, this path could provide an excellent source of comfort and relief.
BalangodaMan
Yes, in that case you can’t call Gauthama, “Buddha”, but I will continue use it for practical purposes!
Gauthama was a very organized teacher who formed a complete and unilateral doctrine which was the envy of other established religions in ancient India (mainly the Vedic and Jain doctrines) but did never hesitate to claim himself as “omniscient” when it came to religious rivalry. Please go back and read “maha Seehanaada Sutta” from the start and see how the Buddha claims his omniscience over the other teachers of his time. He looks to me a very “self righteous man”. In fact the religious rivalry between the “theerthakas”(followers of Maha Veera) and the followers of Gauthama went so far as to commit murder by the “extremely non-violent” Maha Veera followers.eg. the murder of Sundari by the theerthkas to put the blame on Gauthama according to the scriptures.
In “Maha Parivirvaana Sutra” the Buddha says how his dead body should be respected by the nobles and the traders after his passing away. It’s a very confusing account full of contradictions.
I am hoping to give a detailed account on “My Buddha” as an intelligent human being with an intent of a monastic leadership at his time, in a later post.
Arosha Bandara
Enlightenment can be achieved in one of three modules. The Buddhahood,Private-Buddhahood(Pase-Budu) or Arhath, according to Buddhism. The Buddhahood is marked by six “omniscient” wisdoms which are unique to a Buddha only. Whether a Private Buddha too possesses these is not clear to me. You can read what these omniscient widoms are in “Saman^napa Sutra”
site: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
Dear SD,
“Quite right. But what does eliminating unsatisfactoriness mean? Is it the abolishment of “dukkha” in this life? or does it also entail the abolishment of “dukkha” in the next life?”
To my understanding, eliminating unsatisfactoriness means being able to face all the challenges of life with equanimity. The Buddha enumerated unsatisfactoriness as birth, ageing, sickness, death, proximity to the unloved, separation from the loved and not receiving what is desired. All of these are challenging circumstances that all of us will experience. if we respond to these circumstances by trying to grasp and hold on to that which is pleasurable and wilfully avoid or push away that which is unpleasant, we simply end up perpetuating a cycle where the pleasant thing we are trying to hold on to becomes unpleasant and we try and get rid of it, but then being separated from that for some time we miss it and want to get it back again. IMHO, understanding this requires self-awareness and reflection through an effort to understand our mental states in response to different situations rather than intellectual reasoning at a mundane level.
To answer the latter part of your question – if a person eliminates unsatisfactoriness in this life, then according to the Buddha’s teaching, there will be no next life. The more important question might be whether the effort to eliminate unsatisfactoriness is harmful or beneficial to our current life. If it is beneficial, then it should be worth doing even if we don’t know about anything about future lives. Similarly, we should ask ourselves whether it is harmful or beneficial in the current life to avoid making an effort to eliminate unsatisfactoriness. If the answer is that such avoidance is harmful to us in our present life, then surely we should not avoid making an effort to eliminate unsatisfactoriness, even if we don’t know anything about future lives. This was taught by the Buddha to the Kalamas (see the section on the four solaces in the Kalama Sutta) but is often ignored as people focus on the first part of the sutta.
My view on this is that following the path to eliminating unsatisfactoriness (the Noble Eightfold Path) has sufficient benefits to me in *this* life. As I am sure you know, the path broadly consists of three aspects – moral conduct, mental training and wisdom (sila, samadhi and panna) – all of which are useful for ensuring happiness in this life. Therefore I don’t agree that the path to enlightenment is of dubious worth.
Dear PVR;
When bad past kammas are in operation in a person, he cannot distinguish right from wrong. He always picks wrong things as right.
This is what happened to you. For you “wrong” is always shining, and you always tpick them. That is why you picked longus totally incorrect notion as excellent. How about his argument about the life forms born in pure water, H2O? Isn’t that excellent?
You are Pseudo Victor Rathnayake and longus is pseudo Sanath Nandasiri.
( I am looking on, behave well!)
Thanks!
Dear B.W? Man;
RE: October 15, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
“Enlightened” post. You might get your old form of ” BalangodaMan” soon, if you try hard with ” good volitional actions”.
Come to the correct path!
Triple Gems Bless you!
(I am looking on)
“Now, afaik, a popular scientific theory about consciousness (championed by Dan Dennett for example) is that consciousness viewed as a “stream” of serial events, is in fact, an illusion. The brain is like a massively parallel computer, designed to process sensory input and other input in parallel. There’s little or nothing really that we do serially. That part should be patently obvious to anyone. Even our consciousness, which intuitively appears to be a serial process to us, most likely operates in parallel, as Dennett argues quite compellingly.”
Baka Panditha again is talking big about what he does not know, as usual. This man cannot get rid of that bad habit. I am not very sure it is ” jammaya” or ” Purudda”.
(I am looking on)
Thanks!
Mr. longus;
“I am hoping to give a detailed account on “My Buddha” as an intelligent human being with an intent of a monastic leadership at his time, in a later post.”
Before that please ” straighten that hair”, I gave you. That pure water one, H2O. Please!
Sachchaka (as called by Prof. Harischandra), you asking for the answer for the second time from me.
Sincerely yours,
Sakkara Muththa
( Don’t write with your panic mind)
May Triple Gems Bless you!
“But then, there is a specific scientific claim that is being made!”
…………………………….” SCIENTIFIC”………………………………
This man’s (PVR) pet word to cover up his ignorance. What science do you know man? When did you learn Science, tell the forum first of all?
May Triple Gems help to correct his wrong views, Mithya Ditti, in his present life.
(Behave, I am looking on)
Mr. longus;
You are in a suicidal path, I must warn you in advance.
Thanks!, I am looking on!
Dear PVR;
“What I would like to know is, what is the Buddhist explanation for consciousness?”
Why not ask your (excellent), omniscient friend, who claimed to have disproved the Budda’s teaching and knows more than the Buddha?
He will again give you “excellent exposition”, so that yapa also can read and benefit as mentioned in your post of October 15, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
(Leave your love for “self” (deceitful vanity of yours that you know a lot)
Thanks!
Hon. Yaapa (D.O.M.)(Pseudo Mohommad Ali)
I thought you were busy, Sir!
I thought I straightened that hair!
I thought Pseudo Mohammad Ali lost the game,
Because all the people who read this blog are not retards like you!
And they don’t have memory loss like you!
Of late your symptoms are becoming worse,maybe with your loss!
Yor need Psychotherapy,Sir!
Do you have a sleep disorder?
Try some Welpenela, Ole Boy!
May the tripple jump bless you!
Sincerely
Longus Sunakkatta
Dear All;
See the pathetic plight of this foolish man called longu, after his high rosed world of him was fallen down. He goes to the extreme to say that the Buddha acted in envy. This man is mad of frustration.
Again he quotes Buddhist Suttas and informs others that he would tech Buddhist doctrines to others. Please see his mental bewilderment. He is now in oscillation in two extremes, uncertainty has over taken his simple mind. Please read the following extract from one of his recent posts.
Gauthama was a very organized teacher who formed a complete and unilateral doctrine which was the envy of other established religions in ancient India (mainly the Vedic and Jain doctrines) but did never hesitate to claim himself as “omniscient” when it came to religious rivalry. Please go back and read “maha Seehanaada Sutta” from the start and see how the Buddha claims his omniscience over the other teachers of his time. He looks to me a very “self righteous man”. In fact the religious rivalry between the “theerthakas”(followers of Maha Veera) and the followers of Gauthama went so far as to commit murder by the “extremely non-violent” Maha Veera followers.eg. the murder of Sundari by the theerthkas to put the blame on Gauthama according to the scriptures.
ANE PAUW!
Thanks!
Dear Arosha,
RE: “My view on this is that following the path to eliminating unsatisfactoriness (the Noble Eightfold Path) has sufficient benefits to me in *this* life. As I am sure you know, the path broadly consists of three aspects – moral conduct, mental training and wisdom (sila, samadhi and panna) – all of which are useful for ensuring happiness in this life. Therefore I don’t agree that the path to enlightenment is of dubious worth.”
I don’t think we are using the term “enlightenment” in the same context. As I’ve stated earlier, I do in fact, think the noble eightfold path is quite useful and most of the ideas surrounding it common sense & quite excellent.
What I was referring to, was the specific state known as “enlightenment”. Now, this particular state, requires a tremendous amount of effort, afaik. It also entails the complete abolishment of desire (I’ve always thought that what is meant by desire here is in a way, emotion itself, so that one is entirely unaffected/does not have an emotional response to pleasant/unpleasant things. I would like to stand corrected if I’m wrong). To achieve this mental state, requires a tremendous amount of dedication clearly, such as sitting down under a tree and meditating for hours on end. Am I wrong?
So given our short life spans, is it worth that amount of effort?
What you are talking about on the hand, is sticking to good principles, being relatively detached from things, and other types of logical and intuitive knowledge that makes *complete* sense to follow. In fact, any modern book on psychology will say the same thing, many in fact, even drawing inspiration from the psychological insights of the Buddha. Learning about that aspect of Buddhism would doubtless be beneficial to most people! I’ve always agreed on that. What I’m questioning, are the aspects that rest on specific metaphysical claims, none of which have been validated.
I think therefore, it’s wrong to say that the only thing that’s taught in Buddhism is the path to the abolishment of dukkha. Clearly not! People are taught things like Karma, Rebirth, Nirvana, as the gospel truth, which many people, such as Yapa, believe without so much as a *shadow* of doubt. It is wrong to do this without emphasizing the fact that these are speculative beliefs, things for which we have little or no evidence. Why? Because it would be a complete and utter lie to state otherwise. Yet, when did you last meet a monk who acknowledged this? They will in fact, go on to speculate things like “lives are imported from other worlds to fill the growing need for lives in this world”. That’s like admiring the fine thread in the emperor’s new clothes and speculating on where the thread was manufactured when we haven’t even established whether there are any clothes in the first place.
When this kind of thing is taught to people since childhood (aka childhood indoctrination), we end up with vast hordes of deluded individuals making the claim that these are established “naked” truths, beyond all doubt, and basing their entire lives gearing for the afterlife! The specific interpretation you have, is basically inapplicable for the vast majority of people and only a useful extract of Buddhist doctrine.
Dear PVR;
“Quite right. But what does eliminating unsatisfactoriness mean? Is it the abolishment of “dukkha” in this life? or does it also entail the abolishment of “dukkha” in the next life?”
Mr. Malunkeyyaputta, the house is on fire, come out of it without lying gossiping lazily inside.
Pauw!, this old Baka Panditha.
Ada ada ei maru pinkara ganne,
Kelesada heta maru nethi sithanne?
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
“Even our consciousness, which intuitively appears to be a serial process to us, most likely operates in parallel, as Dennett argues quite compellingly.”
What a marvelous theory, PARALLEL CONSCIOUSNESS! Man, when you don’t know just humbly say that you don’t know and ask from somebody who you feel know a bit more than you. Your pseudo vanity is the problem. Just don’t throw out evidence-less opinions that come into your petty mid without shame.
If you don’t know, please just ask from somebody without just trying to show your (loose) muscles.
Try to be disciplined.
Thanks!
Arosha,
‘Enlightenment’
—————
My interpretation of ‘enlightenment’ has always been similar to Archimedes’s Eureka moment – in the context of the Buddha – the moment ‘he’ found what ‘he’ had been searching for for 6 years – a subjective event.
However, the discussion went towards what *Mr Yapa* meant by the word. For example, the notion of ‘absolute truth about eveything even in defiance of subsequent scientific evidence’ was supported by him based on ‘Enlightenment’, by which he meant omniscience. So, it was claimed that the path to Peace and Reconciliation in SL had to be in accordance with ‘cosmic law as decreed by an omniscient being who personally placed SL in the hands of the believers’ and that being our ‘duty’ – all of which frustrates any initiative in bringing about decent dialog among the various people of SL (as WE are supposedly the masters and superior beings).
SD has explained where the expression ‘enlightenment’ is mostly used – ie, in connection with unprovable speculative claims (most SL Buddhists believe this). This is the basis on which the Buddhist Establishment exists and is sustained. I would say 90% of Buddhist activity is an enterprise in which they promote the dubious idea that ‘giving’ to the monks will benefit dead relatives in their afterlife and one’s own afterlife in another birth. (much like the Christian and Muslim and other organised religions but in their own versions of afterlife).
Dear B.W?Man and PVR;
I have been trying to convince both of you a very important fact that is needed in getting something, but failed, it is evident even looking at your last post. I will try to explain this with a story from the “Hindu Purana”, I have heard a long time ago. But don’t ask me for details as I have forgotten them. Here goes the story.
One women who was very faithful to “Siva” gave away all her comforts and devoted her whole life for the God. She did all sort of rituals every day without missing a single. She always felt that Lord Siva was kind and helpful to her, and she believed that He would intervene at any tragedy or in any difficult moment in her life.
However, one day towards the evening just after she finished her rituals to the Lord, two rowdies broke into her hamlet temple and got hold of her. She screamed and screamed, but there was no house nearby and no one heard her cry. In the mean time the rowdies were removing her clothes in order to rape her in the very temple of the Lord. Rowdies removed her upper garments, and trying to remove the lover one, but holding it with a hand she prayed the Lord with the other hand raised to her fore-head to save her from the unscrupulous thugs, crying and shrieking. But the the God was not there to help her, but only His statue was sitting unmoved as ever calmly looking as if nothing were happened. Eventually, with grief, pain and panic with the situation, she gave up the clothe she was holding and raised it too to the fore-head without a single thread in her body to pray the Lord to save her from the misery she was undergoing.
Suddenly the God appeared and the rowdies had to pay homage to their four legs.
Do you know the moral you and PVR could learn from the story?
If you really want something for you, you will have to ask for that with your both hands, from your whole heart. You will never be able to get what you want fully, if you are asking it with your pride untouched. You will have to be naked from your vanity and ask whole heatedly for what you want. That was what I have been telling you in simple language that if you don’t know don’t try to teach, but ask it from somebody who knows it, giving the source its due respect.
Old dogs don’t bark for nothing!
Thanks!
Mr. long gu;
Can you remember these?
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16223
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16257
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16274
Anyway did you straighten that hair? The hair made out of pure water, H2O?
Yours, sincerely Hon. yapa (D.O.M.)
D.O.M. – Divinely Objective Man
Behave! Your past kamma is coming after you. I am looking on
I see once again we return to ‘who really was the Buddha’ we are talking about?
Are we discussing …
(1) a clever human person in ancient times who thought quite deeply about the human condition?
Or (2) a human person who could see beyond the boundary of ‘being human’?
Or (3) a god who can grant wishes?
I think different people mean any one of these depending on personal or political agenda. Most people in SL strongly desire (3) but believe that his agents on Earth (the monks who promote (2)) can provide in exchange for devotion and patronage … and now … votes! The intellectuals settle for (1) and most intellectuals try to pretend (2) and (3) are not happening and take no action against it (I guess, for political correctness).
We need 3 different clearly defined terms so we refer to the correct ‘Buddha’ in discussion IMO.
(This is the point at which Mr Yapa asked in which Sutra does it say that there were 3 Buddhas!)
Longus,
Let me second that – that was a great exploration of the ‘nature of consciousness’ – the one single area of spirituality that interests me. To me that’s the question that tops all other questions ‘what is it that we are experiencing’? (because everything else is part of what we are experiencing). The next one above that is ‘why’ … I feel that question lies beyond the boundary of our human comprehension.
Dear D.O.B.
Thank you for the enlightening comment!
“Anyway did you straighten that hair? The hair made out of pure water, H2O?
Yours, sincerely Hon. yapa (D.O.M.)Anyway did you straighten that hair? The hair made out of pure water, H2O?
Yours, sincerely Hon. yapa (D.O.M.)”
For the benefit of your fish brain, here is the answer:
“A: When the rain drops form in the clouds from the condensation of water vapour the spors of bacteria get in and they make the nucleus around which the tiny rain drops form and come out of them- in other words “born”. This water I am telling Yapa Saamaneraya (Behold!) is free from any contamination by way of solvents or impurities and thus, Samaneraya qualifies to be pure water to satisfy your condition.”
and my question:This is what you said on 11 Oct 2010 @11.58pm:
“It is true that WATER is a “NECESSARY CONDITION” for all three modes of above births (ie. andaja, jalabuja and sansedaja), but WATER is not a “SUFFICIENT CONDITION” for the MODE OF SANSEDAJA.
That water has to be dirty, foul, contaminated and polluted to be qualified for a sansedaja birth. On the other hand such water is a disqualification for andaja and jalabuja births.”
By saying this you yourself categorize water into two sets
1. The contaminated water where “sansedaka” birth takes place
2. Non-foul,non-dirty, non-contaminated and non-poluted water which is a sufficient condition for the other two kind of births to take place
In the category 2 do you mean pure water? Where can you find pure water in the gestational sack or the egg? I mean pure H2O, OK?”
But you had no answer to offer!
Then the chapter closed and the case ended with this:
This is what you say in your last Holy Scripture: on 15 Oct @7.00am
“If especially the final one of them is missing their is no “life” there, and it is nor a “sathva” (animal/being) according to Buddhism. This consciousness consists of mind, memory and the capability to “contemplate” (THINK).”
In that case HOW ON EARTH did you argue LEFT,RIGHT AND CENTER of your rectum that the Buddha was referring to micro-organisms with regards to the “Sansedaka” mode of birth?
OBVIOUSLY the Buddha was talking about lager animals born in rotting and decaying matter out of “moisture”!
AND
HE WAS WRONG!
Therefore I have already proven one instance that the Buddha had gone wrong.
AND His supposed Omniscience is Disproven!
Now, that argument is over and I intend to give no answers regarding anything that took place before that final nail was hammered on Mr Yaapa’s empty head! The case is over!
Now you can try to answer the second question on “population increase in the last hundred years”
If your answers are going to be words like “aney paw” or “umbe” any of your questions will be answered in the same manner. I can’t waste my time on a retard. The others may feel the same!
Anyway did you straighten that hair? The hair made out of pure water, H2O?Yours, sincerely Hon. yapa (D.O.M.)
Dear B.W?Man;
You cannot find the beginning or end of the ” Samsara” of a being, Nagasena Thero explains this to king Milinda in Milinda Prashna. If all the skeletons of a being who is in his journey in the Samsara is collected, it is said that the whole earth is not able to bear it. Samsara is so long, and has no beginning or end unless you end it with your firm determination and effort. That long Samsara is so fearful because, only a very very few can have their births in “Sugathiyas”, that is in Brhahma, Deva or Human realms. Human realm is the best place for one to try to liberate himself as, as a human you experience both “pleasure” and “suffering” to a sufficient extent, so that you couldrealize the real nature of them. In Deva or Brahma realms you might not realize the nature of suffering, there is not much suffering there for a being in those places to experience. That was the plight of ” Baka Brhahma” I have been mentioning in some previous posts. Please Google and learn about him. In other realms, you can say that it is almost nothing more than suffering. You can see billions of ” Niri sathvas” living in your land of 10 perches wondering in hither and thither without any sense of the fearfulness of the Samsara.The most pathetic, situation is that in these lower worlds, minds (of the beings) are not high enough to do “volitional actions” (Karma) and therefore they won’t be able to do wholesome deeds to march their journey towards their liberation. Their actions are decided mainly on instinct, based on Lobha, Dvesha and Moha and hence they have only a very remote chance of having their next birth in a higher realm. Therefore generally a being in Samsara is doomed to suffer in th fearful endless journey and has only a very remote chance of liberating from it. This is called ” Bhava Dukka”, which is the real suffering, really day to day suffering you undergo like sickness, death, proximity to the unloved, separation from the loved and not receiving what is desired etc. etc. are not the sufferings mainly meant in the Buddhism. They are also there but the the crucial problem a being faces is the ” fearful Samsara Dukka”, which is full of endless suffering. Therefore, one must take the fullest opportunity of the rare human birth he got as per his good kammas done in his previous births and must make his fullest effort to get out of this fierce journey.
As an indirect answer you were expecting along with your Baka Brahma friend, PVR, this shows that there is no answer or human mind cannot perceive an answer to your quest you wanted to quench your curiosity that is what is the beginning of the consciousness or in other words the beginning of life. It is useless clinging into answer-less questions just as Malunkeyya Puththa did in the Buddhas time, (please Google and see) but must try to liberate himself from this fearful place without wasting a moment, in this precious opportunity of human life one gets once in a billions of times. Further, it is rarer to be a human in a time when the Dhamma of Buddha is still existing. Therefore ” Appamado amatha padan—Pamado machchuno padan. Appamaththa na miyanthi – Ye pamaththa yatha matha.
May Triple Gems Bless You!
Dear B.W?Man;
Really the most profound answer for the question about the beginning of the consciousness is given in a very famous paradoxical question, “Hen and Egg”. Hen gets the consciousness from egg and egg (future being, again another hen) gets it from hen, and the question is who came first, hen or egg?, you find the beginning of the consciousness at the last end of this question.
Can you find the beginning of consciousness as one pandith tried to preach in ignorance? Or can you find a being without consciousness? People are brave when they are ignorant.
Thanks!
Dear longus;
I thought you were talking in “audacity” not in “ignorance”. Otherwise I wouldn’t have insulted the way I did. It was a problem of your inability to understand Logic and my argument. If you are really did not understand and if you are telling these things honestly, without audacity, just indicate one more time, I will clearly show you, you were wrong and no any mistakes in my part with regard to the modes of births and it is the truth. I will explain also about your wrong understanding about classifications and that Buddha’s classifications are not less than a speck to the perfection as per that definition. You cannot show any flaws in Buddhist Doctrine. He is the Buddha and is not like you and me.
If you want any clarification regarding ” hair made out of pure water, H2O”, I am ready to show your ignorance again to the forum and to the whole world.
ARE YOU READY? THINK TWICE AND LET ME KNOW.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
Very intelligent guessing. You have come guessing to the “exact focal point”. The crux of Buddhism lies in your question, I suppose, if you meant was same as what I think about it.
I am only a tiny ant compared to the ocean of Buddhist doctrine, considering its vastness and depth. However, I would like to touch upon the issue if you honestly interested. I do not like to sow my seeds on stones, as mentioned in the Bible, if you are not honestly prepared to learn it.
If you don’t like learning it from me please read Milinda Prashnaya, and you will have a very good knowledge about your “intelligent guessing”.
You seems to showing your ability to regain your “BalangodaManhood”.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man and those who are interested;
Being is entity with consciousness. No one can show a being without consciousness. The term “consciousness” , even about its mundane meaning many have no clear understanding. Many just manhandle the word with their vague understanding and entangle in a mess and end with chaos. When one has no clear idea about the definition, one cannot have a clear understanding about the thing he wants to know. Therefore it is very important to understand definitions properly. When some body properly does not know about something, how come his talking about it to have a better meaning? therefore first of all I think we must understand what ” consciousness” means in at least in some contexts.
However, the concept of consciousness is a very complex, subtle and remote to understand one. It has only a very “dream” like meaning to many. However, according to my understanding consciousness gives the “bearers” some special ability to “act by his own” or take decisions of its own. Things that does not have ” consciousness” cannot act that way. I think one can have a rudiment of idea about consciousness by this description.
Further, it is more or less similar or related to the connotations generated by the term ” Fee Will” in Philosophy.
I think it is necessary to have some understanding about the concept before someone tries to understand what is expected in the ” Intelligent Guess” of B.W?Man. Otherwise he has to rely on ” Trials and Errors” as many Pandithas and Baka Pandithas used to do through out the history of this discussion.
Guessing also may help once in a while, but the systematic study is the proper way.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man/ PVR;
Submitted for your reference please.
http://www.groundviews.org/author/dayan/
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
‘What the Buddha said’
——————–
We don’t know what the Buddha said.
All we know is what some people wrote between 200BC and say 500AD, and everything found in history is nothing more that a reflection on the social politics of the day. All we can do is try and understand the world in which THEY lived, their hopes, their aspirations, their fears, their politics.
(BTW if the Buddha thought he had found some unique breakthrough for all of mankind forever (and if he was the person we think he was) then he would have written it down).
The point is, the relevance of Buddhism for us is what we do with it today. Many people do good things with it. Some do bad things with it. You have kindly provided us with an example. You have written a long piece (once again) on this supposed cosmic law – claiming the superiority of birth as a human and particularly ‘as a human with access to the Dhamma’ (which, according to the doctrine, is a privilege only possible because of past karma of people who have led exemplary past lives), knowing full well that such superiority would be confined to us Sinhalese Buddhists. See how again religion is misused for social politics? Why can’t you see that most people in the world would regard you as some nutter? (this is why I asked how you would present this argument to the UN!)
This is another reason why I don’t think a clever person (such as the Buddha is supposed to be) would have initiated such a religious movement open to abuse, particularly if he was ‘omniscient’ and therefore could see its result – or even just clever enough to work it out.
Dear B.W?Man;
Truth is a killer. You are scared to face the truth.
Pin mada eka guna dahamin veluwath,
Uge gathiya oo nariy maroowath.
Thanks!
Bye !
If that Panditha longus had a little bit of common sense or a little bit of brains to think about the basic things need to sustain a life, he would not say life forms are born in pure water and hence the Buddha was wrong.
Any life form needs air and food to survive. If these things are not available, life cannot survive in water and hence life forms cannot born in pure water. This “Mola” talking to disprove the Buddha does not know this simple fact, still talks big.
What a mutt is this?
Thanks!
B.W?Man has been asking naive questions to ridicule Buddhism, but when he came to the crucial point, and knowing that further discussion would be fatal to his “long lasting naive view points”, avoids and runs away from the realities.
I challenge him to continue the discussion about his quest to know ” To me that’s the question that tops all other questions ‘what is it that we are experiencing’?” .
He can know the answer for that ” Top Question” from me. Why now avoiding? You can negate if what I say is wrong.
Are you afraid to face the reality? Are you afraid to face this nutter? There is a parking slot reserved for your toy car next to longus’ parking slot.
Truth is a killer, and only a few are brave to face it. You can secure your superficial vision, running away from it.
Thanks!
Bye.
Dear B.W?Man;
“To me that’s the question that tops all other questions ‘what is it that we are experiencing’? (because everything else is part of what we are experiencing). The next one above that is ‘why’ … I feel that question lies beyond the boundary of our human comprehension.”
Yes, many thought there is something/somebody in us to experience, and called it “Athman”, Athma”, ” self” or “soul”. They thought that “Athma” which is the “spirit” of the life transmigrate from one birth to another birth without any changes. They thought reincarnation is only a change of clothing of the unchanging athma. But Buddha said that there is nothing unchanged in a being and therefore there is no “permanent athma”. The doctrine of “Anathma” or “Non- Self” is a unique teaching found in Buddhism and it properly explains with Paticca Samuppada, how a being is reborn according to his kamma and flow of life as per the five Niyama Dhammas. Knowing the “reason” for the continuity of life after life in Samsara, the Buddha found taught that by removing that “reason” , one can stop the life after life or rebirth, that is he can achieve the “permanent stop” or the Nirvana the supreme Bliss.
Anybody who wants to know more about “who is experiencing”, may learn the Buddhist Doctrine of “Anaththa” or “Non-Self”.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
Unproven, irrelevant and diversionary.
Anatta – ‘no self’
——————-
There is no point in opening up another can of worms when you already have 3 open right now and getting quite troublesome. (1) Maggots (2) Population (3) Social Politics. I’m sure Longus is waiting for your answers.
(‘Anatta’ – It is understandable. By around 300BC a new religious movement, Buddhism, is emerging in a mainly Hindu region. It then needs to differentiate iteself. The concept of ‘anatta’ is the only original idea introduced that differentiates it from the mainstream religion of Hinduism. However it is not something people can experience or verify. On the contrary, the opposite is true. The experience of ‘self – through conciousness – the one that thinks’ is the only thing we can really be certain of (Descates). As this thread is about the social effects of religion I would just point out that – despite ‘anatta’ as ‘the’ concept differentiating Buddhism from Hinduism – an understanding of and the conviction of the concept of ‘anatta’ is not the reason why Buddhists are Buddhists and Hindus are Hindus. So in the real world, real social politics for real people, ‘anatta’ whether real or conjecture or a political device, provable or unprovable, is completely irrelevant. It has no use. No utility. However, as I said, it would appear that in 300BC this was the angle the authors of the scriptures decided to adopt. Here … ask any Buddhist 10 reasons why they are Buddhist and not Hindu? I would bet this … the concept of ‘anatta’ as a diffrentiating factor will not feature in any of those reason. Test it for yourself. Ask your friends).
BalangodaMan said: “The concept of ‘anatta’ is the only original idea introduced that differentiates it from the mainstream religion of Hinduism. However it is not something people can experience or verify. On the contrary, the opposite is true. The experience of ‘self – through conciousness – the one that thinks’ is the only thing we can really be certain of (Descates). “
I’ve been quite interested in this issue myself. Certain practitioners of meditation, describe the meditative experience of losing the concept of “self” where the “self” is “realized” for its illusory nature. Therefore, practising meditation, is a way to verifying the experience, hence I suppose, the “ehi passiko”.
Now, that’s interesting! We have a subjective experience where a notion of self is shattered. Presumably, you feel a part of nature instead (or it is an altogether indescribable experience). I’m not doubting the experience itself. There are many other similarly strange subjective experiences one can have. For example, think about the mystical experiences of those on psychotropic drugs.
However, we once again come to a problem. So what? So the self is an illusion. What good does that notion do to us? What bearing does it have on the real world? Can someone please explain?
Also, it appears a suspicious case of having a subjective experience and confusing it with reality, which is a pretty bad idea. Can anyone undergoing this experience escape the indifference of nature? Did the Buddha too not experience terrible pain and die? Isn’t placing undue emphasis on this anatta concept, yet another form of escapism?
Secondly, can anyone who has had one of these experiences tell us something objectively useful? I mean, could any of them divine some knowledge useful to our reality, like Newton’s laws? Can they give us some access to higher knowledge, other than to say that things appear to be illusory?
A possible benefit I see, is to instil a sense of peace, which can surely be beneficial to relieve the day to day stresses of life.
But how would someone argue against this appearing to be a bad case of confusing escapism with reality?
Please feel free to tell me why such a view would be untrue, I’d be happy to listen and stand corrected. What good comes out of this experience of “anatta”?
There are some who think the outcomes are likely to be bad: http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/
Dear B.W? Man;
Aney Pauw!
“By around 300BC a new religious movement, Buddhism, is emerging in a mainly Hindu region”.
Around 300 B.C.? The Siddartha was born 300 years after He was born? Get your brains checked if you have any.
Now you have become a philosopher too.
” On the contrary, the opposite is true. The experience of ‘self – through conciousness – the one that thinks’ is the only thing we can really be certain of (Descates).”
Do you know the philosophical implications of Descartes’ statement ” I think therefore I am”?
Do you think longus will come back? With his ” pure water hair” he has parked his tricycle in his parking slot. Drive your toy car to the next slot.
You are running away from the issue giving false excuses. Cowards never face challenges.
Learn before Preach!
Thanks!
Dear Yapa Aajeevakaya
Looks like that you suddenly remembered (or did a school kid tell you?) that the bacterial spores need food to come out! Ane mehema “vin^nanayak!” Ane mehema molayak! It doesn’t matter whether there is food or not when they come out, Upaasaka Rala! When the rain drops fall on the earth, if there is no food for them they will die! Otherwise they will enter the brains of people like you and make them “pinheads”!
Anyway as I told earlier the conversation with you regarding the “Sansedaka” birth ended when you conceded that the lower life forms are not even considered “sathva” as they don’t have a “vin^nanaya”! That case is closed and the time given for appeals has expired too! Sri Longus Thuma regrets your defeat at his hands but can’t help it ,as your holy self asked for it! (Illagena kewa!)
By the way your bullock cart was towed away from my parking lot and sent for recycling! You can try to find another bullock cart! Hahahahaaaaaaa!
Garu Yapa (P.B.B)-Pathetic Blind Believer
As you continue to provide us entertainment why don’t you take up the second question?
“Can you explain the massive growth of world population in the last hundred years, using the law of Kamma and rebirth, considering the fact that there is only one human world(manussa loka) and it is extremely difficult for an animal or Pretha (like you hahahaaaa)or a nirisathaa to be born as a human?”
If your knowledge is not sufficient to answer that (as you yourself claim!) you can get help of any body who has studied the “massive ocean of” Buddha’s doctrine. Do you want me to highlight another inconsistency in Buddha’s doctrine for the second time as well?
Lokka, don’t utter these “holman kathaa” Bahinna wedeta? Ei bayada,uncle?
BalangodaMan
Your question regarding the beginning of the “consciousness” is very interesting although pinheaded Mullahs like Yapa try to redicule you, solely because he doesn’t have an answer in his small head! I will try to answer it in my forthcoming account (Holy Thesis) “My Buddha”. So, please stand by….
Mr Yapa,
I was expecting exactly this retort from you!
“Around 300 B.C.? The Siddartha was born 300 years after He was born? Get your brains checked if you have any.”
Yes, 300BC.
Recorded Buddhist doctrine began when the scriptures were first written down, from 300BC, just as Christianity only began when (around 30-100 AD) some 20 or so ‘accounts’ (‘gospels’, here say, a fading memory) of someone who *lived in the past* 30-100 years earlier (Jesus, a one person or possibly a composite of many and/or mixed with legend) were gathered together and edited to form the Bible (having rejected the ‘accounts’ that did not fit, but may have been more reliable). Recorded Buddhism describes an ascetic who lived 300 years – 1,000 years before the record. (I have already made this point a few days ago Mr Yapa). We don’t know what the Buddha taught any more than we know what was going on in Jesus’s life (someone who tried unsuccessfully to take on the might of the Romans and got seriously shafted and then screwed). All we know is what people who may have had a religio-political agenda wrote (most likely, because all religions in a region are in competition) about someone who lived *quite some time earlier* and is supposed to have taught/done/been, including miracles resurrection and fantastic claims of being the son of god, flying through the air, omniscience/enlightenment and the like. (just as today we glorify Mr A Dharmapala Mr Dutugemunu when we have a political purpose and some people demonise SWRD for similar reasons)
Anatta and USP: For example, what impact did the teachings of the Buddha have on the people in the region prior to the writing of the scriptures (?) … if ‘anatta’ is the ONLY new thing in it? In my opinion if that’s the ONLY USP the authors decided to major on then it hadn’t been properly thought through. It makes no sense, is contradictory, has no utility, and most Buddhists don’t even know about it.
Market Segmentation
———————–
The ‘collected teachings of the Buddha’ should have been aimed at only people who wished to widthdraw from society, live an ascetic life away from people – a personal development course for loners, confined to such people. It is balmy (say) for someone leading a country, a President, a businessman, a sportsman, most lay people with their normal lives to ‘not have desires’ – if we didn’t have ‘desires’ the economy will grind to a halt! We will have no food! We will not have any of the technologies we take for granted today, Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers. We need, not just ‘desires’ but ‘STRONG desires’ to do brilliant things. We need to compete successfully to bring these things to the market. Hey Mr Yapa, we need to compete successfully to hang on to our sovereignty – a concept not that far from your thoughts Mr Yapa when it comes to land rights and war mongering!
Alas, Accenture weren’t around in those days to advice the people who worked on the ‘branding’ and ‘market segmentation’. (or was it Mr A Dharmapala who for purely political reasons sold the people something that was quite different from what it said on the tin? …. but that’s another debate for another day)
SD,
“Also, it appears a suspicious case of having a subjective experience and confusing it with reality, which is a pretty bad idea.”
You remember I described my ‘experience of travelling to the edge of the universe’ during a meditation session with my teacher? The bliss I recall had a lot to do with some of the nasty dreaded things I had to do in the next few days, that I would rather avoid if I could. From the edge of the universe every single major defect, pain-point imaginable ‘back on Earth’ or ‘back in my life’ was (literally) many billions of light years away. It was indeed nirvana. I had no desire to return!
But … I still had to do my tax return by the due date the following week! And if the taxman came round he would have found me physically sitting there in the lotus position! (… and not way beyond the Crab Nebula where I would have sworn I was)
As I said, the idea of escapism is great for someone who has (finally and irreversibly) relinquished all his worldly goods, has no job, has no income, has no responsibilities towards anyone else (eg. children, parents) and can devote oneself 100% to purifying oneself, living on alms in the forest. But then why wait any longer to explore the great uncharted adventure that lies beyond this life? Beyond the grave? Why wait? Why hang around? I never understood that.
“We don’t know what the Buddha taught any more than we know what was going on in Jesus’s life”
Everybody knows that you don’t know. You have proven that fact well.
Thanks!
“Anyway as I told earlier the conversation with you regarding the “Sansedaka” birth ended when you conceded that the lower life forms are not even considered “sathva” as they don’t have a “vin^nanaya”!
I know you want to conclude this matter immediately as you have no footing here. Lower life forms were not even considered “sathva”? Then what are “Amoeba” and “Paramecium”? Not “sathvas”? Then what did you mean by the life forms born in your rain drops? Hot spring water of the temperature between 60 C – 80 C?
Honesty has been the problem though out the discussion. Almost all want to undermine objective facts to their unsupported opinions. They want to prove what they had believed and have no sense of towards the truths, especially when it is shown by others.
Try to be honest man, without saying “Umbae” to the world.
Knowledge and skills have no value, unless they are filtered through good attitudes and virtues, especially through honesty.
Don’t try to be mischievous, you know you reap as you sow, you cannot run away from karma.
Thanks!
Mr Yapa, you are on the wrong track again.
If anyone picks holes in ‘what the Buddha taught’ they are not picking holes in ‘what the Buddha taught’ – but what some people in a DIFFERENT time, who never met him, SAID. Therefore the inconsistencies that we raise are not a criticism of the Buddha per se. He may well have never claimed to be omniscient (but you are).
The holes we are highlighting is the work of some other people, definitely not the Buddha. That’s why ‘attributed to the Buddha’ a more accurate term in relation to what you call ‘what the Buddha taught’.
This applies to all religions, as well as most of what we have known as ancient ‘history’ – ie. someone’s biased account of things that have supposed to have happened long before them (eg. Mahawamsa), written to suit the politics of the time in which they wrote.
Now back to the questions on (1) maggots, (2) population, and (3) social politics.
Dear B.W?Man;
“Therefore the inconsistencies that we raise are not a criticism of the Buddha per se. He may well have never claimed to be omniscient (but you are).”
What do you know B.W?Man? You know nothing about Buddhism but talking in wholesale about it. Haven’t you at least heard of the word “Sarwagna”. The Buddha is Sarwagna (omniscient), and you are talking in ignorance. None can disprove it. You know what happened to those who tried, no?
“Now back to the questions on (1) maggots, (2) population, and (3) social politics.”
I think maggot problem is over with longus parking his tricycle in the parking lot. Give your verdict who was correct on the issue of Sansedaja. After that I will come back to the population issue.(and also, your most interested question, who is EXPERIENCING,).
He is the Buddha and no one is comparable to him.
Thanks!
“Now back to the questions on (1) maggots, (2) population, and (3) social politics.”
Glad to see that the discussion isn’t straying towards Peace or Reconciliation.
Wijayapala,
“Glad to see that the discussion isn’t straying towards Peace or Reconciliation.”
On the contrary, ‘contradiction (3) social politics’ is about Peace and Reconciliation. The point was, Buddhism is used by bad people as a means of defining who is a valid citizen on SL and who is not (by the Yapaites). Our argument is, the Buddha would never have put forward an idea that would marginalise one section of society – that would contradict the very definition of ‘Buddha’. Instead, we suggest it is merely a bad idea put forward by politically motivated people (after Buddha’s time, actually more nearer OUR time) which by its nature casts his teachings in a bad light considering how many innocent people have been killed in the name of defending a racist theory. Hopefully very soon (and I can feel it very very near) Mr Yapa will come round to accepting that – as I see Longus is making some progress towards Mr Yapa warming to him.
And then all barriers to Peace and Reconciliation will have been eliminated.
Yapa
What do you know YAPA?
It’s not me who said that lower animals don’t have a “vin`nana” and therefor do not even belong to “sathva”! IT’s you who said that! Now you say that amoeba and paramicium are animals with consciousness. Well, if you didn’t know it, you’d better know now that apart from paramicium and amoeba there are numourous uni-cellular organisms who respond to stimuli move actively and breed by budding and sexually both! There is nothing special amoeba (is Amoeba your son?) There are uni-cellular flgellates who act exctly in the same way apart from the fact that they photosynthsize eg. Euglina and Clamidomonas.They actively move about and in fact have and “eye patch” in their cell. Do they have a consciousness?
In that case what about the bacteria like Spirochetes and Vibrio who move actively like tiny tadpoles and respond to stimuli? Do they too have a consciousness?
Then you get photosynthesizing uni-cellular organisms living in a “colony”, but they are actually individual cells acting in cohesion eg. Vorticella, who still display the amoeba like movements of their cells. Do they have a consciousness?
Then we have sponges which look like plants but they consists of amoebic cells and are capable of responding in the “ameobic” way and sometimes carry out coodinated movements with the help of amoeboid cells, in spite of lacking a nervous system whatsoever. But you don’t get any response of pain from them when you cut them! The sponges are more “animal” than the amoeba because their larvi are free living multi-cellular creatures.(somewhat like a pack of ameobi clumped together!) What do you think Saamanera? Do sponges have a consciousness?
In that case some plants that show a more advanced “coordinated movements” and responses to stimuli like the Venus Fly Trap too should be considered as plants with a vin^nna!
Now do you understand the enormous amount of problems that you would encounter if you try to analyse life according to a “consciousness” or a “vin^nnaya”?
It’s you who said that the Buddha knew about micro-organisms and he meant “them” when he talked about Sansedaka mode of birth! I was telling what the Buddha meant were bigger creatures who are born(by eggs) in rotting and decaying things like maggots, flat worms and nematodes.
That’s why I tried to prove that a contaminated envioronment is not a necessity for such animals to be born!(by the rain-drop example) That was done to disprove your argument.
Then you got into a soup by pure ignorance -Avjja!-,”not knowing the true state”( What can I do about your ignorance, Saamaneraya? )
Now you say that amoeba and paramicium are animals with a consciousness! Now I have pointed out that those two are not alone in a spectrum of varying degree of “consciousness”! If you consider “consciousness” as a measure of advancement of life you may consider plants (at least some of them) as conscious too!
That’s why Yapa saamaneraya Sri Longus Thuma told in his earlier article on animal consciousness that you have to take “a developed and functional nervous system” as a measure of advancement of life.
If you are not severely mentally retarded (M.R. MR.YAPA!) you will understand this!
As a mere observer I have been reading this fascinating exchange of views.
Personally I too would feel uncomfortable if somebody questions Buddha’s “Sarvaccnatha” Wisdom, due to my upbringing. But, I must say that this person called Longus has scored all the points in his argument, in proving what he wanted to prove,eventhough I do not approve of the language he uses in doing so, sometimes!
I certainly do not see Yapa as an idiotic person as Longus implies, but rather a “duck with a coat of water resistant feathers”. Eventhough he seems to have lost the argument by all means he keeps complaining and harping on the same points!
In Buddha’s time there was a person like Yapa by the name Channa. As you know he was Prince Siddhartha’s personal assistant and friend who helped him in his renunciation act. But, later on Channa became so self consumed and arrogant that Buddha had to ask Ananda to impose “Brahma Dandaya” on him while lying in the “Parinirvana Manchakaya”. This meant that Channa may say anything he pleases, but others may not talk to him!
One more advice Longus; Asevanacha Balanum, and also use your analytical power for good things!
Dear B.W?Man;
Do you know where those “maggots” and “worms” come from? They have a long association with long gu.
Thanks!
Dear lon gu;
“That’s why Yapa saamaneraya Sri Longus Thuma told in his earlier article on animal consciousness that you have to take “a developed and functional nervous system” as a measure of advancement of life.”
I properly know that you belong to that consciousness-less, thinking-less sathvas.
Are you also trying to use verbosity tactic? Won’t work.
Thanks!
“In that case what about the bacteria like Spirochetes and Vibrio who move actively like tiny tadpoles and respond to stimuli? Do they too have a consciousness?
Then you get photosynthesizing uni-cellular organisms living in a “colony”, but they are actually individual cells acting in cohesion eg. Vorticella, who still display the amoeba like movements of their cells. Do they have a consciousness?
Then we have sponges which look like plants………”
Are all these birth forms are born in PURE WATER, H2O, dear lon gu?
Thanks!
Dear Longus,
Prof. Harishchandra is right. The points you’ve made stand. The only thing that remains is Yapa’s inability to accept them. But that’s nothing new and a demon that Yapa has to battle in his own mind.
I’m personally extremely curious to hear your treatise on the Buddha’s life and his intent on monastic leadership. This harks back to something BalangodaMan raised a while back, on the specific social “hooks” needed to establish a religious movement. After all, why did Buddhism become a “religion” that people froth at the mouth over, and not remain a “philosophy”?
Prof. Harishchandra, it’s good to hear your comments. You’re right, what we’re dealing with here is not logic but the ‘blinkers’ of childhood conditioning (peer pressure also) preventing Mr Yapa from thinking rationally. ‘Rationality’ itself is being challenged by him, presumably in the interest of ‘rationality’?!
Longus/Mr Yapa,
Population
———-
I came across this http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+sri+lanka+1800
Sri Lanka 1800 population = 1.2 million
Sri Lanka 2000 population = 20 million
That’s 18.8 new people in just 200 years!
an increase of 16.6 times!
Longus,
I’m looking forward to your opus-magnum on ‘Rational Buddhism’. My pet subject for about a decade, trying to unravel what the Buddha might have meant, if you strip off the superstition. As the Prof points out, our upbringing prevents us from asking difficult but relevant questions. The author of the link SD posted (see above) asked himself ‘why did he leave a wife and new born child to seek the solution to Dukkha. Doesn’t that cause more Dukkha for others. Isn’t that selfish etc …’ which is why I feel the Buddha’s life experience is very relevant to people who DO wish to escape from responsibility, but not to those who stay and deal with ‘life’.
For example, the Buddha’s experience is a great teacher for reclusive forest monks. Buddha’s experience cannot be a great teacher for standing up to Earthly responsibilities, fighting wars, defending the land against aggressors, normal competition of everyday life. It is like expecting the Pope to give sex therapy. We seem to have grasped the wrong end of the stick about the teachings.
What may have begun as an exploration of his own ‘escapism’ it has been sold to a different market than the teacher intended and turned into a religion (as SD points out). And therefore, the many anomalies that we are throwing at Mr Yapa to answer, somewhat unfairly I think – as he is a mere victim of the conditioning.
Looking forward to your Opus Magnum.
Prof. Harishchandra,
Re. ““Sarvaccnatha” Wisdom” – every culture has some patron who lived in ancient times who (supposedly) had access to the unknowable or had a direct and intimate connection to someone who does… AND the unknowable supposedly acknowledged the supposed supremacy of that culture above any other. eg. Jesus for the Christians (he was family), Moses for the Jews (gave them the promised land), Mohammed (pbuh) had allah’s cell phone number. This was necessary ‘validation’ for that culture in those times, no? I stopped believing in the supposed omniscience of anyone once I learned that all these people supposedly had unmistaken knowledge of the unknowable and it varied so much and were in contradiction with each other.
IMO, ‘validation’ today should come from what we do today, to and with our fellow humans, our values, things to be proud of to have done, in difficult times, according to standards and norms expected today (I go on about equality of all humans etc). These we can verify, but more importantly our neighbours in other cultures can verify and respect us for. It is unlikely that (say) a person from across the world will look upon us with respect merely because some ancient person who happened to have lived in our region (and dressed like us) said we are the greatest. Instead we may be respected for how we treat our fellow men and women today in defiance of elements that conspire against it. (Mr Yapa, pls note)
Prof.D.G.Harishchandra;
Please show where and how I am wrong and Longus is right? I think you will reason out it.
Thanks!
longus;
” It’s not me who said that lower animals don’t have a “vin`nana” and therefor do not even belong to “sathva”! IT’s you who said that!”
Show me where I have said so. If you show me that, I will be your slave. Don’t use dishonest tactics. Please try to be honest.
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
You are applauding again for the wrong party. You are too early to be too sure. We will see, until Prof.D.G.Harishchandra justifies his statement. I think he will be a responsible person to stand his verdict. We will see whether he is a respectful professor or not.
Thanks!
Dear longus/B.W?Man/PVR;
Let me first settle my accounts with Prof.D.G.Harishchandra. I will temporally stop the discussion with you and as soon as I finish the thing with the Prof. I will come back to the present discussion. I will take him one to one. Please let two of us along do it.
Thanks!
Prof.Harischandra
Thank you for the advice! I will adhere to it, not before one last clarification.
Dear All;
“Who laughs last will laugh best”! We will see who will laugh last. Will see whether professor laughs last or yapa laughs last.
Thanks!
M.R. YAPA
On Oct 15@ 7.00am you posted this:
“You made me come back by posting a “Baka Panditha” article, man, animal is an entity composed of ” Five Aggregates” or “Panchaskanda”, ie. rupa , vedana, Sanna, sankara and VINNANA (consciousness).
If especially the final one of them is missing their is no “life” there, and it is nor a “sathva” (animal/being) according to Buddhism. This consciousness consists of mind, memory and the capability to “contemplate” (THINK).
Otherwise those “animals” you define as “functions associated with a nervous system, without consciousness” are NO DIFFERENT ANIMALS FROM YOU.
(Please don’t call me again!, I have important matters to attend. Mind your own silly business)”
Now don’t be my slave! You are already a slave of your own mind! (Sri Longus Thuma says!)
BalangodaMan
Re. the beginning of (human)consciousness: This question was readily avoided by the ancient thinkers(including Gauthama Buddha) solely because of one reason. They had no way of knowing that before a certain time(in the history) there were no human beings, but slightly different Hominids, and even before that even more different Primates from the humans as we know today.
All of them thought in the line “who lived before that?”, which is a self deluded argument. “Who lived before that?” “A slightly different (genetically) creature whose predecessor was slightly more different than him!” The continum of evolutionary process. This will eliminate ,in the same way the famous question:”which came first,the egg or the hen?” May be a dino-bird came first!
Unfortunately our ancient sages had no knowledge of this and they thought that humans like them lived right throughout the history from the start to finish,and that’s why Buddha says in Agganna Sutra that “mushroom eating humans” became “rice eating humans” and they became “us” after they lost their spiritual radiance due to greed and jealousy! This is reminiscent of the story of ‘Genesis’ in the Old Testament. Maybe this was a prevalent story at that time from India to Middle East!
They didn’t know (even the modern day anti-evolutionists don’t know) that fossil evidence of humans are never found in the sedimentary rocks alongside that of dinosaurs. In the same way the dinosaur fossils are never found along with those of Trilobites(a primitive arthrpod who lived about one billion years ago) That’s why if the humans have to undergo a never ending cycle of birth and re-birth at one stage they would find themselves alongside the dinosaurs!
Life is not an extraordinry phenominon, but a natural outcome of increasing chemical evolution. At this point in time we have managed to produce replicating protein molecules (somewhat like Prion particles) and also to point out at a planet similar to Earth “only” about 30 light years away, which might habour another “Manussa Lokaya” – or an “Amanussa Lokaya’ or a Planet of Apes!
Longus,
I suggest we let Prof. Harishchandra have a go at convincing Mr Yapa. I hope he will take up Mr Yapa’s challenge.
Dear Yapa
You can’t possibly take up the whole world in a ‘one on one’ basis!
“Where have I gone wrong?”
A good question! “You are not only wearing the wrong shoe on the wrong foot, but also wearing your trousers inside out and your underwear over it”
This was told by a famous comedian on a TV show!
BalangodaMan
Re. “The beginning of (human) consciousness”
All the ancient philosophers including Buddha have either avoided this question or tried to answer it in their capacity, and failed. The sole reason for this evasion or failure is that they had no knowledge about the history of the human species. All of them believed, quite understandably, that people like “them” lived right throughout the history from the start. So the question, “who lived before the first human being?” “and who lived before that?”, ensued. ” A slightly different Hominid lived about 3-4 million years ago, and even before that an even more different Primate lived in this continum of evolutionary process”, would have been the answer that they couldn’t find. The answer to the famous question, “who came first, the egg or the hen?” would have been similar; “A dino-bird came first!”
Another thing that even the modern-day anti-evolutionists don’t know is that the fossil evidence of the humans are never found among the sedimentary rock layers of dinosaurs or the dinosaur fossils are never found in the layers that belong to the Cambrian period where the fossils of trilobites (a primitive Arthropod)are found. So, the question on the beginnings of life becomes answerable! Yet, on the other hand the same cannot be told about the beginning of the Universe as beyond a certain point the questions become unanswerable (avyakatha, according to Buddha and here he has shown the he was an intelligent human.)
The belief that humans like us lived even before “saarasanka kalpa laksha” years is what made Buddha say that there are endless cycles of “birth and rebirth” before one attains Nirvana. In that case at a certain point in their history the humans would have found themselves living alongside the dinosaurs, which is against all evidence! That’s why Buddha says in “Agganna Sutra” that “mushroom eating humans” became “rice eating humans’ and they became “Us” due to greed and jealousy!
If we consider that consciousness in nothing but “our perception” of the functions of a developed nervous system, this problem can be solved!
Life is not a spectacular phenomenon but a natural outcome of increasing complexity of protein molecule, has been proven by the fact that the scientists have been able to synthesize replicating protein molecules inside laboratories which are somewhat similar to Prion particles. And we have been able to find a Earth like planet “just” 30 light years away which might harbour another “manussa loka”, thus increasing the number of “manussa loka” to two!
Omniscience
————
Since this Yapa-Longus debate is simply about the Buddha’s supposed omniscience I would like to know how Mr Yapa arrives at his conviction. This very illuminating discussion among Buddhist monks
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=132&start=0
leans towards the lack of evidence in the scriptures for a claim of Buddha’s omniscience in the manner Mr Yapa holds out. So, Mr Yapa where did you get your story?
Once we clear this item, here’s another one.
Moon
—–
(4) where in the scriptures does it say that it is ok to (say) consume alcohol on any day except on a Full Moon Day?
IOW, does the Moon have any relevance since man discovered that it is not in fact made of cheese or possessing spiritual powers but a rock orbiting the Earth? Shouldn’t we have a Temple of the Moon Rock where we can worship a piece brought back by the Apollo astronauts? (apparently Ceylon is one of the few countries that did not supply a message to be included in the inscription left on the Moon by the Apollo 11 mission. The story at the time was, the Govt feared a backlash from the Buddhist clergy. Remember we had the Poya Day calendar (not Mon, Tues, Wed etc) in Ceylon at the time (from 1966-71) and messing with the Moon, let alone going there, might have been considered rather sacrilegious)
Dear longus
“They didn’t know (even the modern day anti-evolutionists don’t know) that fossil evidence of humans are never found in the sedimentary rocks alongside that of dinosaurs.”
Where in Agganna Sutta does Buddha claim that human beings were present throughout existence?
Prof. D.G. Harishchandra;
Please come to the issue. Show me where and how I was wrong and longus was correct? I don’t think repeating your verdict in another words will do any good.
Please justify your claim.
Thanks!
Dear longus ;
RE: Your post of October 20, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Why are you so hasty? We will consider, the facts put forward in the forum, one by one and see who is right and who is wrong. Be patient. Let me first settle my accounts with prof. After that will leisurely settle our accounts too. Excuse me for some time.
Thanks!
Dear BalangodaMan, Longus,
Our friendly neighbourhood “Channa” is a bit like this, don’t you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
No choice but to flee, like King Arthur.
Dear longus;
I also would like to participate/listen to your lessons on ” Consciousness” and respond. Therefore I would be happy if you can pause it for a moment, until I finish my final accounts with Prof. Harischandra. I cannot participate in the discussion with you until then. People might say you are breaking pots in an abandoned house, if you continue it without my presence.
I Hope you will give me too a chance to respond to your writings please.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala
It’s a wise guess in the context. I would not fathom that the Buddha meant those luminous, mindless Brahmas from Abhassara became slugs and earth worms.
From Throne To Serenity- Gauthama Buddha (A Brief Account)
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
Around the 6th century BCE in ancient India a revolution took place. Many people were seeking the path of finding the ultimate truth about the world and the life. Prince Siddartha Gauthama was was born to the ruling family of a small regional kingdom, called Kapilawattu, who was later known as Gauthama Buddha, was one of them. His philosophical doctrine became known as Buddhism after his death and survives upto date in its many forms, mainly due to the timely and chance revival undertaken by King Asoka. Most of his contemporary philosophies are now extinct in the practical sense apart from Jainism of Mahaveera , the 24th Jina or the enlightened one.
The Homeless Pauper
””””””””””””””””””””
The following is a Mahayana story about Buddha:
One day a student of astrology was going back home after completing his course in astrology in a distant hamlet. On his way home he got on to a river bank and after seeing some foot prints was curious to test what he learned from his teacher. He examined the foot prints carefully and was amazed to find that those foot prints should belong to an emperior, according to what he learned. He started to follow the foot prints and came across an vagrant ascetic seated under a tree. He was going to throw all his texts on astrology to water in disgust when the ascetic spoke:” don’t throw those books, young man, they are not lies”, he said. Those foot prints belong to my past; the person I was supposed to be!” Now I am an emperior too, because I don’t possess anything! The greatest person in the world doesn’t have anything” he said.
This was the essence of Buddhism: renunciation. Soon after his supposed Buddhahood he felt an immense bliss, a great relief, as if a door was open and this is what is called “timeless joy” in Buddhism. I will explain subsequently how and why he claimed to be the “One and Only Thatagatha”at his time.
(to be continued………..)
Dear longus;
You are you in haste? Want to win a one horse race? Shall we wait for your judge (referee) Prof. D.G. Harishchandra’s arrival. I think you will have to have some gratitude and respect towards the professor and shall we wait for some time until he gives the signal to start our race? I think it is more civilized.
Thanks!
“I would not fathom that the Buddha meant those luminous, mindless Brahmas from Abhassara became slugs and earth worms.”
Why not?
Dear All;
I will not be available for the discussion until next Monday. I think the Prof. has ample time to submit a comprehensive report on his “verdict”, who is right and who is wrong.
See you on Monday.
Thanks!
Wijayapala,
“Where in Agganna Sutta does Buddha claim that human beings were present throughout existence?”
All statements made by anyone at any time has to be read in the context of what was known at the time. At the time, they thought (1) that humans were always there or (2) that they appeared suddenly in the world. My understanding of Longus’s point is this – no statement made prior to 19th century would have been in the context that humans evolved in small changes over billions of years from other living creatures.
Which leads me to (coming next) … ‘The Ethics of Omniscience’
Longus,
Very thought provoking so far.
So we are Buddhists ‘by chance’ – not by cosmic holy decree as Mr Yapa claims. King Asoka picked Buddhism as his religious vehicle out of many that he could have gone with. If he had chosen something else (SD’s ‘shilboot’ for example) we’d be Shilbootees without a doubt, flag carrying, in possession of a doctrine we would kill for. Similarly Christianity comes down to the Emperor Constantine’s choice, out of many. He potentially may have chosen Buddhism!
So how does an Emperor select which religion he will patronise? Well, how does any ‘faction’ pitch its application for selection by an ‘authority’? It is rarely on merit. Just last week the Nigerians were caught on camera offering to accept a bribe for their vote for the World Cup hosting of 2018 – just an indication of how these things work in the real world today. The difference in ancient times is largely in vigour and brutality and ignorance and lack of checks and balances.
Hardly the stuff of ‘universal absolute truth’, eh?
BalangodaMan,
“All statements made by anyone at any time has to be read in the context of what was known at the time.”
Sorry, but this is a typically weak argument as it is an assumption that does not prove in any way that Buddha believed that humans existed continuously throughout all time. Agganna Sutta is remarkable in that it approaches both Big Bang and evolution theories probably much closer than any other religion I’m familiar with, and even Prof. Heshan was hard-pressed to come up with an appropriate Christian fundamentalist dogma to refute it.
Therefore it was rather ridiculous to see you and longus attempt to show that Buddha was anti-evolution by invoking Agganna Sutta of all things. Your central argument was that Buddha believed that even early life forms were humans, where absolutely nothing in the Sutta conveys that notion.
Again sorry, but the premise of any argument can never be an assumption.
Dear Wijayapala
Why not? Because the formation of earthworms and slugs is not described in Agganna Sutta.
From Throne to Serenity…..Part 2.
The Pampered Prince
”””””””””””””””””””””
Prince Siddartha is said to have left his wife and the new born son on the day he was born. Siddartha seemed to have been a deep thinker andowed with rare intelligence. He lived a pampered and cloistered life away from the suffering masses, according to the sources. But this did not prevent him from thinking about the meaning of life and how to escape death. He must have admired the path taken by the counless ascetics at his time and himself wanted to be one of them and find the truth about life, which led him to leave his new born son and wife which no responsible father would think of. His meloncholy bordering on depression must have helped him justify his act; but not his father’s ire over his “disgraceful conduct”!
The Tormented mind
””””””””””””””””””””’
At his time a lot of ascetics perfected the art of attaining “higher meditative states” and the first three teachers of ascetic Siddartha can be considered as these. Siddartha mastered all these “states” or “dhyanas” up to the “third formless state”. The ancient teachers have sub-divided the higher states of mind according to common perceptions of the “sedated mind” experienced by many Vedic and non-vedic truth-seekers. The journey that “BalangodaMan” confesses to have taken in his meditation can be taken as one such state! Then he started on a path of extreme austerity or self-mortification, following many other such people at his time. Very soon he was close to death and suddenly he realized this and reverted to a live of moderate eating and contemplation.
His tormented, tortured and supressed mind bounced back at one night-long meditation session which resulted in a feeling of ‘intense happiness’ and “realization”, which can be produced by stimulating certain areas of human brain-ie. a religious experience. Siddertha outlined several factors as the “cause of suffering” and the “way out of it” in his deep contemplation which he elaborated to a complete doctrine of “Liberation from Suffering” and a “path to Deathlessness”.
Is it more than a “Theory of common sense” that any man of above- average intelligence can formulate? We’ll see next……
Correction…(for the sake of accuracy!)
In my last account the 2nd sentence should have read as: “Prince Siddartha seemed to have been a deep thinker endowed with the gift of rare intelligence”
and in the last sentence of the third last paraagraph:”..revertd to a live..”, should be corrected as, “..reverted to a life of…”
I have approved my slave’s request to be released till Monday!
From Throne to Serenity…..(A Brief Account) Part 3
Emphasis on “Anatta” (Soul-lessness)
”””””””””””””””””””
Buddha the deep thinker, must have realized in one of his confrontations with his
rational mind that everything in the world as far as he could think is subject to change, decay and death. Yet, he could not find an explaination as to WHY this is happenning. Anyway this was “no new discovery” at his time. If he thought in this line he should have come to the conclusion, that life as well as any other object gets destroyed in the end and nothing ought to be remained after that. Just like blowing off a flame; just like a bubble bursting; all the “elements” or “bhutha” s returning to the nature. This would have brought him closer to the philosophy of Puurana Kassapa and Ajitha Kesakambali; annihilation!
But, buddha knew that there were two schools of thinkers at his time;the “eternists”-the Hindu-Vedic teachers plus Jains and Aajeevakas of Makkali Gosala- and the Materialists like Kesakambali and Kassapa (there may have been many many more such doctrines that we don’t know of now. There were 62 such doctrines according to Buddhist sources!) So, Buddha knew for sure that he didn’t want to be another Vardhamana Mahaveera,(by preaching about a “perpetual soul”) because Mahaveera was already very popular and established at that time. And also he knew that although Kesakambali and Kassapa were non-violent “Holy Men” , their kind of materialism could easily lead to “Hedonism” which will result in a “lack of fear to commit sins”, and Buddha didn’t want this to happen being a compassionate person by nature!
Nodody has ever disproved the basic tenent of materialism: The elements go back to the nature; the mind stops functioning; neither good nor bad has any effect on you;everything is annihilated. In fact Kesakambali was known as the ‘unconquered one’ and Buddha never had eny encounteres with any of them, according to the available sources!
After coming so close, yet Buddha chose to present a theory that is neither an “eternist” nor “materialist”. He told that there is NO permanant soul, but anyway the creatures are born again due to the continuation of the “stream’ or “chain” of consciousnesses.
Next we will examine the discrepencies of soul-lessness!
(open to correction and scrutiny…….)
Longus,
“Because the formation of earthworms and slugs is not described in Agganna Sutta.”
Alas, using your same reasoning those living beings were not humans, as they were not described as such in Agganna Sutta. Sorry!
The Ethics of Omniscience
————————-
Analysis:
——–
A person is either ‘human’ or ‘omniscient’.
Human: If he is ‘human’ he cannot know beyond the boundary that constrains all humans. If he is ‘human’ and claims to be ominiscient he is a FRAUD.
Omniscient: If he knows or thinks he is ‘ominiscient’ he has a dilemma. He has these choices.
(1) to conceal the fact in order not to disrupt the normal workings of the world.
(2) to conceal the fact but influence the world by discreet interventions to avoid disasters.
(3) to reveal the fact, in which case everything he says will be construed as a divine revelation or absolute truth, even when he is not making such a statement.
(4) to reveal the fact but make clear that he will not reveal anything in order not to disrupt the normal workings of the world. (but why reveal it then?)
(5) to apply his omniscience in favour of a particular section of society above others.
If Siddharta Gautama became omniscient let’s consider each option available to him.
(1) apparently not.
(2) definitely not. many disasters have taken place in the world, even through religious conflicts alone (!) that man has not avoided. Ways to avoid the bubonic plague is one. To avoid AIDS is one. To avoid the 2004 tsunami. Help medical science.
(3) for people to ‘understand’ requires raising the level of education of contemporary people by the equivalent of several millenia of learning. Not practical. It is not recorded that the people Gautama was speaking to had higher level of comprehension than the average people of that time. eg. revelations about the origins of the universe will need today’s knowledge foundation to understand in the way we understand today. The Big Bang has no meaning to people who believed the Earth is flat. Or dinasaurs to people who thought the Earth was only 4,000 years old (Jesus). Gautama needed to have explained these first (slugs and dinosaurs before talking about humans eating rice).
(4) he only wants to establish his authority/credibility because of feelings of insecurity.
(5) he would be behaving unethically.
You can see, whichever way you look at it ‘omniscience’ is a difficult thing to deal with.
But, how does one know one is omniscient?
There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals claiming such. We know that certain practices (mental illness, medication, meditation etc) invariably produce a delusion of being omniscient.
Taking all of the above together I am persuaded that ‘omniscience’ is NOT troublesome to a person who IS (in fact) omniscient. I expect his omniscience will guide him in how to deal with it.
But we ARE arguing over it!
The very fact that we are arguing over it means that the people who told us that Gautama was omniscient had not thought it through properly! And the supposedly omniscient person had not considered the possibility of ambiguity, which would raise questions on his supposed omniscience – or at least his ability to think things through.
(Remember … these stories were authored by people at some point in ancient history (who had a reason, often political) about some person who lived HUNDREDS OF YEARS EARLIER … AND (always) SUCH A PERSON WAS SAID TO BE OMNISCIENT in any religion! Every culture has this phenominon)
So, claims of omniscience is common (!). I think it is more interesting to study ‘ancient claims’ of omniscience (to study the reason, that is, and concentrate on what it means for us today) than the actual claims of what the ancient omniscient person is said to have seen (as we seem to be bogged down in on this thread). The only departure from this is if someone proved his omniscience to us today. Then he will be on CNN, BBC, FoxNews, live miracles and the end of suffering for all everywhere. He will show us how.
How come these super-humans only lived in the past?
Dear Wijayapala
Your point is taken in the sense that Buddha’s description in Agganna Sutta regarding the Origin of Life stands far superior to the existing theories found in other world religions today. But, in denying “A Creation” Buuddhism doesn’t stand alone.At least Jainism and Taoism say that the universe always existed.
From Throne To……(Part4)
The Ambiguity of Anatta
”””””””””””””””””””””””
The explaination found in the Suthras don’t give the exact Modus Operandi of re-birth apart from saying that the future destination of a living being is already determined by and large by the “sum” of actions (or deeds) he performs while living. The consciousness is like a river which doesn’t stay the “same river” with each passing split second. It’s a continuous flow of water. Just like that the “water”(the fleeting chain of consciousnessess) are carried from “here to there”, thus;rebirth.
In Abhidhamma Volumes you find the mention of ‘chuthi vin^nna’ and “patisandhi vin^nna”, whic bridges the last thought of this life and the first thought next life. In Paticca Samuppada(dependent origin) the First cause of Origin is cited as Ignorance-Avijja- and Avijja causes the Kammas or Sankaara. The Sankaaras causes the consciousness (S->V) and this is the bridging moment of this life and the next life, according to Buddha. What governs this is the good or bad Kammas of the person, according to Buddha.
Now the first discrepancy is if there is no “soul” carrying your Kammas to the next birth, how can the rest of your kammas follow you like a “shadow following the traveller’(as said in Dhammapada) to make their effects?
The second grey area is how are the two consciousnessess which could be miles apart are instantly joined. as if by magical power?
The Buddha hasn’t given a clear answer to this as far as I know (anybody can correct me) apart from saying that “the person born new is “neither the same person nor a different one!”-a little bit of Sanjaya Bellattaputta stuff!
(to be continued…)
Dear Yapa
I don’t fancy for you to remain in slavery forever!
The main point in the argument on ‘Sansedaka Birth’ is, according to what we have as ‘Maha Seehanada Sutta’, preserved and translated, that life is born out of ‘dirt’ and this is stated as one of the “ways” that life is born. But, as we know life is not born out of dirt!
The sewers are a ‘place’ where life is born and not a ‘mode’ it is born. Furthermore, just because some people are born in hospitals, you can’t say that hospitals are a ‘way’ the humans are born. (just like Longus’ “chicken are born in the farms”, example!)
Please do not expect me to repeat the same thing over and over!
From Throne to Serenity…..(Part 5)
The Problem with The Law of Kamma
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
Kamma is one of the five Niyaama Dhammas that governs the nature, according to Buddha. But look at this example:
A bank robber enters a bank and kills the security guard. The security guard ‘may have probably’ died due to the effect of his past bad Kamma, as it can’t be due to any other Niyaama Dhammas. IT COULD COME UNDER ANY OF THE FOUR MODES OF DEATHS, THOUGH(aayukshaya,karmakshaya,ubhayakshaya and akaala),according to Buddhism. In other words in order for the bad kamma of the security guard to be effected, the bank robber is “led” to commit a bad kamma, and I can’t find any explaination as to WHO or WHAT co-ordinates this ‘action packed drama’! IN DOING SO THE BANK ROBBER MUST HAVE GATHERED A VERY BAD KAMMA TO HIS ACCOUNT! Apart from seeming to be “killing two birds with one stone”, this can hardly be considered a “MORAL LAW’, as claimed to be by Buddha.
May be this is why Buddha himself is said to have stated that “the subject of Kamma is beyond imagination!”
In that case is it any better than the “fatalism” of Pakudha Kachchayana or “unimaginable flow of Tao by Lao-Tze, described in his book “The Way?”
Dear All;
One Prof.D.G.Harishchandra in his post of October 20, 2010 @ 2:21 am claimed that longus has proven me wrong.
Here is a part of his post,
“Personally I too would feel uncomfortable if somebody questions Buddha’s “Sarvaccnatha” Wisdom, due to my upbringing. But, I must say that this person called Longus has scored all the points in his argument, in proving what he wanted to prove,eventhough I do not approve of the language he uses in doing so, sometimes!”
However, I repeatedly requested the Prof. to justify his claim, however, he has not responded, even after 04 days. Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that he would not back his verdict.
However, SomewhatDisgusted aka SD aka PVR attested rof.D.G.Harishchandra’s verdict as correct. This is how he attested it.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/#comment-24439
Again he reiterated as below.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/07/25/peace-and-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-is-there-a-way-forward/#comment-24486
He says that Prof. was right saying I was wrong and longus was right. Therefore I think I should give him also a chance to prove what he reiterated.
Dear SomewhatDisgusted/SD/PVR;
Please prove what you have attested as correct.
I think you will be a responsible person, unlike the prof.
I am looking forward for your justification please.
Thanks!
DISCLAIMER!
The Part(5), which appears above by one “Harishchandra” doesn’t reflect my views, though I find it interesting!
Mr Yapa,
The Prof. DGH has given his answer, which is exactly the point Longus was making, in a nutshell.
“The main point in the argument on ‘Sansedaka Birth’ is, according to what we have as ‘Maha Seehanada Sutta’, preserved and translated, that life is born out of ‘dirt’ and this is stated as one of the “ways” that life is born. But, as we know life is not born out of dirt!”
That closes the matter, me thinks.
Dear Longus,
Very interesting posts indeed. It’s extremely refreshing to read such a critical analysis and comparisons to the teachings of other philosophers. Please continue.
RE: “Now the first discrepancy is if there is no “soul” carrying your Kammas to the next birth, how can the rest of your kammas follow you like a “shadow following the traveller’(as said in Dhammapada) to make their effects?”
This issue was raised a while back but dismissed by the faithful as the ignorant bleatings of those who didn’t know scripture. Apparently, knowing scripture is a pre-requisite to pointing out logical flaws in an argument, just like perhaps, detailed appreciation of the fine workmanship of the emperor’s clothes is a pre-requisite to pointing out that the emperor is naked.
This is a time honoured tradition used by the faithful of all religions – pointing to a lack of knowledge on scripture so as to deflect criticism. Well, Longus is clearly a person who knows his scripture, why not answer him truthfully?
Isn’t the sheer amount of evasion in the discussion so far enough evidence that the faithful are not driven by an interest in truth, but a fealty to the Buddha or tradition or whatever?
From Throne to Serenity (A Brief Account On Gauthama Buddha) -Final Part
The Lost Kingdom Regained!
””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
Gauthama the Buddha thought out as accomplished as possible a set of principles at his time after carefully working out in his mind several questions and answers. He didn’t want himself to be known as neither a Eternist nor a Materialist. He forwarded a doctrine of liberation composed of the Four Noble Truths and “The Way”-The Eightfold Pathway, together with Paticca Samuppada(causative origin), Niyaama Damma and the Law of Kamma made up a package of an elaborate world view. The only permanant truth, according to him is Nirvana which is undescribable in words, but a state which is neither existent nor non-existent, neither made or un-made, an eternal bliss with no “individual” to experience it. Once again you might see some similarities with the “four-value” logic of Sanjaya Bellattaputta!
He became one of the most accomplished teachers with an ever increasing congregate of truth seekers, and he maintained a good discipline among them with a set of ‘Vinaya’ rules like any other organized teacher. He lived a ‘wondering ascetic’ life with his congregation and didn’t get attached to any worldly assets although he got the patronage of some famous kings and nobles at the time. This is what Gauthama wanted right throughout from his life, FREEDOM from countless responsibilities of a layman’s life, and to be the KING of his own spiritual world!
That is why he always highlighted the short comings of the other teachers and claimed that he was the only Thathagatha, Sarvaccn^na(the Omniscient One) and the Jina (an indirect hint at Mahaveera!).
Gauthama the Buddha knew that after his death,for a long time to come his doctrine will go unchallenged because of the “self-contained” nature of the concepts he formulated. Only way to disprove his omniscience is to see whether his teachings about the provable things are complete and flawless. As we saw here they are neither complete nor flawless, as could be expected from an omniscient person! But all credit to him, once again!
The End!
SD,
“but a fealty to the Buddha or tradition or whatever?”
I can’t say for Mr Yapa as I do not know him, but among some of my relatives there is a mortal fear that challenging anything contained in Buddhism will bring very bad karma, be born in hell or re-born as an ant or worse.
Correction; ‘a wondering ascetic life’, in the second paragraph should be read as ‘wandering ascetic’s life’
Prof. Harishchandra;
Thank you for the answer though a bit late. There you say,
” The main point in the argument on ‘Sansedaka Birth’ is, according to what we have as ‘Maha Seehanada Sutta’, preserved and translated, that life is born out of ‘dirt’ and this is stated as one of the “ways” that life is born. But, as we know life is not born out of dirt!”
Here you are trying to put the blame on ” life born out of dirt” and avoid the question. Such a clause is not mentioned in ” Maha Seehanada Sutta” in any of the translations, Sinhala or English. This wrong translation belongs none other than longus of the Sinhala version of the Sutta. Why such a learned man of Buddhism as you have declared in your first post rely on longus translation rather than the original. I have quoted the relevant original part of the Sinhala version in my post of October 11, 2010 @ 11:58 pm. I don’t think you could miss it. It is given again below for your attention again.
……………………..
To clarify what was meant by “born out of moisture”, please read the Sinhals version too. It says,
“Theth thaen wala hataganna sathwa wargaya”, I don’t know how it is mentioned in the Pali canon.
…………………………….
Here, clearly the meaning is not ” born out of dirt” and it means “births taken place at wet places”, and hence your claim,
” The sewers are a ‘place’ where life is born and not a ‘mode’ it is born. Furthermore, just because some people are born in hospitals, you can’t say that hospitals are a ‘way’ the humans are born. (just like Longus’ “chicken are born in the farms”, example!)”
is not a valid one, any one can see. Please clarify the matter with ” Original Maha Seehanada Sutta”.
Hence, I am not violating your request ” Please do not expect me to repeat the same thing over and over!”
THEREFORE, PLEASE REPEAT YOUR ANSWER WITH AN AUTHENTIC SOURCE, AS “AN AUTHENTIC SCHOLAR”.
Looking forward for your authentic clarification, Prof.
Thanks!
“One horse races” and “breaking pots in abandoned houses” are in full swing.
Ethics, honesty, morality, truthfulness, fairness, justice ………..???????????
Thanks!
SD/PVR;
You also can justify your attestation that I am wrong and longus is right, while Prof. clarifys his claim, don’t take it as an issue. I think you will stand behind your statements.
Thanks!
Truth can stand upright on its own feet. It does not need hell of a lot helpers and pandamas!
Thanks!
Mr Yapa. Let me help.
‘Modes’ of Birth and ‘Places’ of Birth
——————————–
The argument rests on whether in the Sutta the Buddha is identifying 4 ‘modes’ of birth OR 4 ‘places’ where beings are born.
To my mind, there is hardy any need to identify ‘places’ of birth – this is vast. It can range from farms to hospitals to jungles to mountains to oceans.
So it must be ‘modes’.
Now, we all know beings can be born from eggs and wombs (both parts of the reproductory process). We know that beings cannot be born out of moisture (or dirt) – moisture is H2O – water. Water cannot turn into living things.
(whether it is ‘dirt’ or ‘moisture’ or ‘pure water’ or ‘chocolate cake’ is irrelevant. Babies are not born from any of these things)
What you are doing is, because the 4th mode of birth does not make sense anymore (since 19th century knowledge) you are trying to validate it by changing the types of the categorisation in retrospect.
cont …
“by changing the types of the categorisation in retrospect.”
To clarify, Mr Yapa, you are proposing to treat No1 and 2 as being items categorised as ‘modes’ (consistent with our understanding of reproduction) and in No 4 you are saying the Buddha was taking about a ‘place’ (then why not mention farms and mountains also?).
BTW We are still ignoring No 3 – spontaneous birth! Is this common place? What modern day explanation do you have for that?
(then can we address the ‘population explosion’ mystery?!)
Dear B.W?Man;
“Mr Yapa. Let me help.”
I don’t need your help. I will tell when I need it. Offer your help to so called Prof. and PVR when I finish my job. Until then don’t disturb me. Do you think both those academics cannot face me. It is one to Two big shots. Let them face this simple single man. Let me have a fair competition.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
” (then can we address the ‘population explosion’ mystery?!)”
I fairly well know that you all want to run away from the topic and change it, as soon as possible. I know the whole members of the GANG OF FOUR” are like proverbial dogs that shit on the threshold.
I will finish the first question and come to the population explosion. Why Hurry? If you are in a hurry please ask that so called Prof. and PVR to settle their accounts with me by backing their claims.
Nobody can deceive everybody forever!
We will see who these big pseudo images are.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
“Mr Yapa. Let me help.”
Didn’t you see my post previous to your one? It says,
“Truth can stand upright on its own feet. It does not need hell of a lot helpers and pandamas!”
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
” ‘Modes’ of Birth and ‘Places’ of Birth”
Soon you will see the difference between “modes” and “places” of birth.
Do you think you can cheat me so easily? Eva “vaana”. I will never let you deceive the forum by your foul tactics.
I will come to you when I finish those “Scholars”. You just wait!
Thanks!
Dear Longus,
Thanks for an excellent analysis.
I think you’ve highlighted many interesting issues which some people would refuse to consider rationally. That alone should send alarm bells ringing in such people’s heads. I mean, why shouldn’t you consider it rationally?
RE: “This is what Gauthama wanted right throughout from his life, FREEDOM from countless responsibilities of a layman’s life, and to be the KING of his own spiritual world!”
I think your overall idea is well argued but would appreciate further substantiation for the above. I agree that all this “omniscience” stuff might have been prompted by a desire to rise above the other teachers of his time, but my personal suspicion would be that anyone willing to go to the supposed lengths he did would also believe intensely in one’s own doctrine. Or do you feel that his primary goal was to establish a monastic tradition instead?
RE: “Gauthama the Buddha knew that after his death,for a long time to come his doctrine will go unchallenged because of the “self-contained” nature of the concepts he formulated.”
This is a really important point, thanks for highlighting it. Just because something is self-contained and self-consistent, doesn’t mean it’s true. That was the whole idea behind the “Shilboot” example. It is possible to construct an entirely mythical doctrine that’s impossible to disprove. Therefore, until and unless real world applicability is demonstrated, there is no way to differentiate it from delusion, be it hypnotic, drug-induced or otherwise. This should be a fairly simple idea to grasp.
Also, I feel Longus is spot on again with this. The “only way to disprove his omniscience is to see whether his teachings about the provable things are complete and flawless.” If one is reasonably careful when formulating one’s doctrine, even that possibility can be sidestepped quite smartly. As we’ve seen so far though, it doesn’t appear to be the case that the Buddha’s claims are that water-tight..
Having said all this, I doubt that either Longus, BalangodaMan or anyone else is of the opinion that Buddhism should be discarded like a dirty rag. Instead, I believe it’s important to see it for everything it could potentially be, and that includes seeing the potentially negative aspects and making use of the positive aspects.
But what if? What if there is indeed a kernel of truth in seeing higher realities through this path. You can’t know for sure unless you try? Certainly! I’ve always agreed that things shouldn’t be dismissed off-hand. Do go ahead and try if you wish to, I doubt that anyone would interfere with your freedom to do so. If possible, demonstrate it to the rest of us, so that we can benefit from it too (in fact, the entire world would change fundamentally, so it would be most welcome).
But until and unless you can demonstrate these truths, please stop this dangerous cultish nonsense of brainwashing children with unsubstantiated “truths” and claiming that one should die to protect the “way”. If you think that while you clearly cannot demonstrate your claims, you seriously need to get your head examined.
Now, back to the topic:Peace and Reconcilliation; Is there a way forward?
Lional Bopage who took part in the unsuccessful insergency to topple the government in ’71 broke away from the JVP before it’s 88-89 second bloody inserrection and launched a “solo” political career with his newly found “petty bourgeoisie” politicians, must be happy to read the extensive dialogue on religion (still continuing….!).
Just as there are Zealots and fanatics in religions there are similar elements in all the ethnic groups too. LTTE’s bloody 30 year war is the culmination of such Racial Superiority (hurt?) among the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka. A similar Racial Superiority complex among the majority Sinhalese may have led to this situation.
When it came to the elimination of the threat of the LTTE -as they didn’t seem to be understanding any other language- such Zealots as well as most of the moderate Sinhalese supported the Sri Lankan government’s war effort, because the LTTE was the common enemy and ought to be eliminated-at any cost. That shows how much harm the LTTE had done to the civilian life in Sri Lanka.As the Tamils seemed to be morally supporting the LTTE’s terrorism the average Sinhalese man didn’t have a soft corner for the Tamils when civilian casualties were reported in some instances. It was part and parcel of any war, and a war without civilian casualties, I have yet to hear!
The people who voice their opposition to the government’s undemocratic agenda are therefore well within their rights, when they protest. But the people who were finding fault right along with the Sri Lankan government for waging war against the LTTE, and defying the international pressure for a ceasefire, because there were civilian casualties, cannot be regarded in the same light. They were either living in a make-believe perfect world, or bigots who cannot see the violations of human rights in other wars. Now there is no question about the theory of “clean wars”, with the latest exposure by the wikileaks!
The most important thing is for the hard-liners (both Sinhalese and Tamil) to come down from their stand and extend the hand of goodwill and equality. As the Sinhalese ideology won in the end they are likely to expect to remain in their superiority mentality while the Tamils who lost are expected to surrender. This is a trait from our evolution having done the same in the countless pre-historic battles for domination!
But, the way forward is not there; what was done was done ; it is history now. We have to move forward towards a more tolerent society, in both religious and ethnic spheres.
Dear S.D.
Thank you for the feed back!
Well, my personal view is that Gauthama the Buddha must have experienced some “liberation”, “a realization” or “a look at the absolute truth”, because he describes vividly how you can achieve these stages one by one in one of the Sutras I have mentioned earlier. After his experience of “finding the truth”, he would have been thinking about it and worked out an elaborate doctrine. He would have honestly thought too, that he had attained it, but when that experience waned off he must have experienced the joy of leadership of his monastic order and the service it did to people-you can’t deny that Buddha’s doctrine didn’t help people with its moral code.And from that time until his death he acted like any other traditional teacher who lived, preached and died.
And also, always there was a chance of “re-charging your batteries” by undergoing the same meditation routine in the night. It seems that these various stages of meditation (dhyanas and wisdoms) were so very well known by the ancient sages in India, and it’s left to be seen whether these (dhyanas and wisdoms) can be reproduced by any modern human being.
As for me, I think after my death the compounds in my body will return to the nature sooner or later and what I call my mind will come to an end!
“But until and unless you can demonstrate these truths, please stop this dangerous cultish nonsense of brainwashing children with unsubstantiated “truths” and claiming that one should die to protect the “way”. If you think that while you clearly cannot demonstrate your claims, you seriously need to get your head examined”
This is an excellent advice not only to the Buddhists, but all the blind believers of the world!
Dear “Scholars”/Prof./PVR/King Arthur/All;
Boastful “wordologies” seem to prove the ” impotencies” of the so called big mouthed “professors and academics” and show that they are no capable more than “lip services”. They are showing their big titles and full names only to cover up their inabilities ad to get undue advantages.
I put to so called Prof. D.G. Harishchandra that he is a “fake character” planted to scare me and to support the anti Buddhist movement in the forum.
It is amply evident that he did not display any scholarly qualities in any of his posts.If he is a true professor, I would like him to disclose his “whereabouts”. If he is genuine, it cannot be a hard thing to disclose them, as he has already disclosed his name with initials ans the academic title.
Looking at his first post of September 24, 2010 @ 1:02 am, I took him to be famous Dr. Harischandra, Specialist Psychiatrist of Karapitiya Hospital and the medical faculty. However, at the same time I had the suspicion that how this famous psychiatrist do not know how to pronounce the name of the distinguished psychologist, CARL JUNG. Please see how this “Professor” has pronounce the name in his article.
” And what Longus says about Sigmund Freud is equally sensible. Not only Freud, even Karl Yun and Alfred Adler all had their own theories on human psychology. Some of these are still debated. We can take Buddha’s teachings on human psychology in the same line.”
See, it is “Karl Yun”. Really the full name of this famous Swiss Psychologist is “Carl Gustav Jung”, not “Karl Yun”.
Ok!, I will disclose many more ” unethical secrets” of so called “Distinguished” People soon.
Further, I challenge King Arthur (DS/PVR) to face my challenge, to back his claims how I was wrong and longu was right, without massaging the thighs of longu’s. Those are actions below the level of academics, I should say. Please back your claim, your unsupported attempt to discredit me.
Honda honda sellam elivena jameta!
Dear distinguished Academics;
I am looking forward for your respectable responses.
Dear longu;
I feel like you don’t hear me now. Why you want to shift the topic hurriedly? We have not yet settle our dispute. Let me also tell my version.
Thanks for your patience.
A: Thanks for an excellent analysis.
B: Thank you for the feed back!
Excellent back scratching! I scratch your back, You scratch my back.
This excellent mutually beneficial act reminds me of a story I have heard of long time ago. Such things happen when people get terribly scared. Here is the story. You know I like to tell stories, no.
One day two friends happened to go through a thick jungle and they could not pass it before night fell. Now through the dark of the night, they hear various unusual sounds, screeches, weepings, chirpings ……….. . Both of them were terrified to the brim, but none of them wanted to show it to the other. However, their terrific misery could not be hidden from themselves that both of them wanted to answer the call of nature, the big one. So they talked each other about their need and decided to “sit back to back” and perform their duties, agreeing that it would help to see if wild animals come their way and boasting about their bravery.
After performing the duty well, they decided to go to the “wash room” to the water stream flowing nearby. They sat again “back to back” in the stream looking around carefully. Then suddenly, a fierce sound came from a nearby bush. Both trembled, but didn’t want to show their fear to the other. However, one asked,
“Malli got scared?”
“Me?, What are you talking? I am not scared even an elephant comes here.”
” Then Malli why do you wash my back side, instead of yours?
” Oh! Because Ayya, you are doing the same thing!
Thanks!
Dear All;
REACTIONS FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR
Fear of ghosts is a fear that haunts many of us, humans. When we are alone in a house especially at night, that feeling often comes to our mind filling our hearts with some unexplainable fear. We are asked by our adults to think about something else, think about the Triple Gems, to recite Buddhist stanzas or to shout some “kunu harupa” (filthy words).
When we go in darkness a strategy we use to get away from that fear is to drawing our attention to something else other than ghosts and keep on talking at a bit higher tone on that subject. That usually make us forget about the ghosts and feel us relieved.
That tactic was seen in action in the forum during the past few days.
longu, suddenly wanted to talk about consciousness and wanted to preach Buddhism forgetting the central topic of the argument, ex- party. ( I will show all of you his true knowledge of Buddhism and Biology, that dishonest scholar often wanted to commend). Now he wants to change the topic to something he has never talked of during the whole period of this thread. He wants to go back to the original topic of the forum. See how he has suddenly remembered rhe original topic after five (5) full months.
“Now, back to the topic:Peace and Reconcilliation; Is there a way forward?” ( his post of October 25, 2010 @ 10:00 pm).
It seems that he has fully forgotten that he was engaged in an unfinished debate with me.
That self appointed King Arthur, dishonest PVR/SD, applauded with the duch courage obtained from that fake Prof. and off handedly said that I was wrong and longu was right, and also mocked at me by sending a naive video clip. But he is avoiding my challenge to back his claim and praising and talking with longu, in fear of ghosts.
B. W?Man, as usual has no arguments, though he to applauded like a child for the pseudo roar of that fake professor, who does not know how to spell Carl Jung. He made a naive attempt as usual to convince me about what he believes in ignorance. He wanted me to believe, what that fake Prof. said in fear of him.
Behaviour of all these people are explainable through simple psychology. It is not a behaviour that needs thinking. It is directed by their subconscious mind for their security and protection.
I don’t build my house in the cemetery if I am afraid of ghosts. I came with a sound footing and I represent “Naked Truths” and therefore not afraid of any unethical tactics. Their only advantages are lack of knowledge and shamelessness, You cannot beat me with those unethical and unacceptable tactics. You are four and I am alone. Please face me without running away from the topic/issue. I know cowards never face challenges.
For me challenge is a respect done for me!
Thanks!
Mr Yapa,
This may be difficult. Longus and SD (‘PVR’) are discussing the origins of the philosophy known as Buddhism, in particular exploring how it may have turned into the religion that it is popularly practised today.
Grown people do sometimes discuss things of intellectual merit such as this.
It’s normal. Not scary.
M.R.Yapa
“Thamange mattum Tammettum”, this may apply to you.
The topic you want to re-discuss is a “foregone conclusion”, so is YOU!. You wanted to become my slave and then ran away for hiking in the weekend! Anyway I don’t even want to have an ignorant salve like you!
The questions you wanted to answer still remain unanswered-including the ones posed by me on Sept 23 @9.33pm. and the question on ‘population increase’!
In fact I don’t frankly expect you to answer such questions! How can I expect a pre-school kid to answer a post-graduate question paper? He will just say, “aney pau!” or “Ummbe!” and run away! How can I expect a “village idiot” to answer the questions on Global Warming? How can you expect the cows to understand Math?
The same Yapa-I suppose- says this about me on Oct 7@ 8.23pm (in your “Mohammad Ali” style resume) in celebrating your “victory against the ‘heretics’:
“5. Later longus joined the discussion and made some very good contributions in this effect. Though he took the side of Buddhism, some times he leveled a very big challenge by posing very fine questions. A very different quality I observed from was he was always ready to accept the correct answers, when offered to his questions. He helped to take the discussion of Buddhism to a deeper level”
Haaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,Thank You! Thank You!
Mr Yapa,
There may be several people having the same point of view (BM, SD, Longus, Prof DGH) but it’s only ONE point of view – against your ONE point of view. The Four Musketeers have put forward their argument but you have not put forward yours to refute theirs.
(given that the ones you have given are flawed. eg. H2O vs dirt is a red herring. Ameoba is a red herring. And we mustn’t confuse ‘modes’ of ‘beings originating’ with ‘places’ where they originate).
Mr Yapa, I’m sure you can get the high priest at your local temple to answer the point Longus originally made. Surely there is a stock/definite answer supplied by the Buddhist establishment??????
If there isn’t an official answer they must stop preaching nonsense to unsuspecting lay people (of which I believe you too are a victim).
Mr. Yapa (Or should I call you Nalin de Silva?),
You have provided some good entertainment here. Losing the argument hands down. If you need confirmation please start reading again from the top and you will see why you have lost. When Longus has pointed out the flaws in your arguments you have generally responded with abuse, name calling, dirty stories and then even accusing everyone else of being part of an anti-buddhist conspiracy! But you cant change the fact that all your arguments have been defeated. Now all you have left is your relgious dogma, and I know that is the hardest thing to let go of. All along you have been playing the man, call ing him names, citing inane yarns.. You really need to play the ball to be taken seriously.
Check this out. Yapa in action..
More from yapa’s worldview..
Dear longu/B.W?Man/dingiri;
Why your honoured Prof. D.G.Harischandea and PVR are silent in the issue? By the way you are showing the shades of a Professor.
Dear longu;
I know you really want to conclude the matter, you want to make it a foregone conclusion. I will show very soon who thee pre-school kid is. People of the forum very soon will know who does not know the facts in Buddhism even a pre-school kid knows. They also will know who does not know the simple facts of Biology even a pre-school kid knows.
Try to run away from the central argument, and insult Buddhism, but treachery won’t hold for a long time. You are in the trap. I brought you there falsely admiring your posts. You accept it no?
You just wait!
Dear B.W?Man;
“This may be difficult. Longus and SD (‘PVR’) are discussing the origins of the philosophy known as Buddhism, in particular exploring how it may have turned into the religion that it is popularly practised today.”
Pooh! That ignorant man of Buddhism, PVR, engaged in a discussion about Buddhist Philosophy? That man who has not read even a school book of Buddhism? That “Scientist” who had never learnt Science in his whole life? With that culprit who wants nothing else but to show off? You are also a partner of the discussion? You also displayed your knowledge in Buddhism, no. Karma broke your car no? Your Noble Eightfold Path didn’t contain eight components, I suppose.
Together you can do a marvelous discussion on Buddhism, a Dhamma Sangayana? That Professor culprit also could be helpful.
You just wait!
Dear dingiri;
Thanks for posting the first link of yours which talks about ” Rays emitted from Buddha statues”.
Really, I was one of the persons (or the person) who helped to solve the issue. I think I was the first person to explain the phenomenon in terms of Physics in a public electronic media. With my explanation only that uncertainty faded away.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man/ PVR/ dingiri;
Your respected and high sounded Prof, D.G. Harischandra declared that I was wrong and longu was right wrt the issue of “sansedaja”.
Then tell me why that Prof. cannot /do not stand longu’s opinion any more? And tell me also what it indicates, when a professor cannot stand a view of a person?
This is simple logic and common sense, one does not need to put his all might to think about. Please frankly tell your opinion about this.
Thanks!
Dear Dingiri,
You seem to have missed the broader point that the secularists here have derailed the conversation from the topic of peace and reconciliation. They don’t want to talk about Tamils because they have no interest at all in Tamils. Instead they are more fascinated with the notion that Sri Lanka will become a paradise if only the Buddhists all converted to become brainless secularists like them. Their arguments are specious, although I have to give longus credit for confessing how groundless he was claiming that the Buddha rejected evolution and believed that human beings existed throughout all time. The others here have not been so forthcoming and tend to duck and weave when their ignorance of the given topic is exposed.
Oh no Dingiri, it’s become 5 against 1 now!
There is a curious irony here. Wasn’t it Mr Yapa who was saying that the ‘majority is always correct’?
M.R.Yapa
“Then tell me why that Prof. cannot /do not stand longu’s opinion any more? And tell me also what it indicates, when a professor cannot stand a view of a person?”
Another classic dementic spark! Because everybody has his own opinion! Otherwise everybody would say the same thing here! Why do we have a dialogue at all then? Any professor can be wrong; when Buddha was wrong more than once!
” I brought you there falsely admiring your posts. You accept it no?”
Another Yapa Classic! And you committed suicide to mislead the Police, right?
“Really, I was one of the persons (or the person) who helped to solve the issue. I think I was the first person to explain the phenomenon in terms of Physics in a public electronic media. With my explanation only that uncertainty faded away.”
Oh! Really? Why did you use Physics to explain it? You think science can explain “transcendental” phenomena? I thought it’s beyond science! I remember you telling that any “gamarala”, knows better!
M.R.Yapa says that he explained the “rays emitted from the Buddha statues 3 years back, good job!
Prof. Nalin de Silva says it can’t be explained by science and finds a connection with the start of the attacks on ‘Prabhakaran’s territory’.(that Buddha, who is said to be in the “eternal land” of Nirvana has shown his endorsement of the military attacks!) He says though Buddha didn’t wage war(!), the Bodhisathvas did! He would have preferred if Buddha too went to war, because then he wouldn’t have to go into Bodhisathvas to prove his point! These are the types of ‘intellectuals” we have, and those “upaasakammas” in the audience must have been quite impressed!
Hey, Yapa. Were you there?
Dear Wijepala
I took your point regarding Buddha’s sermon on evolution as found in Agganna Sutra as there was ambiguity. What we expect from an “Omniscient” person is unambiguious and complete statements, which was not the case with regards to Buddha, as we have seen here!
Wijayapala,
Evolution was not a concept anyone knew of, or indeed could have imagined, until Darwin. So to say “Buddha rejected evolution” pre-supposes that evolution was a known theory put forward in those times. Longus did not say that. The question instead was this – did the Buddha attempt to describe the theory of evolution to the people of his time, having gained an unnatural insight into it without any of Darwin’s research? If so how did he come by that insight? Is it (as Mr Yapa thinks) a suddenly gained omniscience? If that is so then why is it that there are discrepancies (Longus asks)? What makes these super-human insights any more reliable than other super-human insights – such as ‘if you blow up lots of unbelievers (non-Muslims) you will go straight to paradise where you will get the exclusive attention of 76 virgins’? What better evidence has Mr Yapa got?
You see the problem is this. If we say it is OK for Mr Yapa and the Buddhist clergy to claim such unproven religious things as proven FACT then we are also giving the green light to other religious claims – some of which can be quite outrageous and detrimental to the world as a whole. eg. the 72 virgins, and Mr Yapa’s claims of S-B cosmically decreed superiority over all other ethnic groups.
Longus’s point is, in ancient times there was no reason for anyone to doubt what appeared to be obvious to ancient people. Eg. the Earth looks pretty flat as far as you can see. The Sun, Moon and Stars appear to go round the Earth. Everything appears to have always been here. Ancient people could not imagine lands tens of thousands of miles away since they did not travel more than 20 miles in a lifetime. Past and future could not have meant as much to them as it does for us because nothing much changed (population remained quite static). So in that way, evolution is not something that can be explained in a sermon. Even if it was explained it did not do any good for widespread understanding. I don’t see any books and expositions, research and teaching done in any Buddhist country in the 2,400 years up to Darwin to indicate that anyone who heard that sermon actually understood what he was talking about – after all, EVOLUTION IS A PRETTY MIND-BOGGLING IDEA. All that appears to have happened is, after Darwin some Buddhist fundamentalists suddenly deluding themselves viz. ‘that is what the Buddha was talking about in that sermon’. (Notradamus anyone?)
Dear All;
longu was admired by his accomplices as a “Mahadenamuththa” (highly knowlwedgeble) man in Biology and Buddhism. He used to preach Lessons of Biology and Buddhism in this forum to his accomplices, who admired them as made of gold. But they were just naive narrations full of inconsistencies and contradictions. However, monkeys wanted to praise their own tails and they did it to their hearts, content. However, this Baka Baka Panditha longu who tried to preach new theories did not know a simple biological fact even a grade five child knew. That was one of the reasons for his confusion in the debate about “Sansedaja” with me. Referring to that Baka Panditha PVR,s question this “BIOLOGIST” said Bacteria are not animals but plants. Later I pointed out that it is neither plant nor animal according to the Scientific classification, but I did not mention about longu’s reference it as a plant as I did not want to “disclose his lack of knowledge” and damage his “pseudo image”. Please read about the scientific notion about bacteria.
http://www.google.lk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20070129232847AAs8cMz&ei=YtHITKXXA4m3cKWxvZ4L&usg=AFQjCNH1YOJl_wFee1RUsM2H-MIsXbFtJA
Now dear longu;
Tell me whether you said bacteria is plant in this forum or not? Do you accept that you had no that simple knowledge of Biology, despite preaching of new Biological theories in the forum?
If you want I can show you how and where you mentioned so, as a help to you.
Please answer this, after that I will show you how you “recited UMBAE” in Buddhism.
Come on ” BIOLOGIST” !
Pseudo personalities cannot last long!
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
RE: your post of October 28, 2010 @ 2:35 am
You have no capacity to do anything other than “seeing with your little eyes”. Many things are there beyond your vain but but little capacity.
Until recent times, that is until the “Newtonian World view” was rejected by the Modern Scientists, Scientist lived before did not think there could be any knowledge system outside the knowledge gained through (old) Scientific Method. This regressive notion of the Old Science was the reason why its attention was kept limited within the boundaries of the Science alone. But now scientist know that Newtonian system is only one narrow and incomplete ” tunnel vision” to see the world, and exploring the other knowledge areas to uncover the hidden truths in nature. To day scientist do not rely only on “scientific” knowledge and they are much interested in “gold mines” in other knowledge ares.The olden day scientist blinded by the “science only myth” did not want to think sabot other versions. That foolish act is not repeated by the modern day scientists, but are left for the (half) men and (half) women lived thousands of years ago in caves situated in a remote area in a united beautiful island now known as Sri Lanka.
[Edited out - please refrain from ad hominem attacks]
Thanks!
.
Dear longu;
“I took your point regarding Buddha’s sermon on evolution as found in Agganna Sutra as there was ambiguity. What we expect from an “Omniscient” person is unambiguious and complete statements, which was not the case with regards to Buddha, as we have seen here!”
What ambiguity are you talking of? Must be about thousands found in your sermons to your helpless trembling accomplices? Do you want me to show the ambiguities?
If you want I am always here to help you. You don’t have to run away like in the past from the topics, what has happened to you now, remember the proverbial dog?
Yours Sincerely,
M. R. yapa
Note: M. R. – Mind Radiant
Thanks!
longus,
“What we expect from an “Omniscient” person is unambiguious and complete statements,”
Why?
How would such a person explain certain phenomena to others who would not understand them?
Wijayapala,
“How would such a person explain certain phenomena to others who would not understand them?”
My point entirely!!!!!!
If you read my last post, and the one slightly earlier entitled ‘The Ethics of Omniscience’ you will see why I raised this. Also relevant is my post about ‘the documented teachings of the Buddha are about a wise person who had reputedly lived 300 years previously’.
The question asked is, (as you say) why would an ethical and omniscient person even begin to explain a concept like evolution to ancient people? So, did he?
I’m glad you are asking the same question that Longus, SD, Prof DGH, dingiri and This Gossiping Woman are asking.
So Mr Yapa, it is now 6 to 1. How big has a majority to be before it is ‘CORRECT’ (your words)? (The case of SL ethnicity is also about 6 to 1 I believe).
Furthermore Mr Yapa claims that the Buddha also taught Quantum Physics, not just the Theory of Evolution. And our point (and yours now) is – what was the point? Also, what was the PRACTICAL BENEFIT in stating that ‘when one is reborn there is no soul that passes’ – only confuse ancient people who already believe in reincarnation? (also asked earlier)
Are these the teachings of an ethical, omniscient person (a Buddha)? OR writings of a possibly deluded bunch of human individuals (sufficient to pass of as credible to ancient people) with a political agenda in the ‘healing/religio-political industry’ who lived 300-1000 years later?
Wijayapala, you see we have a lot more in common!
(I explained earlier where your agenda coincides with the secularists agenda in ‘religion used for manupulation of the masses’)
Wijeyapala,
“Why? How would such a person explain certain phenomena to others who would not understand them?”
That may hold true for theories such as relativity and the principle of uncertainty. However Evolution and Natural Selection is not too complex a theory to teach or understand even for people of those benighted times. I believe there many more complex ideas (although not necessarily true) in other buddhist discourses… All he needed to have said in a sermon is…
“pinvathuni…, There was a time when there were no human beings on this planet. Our ancestors were but apes. But over a period of kalpa dasadahasak the weaker apes died out and the stronger, smarter ones survived and so on gemeration upon generation until today, where we have become and entirely deferent species. Look at the Dog or the Horse pinvathuni… they bear no resemblance to anything in the wild. However they were bred by our muthun mithhan from wild wolves and asses. So you should now be able understand the niyama dharma called evolution… 2300 years from now a mithya dushtikaya called Darwin will come along and claim this theory as his own. He is but a petty plagiarist. So remember, and pass it on down the line that it was your Thathagatha who came up with the original theory… Now give us all a sadhukaraya…”
It takes a good deal of religous dogma to believe that the Budda knew all about Evolution, the principle of uncertainty and relativity but didnt give us a thesis on it as people were too stupid to understand it in his time.
It just makes me wonder if say Yapa and your good self were born in to the Islamic faith? Would you hold with Al Qaida?
If you were born into the Evangelical Christian faith would you be with George Bush and Don Rumsfeld?
Dingiri,
“but didnt give us a thesis on it as people were too stupid to understand it in his time.”
There is a theory (I have just made up) that he had the foresight to put his reasoning and the evidence in a time capsule for when humans on Earth are sufficiently advanced enough to understand them (just as the Shilbootahs did). Meanwhile Mr Yapa is doing his best until this time capsule is found. LOL!
Wijayapala,
To add to what you said here
“to others who would not understand them?”
Not only that, but passing down 8 to 20 generations who would need to have understood it also until it was written down. Chinese whispers, anyone?
Dear Dingiri,
RE: “pinvathuni…, There was a time when there were no human beings on this planet. Our ancestors were but apes.”
Well argued. Instead what we get are stories about formless beings calcifying into sexual beings after eating mushrooms and rice (rice??? a domesticated human invention in another world?) and then specializing into 4 castes – kshatriya, vaishya, brahmana, shudra.
And the faithful are excessively eager to interpret this as evolution. This only shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution as mere differentiation, as opposed to complexity accruing from simplicity through a gradual process. This sutta documents the presence of already complicated beings who merely change form and develop sex organs. How is that evolution?
For starters, in evolution, there is a common ancestry, where life began from simple beginnings and rose in complexity. If a domesticated plant like rice was present, that means sexual differentiation had already been achieved. What this sutta is suggesting, is that these complicated being appeared independently out of energy or something, without any common ancestry with anything else. And this is what the faithheads are desperate to interpret as evolution? How balmy can you get?
And the single line: “the world contracts and expands” is interpreted as the big bang. Now let’s see how rational an interpretation that is.
For starters, the world does not “contract and expand”. The idea of the big crunch was superceded sometime ago. The modern evidence is that the universe will continue to expand forever into nothingness. Secondly, if this sentence can be interpreted as the big bang, let me demonstrate how easily Epicurus can be considered even more “enlightened”, based on far more compelling reasons.
For example, in Epicurean physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism):
“Forms can change, but not their inherent qualities, for change can only affect their shape. Some things can be changed and some things cannot be changed because forms that are unchangeable cannot be destroyed if certain attributes can be removed; for attributes not only have the intention of altering an unchangeable form, but also the inevitable possibility of becoming—in relation to the form’s disposition to its present environment—both an armor and a vulnerability to its stability.”
Well, doesn’t that show that Epicurus had the first law of thermodynamics down pat?
and how about this: “If a limited form lives within an unlimited void, the form could only wander aimlessly about, because what is unlimited is ungraspable; meaning, the limited form would travel forever, for it does not have any obstacles. “
Isn’t Epicurus talking about Newton’s first law of motion?
And this: “Further proof that there are unchangeable forms and their inability to be destroyed, is the concept of the “non-evident.” A form cannot come into being from the void—which is nothing; it would be as if all forms come into being spontaneously, needless of reproduction. The implied meaning of “destroying” something is to undo its existence, to make it not there anymore, and this cannot be so: if the void is that which does not exist, and if this void is the implied destination of the destroyed, then the thing in reality cannot be destroyed, for the thing (and all things) could not have existed in the first place (as Lucretius said, ex nihilo nihil fit: nothing comes from nothing). This totality of forms is eternal and unchangeable.”
Is he talking about a universe from nothing? Get outta town, Lawrence Krauss.
And here we have a far more clearly enlightened person, Epicurus, who independently thought of the middle path, the first law of thermodynamics and the modern cosmological synthesis and no one thinks of worshipping him? Are people daft or something?
What about Mahavira, and the Hindus, who also believed in an eternal universe which went through cycles of birth and death? Were those people enlightened too?
BalangodaMan put it nicely: “All that appears to have happened is, after Darwin some Buddhist fundamentalists suddenly deluding themselves viz. ‘that is what the Buddha was talking about in that sermon’. (Notradamus anyone?)”
All this goes to show the kind of schizophrenic compartmentalization of the brain that religion causes, where people are prepared to kill each other over the unverified beliefs that they were brainwashed into as toddlers by village priests and grandmothers whose totality of knowledge did not extend beyond the tripitaka, bible, koran or whatever other ancestral old wives’ tale they fervently believe in.
And after forming an emotional bond to these concepts in childhood, and after basing it as both their source of morals and the foundational beliefs for the meaning and purpose of life, even an adult can no longer be expected to consider these issues critically, lest their entire world view crumbles into a senseless heap. And these adults then brainwash their own offspring to continue the cycle, confusing morality with baseless beliefs. Such is the cancerous nature of religion.
So should anyone have any doubts that religion will surely continue to be one of the greatest sources of strife and a continuous retardant to rational thought and human progress in the years to come? I don’t think so.
Dear All;
In addition to my post of October 28, 2010 @ 6:35 am I would like to show another inconsistency and lack of basic knowledge of Biology of that Bana preaching panditha longu.
I showed you how he preached PVR that Bacterias are not animals but plants. However, I indicated to him in a later post that Bacteria are neither plants nor animals.
However, this ignorant panditha, BIOLIGIST, who has only a short memory, after a few days says Bacteria as animals. Read that in his own words,
“A: When the rain drops form in the clouds from the condensation of water vapour the spors of bacteria get in and they make the nucleus around which the tiny rain drops form and come out of them- in other words “born”.”
A person who once says bacteria, a plant and after a few days says an animal. See his inconsistency and ignorance. Still he wants to create new theories in Biology and teach high sounding things to the forum. He may be thinking that when you don’t know anything preaching others as the best he can do.Now he is behaving like a proverbial dog!
I will show how this panditha’s (Longu thuma’s) knowledge of Buddhism too. Really I could have straight away, give the answer to the “Sansedaja” query he raised, very easily. Even a small Buddhist child knows the answer, But these Pandiths, longu, PVR, B.W?Man did not know that it really was not a question, and I indicated them that it was not a difficult question. But “Longu Thuma” demanded me a quick answer in a tough tone and I let him to jump into the puddle and let himself to have a mud bath. I showed the power of Logic and my arguments, but I will simply show that longu’s question is a non question.
Honda honda sellam elivena jameta. Fire crackers are on the way.
You just wait, Longu Thuma!
Thanks!
Dear PVR;
“RE: “pinvathuni…, There was a time when there were no human beings on this planet. Our ancestors were but apes.”
Well argued.”
Have you ever known anything other than ” holding the torch” to others.
Back your claims against me, dishonest coward.
Thanks!
Dear B.W?Man;
You must be very happily thinking that why I did not ask you to back your claim that so called Prof. Harischandra was right whe he said I was wrong and longu was right. I asked so called Prof and PVR to back their claims. You may be either thinking that I may be afraid to challenge you or I have given you a special privilege. Answers are No and No.
That is because I have well understood you after so much of time wasted in the forum writing to you. I have seen throughout that period that you have never made a single sound argument. I am sure you are not be able to do in the near future too.
Why should I waste my energies asking hair from a tortoise? That was the real reason why I did not ask you to back your claim. Don’t misunderstand me.
Thanks!
Dingiri,
Your buddhist sermon really is priceless
I can actually imagine it being recited in a priestly tone, LOL.
Dear M.R.Yapa
Very enlightening! You ask:
“Now dear longu; Tell me whether you said bacteria is plant in this forum or not?”
I thought youwould quote some reliable source like wikipedia rather than an amature chat group! Anyway that’s up to you if you believe it to be an authentic source!
I didn’t know that you had vision problems too, in addition to irreversible damage in your ‘upstairs’! Why don’t you change your glasses?
This is what I said on 14 Oct @ 11.31 pm:
“….To avoid this problem scientists have classified Bacteria, Blue-Green Algae, and Archia-an ancient form of primitive Bacteria- into a group called Pro-Karyotes depending on the features on their Nucleas and cell wall. The true plants and true animals go into another group and the viruses into another. The viruses don’t belong to plants or animals and they are definitely living things only. The problem became even more complicated when they discovered Prion particles which causes C.J.D or Mad Cow Disease and a rare disease called Kuru. These are just protein crystals which don’t show any signs of “life” until they start multiplying inside a host.”
Do you have a “comprehension problem”, Yaapaa?
May be you can read something more authentic like the following account and improve your knowledge, rather than being a laughing stock of the readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
Wijayapala
Dingiri’s hypothetical sermon on what Buddha would have told, I think answers your querry! I would like to add “Vaasettya”, instesd of “Pinwathuni!”
And as BalangodaMan says if Buddha could preach about a complicated theory of “a rebirth” without the participation of a soul why not this?
Dear All;
Listen to the sermon of that Scientist General who has never learnt Science in all his whole life. This person is talking about Buddhism and Physics. He has accepted that he has no sufficient knowledge of Buddhism and Science. This man cannot get rid of this unethical practice of preaching things he does not know.
See his ” NEWTON’S FIRST LAW OF MOTION”.
This foolish man is going to teach Physics again to the forum, which includes a person learned Physics in the University.
I challenge you, PVR/Scientist General, to show what you said about Newton’s Law above is correct.
Knows nothing, wants to talk big! A peculiar character.
(I must remind you that you owe me another explanation, right and wrong- longu and me. Don’t forget that too.)
Ana gannawva, Daha pole ga gannava!
Thanks!
After over 1,130+ comments stretching over a couple of months, this post has reached the technical limits of WordPress to manage. Moreover, it appears that the chief commentators, having made their point several times over to each other, have all now begun to attack each other. The significant increase in the number of ad hominem comments we are receiving on this comment thread suggests it is time to close this discussion.
We thank everyone for their prolonged engagement and strongly encourage continued engagement with each other, and with other content on the site, in a manner more constructive and in line with our discussion guidelines.