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.
]]>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!
]]>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?
]]>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:
]]>Your buddhist sermon really is priceless 
I can actually imagine it being recited in a priestly tone, LOL.
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!
]]>“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!
]]>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!
]]>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.
]]>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?
“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!
]]>“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?
“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’)
“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?
]]>“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!
]]>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!
.
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.
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!
]]>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?)
]]>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!
]]>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?
]]>