Image courtesy Lankapura

An oyster sucks in particles from its environment and creates a pearl. If instead, it filters out every particle, it is destined to be a lesser being.

In untold generations, the Sinhalese people were fashioned from extraditions, waves of invasions, conquered kingdoms and stranded travelers to this fecund island. They are the children of exiles, conquerors and refugees, some noble and often not…. They are begotten of peoples who have absorbed and yielded, been besieged and withstood and been enriched, pearl-like.

In time the Sinhalese defined themselves as a race and a culture that can be distinguished from the cultures of India. This is laudable in the face of that overshadowing mass.  We have swum through multi-colored waters and still stand as a discernible ethnicity…but are we quite as boldly discernible and as splendidly isolated as we believe? Our outline has to have merged and blended with the communities we have mingled with; the aboriginal, australo-negroid Veddha, Dravidian conquerors, prisoners and laborers, the Moorish traders and sailors from the Arabian land mass and the mercenaries from the Indonesian archipelago who fought for the Kings of Lanka, European conquerors and missionaries, Chinese merchants and African pearl divers, tourists… who surely sowed their seed! The undoubted genetic infusions could only have embellished us! And embellished, we have emerged as a discernible race. It is as this discernible race that we encounter the perils of isolation.

It is true that Rulers of a nation have the privilege of defining ethnic strata and often isolating ethnic groups. So easily is this done that worldwide, ethnic definition has always been a common and deliberate tool in political manipulations. For Sri Lankan leaders, in the process of ruling the island that dangles off the Indian subcontinent, definition has sometimes been inevitable; dangling precariously close, in times when that massive nation has decided to worry us like a bone in the teeth of a bitch, ethnic definition has even been necessary. But, stratifying ethnic groups is a dangerous game; the players forget they are playing.

Over the centuries, in Sri Lanka, the stratification of ethnic groups has varied from sharp, crystalized layers polarized by their distinctions, to rare times when the ethnic layering became soft, like melting jaggery. In recent memory, the last time the island people’s ethnicity was blurred was during the colonial era. Confronted with a common enemy, diverse ethnic communities recognized commonalities and faced the invasive western culture. Eager and passionate nationalists of all Sri Lankan ethnicities filled the vacuum created in 1948 by the departure of the British.  But as soon as the majority voice formulated, the ardor of the minority politicians cooled. Now rid of the imperialists, ethnic divisions swirled back in to sharp focus.

Post independence, the island’s rulers have been the majority Sinhalese. Too many times these leaders have over reacted and ridden the wave of ethnic definition that easily surfs in to the dangerous waters of ethnic superiority. Standing in the foreground, we the Sinhalese, often nudged by politicians, intoxicate ourselves with doses of ethnic superiority. In addition, sections of the Buddhist clergy, who have forgotten that ‘Tolerance and Equality’ are the hallmarks of Buddhism, have curiously linked themselves to Sinhala chauvinism; if the politicians happen to forget then, members of the Buddhist clergy will raise the banner of the purported pure Sinhala race. This has created a hierarchy even amongst the Sinhalese with the Christian Sinhalese feeling less of a sense of belonging.

With the infamous ‘Sinhala Only’ cry of 1956, instantly, like a bathtub plug being pulled, hoards of non-Sinhalese Sri Lankans drained out of the country. The majority who left then, were Burgers; descendants of the intermix of Sri Lankans with Portuguese, Dutch and British colonials. Their lingua franca had been English and as they emptied out of villages and towns island wide, that they had inhabited for centuries, they took with them the ready access the Sinhalese had to the international language. That wave of ethnic definition impacted on the Sinhalese a generation later with a dearth of English speakers.

The largest ethnic minority, the Sri Lankan Tamils took longer to respond to the frequent underscoring of Sinhala priorities. Their ultimate reaction hatched the violent LTTE that viciously protracted a civil war for almost 3 decades. As the LTTE raised its head and bared its teeth, the Sinhalese initially lashed back with horrendous ethnic rioting that left all minorities petrified by its portent. But the anguish of the Tamils, who were the focus of the riots, drove them not only off our shores but further, to find resonance with the bloody LTTE.  In 2009 the LTTE was finally defeated and the Sinhalese have not yet paused to examine the damage.

The Tamils, in the longest association with the Sinhalese had formed a cultural fabric too tightly interwoven to define origin. Our cuisine, our clothing, our arts  & architecture were the reflection of the Dravidians who we had communed with, but in adoption as, it was blurred and simplified by Buddhism, it acquired an individuality. Our religious practices, from the boiling of milk to incense and light carried the Hindu influence that had lent ritual to the spartan Buddhist philosophy when the Sinhalese metamorphosed it in to a religion. Our language was where we were most clearly distinct but even so, its muddled linguistic root made us aware of our compatriot Tamils.

In the early part of the 20th Century as we Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim, stood shoulder-to-shoulder, to face down the British and be rid of colonialism, we were Sri Lankan or rather still obediently, ‘Ceylonese’. This was a common patriotism that spelled a common love for this country. This was until, slowly, in the process of leadership, we alienated the minority races. In older generations of Sri Lankan diaspora, the love of a distant homeland, lingered. Frequently emails were circulated, recalling life in the land they left behind. Whenever opportunity arose many of these emigrants would return, despite the absence of friends and family, simply to revisit their old country. In their lives in foreign lands, even the most well adapted emigrant would easily lapse in to recollections of a faraway lifestyle. In the forested garden of a country home in upstate New York, belonging to Sri Lankans who had left the island over half a century ago, I was introduced to a pair of white-tailed deer named Maan & Muva. In this inseparable pair of deer, bearing the Tamil and Sinhalese monikers for ‘deer’, I saw a lost dream!

In the post-war resettlements in northern Sri Lanka, I encountered Muslim children who cheered not for the Sri Lankan cricket team but Pakistan! When had this affiliation to a foreign land begun? I had grown up with close family friends who were Muslim and their affinity to Sri Lanka, the land and its politics, was no different to what was inculcated in me. Perhaps subtle changes had gathered momentum and with the establishment of ethnically defined political parties and the fundamentalism sweeping the Muslim world, the Muslim youth of Sri Lanka had reached a tipping point. I wonder if there is still time to retrieve and include them in our future? As I sat in the blistering heat and dust of a temporary school in newly resettled, post-war Mannar and listened to the school boys reel off names of their favorite cricketers, “Afridi! Khan! Shah… Malinga!” I thought there was still a glimmer of hope, if only we consciously tried.

We the Sinhalese had borrowed from and shared with all the other races we had encountered in the many millennia it took for us to emerge as this distinct race.  Now, we certainly had reached the plateau in our status as the superior race on our little island. However, as we continued trying to distinguish ourselves by highlighting our differences, I felt we would only lose from denying ourselves the nourishment that the intermingling of races allows. With these constant racial efforts we have alienated many and deprived our selves of so much that could have spiced our lives. We have made minorities who have inhabited this island as long as we have, feel secondary and less welcome. In doing so, have we deprived ourselves of the huge benefit of all Sri Lankans being equally patriotic?

With pluralism so deeply embedded, whenever we have tried to isolate ourselves the surgery has been intensely painful.  Anyway, why do we try as, we will only be poorer if, we divest ourselves of the enhancement that the Muslim cuisine adds to our lives, the solace that the Hindu Gods offer many a Sinhalese, the wild side that the Veddha adds to our cultural pageants, the joyous baila music of the Burghers…. As we crystallize our distinct race and shrug away our previous influences perhaps we should pause and examine what we deny ourselves…. What will we find?

A minute race isolated with nothing further to nurture it? In years to come, as we stand on our tiny island, eclipsed and isolated through our own insistence, will we the Sinhalese wonder if this is what we really sought? A race silenced by its own cries for isolation and no meter to measure its distinction.

In memory of Yogaraj Yogasunderam (1927 -2011)

  • Yohan Heenatigala

    Excellent observations.
    There are a few questions we Lankans should ask ourselves.
    The first is, what is our nationality?
    A nation can have only one nationality.
    Take for example the Americans. The people of USA are from over a hundred countries (including Sri Lanka). The moment they become citizens of the USA, they call themselves Americans and fly the US flag on their lawn (including people who came from Sri Lanka).
    Another good example is Singapore.
    But in Sri Lanka (let us face the truth) the people are Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, Burgher or other.
    Majority of the people in Sri Lanka say that this is a nation of the Sinhala Buddhists (therefore others are foreigners). By the way what about Sinhala Christians?
    Let us call a spade a spade – this is chauvinism in its ugliest form. Chauvinism arrives from a false superiority complex. This is being cultivated among the younger generations by a group of Sinhala-Buddhist leaders for their own benefit at the peril of the future of the nation.
    SJ is right-on in her elaborations regarding the Hodge-podge mix in the people of Sri Lanka including all the so-called pure races.
    When will they realize it and live as one nation?

    • yapa

      Dear Yohan Heenatigala;

      “The moment they become citizens of the USA, they call themselves Americans and fly the US flag on their lawn (including people who came from Sri Lanka).”

      But it is different in the case of most of the Sri Lankans. They fly Tiger(LTTE) flags even in the USA or in any other country. They call themselves a nonsense called Ezham Tamils or something not American Nationals. An evidence to the effect that spots(of Tiger)do not change even if the country is changed.

      Thanks!

  • Raja

    On the basis of above arguments, where do you find a pure race? The hodge-podge mix is there amongst all races including, Tamils, English, Chinese or you name a race and you will find the mix. Therefore, in my view, the nationality of the nation is that of the majority community in the mix, and we end up with nationalities like the English, Chinese, Tamil etc irrespective of their mix with invaders, migrants, imported labour etc.

    • C. Perera

      The nationality of our nation is Sri Lankan. Sinhalese or Tamil is a race not nationality

      • myil selvan

        Thamils and Sinhalese are mainly from the same Race. Ethnicity wise they differ. Sinhalese are, like the Thamils, most probably of Dravidian extraction. The Vijaya story is probably a myth concocted by Buddhist monks to preserve Buddhism and their privileged position.

      • yapa

        myil selvan;

        You say: “The Vijaya story is probably a myth concocted by Buddhist monks to preserve Buddhism and their privileged position.”

        Rest of your post reproduced below, except the part I put in brackets, is most certainly a myth.

        “Thamils and Sinhalese are mainly from the same Race. (Ethnicity wise they differ.) Sinhalese are, like the Thamils, most probably of Dravidian extraction.”

        Thanks!

    • rajah

      nice article. i was 55 years when i left srilanka. i loved srilanka so dearly. i only learnt about human rights and dignity after coming abroad and how people respect the rule of law. unless the masses in srilanka educate themselves, not necessarily in english, the meaning of human rights and rule of law we are doomed.
      i read the human race began in africa and spread to all other countries.

  • Magerata

    Where has the “we are the Sri Lankans” motto gone? Country needs bring it back, any which way. I also think priesthood, a higher percentage of them is responsible for the hindrance to the growth and unity of the country. They should be preaching how equal the everyone is rather than trying to differentiate and confuse people with bogus nationalism. Ego building is not preaching.
    By the way sport affiliations should be free and I think cheering for Pakistan is alright. I have my favorite soccer players from all over the world and and not very long ago, I cheered Japanese national team when they played USA national team for the women’s world cup, much to the dismay of my country people :)But no one tried to kill me for it, at least not the ones who were near me.
    Thank you for your thoughts on Magerata for which I have only a quarter claim..

    • Herath

      “We srilankans” motto vanished when “sinhala only” was passed as a bill..

      • yapa

        What happened when 50;50 demand was made (before that)? (I think Sinhala only bill came up.)

        Thanks!

  • luxmy

    Thank you for the timely piece of writing.

    • Sivam Krish

      Wonderful thoughts. Sunela. Genetic mapping will resolve the riddle that has caused this little Island so much pain and loss.

      The idea or “race” is primitive in its conceptions and only primitive people subscribe to it. In terms of species, the purer the more inbred and dumber. What surprises me is that this island exposed to so much of cultural, religious and genetic influx has managed to inflict so much of damage to itself for so long in a way that are disgraceful in the eyes of the world.

      It is most likely that the cultures that people split blood to preserve will disappear faster than we think due to its inability to adapt the more advanced forms of thinking and living. The Vedhas have gone through that, we are next on line.

      • C. Perera

        Quite right about a bunch of inbreeds ha so sad

      • Sunela Jayewardene

        Sivam, I’ve long been an advocate of genetic mapping for Sri Lanka. Besides rude shocks for many, I think it will exist as a powerful tool to quell chauvinism which is a malady affecting all the races of Sri Lanka!

  • hodge-podge

    So where do the Eelam Tamils fits in this pickle?

    Are you saying  the TamilNet ( Encyclopedia Bethesda) is wrong when it says “The North and East are the traditional homeland of Eelam Tamils, and Sri Lankans are Sinhalising these area” ??

    • Herath

      Only an independent study on genetics of people in N/E and South will verify it..
      Also Sinhalese have been proved to be genetically related to West Bengal by some 70-80%.(wait wasn’t King Vijaya from West Bengal?).don’t believe me goog le it..it is on wikipedia..

    • Chandev

      Very interesting views. For a Sinhalese, the questions asked are valid, perturbing and critical to face, even at this time.
      In that sense, the question asked by “hodge podge” needs to be answered. But by whom? The Sinhala Buddhist or the Tamil Diaspora? Is the latter welcomed back? Or is it merely political rhetoric. Time will tell, only time.

    • Sunela Jayewardene

      Are the ‘Eelam Tamils’ yet another race, in addition to the Jaffna and Estate Tamils?

      I have not made any reference to traditional homelands as I personally, dont recognize any within this island… which in its entirety is, in my mind, the traditional homeland of the Sri Lankans.

      • justitia

        The Bandaranayake family tree shows the happy mix from Nilaperumal – from/of south india who became a priest in a temple in sri lanka:-

        http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/gen1001.html

        There are many more geneological websites of lankan families.
        There are no pure genetic/geneological ancestral lines.
        Race is a mix of heredity and environment which includes parentage, religion and mother tongue.

    • pickle

      Hello hodge-pogdge
      Appropriate name I think. You are simply trying to drag this excellent contribution sideways. I thought Ceylon Tamils started this Eelam Tamils ‘thing’ only after ‘We Sinhalese’ started to blow their horns.

      • Hela

        Pickle,

        I think we should take our minds out of the game of appropriating blame. If need be one can also argue that Sinhala conciousness was sharpened in the face of 50/50 demand, opposition to universal adult franchise in order to deprive a people of their rightful place in the society, creation of Tamils state party (ITAK). These occured long before the language issues.

        Therefore it is better to focus on commonalities that are in abundance rather than differentiations.

        This discussion reminds me of a particular comment made by a Muslim brother from Kandy. He said that he would like to describe him as a Sinhalese of Islamic faith rather than a Muslim. A later on I met an European, who came to Sri Lanka, fell in love with Buddhism and became a monk little over 10 years ago. He now considers himself a Sinhalese! A clear demonstration of the continued evolution of Sinhala community, whose origins (as the writer points out) are based on comming together of many peoples (ethnic/tribal) to form a common identity.

    • Off the Cuff

      Hodge Podge,

      During the 17th century the Boundary between the Dutch occupied Jaffna and the Kandyan Kingdom was at Elephant Pass and the Dutch built a Fort there to protect the Jaffna Peninsula.

      And yes, TamilNet ( Encyclopedia Bethesda) is wrong.

      The proof is available in the Dutch National Archives.

      http://www.atlasofmutualheritage.nl/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2

      The Island of Sri Lanka is home for all citizens.

    • t.yogarajah

      Dear Sunela intersting and timely. From the varied comments it is clear there is enough blame to go around to all Srilankans .
      Looking ahead the view is muddy, i ilke to quote from a very balanced research report – international crisis group asia report no 209-
      reconcilation in Srilanka :harder than ever
      quote post _conflict efforts to bring societies together are always fraught with difficulties, particularly in deep ethnic division . In Srilankathe challenge is even greater.,because the government denies that ethnicity was the driving factor behind the civil war . Instead it apropriated the language of the “war on terror” dehumaising its enemies and dismissing the possibilty that they or those they claimed to represent have legitimate greivances. It has controlled the narratives of the conflict both within and outside the country , reacting furiously to any challenge to the official version .
      Its hand is strenghtened by the unwillinness of the million strong Tamil diaspora to recognise the brutality of the LTTE and its share of responsibilty for a largely broken Tamil society ” end quote .
      Time is running out – would we see a Sinhala Srilanka robbed of the richness of culteral diversity and the Tamil Society broken beyond repair or could we together start a slow process of rehabiltation ?
      We all have a part to play

  • Nihal Perera

    Post independence, the island’s rulers have been the majority Sinhalese.

    Sinhalese yes, but if you want to be more accurate, Sinhalese-Buddhist. Every President since Independence has been a Sinhala-Buddhist. If an election were to be held today, tomorrow, dare I say, 20 years from now, guess who would win? I don’t think this is a trivial point. The Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the USA, excluding Obama, has always been a White Christian, but did not necessarily share the values of the majority of whites. For example, Kennedy the Catholic was elected President, with a great deal of suspicion in a nation where the majority were Protestants. And of course there is Benjamin Disraeli, the only Jewish PM in British history. So can a Sinhalese Christian/Tamil Hindu/Muslim be elected Prime Minister of Sri Lanka? Again, the answer is no. It is an important observation. It shows that as far as progressive politics is concerned, we are not only behind the West, but behind India as well.

    P.S: Sinhalese-Buddhists share 100% responsibility for the war and whatever atrocities ensued. I do not mean that in a harsh way, but it is the reality. When Ranil tried to make peace, he was quickly booted out, and a war mongering nationalist was brought. I only mention this point, because as a Sinhalese-Christian, I feel no need to make amends to Tamils.

    • Nihal Perera

      It is true that Ranil became PM, but that is a largely ceremonial, meaingless position, compared to the position of PM in India or UK.

    • @ Nihal

      [Post independence, the island’s rulers have been the majority Sinhalese. Sinhalese yes, but if you want to be more accurate, Sinhalese-Buddhist. Every President since Independence has been a Sinhala-Buddhist. ]

      Huge BS mate. There have been very few Sinhalese Buddhists, majority were catholics / christians / anglicans. Only Buddhist leaders of not were Rajapakshe, Premadasa and Wijetunga.

      Bandaranaikes, Senanayakes, Jayawardane and Wickeramasinghe all are non-Buddhists. They may have visited temples with a flower pot, but that is a election propaganda. All of them were baptized, mariied at church, and even their children married at church.

      [Sinhalese-Buddhists share 100% responsibility for the war and whatever atrocities ensued. I do not mean that in a harsh way, but it is the reality]

      Any one other than a tamil chauvinist or a one in disguise won’t utter a statement like this.

      • Nihal Perera

        No Frames,

        Last time I checked, Christian priests did not protest outside SWRD’s residence, forcing him to tear up a pact with Tamil politicians. Christian priests did not put the fatal bullet into SWRD. Christian priests did not run through the streets of Colombo in July of 1983. They did not protest outside of the Norwegian Embassy, demanding that the CFA be abrograted. They have never burned effigies of Ban-Ki-Moon, Navi Pillai, or Hillary Clinton. I leave it to your imagination as to which kind of religious clergy participated in the above. SWRD may have been a convert from Christianity, but his political career revolved around Sinhala-Buddhism. Who were the beneficiaries of Sinhala-Only and colonization? SWRD sold his soul to the devil and paid the ultimate price. Dare I say, had Ranil given a few more concessions to the LTTE, his tombstone would be lying directly adjacent to SWRD’s.

        Any one other than a tamil chauvinist or a one in disguise won’t utter a statement like this.

        If you can tell me how the war has benefitted the average Christian in S. Lanka, then I will modify my perspective. But the fact of the matter is, busloads of Buddhist monks were invited to Mullaitivu long before the Tamils in IDP camps were allowed to return. The SLA is constructing temples all over the North and East; not a single new church has come up since May 2009. I think its best you reread that part of the Constitution which clearly states, “the State shall foster Buddhism.” That is what the State has been doing 1948.

      • @Nihal

        [Last time I checked, Christian priests did not protest outside SWRD’s residence, forcing him to tear up a pact with Tamil politicians.]

        They didn’t. Banda was cunning enough to smell the tide. He listened to the Buddhists, but never was a Buddhist. He listened to them because they were the majority. If Tamil Catholics were to be the majority he would have listened to them.

        [Christian priests did not put the fatal bullet into SWRD. Christian priests did not run through the streets of Colombo in July of 1983. They did not protest outside of the Norwegian Embassy, demanding that the CFA be abrograted. They have never burned effigies of Ban-Ki-Moon, Navi Pillai, or Hillary Clinton]

        But Rayappu Joseph et al plotted against “Sri Lanka”. They were lowly enough to announce that they oppose resettling of displaced Sinhalese of north. Everybody took blows from LTTE left right and center except the Christian priests. (And who was the last priest killed by LTTE?). Sorry, the church of SL were with LTTE, not with SL. We can remeber everything. Nothing is ever forgotten.

        [I leave it to your imagination as to which kind of religious clergy participated in the above. SWRD may have been a convert from Christianity, but his political career revolved around Sinhala-Buddhism]

        That is just cheap politics. Banda wanted somehow to come to power. He used the Sinhala-Buddhist label for it.

        [Who were the beneficiaries of Sinhala-Only and colonization? SWRD sold his soul to the devil and paid the ultimate price. Dare I say, had Ranil given a few more concessions to the LTTE, his tombstone would be lying directly adjacent to SWRD’s.]

        Banda’s Sinhala only policy was a mistake, or more precisely his aim was promoting native language education. There was another bill which was waiting to identify Tamil as a national language as well IIRC. With that the English learnt (Christians in majority) saw there civil powers being transferred elsewhere. Up to now these people whine about removing English as the national language.

        [If you can tell me how the war has benefitted the average Christian in S. Lanka, then I will modify my perspective]

        How about traveling in public transport being blasted by a bomb? And how about the lives of those christian soldiers in the army? How do their families feel? Or re you suggesting that Christians were not a part of the civil war? Or do you suggest that you’ll be accepted by both hands had if Prabhakaran took over?

        [But the fact of the matter is, busloads of Buddhist monks were invited to Mullaitivu long before the Tamils in IDP camps were allowed to return.]

        “Yanne koheda malle pol”

        [The SLA is constructing temples all over the North and East; not a single new church has come up since May 2009.]

        Majority of military are Buddhist. They can have a place of worship in their premises. And talking of churches, after the tsunami, when the villages were rebuilt, first to come up was churches, hundreds of them, along A9, in Trinco district and even in Akkaraipattu! No one who are vocal now raised a voice regarding it. Sorry Nihal, Christians have four fingers pointed at them when they point one finger at Buddhists.

        [I think its best you reread that part of the Constitution which clearly states, “the State shall foster Buddhism.” That is what the State has been doing 1948]

        I ask you to re-read the constitution of Norway and see how children of Orthodox Christians are prevented being raised as Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus. And read the constitutions of Britian, Denmark etc, and see that Christianism is the State religion. Buddhism is not the state religion after all. The state has been fostering Buddhism for last 23 centuries, and it will be for the future. Christians who whine about the special status of Buddhism should first see how the constitutions of Christian majority countries work.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You are right, the Christian Priests did not do anything.

        …They only had inquisitions and Burned people alive, at the stake.

        It looks like it is you who need to read the Constitution.
        Why did you omit the proviso when you quoted section 9?
        Any problem with your eyesight or a burning desire for misrepresentation?

        This is the complete section including the part you Purposely omitted.

        CHAPTER II – BUDDHISM
        Buddhism.
        9. The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

        10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
        14. (1) Every citizen is entitled to –
        (e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching;

  • lasith

    its sinhalabuddhist chavunist who brought the missary to sinhalese, to sri lanakans and to sri lanka

  • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

    Superbly written and argued.

  • Dhathusena

    sri Lanka needs a strong legal system if one wants to see ethnic harmony.There should be laws to bring the extreme racists into justice and then only the confidence of minorities can be won.Otherwise no point arguing about ethnic harmony as majority cannot understand that concept.I have had the feeling of majority in my country and of minority in other countries.I understand fully the grievances of minority.After all life is a transient phenomena and if one odo not respect the others rights to live he will never be accepted or acknowledged .When extremists of all races and mainly ofthe majority understand this basic fact our country will be a better place to live.

  • CJ

    Beautiful piece of writing, crystallizing what I suppose is the moderate sentiment in our society. However, I personally wish there was more bite to that which was written about our orange-robed syndicate (those self-styled representatives of Buddhism, parasitic, entitled, bellicose, and oh-so-insular and so far removed from Buddhism in their thinking) who perhaps more than any other entity has been responsible for dragging us into this divisive mess. Secondly, I only wish these articles make their way into the vernacular media, and thereby help raise some eyebrows, cause some controversy and debate, even an isolated fist fight, in the general and not-so-moderate populace.

    • Thanks for the suggestion to publish this in the vernacular. We have given it for translation into Sinhala and it will appear anon on http://www.vikalpa.org, the sister site of Groundviews.

  • Sivam Krish

    The Tamils and Sinhalese compete in their dumbness in understanding issues of race – a fabricated concept and that too fabricated badly in our case Vijaya which I think includes animal human sex (Sinha story) , wife dumping and also being dumped from his home land. So if the race and genes are connected – it would imply undesirable genetic material.

    Tamils prefer not to believe the Singhalese history story, but do not really have a story of their own – except that the Sinhalese are a sad and defective lot (no need now to convince the world, thanks to Chanel 5). Tamils strongly subscribe to race gene view, or else how can the Sinhalese score so badly in A – levels ? and require special privileges to enter university ?

    A enlightened Tamil son summed up his “hard core” Tamil mothers view – superbly. He said that my mother thinks that “Intelligence is genetic”. That says it all.

    That explains largely why they did better in A levels. The extension of this dumb assed view (supported by many over educated Tamils) was the establishment of separate racist super state devoid of lesser genetic material.

    Hitler’s concept of Aryan ancestry also seems to have been some what of an inspiration. One strategy to dislodge the genetic/race hook-up is to appeal to their own racism and inflict upon both parties the scientific truth – of our common Black African ancestry.

  • wijayapala

    Dear Nihal Perera,

    Last time I checked, Christian priests did not protest outside SWRD’s residence, forcing him to tear up a pact with Tamil politicians.

    But it was Christian priests backed by European firepower who declared war on Buddhism during the early colonial era that helped push the Buddha Sasana into extremism. Since you don’t appear to be well-versed in history, despite strutting about your so-called Christian superiority, here’s how the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism describes it:

    Protestant Buddhism

    Term introduced by the scholar Gananath Obeyesekere referring to a phenomenon in Sinhalese Buddhism having its roots in the latter half of the 19th century and caused by two sets of historical conditions: the activities of the Protestant missionaries and the close contact with the modern knowledge and technologies of the West. In 1815 the British become the first colonial power to win control over the whole of Sri Lanka and signed the Kandyan convention declaring the Buddhist religion practised by the locals to be inviolable. This article was attacked by Protestant evangelicals in England and the British government felt obliged to dissociate itself from Buddhism. The traditional bond between Buddhism and the government of the Sinhala people had effectively dissolved while official policy favoured the activities of Protestant missionaries and the conversion to Christianity had become almost essential for those who wished to join the ruling élite. Leader of the movement that started as a result of these conditions was Anag?rika Dharmap?la. The movement can be seen both as a protest against the attacks on Buddhism by foreign missionaries and the adoption in the local Buddhism of features characteristic of Protestantism…”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/protestant-buddhism

    • Nihal Perera

      Wijayapala:

      I strongly suggest you read Macaulay’s “Minute On Education” (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html). Macaulay is a bit of a racist, but he makes some good points:

      “The question now before us is simply whether…we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession, wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography made of seas of treacle and seas of butter.”

      It is not possible to teach modern science or medicine in the Sinhala vernacular. That is why even today, the medium of education in the SL universities is English. The goal of the British was to create a class of capable administrators, fluent in English and modern ideas, not Mahavamsa mythology. That is why they created English schools. I admit the conversion to Christianity was not essential, but it did accelerate the process of “modernization.” Unfortunately, if we look at some of the Sri Lankan parliamenterians today, the mindset is still feudal. Tribal loyalties, dabbling in astronomy, nepotism and graft, etc. Imagine the number of such individuals the British (who were excellent administrators and had no time for such nonsense) had to deal with; the amount is staggering.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal P,

        “It is not possible to teach modern science or medicine in the Sinhala vernacular.”

        Why?
        It can be done very effectively in Sinhalese as well as Tamil.
        Both languages are sufficiently rich to convey any idea on any subject.
        The pitfall to avoid is coining new terms for everything foreign. When teaching science in English Latin and words from other languages have been adopted, when teaching such subjects in Sinhala or Tamil those same words should be adopted without attempting to Sinhalise or Tamilise them.

        Remember that Lanka had one of the most advanced Irrigation systems of the old world. And even hospitals that did Ophthalmic surgery. And all of these were taught in Sinhala.
        Even today in the field of treatment of fractures the indigenous system is not second to the Western system. Aurvedha is taught in Tamil and Sinhala.

        The goal of the British was to create a class of capable administrators, fluent in English and modern ideas, not Mahavamsa mythology. That is why they created English schools.

        I think you are wrong. The goal of the British was to create a set of subservient lackeys who would work for a few crumbs thrown at them while the real wealth was spirited off to UK.

        Lankans were not illiterate fools but had possessed and displayed a depth of understanding of some branches of science that surpassed that of the British.

        I agree with you that some of the parliamentarians are imbeciles and thieves. That does not mean all are. We did have such imbeciles and thieves in the Brit government too (not to mention others).

        BTW Astronomy is a Main Stream Science.

      • wijayapala

        Nihal

        I strongly suggest you read Macaulay’s “Minute On Education”

        Nothing in Macaulay’s minute addressed my argument that Christian persecution against Buddhists during the colonial produced the xenophobic strain of “Sinhala-Buddhism” that is found today. By failing to answer this bit of history, I assume that you concur and that you are changing the topic because nothing further needs to be said on the crimes of Christianity in SL (and elsewhere).

        Unfortunately, if we look at some of the Sri Lankan parliamenterians today, the mindset is still feudal. Tribal loyalties, dabbling in astronomy, nepotism and graft, etc.

        Yet by separating yourself from the “Sinhala-Buddhists,” you are demonstrating this exact same tribal mentality that you are simultaneously decrying. Physician, heal thyself! 😀

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        It can be done very effectively in Sinhalese as well as Tamil.

        Actually it cannot be done. Let me give you a simple example. Part of a medical students’ training consists of memorizing the names of several hundred bones, organs, and nerves. Almost all of these names (well over 95%) are in Latin. The names are missing from Sinhala language, altogether, period. While medicine can be taught in French, German, or Italian, the reason is because most Europeans are multilingual anyway, and making the transition from a European language to Latin is not very difficult, since most European languages are grounded in Latin. Also, there were people in these European countries who made significant contributions to the development of modern medicine, leaving behind a significant body of literature in the native language for future generations to study . No such body of literature exists in Sinhala. I can make a similar argument for science and technology.

        Remember that Lanka had one of the most advanced Irrigation systems of the old world.

        Irrigation systems consisting of stones placed in ingenious positions allowing for the optimum flow of water. Very clever indeed. Are you aware that practically every ancient civilization had some kind of irrigation system?

        And even hospitals that did Ophthalmic surgery.

        But no anesthesia. Perhaps the poor patient was given a good dose of arrack to “soothe the nerves” before being subjected to this rather painful procedure. Also, are you familiar with the nature of surgery in ancient times? The mortality rate was quite high, as the idea of a sterile environment was not well-known at the time.

        I think you are wrong. The goal of the British was to create a set of subservient lackeys who would work for a few crumbs thrown at them while the real wealth was spirited off to UK.

        What is this real wealth you speak of? Cinnamon? Elephants? Pebbles from Galle Face? In any case, have you heard of this thing called “GDP”? It is the value of all goods and services produced by a country within some fixed period. Are you aware of the contribution of tea to the Sri Lankan GDP? Do you know who introduced tea to the island? Suffice it to say, the value of all tea earnings for 10 years exceeds the value of all cinnamon, elephants, and Galle Face pebbles stolen that span a 200 yr period.

        Lankans were not illiterate fools

        Again, I beg to differ. Kindly scan the list below and tell me which group of individuals were literate. Which ones were studying opthamology, and which ones were constructing space shuttles to explore Mars.

        Ahinkuntaya – Gypsies
        Badahäla (Kumbal) – Potters
        Berava – Tom-tom beaters
        Demala Gattara – Tamil Outcastes
        Durava – Traditional Soldiers and toddy tappers.
        Gattara – Cultivators
        Govigama – Traditional cultivators, landworkers and herdsmen
        Hannali – Tailors
        Hinna – Washers.
        Karava – Traditional fishermen, naval warriors, seafaring traders, boat builders, carpenters & pioneering planters.
        Navandanna – Artisans (Many subcategories)
        Pamunu – Tenant farmers
        Pannikki – Barbers
        Porowakara – Wood cutters
        Rajaka (Hena) – Washermen
        Rodiya – Outcastes
        Salagama – Cinnamon tapers,Soldiers,& Weavers.
        Wahumpura (Dewa) – Merchants,Confectioners,Military personnels

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_%28Sri_Lanka%29

        Unfortunately or fortunately, many individuals from these groups were able to climb the social ladder only after the British arrived. Many of their descendants are now prominent politicians.

        BTW Astronomy is a Main Stream Science.

        I was referring to horoscopes, which are at least partially based on astronomical data.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        I expected you to understand the written word but apparently you don’t. This is what I said.

        The pitfall to avoid is coining new terms for everything foreign. When teaching science in English, Latin and words from other languages have been adopted, when teaching such subjects in Sinhala or Tamil those same words should be adopted without attempting to Sinhalise or Tamilise them.

        The Hand has 27 bones grouped in to 3 groups viz Carpal, Metacarpal and Phalanges. When teaching about these bones in Sinhala or Tamil the same three groupings would be made and the names in either Sinhala or Tamil would remain as Carpal, Metacarpal and Phalanges. The letters used to write those words would be either Sinhala or Tamil but the SOUND would be identical to the English or Latin or German (or other foreign) terms.

        Lets have a look at the names of the 3 bones that comprise the phalanges. The names are proximal, middle and distal. The Sinhala and Tamil names used in teaching, would also be identical although there are Sinhala and Tamil words that convey the meaning of “Middle” those words would be ignored in favour of the word Middle.

        Now Nihal what will be the difficulty in memorizing these several hundred names of bones, nerves, organs, which as you say are 95% Latin? What prevents Sinhalese or Tamils adopting these identical names? Do you think Latin words are a sacred preserve of the West?

        You did not understand what I wrote and responded with “The names are missing from Sinhala language, altogether, period. Does that not make you look a fool?

        You assert “While medicine can be taught in French, German, or Italian, the reason is because most Europeans are multilingual anyway,…”

        Do you mean ALL those who qualify in medicine are exponents in these languages? Viz the French are proficient (knowing a smattering or just a few words would not suffice) in English, German Italian and Nordic etc. But you used the word MOST what about the REST who are not “Multiligual”? Are they shut out from Medicine?

        Russia, Japan and China amongst others teach Medicine in their own tongue.

        You wrote “leaving behind a significant body of literature in the native language for future generations to study”

        What prevents the Sinhalese and Tamils who are taught medicine in the Vernacular reading and understanding English Medical Literature? They already know all the terms used. What they need is the ability to read and understand English. How did you assume that these vernacular medical students will not know English? Prejudice?

        You wrote “I can make a similar argument for science and technology”

        Sure you can and you will make as big a fool of yourself as you have done now.

        I offered you friendly information when I said “BTW Astronomy is a Main Stream Science.”

        But you are so self opinionated that instead of acknowledging your mistake you go on to make another foolish statement.

        You say “I was referring to horoscopes, which are at least partially based on astronomical data.”

        Astronomy is a main stream Science, Astrology is not. Those who make horoscopes use Astrology.

        You make use of a computer to write what you write. The fact that the computer is a scientific development does not make what you write scientific, does it?

        The use of the Mother Tongue provides a learning advantage. This is a recognised fact. You have adequately displayed your ignorance on the subject of Education.

        You wrote “Irrigation systems consisting of stones placed in ingenious positions allowing for the optimum flow of water. Very clever indeed. Are you aware that practically every ancient civilization had some kind of irrigation system?

        Now you have ventured to prove how ignorant you really are about Engineering and the sciences.

        Do you understand what the term Contour means in Geography?
        Do you understand how gravity flow of water can be maintained over large distances using only a single embankment?
        Do you know what Trigonometry is?
        Do you know what a gradient is?
        Do you know how a land survey is done and understand the Mathematics behind it?
        Do you realise that achieving a measurement accuracy comparable to a Theodolite at such an early age would have required an accurate measurement capability?
        Do you know that getting water to flow by gravity over a large distance, when the available head (elevation difference) is small, requires a high degree of knowledge of all the above?
        Do you know what the pressure of water is in a reservoir 40 feet deep?
        Do you know that the Parakkrama Samudra has a 14 Km embankment and a surface area of 22,600,000 sq m and a max depth of 12.7 m?
        Do you know how to tame that water pressure when drawing water from the Reservoir?
        Do you know what a Surge Chamber or Valve Tower does in a modern Hydro Electric power station?
        Do you know that the Sinhalese are recognised as the Inventors of this Surge Chamber Two Millennia ago when the West was still uncivilised?

        Apparently you are ignorant of the science behind placing stones.

        Quote “It is possible, that in no other part of the world are there to be found within the same space, the remains of so many works of irrigation, which are, at the same time, of such great antiquity, and of such vast magnitude as Ceylon. Probably no other country can exhibit works so numerous, and at the same time so ancient and extensive, within the same limited area, as this Island” – Sir Henry Ward, British Governor of Ceylon unquote

        Quote “Anuradhapura attained its highest magnificence about the commencement of the Christian era. The city had some of the most complex irrigation systems of the ancient world, situated in the dry zone of the country the administration built many tanks to irrigate the land. Most of these tanks still survive. Pictures found in the oldest great city at Anuradhapura excavations
        According to carbon dating, the ruins excavated were from the 10th century B.C.” (wiki) Unquote

        Quote “Sinhalese constructed canals, channels, water-storage tanks, and reservoirs to provide an elaborate irrigation system to counter the risks posed by periodic drought. Such early attempts at engineering reveal the brilliant understanding these ancient people had of hydraulic principles and trigonometry. The discovery of the principle of the valve tower, or valve pit, for regulating the escape of water is credited to Sinhalese ingenuity more than 2,000 years ago. By the first century A.D, several large-scale irrigation works had been completed. …….. construction of complex and extensive hydraulic works exemplify what is known as Sri Lanka’s classical age, which roughly parallels the period between the rise and fall of Anuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993 ). “ (US Country studies) end quote

        You wrote “But no anesthesia. Perhaps the poor patient was given a good dose of arrack to “soothe the nerves” before being subjected to this rather painful procedure.”

        Ever heard of Morphine? It is an alkaloid derived from opium. Opium has been used by Aurvedha (Native Medicine) for ages. In Sinhalese I believe it’s known as Abin.

        Quote “Aphenam (Ahiphenam) Names:- Latin-Opium, Tamil-Apin, Telugu – Nallamandu, Canarese – Aphinu, Malayali – Aphin or caruppu, Urdu – Afim, Ahiphena (Aphookam – Opium) dries up secretions (except sweat) and is astringent. It checks Kapha and increases Pitta and Vaata. (Here increasing Vaata possibly means that abdominal distention and constipation are increased. It no doubt alleviates pain temporarily.)
        Dose:- Internally ½ to 2 grains as pill or in compound pill or powder or as an aasavam.
        Externally as a liniment or plaster.

        Action:- Sedative, hypnotic, antispasmodic, diaphoretic, anodyne, narcotic and cerebral depressant.
        “Aphenam sannipataghnam vrishyam balyamcha mohadam” Raja nighantu, “Aphukam shoshanam graahi sleshmaghnam vaatapittalam, Madakrut daahakrucchukrasthambanayacha mohakrith, Athisaara grahanyaancha hitam deepana paachanam.”

        Uses:- It is one of the most valuable drugs if properly used and the most dangerous if misused. It is the best drug to relieve pain but should never be given when the cause of pain is not known and when the pain could be relieved by fomentation, counter irritation, expurgation, and other processions. Also, it should never be given when the patient is sleeping. In pain due to nervous disease, its action is marvelous and sometimes permanent.” unquote http://www.mypurohith.com/Ayurveda/Medicine1.asp

        Quote “Morphine is the most abundant alkaloid found in opium, the dried sap (latex) derived from shallowly slicing the unripe seedpods of the opium, or common and/or edible, poppy, Papaver somniferum. Morphine was the first active principle purified from a plant source and is one of at least 50 alkaloids of several different types present in opium, Poppy Straw Concentrate, and other poppy derivatives. Morphine is generally 8 to 17 percent of the dry weight of opium” Unquote (Wiki)

        That shows the depth of your knowledge in Medicine and I sincerely hope that you are not a Medical Professional.

        Quote “Health care and education were two other aspects to which the authorities paid attention. There were several hospitals in the city. In the fourth century King Upatissa II provided quarters and homes for the crippled and the blind. King Buddhadasa (337-365 AD), himself a physician of great repute, appointed a physician to be in charge of every ten villages. For the maintenance of these physicians, one tenth of the income from the fields was set apart. He also set up refuges for the sick in every village. Physicians were also appointed to look after the animals. Kassapa V (914-923 AD) founded a hospital close to the southern gate of Anuradhapura. General Sena in the tenth century is believed to have built a hospital close to the ceremonial street (Managala Veediya). The history of medical care began early, for in the fourth century BC King Pandukhabaya, in the course of sanitizing the town constructed a hospital. A large workforce was entrusted with the task of keeping the city clean.” (wiki) unquote

        You wrote “Also, are you familiar with the nature of surgery in ancient times? The mortality rate was quite high, as the idea of a sterile environment was not well-known at the time. “

        And did the West know about a sterile environment in the parallel time period?

        Was the Mortality rate any lower in the West in 4 BC?

        Only a fool will make such a comment when medicine is as old as Humanity. Physicians existed. Surgery existed. People did fall ill and they did take medicines and they did get better and they did die. Mortality rate does not negate that. If that is a sane argument then Europe would have had only abysmal medical knowledge as during the Plague epidemic that swept the whole of Europe, Mortality was very very high.

        You wrote “What is this real wealth you speak of? Cinnamon? Elephants? Pebbles from Galle Face?”

        I don’t know whether the British wanted Pebbles from Galle Face but I don’t believe that they were imbeciles like you appear to be as they were prepared to Kill and be killed for Cinnamon, Elephants, Coffee, Rubber, Gems etc and stole land from the Lankan peasantry to grow Tea for export. Synthetic rubber was not available those days and rubber was vital for their industry and war when that came about.

        Where did you think the 400 carat blue sapphire on the British crown came from? Where did you think the Blue Sapphire on the ring of Princess Diana and Kate Middleton came from? Africa? Are those stones pebbles from Gale Face that the British Monarch has been wearing on His/Her Royal Head?

        Out of 85 varieties of Gem stones available in the World 40 are found in Sri Lanka.

        You wrote “In any case, have you heard of this thing called “GDP”? It is the value of all goods and services produced by a country within some fixed period. Are you aware of the contribution of tea to the Sri Lankan GDP? Do you know who introduced tea to the island? Suffice it to say, the value of all tea earnings for 10 years exceeds the value of all cinnamon, elephants, and Galle Face pebbles stolen that span a 200 yr period. “

        A typical argument of Brown Shahibs that bend over backwards to worship the Brits.

        Lanka was a self sufficient civilised country with an established advanced civilisation. She had Scientific Skills that were unsurpassed at that point of time. Please see previous references.
        These skills and the civilisation would not remain static.

        Hence you have no logical ability to assess where we would have been if left alone to our own devices. Making unsupported statements is just belching.

        Tea is not an indispensable commodity to the world and hence the world can dispense with it.

        Food is indispensable and the world cannot be without it.

        Lanka grew her own food and was not only self sufficient but exported it as well. That was what was destroyed, so how do you make any logical comparison?

        Today we are locked in to an economy that exports a dispensable product.

        What will happen if consumers dispense with Tea when they have to spend their earnings on food and other essentials such as is happening now with a world wide recession?

        It actually happened before.
        Russian recession – no Tea sales
        Iraq war – no Tea sales
        Open your Eyes Nihal

        You have quoted a list of Casts in Lanka in an effort to prove that Lankans were ignorant. I hope your abject failure in this regard is apparent to you in view of the several references provided in this post that prove otherwise.

        I think that you need to study at least History before you make a fool of yourself with ignorant statements that prove to the GV readership what an ignoramus you really is.

        Please be careful in the future, before you make derisory remarks about things that you have absolutely no knowledge of.

        I did not want to give a detailed reply as I am hoping to see a response from the author to my post addressed to her. But the charges levelled by you were too serious and hence I decided to reply them in detail to prevent Eelamists jumping on your bandwagon.

      • Nihal Perera

        Nothing in Macaulay’s minute addressed my argument that Christian persecution against Buddhists during the colonial produced the xenophobic strain of “Sinhala-Buddhism” that is found today. By failing to answer this bit of history, I assume that you concur and that you are changing the topic because nothing further needs to be said on the crimes of Christianity in SL (and elsewhere).

        I am not sure what you mean by persecution exactly. Compared to what the Portugese did in Goa, or the Americans did in North America, what the British did in SL amounts to zilch. No one in SL was killed for refusing to convert to Christianity, or refusing to attend a Christian school. So even though you keep throwing around this term “persecution” like a monsoon rain, the only “persecution” I can think of is of the economic variety. But even this is questionable. In fact, economic competition, not Christian xenophobia is what led to the rise of Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism, as noted by Kumari Jayawardene and others:

        “The Sinhala upper class felt that the alien Muslims and some other foreigners were dominating the external and internal trade, and because of this, the Sinhalese – ‘the sons of the soil’ – were in a disadvantageous position. Kumari Jayawardena (1984, 1990) gives some details about the situation in trade in this period. According to her, by 1880 the Pettah trade was dominated by 86 Chetty and 64 Muslim firms and at the beginning of the twentieth century the external trade (the export and import) was dominated by seven leading Borah firms. The retail trade was also dominated largely by Muslims in the urban as well as in the rural areas. Thus, the Sinhala bourgeoisie faced severe competition from the minority Muslim community and they agitated against it.”

        http://www.wluml.org/node/322

        The bourgeoisie class, of course, was created by the British. But the fact that so many Muslims and Chetty’s were owners of leading businesses in Colombo disproves your theory of Christian persecution.

        Yet by separating yourself from the “Sinhala-Buddhists,” you are demonstrating this exact same tribal mentality that you are simultaneously decrying. Physician, heal thyself! 😀

        Sinhala-Buddhism has had 60 years to produce a successful outcome. I know your answer, you wish to blame the Tamils/LTTE. First you blamed the British, now you’ll blame the Tamils. Since both LTTE and British are gone, I am left to wonder who’ll you blame 60 years from now.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        The pitfall to avoid is coining new terms for everything foreign. When teaching science in English, Latin and words from other languages have been adopted, when teaching such subjects in Sinhala or Tamil those same words should be adopted without attempting to Sinhalise or Tamilise them.

        That will be a great waste of time. (Modern) medicine without anatomy is meaningless. But the kind of anatomy I am talking about is not “heart, brain, stomach, kakul, angili.” More like, “triquetrum, lunate, scaphoid, hamate…” And another thing; medical students do not learn these terms just for the sake of gossip. There is another branch of medicine called pathology which is about diseases. Without a firm grasp of anatomy, it is impossible to correctly identify and treat diseases. The problem is that many diseases also have Latin names . A doctor does not talk about a heart attack or blood clot; he refers to a “myocardial infarction” and “pulmonary embolism.” So now your Sinhala-medium medical student will have to learn not only the Latin names of the hundreds of body parts, but the hundreds of names of the diseases as well.


        Now Nihal what will be the difficulty in memorizing these several hundred names of bones, nerves, organs, which as you say are 95% Latin? What prevents Sinhalese or Tamils adopting these identical names? Do you think Latin words are a sacred preserve of the West?

        As I said, no significant body of medical literature exists in Sinhala. A doctor’s training lasts as long as he lives. He will have to read medical journals as long as he keeps practicing. There is no medical journal of international repute in the Sinhala language. So assuming that the medical student you speak of managed to qualify as a doctor while having trained in Sinhala medium instruction, he would still spend a lifetime reading English-language medical journals. Therefore, in retrospect, it was probably a waste of time to train this doctor in Sinhala-medium medical instruction (assuming that is even possible).

        Do you mean ALL those who qualify in medicine are exponents in these languages?

        I am merely stating that it is easier to transition from a European language to Latin, than it is from Sinhala to Latin.

        But you used the word MOST what about the REST who are not “Multiligual”? Are they shut out from Medicine?

        In these countries, there is a large body of medical literature in the native languages – literature which conforms to international standards.

        Russia, Japan and China amongst others teach Medicine in their own tongue.

        Again, that is because a significant body of literature exists in the native language. Furthermore, one can find translations of virtually all of the English-medical journal articles into Russian/Japanese/Chinese, etc. But such translations into Sinhala are non-existant, the reason being that there is no demand for such translations.

        What prevents the Sinhalese and Tamils who are taught medicine in the Vernacular reading and understanding English Medical Literature? They already know all the terms used. What they need is the ability to read and understand English. How did you assume that these vernacular medical students will not know English? Prejudice?

        What makes you think they will be able to cope with English medical literature if their training has been in Sinhala? The Chinese/Russians/Japanese etc. can do it because there are enough qualified people to translate between languages. Sri Lanka has a shortage of doctors; it doesn’t make sense to even begin talking about enough people to translate between languages. Furthemore, doctors are trained in a particular specialty, which will only compound the problem even further (e.g. shortage will be exacerbated).

        Astronomy is a main stream Science, Astrology is not. Those who make horoscopes use Astrology.

        Astronomy and astrology are not mutually exclusive. If one is dabbling in astrology, then he is also dabbling in astronomy.

        The use of the Mother Tongue provides a learning advantage. This is a recognised fact. You have adequately displayed your ignorance on the subject of Education.

        Yes, we saw how the use of the Mother Tongue provided a learning advantage in 1956. The end result of “swabasha” was not progress, but standardisation; children from the villages were so far behind that they could not enter the university without a quota.

        Apparently you are ignorant of the science behind placing stones.

        I admit the Sinhalese employed some good hydraulic techniques, but all of it is primitive by modern standards.

        “Morphine is the most abundant alkaloid found in opium…

        Morphine is also a hallucinogen and narcotic. One must wonder as to the dose administered in this case; e.g. whether the patient was still conscious while the operation was being performed, since a large dose of morphine is fatal.

        Only a fool will make such a comment when medicine is as old as Humanity. Physicians existed. Surgery existed. People did fall ill and they did take medicines and they did get better and they did die. Mortality rate does not negate that. If that is a sane argument then Europe would have had only abysmal medical knowledge as during the Plague epidemic that swept the whole of Europe, Mortality was very very high.

        Only a fool will compare ancient medicine, which used things like morphine and herbs, to modern medicine. Perhaps you can explain why an Ayurvedic doctor was not called in to save Duminda Silva? Why were two specialist surgeons flown in from Singapore, when Duminda could surely have been saved with a dose of morphine, kothamali kola, and Bodhi Puja? According to your logic, Sri Lankans have been practicing surgery for thousands of years, so why were two Americans called in to save him?

        I don’t know whether the British wanted Pebbles from Galle Face but I don’t believe that they were imbeciles like you appear to be as they were prepared to Kill and be killed for Cinnamon, Elephants, Coffee, Rubber, Gems etc and stole land from the Lankan peasantry to grow Tea for export. Synthetic rubber was not available those days and rubber was vital for their industry and war when that came about.

        The problem with this argument is that the British used the proceeds from the “stolen commodities” to build roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Perhaps you’re one of the fortunate ones that doesn’t have to ride a train to work everyday. The British not only built the trains, they built the entire railroad track to go along with it.

        Where did you think the 400 carat blue sapphire on the British crown came from? Where did you think the Blue Sapphire on the ring of Princess Diana and Kate Middleton came from? Africa? Are those stones pebbles from Gale Face that the British Monarch has been wearing on His/Her Royal Head?

        Are you saying that all of these gems came from Sri Lanka? Are you also aware that Sri Lankans mined these gems, and Sri Lankan merchants then sold the gems to whomever? The British merely created the environment for the gems and other resources to be mined. They then bought some of those gems and resources from Sri Lankans and resold them. Which part of that is stealing? If you want to know about stealing, you should visit Jaffna. High security zones have been built on thousands of acres of the best farmland.


        A typical argument of Brown Shahibs that bend over backwards to worship the Brits.

        Yes, the truth must hurt knowing that a European nation introduced a major export commodity to Sri Lanka, which nets billions of dollars USD annually.

        Lanka was a self sufficient civilised country with an established advanced civilisation. She had Scientific Skills that were unsurpassed at that point of time.

        The majority of the people on the island were engaged in subsistence farming. The king owned all the land. SL was self sufficient in rice production.


        Tea is not an indispensable commodity to the world and hence the world can dispense with it.

        Another brilliant observation on your part. Let Sri Lanka dispense with tea and see what happens, good joke my friend!


        Lanka grew her own food and was not only self sufficient but exported it as well. That was what was destroyed, so how do you make any logical comparison?

        Like I said, the majority of people were engaged in subsistence farming. That is the bare minimum for self-sufficiency. What it means is that in the event of a natural disaster, such as a famine, thousands would perish.

        Today we are locked in to an economy that exports a dispensable product.

        One billion USD is no small amount. Can you think of a way, short-term or long-term, to pick up the lost revenue? I can’t. Without tea, the Sri Lankan economy would face a major crisis.

        You have quoted a list of Casts in Lanka in an effort to prove that Lankans were ignorant. I hope your abject failure in this regard is apparent to you in view of the several references provided in this post that prove otherwise.

        I have asked you which of these castes were producing doctors, engineers, etc. It seems that you have no coherent answer. Anyway, my point is that the occupations of these castes give a good picture of the “self-sufficient” Sri Lankan utopia, at the moment the British arrived. It proves my point that the majority of Sri Lankans were engaged in subsistence farming, and that the British creating a new economy in which the lower castes had upward mobility was not such a bad thing after all.

        —-

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Thank you for your response. My response is in two parts.

        The pitfall to avoid is coining new terms for everything foreign. When teaching science in English, Latin and words from other languages have been adopted, when teaching such subjects in Sinhala or Tamil those same words should be adopted without attempting to Sinhalise or Tamilise them.

        That will be a great waste of time. (Modern) medicine without anatomy is meaningless. But the kind of anatomy I am talking about is not “heart, brain, stomach, kakul, angili.” More like, “triquetrum, lunate, scaphoid, hamate…” And another thing; medical students do not learn these terms just for the sake of gossip. There is another branch of medicine called pathology which is about diseases. Without a firm grasp of anatomy, it is impossible to correctly identify and treat diseases. The problem is that many diseases also have Latin names . A doctor does not talk about a heart attack or blood clot; he refers to a “myocardial infarction” and “pulmonary embolism.” So now your Sinhala-medium medical student will have to learn not only the Latin names of the hundreds of body parts, but the hundreds of names of the diseases as well.


        Now Nihal what will be the difficulty in memorizing these several hundred names of bones, nerves, organs, which as you say are 95% Latin? What prevents Sinhalese or Tamils adopting these identical names? Do you think Latin words are a sacred preserve of the West?

        As I said, no significant body of medical literature exists in Sinhala. A doctor’s training lasts as long as he lives. He will have to read medical journals as long as he keeps practicing. There is no medical journal of international repute in the Sinhala language. So assuming that the medical student you speak of managed to qualify as a doctor while having trained in Sinhala medium instruction, he would still spend a lifetime reading English-language medical journals. Therefore, in retrospect, it was probably a waste of time to train this doctor in Sinhala-medium medical instruction (assuming that is even possible).

        Do you mean ALL those who qualify in medicine are exponents in these languages?

        I am merely stating that it is easier to transition from a European language to Latin, than it is from Sinhala to Latin.

        But you used the word MOST what about the REST who are not “Multiligual”? Are they shut out from Medicine?

        In these countries, there is a large body of medical literature in the native languages – literature which conforms to international standards.

        Russia, Japan and China amongst others teach Medicine in their own tongue.

        Again, that is because a significant body of literature exists in the native language. Furthermore, one can find translations of virtually all of the English-medical journal articles into Russian/Japanese/Chinese, etc. But such translations into Sinhala are non-existant, the reason being that there is no demand for such translations.

        What prevents the Sinhalese and Tamils who are taught medicine in the Vernacular reading and understanding English Medical Literature? They already know all the terms used. What they need is the ability to read and understand English. How did you assume that these vernacular medical students will not know English? Prejudice?

        What makes you think they will be able to cope with English medical literature if their training has been in Sinhala? The Chinese/Russians/Japanese etc. can do it because there are enough qualified people to translate between languages. Sri Lanka has a shortage of doctors; it doesn’t make sense to even begin talking about enough people to translate between languages. Furthemore, doctors are trained in a particular specialty, which will only compound the problem even further (e.g. shortage will be exacerbated).

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Here is the rest of my response.

        Astronomy is a main stream Science, Astrology is not. Those who make horoscopes use Astrology.

        Astronomy and astrology are not mutually exclusive. If one is dabbling in astrology, then he is also dabbling in astronomy.

        The use of the Mother Tongue provides a learning advantage. This is a recognised fact. You have adequately displayed your ignorance on the subject of Education.

        Yes, we saw how the use of the Mother Tongue provided a learning advantage in 1956. The end result of “swabasha” was not progress, but standardisation; children from the villages were so far behind that they could not enter the university without a quota.

        Apparently you are ignorant of the science behind placing stones.

        I admit the Sinhalese employed some good hydraulic techniques, but all of it is primitive by modern standards.

        “Morphine is the most abundant alkaloid found in opium…

        Morphine is also a hallucinogen and narcotic. One must wonder as to the dose administered in this case; e.g. whether the patient was still conscious while the operation was being performed, since a large dose of morphine is fatal.

        Only a fool will make such a comment when medicine is as old as Humanity. Physicians existed. Surgery existed. People did fall ill and they did take medicines and they did get better and they did die. Mortality rate does not negate that. If that is a sane argument then Europe would have had only abysmal medical knowledge as during the Plague epidemic that swept the whole of Europe, Mortality was very very high.

        Only a fool will compare ancient medicine, which used things like morphine and herbs, to modern medicine. Perhaps you can explain why an Ayurvedic doctor was not called in to save Duminda Silva? Why were two specialist surgeons flown in from Singapore, when Duminda could surely have been saved with a dose of morphine, kothamali kola, and Bodhi Puja? According to your logic, Sri Lankans have been practicing surgery for thousands of years, so why were two Americans called in to save him?

        I don’t know whether the British wanted Pebbles from Galle Face but I don’t believe that they were imbeciles like you appear to be as they were prepared to Kill and be killed for Cinnamon, Elephants, Coffee, Rubber, Gems etc and stole land from the Lankan peasantry to grow Tea for export. Synthetic rubber was not available those days and rubber was vital for their industry and war when that came about.

        The problem with this argument is that the British used the proceeds from the “stolen commodities” to build roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Perhaps you’re one of the fortunate ones that doesn’t have to ride a train to work everyday. The British not only built the trains, they built the entire railroad track to go along with it.

        Where did you think the 400 carat blue sapphire on the British crown came from? Where did you think the Blue Sapphire on the ring of Princess Diana and Kate Middleton came from? Africa? Are those stones pebbles from Gale Face that the British Monarch has been wearing on His/Her Royal Head?

        Are you saying that all of these gems came from Sri Lanka? Are you also aware that Sri Lankans mined these gems, and Sri Lankan merchants then sold the gems to whomever? The British merely created the environment for the gems and other resources to be mined. They then bought some of those gems and resources from Sri Lankans and resold them. Which part of that is stealing? If you want to know about stealing, you should visit Jaffna. High security zones have been built on thousands of acres of the best farmland.


        A typical argument of Brown Shahibs that bend over backwards to worship the Brits.

        Yes, the truth must hurt knowing that a European nation introduced a major export commodity to Sri Lanka, which nets billions of dollars USD annually.

        Lanka was a self sufficient civilised country with an established advanced civilisation. She had Scientific Skills that were unsurpassed at that point of time.

        The majority of the people on the island were engaged in subsistence farming. The king owned all the land. SL was self sufficient in rice production.


        Tea is not an indispensable commodity to the world and hence the world can dispense with it.

        Another brilliant observation on your part. Let Sri Lanka dispense with tea and see what happens, good joke my friend!


        Lanka grew her own food and was not only self sufficient but exported it as well. That was what was destroyed, so how do you make any logical comparison?

        Like I said, the majority of people were engaged in subsistence farming. That is the bare minimum for self-sufficiency. What it means is that in the event of a natural disaster, such as a famine, thousands would perish.

        Today we are locked in to an economy that exports a dispensable product.

        One billion USD is no small amount. Can you think of a way, short-term or long-term, to pick up the lost revenue? I can’t. Without tea, the Sri Lankan economy would face a major crisis.

        You have quoted a list of Casts in Lanka in an effort to prove that Lankans were ignorant. I hope your abject failure in this regard is apparent to you in view of the several references provided in this post that prove otherwise.

        I have asked you which of these castes were producing doctors, engineers, etc. It seems that you have no coherent answer. Anyway, my point is that the occupations of these castes give a good picture of the “self-sufficient” Sri Lankan utopia, at the moment the British arrived. It proves my point that the majority of Sri Lankans were engaged in subsistence farming, and that the British creating a new economy in which the lower castes had upward mobility was not such a bad thing after all.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Here is part 2 of my response. Note that part 3 follows after this.

        Astronomy is a main stream Science, Astrology is not. Those who make horoscopes use Astrology.

        Astronomy and astrology are not mutually exclusive. If one is dabbling in astrology, then he is also dabbling in astronomy.

        The use of the Mother Tongue provides a learning advantage. This is a recognised fact. You have adequately displayed your ignorance on the subject of Education.

        Yes, we saw how the use of the Mother Tongue provided a learning advantage in 1956. The end result of “swabasha” was not progress, but standardisation; children from the villages were so far behind that they could not enter the university without a quota.

        Apparently you are ignorant of the science behind placing stones.

        I admit the Sinhalese employed some good hydraulic techniques, but all of it is primitive by modern standards.

        “Morphine is the most abundant alkaloid found in opium…

        Morphine is also a hallucinogen and narcotic. One must wonder as to the dose administered in this case; e.g. whether the patient was still conscious while the operation was being performed, since a large dose of morphine is fatal.

        Only a fool will make such a comment when medicine is as old as Humanity. Physicians existed. Surgery existed. People did fall ill and they did take medicines and they did get better and they did die. Mortality rate does not negate that. If that is a sane argument then Europe would have had only abysmal medical knowledge as during the Plague epidemic that swept the whole of Europe, Mortality was very very high.

        Only a fool will compare ancient medicine, which used things like morphine and herbs, to modern medicine. Perhaps you can explain why an Ayurvedic doctor was not called in to save Duminda Silva? Why were two specialist surgeons flown in from Singapore, when Duminda could surely have been saved with a dose of morphine, kothamali kola, and Bodhi Puja? According to your logic, Sri Lankans have been practicing surgery for thousands of years, so why were two Americans called in to save him?

      • Panditharatne

        Nihal Perera (? )

        The roads and rail roads were made from forced labor of our ancestors. I think for a guy like you belonging to a race that believe servility to white man is an honor that would be OK 🙂

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        I have limited my response to one area as handling more appears to confuse you.

        This is what I wrote,

        The pitfall to avoid is coining new terms for everything foreign. When teaching science in English, Latin and words from other languages have been adopted, when teaching such subjects in Sinhala or Tamil those same words should be adopted without attempting to Sinhalise or Tamilise them.

        Your first response,
        Actually it cannot be done. Let me give you a simple example. Part of a medical students’ training consists of memorizing the names of several hundred bones, organs, and nerves. Almost all of these names (well over 95%) are in Latin. The names are missing from Sinhala language, altogether, period.

        Do you know of anyone who had to study Latin as a Language, as a prerequisite to study medicine? Lankan Universities do not require their med students to know Latin.
        Yet they produce Medical Graduates.

        All of them are either Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burgher (or another minority) and non of them start off their medical studies with an iota of knowledge in Latin as a Language.

        Now lets look at your first response

        1.Need for memorising names of bones and organs
        2.All these names are in Latin (95+%)

        All Lankan Med students have the identical disadvantage not withstanding any knowledge of English.

        3.These names are not in the Sinhala or Tamil Vocabulary

        That’s why they would be adopted directly.

        You modify your argument with your second response

        1.Waste of time

        why? All local undergrads did the same thing when they learnt the Latin words.

        2. Medicine without anatomy is meaningless

        Who said they will not study Anatomy? How can Latin stand in the way?

        3. not words like “heart, brain, stomach, kakul, angili.” More like, “triquetrum, lunate, scaphoid, hamate…”

        Could you not read the words proximal, middle and distal in my previous post? What is the difficulty of writing triquetrum or lunate or scaphoid in the Sinhala or Tamil script? Didn’t you observe that I never used kakul, angili etc so why are you bringing that up?

        3. Pathology

        Whether it is Pathology, Microbiology or Nuclear medicine Latin cannot stand in the way of learning these subjects using DIRECTLY adopted Latin words within Sinhala or Tamil. English did the same thing. It adopted Latin words directly and wrote it in Roman Script.

        4. Diseases having latin names such as “myocardial infarction” and “pulmonary embolism.”is a problem

        Latin can never be a problem as this is just an adoption of words

        5. Sinhala-medium medical student has to learn Latin names of bones organs and diseases

        English medium students does the same thing. Non of them can communicate in Latin. They learn new words and attach a defined meaning to each. Aneurysm is a Greek word. It does not matter what script you use to write it as long as the pronunciation and the meaning is the same. You can write it using Greek / English / Sinhala / Tamil script but the defined meaning would be “abnormal widening or ballooning of a portion of an artery due to weakness in the wall of the blood vessel”

        Your argument is based on just one objection you wrote “The problem is that many diseases also have Latin names”

        In the foregoing I have shown you that English, DIRECTLY adopted the foreign Words as it’s Medical Lexicon. What prevents Sinhala or Tamil doing the exact same thing as their Medical Lexicon?

        There is no added difficulty for any local med student who uses the SAME LEXICON irrespective of the language of instruction.

        Where does your argument stand?

        If you went to med school like all the others, without prior knowledge of Latin, what logical reason can you put forward to prove that teaching in the vernacular as explained above requires knowledge of Latin?

        Is it prejudice or an irrational superiority complex?

  • Rajo

    An interesting article. We may all have the same genetic ancestry. Personally I don’t mind people believing that we are genetically different. I don’t really care. I think the real point is, we don’t need to like each other, we just have to accept each other (most importantly accept the fact that we should be one country and that all communities should have the same rights and opportunities and protection under the law) and work towards removing the biases that each community has when viewing the other. Currently all the Tamils are terrorists and all the Sinhalese are racists. I think in the short term a achievable goal is to just get people to stop viewing the opposing community as a threat or as evil. I think its called tolerance.

  • kadphises

    Whether we have the same genes or ancestry does not really matter one jot to those who subscribe to the tribalist mentality. We need to recognise communal strife as a human failing common to all races. There are fault lines in any society. People are not equal in any society there are always cultural, linguistic, religious, economic differences between its constituent populations. These differences can boilover into conflict under certain circumstances when suspicion is formented among one group about another. Currently it is the Tamil – Sinhala conflict that forms the main schizm in Sri Lankan society. But there are many more if not handled expertly that could boil over like the Sinhala-Moslem, Tamil-Moslem, Christian-Buddhist, Colombian-Rural, Class that are waiting in the wings to be picked up by the correct demagogue. (as in Germany). The anti-conversion bill that the Buddhist clergy is campaining for, the destruction the sufi shrine in Anuradhapura, The portrayal of the Kuragala moslem shrine and colonisations around the Digavapi shrine by Moslems as an examples of Molem encroachment on Buddhist space are all examples of this.

    Tribes in general try to protect their space, membership and collective assets and if possible grab a little bit from another tribe. Governments should recognise this and be very careful when passing legislature and enforcing the law to be seen as above these tribal differences. It is when it is perceived to side with one tribe against another that all hell breaks loose. This is why a secular state is important if were to claim that it represents all its constituent tribes.

    Personally, I cannot even understand how the SL state can protect “Buddhism” as the constitution demands. Is it Buddhist values or Buddhist iconography and rituals? Why cant the clause be modified to simply say the state will defend religious freedoms and preserve the country’s archaelogical heritage?

    • wijayapala

      Dear kadphises

      Personally, I cannot even understand how the SL state can protect “Buddhism” as the constitution demands.

      Then this will be the best time for you to become acquainted with Sri Lankan history. The legitimacy of kings in ancient times was based on how they protected “Buddhism.” Even the non-Buddhist Nayakkars had to make this commitment to hold any legitimacy over their subjects.

      Conversely, Buddhism has survived only in lands where the state made a commitment to preserving it. When Buddhist “states” disappeared in India, Buddhism as a whole disappeared as well.

      • kadphises

        Wijeyapala,

        Do you mean “Buddhism” or Buddhist rituals and iconography? Wasnt that Buddhism preserved so well on the shores of Nandikadal?

        I was never suggesting that we can go back to becomming a caste ridden Buddhist monarchy. We need new solutions for new problems.

      • kadphises

        Wijeyapala,

        “Then this will be the best time for you to become acquainted with Sri Lankan history. The legitimacy of kings in ancient times was based on how they protected “Buddhism.” Even the non-Buddhist Nayakkars had to make this commitment to hold any legitimacy over their subjects.”

        Thanks so much for the advice. I got acqainted with this Lankan history thing and you wouldnt believe what I learnt…

        1. circa 200bc Kavanthissa fied a buddhist monk in a pot of oil but his legitimacy among his subjects did not suffer

        2. circa 300ad King Mahasen persecuted the Mahavihara but did many good deeds like build the Minneriya reservoir and enhanced his legitimacy among his subjects even to be exalted to the status of Mahasen Devio.

        3. circa 500ad Dhatusena built the Kalawewa bud over a meditating monk but still did not face peasant revolt from his subjects.

        4. circa 1700ad Rajasinha I persecuted the buddhist faith after falling under the influence of South Indian Andiyas but was admired by his subjects later even acheiving the Rajasinha Deviyo status.

        5. Some Nayakkars like Kirti Sri championed and promoted buddhism. Others like Sri Wikrama did not.

      • yapa

        Please see kadphises’ Sri Lankan History Lesson.

        “1. circa 200bc Kavanthissa fied a buddhist monk in a pot of oil but his legitimacy among his subjects did not suffer”

        Hah! Hah! Ha!, Kavanthissa did so, Eh?

        Thanks kadphises for entertainment.

      • kadphises

        “Thanks kadphises for entertainment.”

        Anytime Yapa.. You are welcome to laugh everytime I make a typo! Kelanitissa then, but please dont stop laughing. I’d hate to stop you doing that!

      • yapa

        Now Dear kadphises, a reminder from our friend wijayapala,

        “Then this will be the best time for you to become acquainted with Sri Lankan history.”

        Thanks! Hah! Hah!! Ha!!!

  • Off the Cuff

    Dear Sunela Jayewardene ,

    Beautiful prose that is rarely seen.
    The mastery of the Language, has anyone who reads your writing, spell bound in awe. The subtlety compels one to read it again and again. On all these counts this article stands head and shoulders above the rest.

    It would be very rare indeed to find a pure race on Earth.
    Sinhalese who share a Genome of 50+% with the Tamil race is not an exception.

    The last kingdom of the Sinhalese was ruled by a non Sinhalese from India. He ruled not by conquering and subjugation but by invitation.

    Arabs who arrived in Lanka in the 7 th century were welcomed by the Sinhalese

    Muslim merchants arrived in large numbers and some of them decided to settle in the island encouraged by the cordial treatment they received by the local rulers. …….The circumstances that helped the growth of Muslim settlements were varied. Most of the majority Sinhalese depended more on agriculture than trade, thus trade was open to the Muslims. The Sinhalese Kings considered the Muslim settlements favorably on account of the revenue that they brought them through their contacts overseas both in trade and in politics. The religious tolerance of the local population was also another vital factor in the development of Muslim settlements in Ceylon. (Wiki)

    Obviously something must have happened between then and 1948 to change the attitude of the Sinhalese towards the Tamils.

    The British enacted the Crown Land Enforcement Ordinance in 1840 to claim the unoccupied and uncultivated land in the Kandyan kingdom (Farmer 1957:90- 91). As a result of this ordinance, 90% of the land in the Kandyan highlands was designated as land belonging to the British Crown (Herath et al, 1995:77).

    The Waste Land Ordinance Act of 1897 (and the Crown Land Encroachment Ordinance in 1840), annexed more lands as crown lands where villagers could no longer claim them according to the new British- imposed rules (Roberts 1979:233, Obeysekara 1967: 98-100).

    The majority of the Sinhalese villages effectively lost the structural prerequisite of land tenure systems (Obeysekara 1967:101). These ordinances also created a large number of landless peasants in the former Kandyan kingdom, which had held land through customary means but without legal proof. Furthermore, the ‘Land Settlement Ordinance of 1889’ allowed the colonial authorities to sell crown lands at will.

    The impact of these land ordinances were uneven, because they were largely limited to the former Kandyan Kingdom (Mendis 1951:166).

    Many villagers in the Kandyan area were deprived of their high lands formally used for chena cultivation or grazing the cattle (Mendis 1951:85).

    These changes to the Kandyan land and service tenure systems disintegrated the old Sinhalese systems (Codrington 1938:63).

    According to the 1946 census on population in the agricultural sector of the island, 40% of the agricultural peasant families found in the former Kandyan Kingdom were landless while there were 26% landless agricultural families recorded in the wet zone (Herath 1995: 79).

    It would not have been easy for those who lost their land and livelihood to see the same lands being occupied by foreign Tamil workers imported by the British.

    The above acts would have caused the locals to hate the British and anyone who would have been involved in enforcing the tyranny of the British on the locals.

    • Sunela Jayewardene

      Dear Off the Cuff,

      Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed the writing style as much as you subscribe to the perspective.

      I too am inclined to believe that the British imperialists whilst disrupting ancient systems [the highland Chena being designated as unused lands when it lay fallow], through ignorance and a resultant sense of superiority, [a combination that we all know, proved toxic for all the peoples they subjugated globally], widened every hairline crack in our societies. The cruel policy of ‘Divide and Rule’…. Further, I cant recall instances in our pre-colonial history when we had racial riots; inter-racial fighting was provoked primarily by invasions and colonizations rather than by the race of the invaders?

      Sadly and shockingly, there are still educated Sri Lankans [as is evident from the comments on this article], who want to point fingers and outline petty differences rather than move forward as a single, nationality. If we don’t find the tolerance and the intelligence to rise above these petty differences then as ‘Kadphises’ says, we are tribal. If some of us can rise above, then wouldn’t we be the more evolved beings….

  • Suresh Murugaser

    Dear Sunela

    Thanks for a beautifully constructed and thought-out article!It certainly puts a few home truths out there that some people refuse to acknowledge or choose to forget.

    I feel that enlightened people in this beautiful but pathetically misguided island should get together to stand up and say that no one is interested in what the politicians and the majority of the Buddhist clergy (if you can call them that!)have to say.

    Yes, we are a hotch-potch of different cultures whatever we may like to think of ourselves as. There is only one identity that must be promulgated and that is that we are all Sri Lankan. Forget all the race and religion tags. They mean nothing!!

    Its taken a lot of guts to write this article, and since I know your family, I know where you’re coming from.

    More strength to your elbow. I’d certainly like to see this article given more publicity in the mainstream media – especially the vernacular ones. There’ll be interesting responses for sure!

    Cherrs on a job well done!

    • Sunela Jayewardene

      Dear Suresh,

      More than guts, its about standing up and articulating what I truly believe in, with the hope it contributes to the achievement of a dream; a dream for Sri Lanka! The response to this article is such that I may even begin to think that mine may not be a voice in the wilderness but the voice of the silent majority!

      If we dont speak out now then, I fear that we will be swamped by primitive thinking that will completely misguide and surely bring this beautiful island to its knees, again.

      Thank you for your appreciation and I too wish I had more time to write!

  • wijayapala

    Dear Nihal Perera

    I am not sure what you mean by persecution exactly.

    Of course you don’t know what I mean, you aren’t a Buddhist and you don’t know Sri Lankan history! That is why I will patiently explain it to you!

    Compared to what the Portugese did in Goa,

    Why don’t you tell us what the Portuguese did in Sri Lanka?

    No one in SL was killed for refusing to convert to Christianity, or refusing to attend a Christian school.

    No, but they were discriminated against. Here is what KNO Dharmadasa said on the topic:

    “Apart from the more obvious discriminations found in the employment sphere and in matters of legal registration (footnote: From Dutch times the legally valid registration of birth, marriage, and death was in the hands of Christian clergy. It was only in 1868, due to agitation by Buddhists, that civil registration was introduced…), the missionary advances, particularly in educational activity, would have appeared to the Buddhists as antithetical to the spirit of the undertakings of 1815…Having been conditioned for centuries by a religion whose basic tenents spoke of tolerance, the Buddhists appeared to the missionaries as ‘slumbering in their security.’ Engaged in their holy endeavor, the missionaries were exasperated to find ‘it almost impossible to move them even to wrath.’…This is epitomized in the statement of a bhikkhu to a missionary, ‘The English people worshipped Jesus Christ and the Sinhalese people worshipped the Budhha…they were both good religions.’ (p. 91)

    “Confronted by religious adversity, there was a transformation in the character of the bhikkhu, a transformation that was to have long-term effects on the sociopolitical life of the community (footnote: Political activism among the bhikkhus, which became very prominent during the mid twentieth century, may be traced to this transformation). Eschewing his traditional role as religious preceptor and custodian of learning, the bhikkhu now emerged as a mobilizational leader spearheading a counteroffensive against the inroads of Christianity in particular and Western civilization in general. The activism of the bhikkhus in these spheres generated an unprecedented mass enthusiasm, first and foremost about Buddhism, which subsequently came to be channeled into a concern about various other aspects of indigenous culture.” (p. 90)

    Language, Religion, and Ethnic Assertiveness: the Growth of Sinhalese Nationalism in Sri Lanka. University of Michigan Press, 1992

    Dharmadasa goes on to note that Sinhala nationalism arose in the maritime southwest where the interactions with Christians were greater, and not in the center of Buddhist orthodoxy in Kandy. Can you guess why?

    Sinhala-Buddhism has had 60 years to produce a successful outcome. I know your answer, you wish to blame the Tamils/LTTE.

    Actually the Christians bear far more of the blame, which is where I disagree with OTC who pins everything on the Tamils. In how many of those years were actual Sinhala Buddhists in charge? The two most anti-Tamil Sinhala leaders, SWRD Bandaranaike and JR Jayawardene, were born Christians.

    Are you aware of the role that Christians played in the 1962 coup attempt that led to the “Buddhistisation” of the SL military?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Ceylonese_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

    Kindly share your reaction to this article:

    Could the TNA learn from the Catholics ? by Arjuna Hulugalle

    “In the colonial period, which had lasted 450 years, it was natural that the Catholics and the Christians had an edge in every respect. Their schools were prestigious with a life line of financial and intellectual inputs. The Catholics got it mainly from Italy, France and Ireland and the Anglicans and Methodists from the Commonwealth countries and the US. In business, in the public service, in the armed forces and in the ownership of property they had preferential status and their prominence was disproportionate to their numbers. Post 1948, the introduction of one man one vote, the C. W. W. Kannangara policy with compulsory and free education and the use of the veranacular made a sea change inevitable.

    “It was in 1960, that the Catholics were at the cross roads. Parents occupied the Catholic schools when their take over had been decided by the Government. The Bishops and the Catholic hierarchy rejected the Government move. They supported the Archbishop who already in 1959 had come out with the statement “Our schools should not be touched. We will fight to the end, even shedding blood.” (Dinamina – June 30, 1959)…”

    • Nihal Perera

      Wijayapala,

      You have quite an imagination. But you have failed to answer my question: if the British were persecuting non-Christians, why were there so many successful leading Muslim, Tamil, and Sinhalese businessmen in Colombo? I don’t care what the Portugese did, because the British are more relevant to post-Independence SL history. Your claim that S.W.R.D was a Christian and that he implemented his racist agenda through a Christian lens, is absurd. You have failed to answer my earlier question: what did the average Christian in SL gain from the racist policies of S.W.R.D? The same is true of JR. By your logic, since the Sinhalese are descendants of North Indian Hindus, I can blame Hinduism for every other thing that went wrong on the island.

      I hardly think Dharmapala was a “missionary in slumber.” Unfortunately, I am not inclined to post his flowery poetry here, given that its virulent and racist overtones may easily offend some readers.

      • Nikhil

        You want to ignore what the Portuguese (and Dutch) did and just concentrate on the British? Laughable. Of all the religions it is only Christianity that came to the island drenched in blood and violence. The worst period of religious persecution in Sri Lanka took place at the hands of Christians when they were running the country.

      • @ Nikhil

        You said, “The worst period of religious persecution in Sri Lanka took place at the hands of Christians when they were running the country.”

        So what did the Sinhala Buddhist armed forces do in the last 5 months of the Hooomanitarian Operation? And how many zero casualties did they permanently rehabilitate???

      • wijayapala

        Dear Nihal Perera

        You have quite an imagination.

        Given that I provided scholarship citing the discrimination against non-Christians in Sri Lanka during the colonial era, your answer is rather pathetic.

        I gave an example how the SL military used to be dominated by Christians who abused their authority and tried to overthrow an elected government, leading to their replacement by Buddhists, to which you had no answer.

        Finally, I showed you an article about how the Christians in the 1960s eventually turned away from confrontation when their special privileges not enjoyed by non-Christians were being taken away, which explains why most Christians today (you excepted) are integrated in larger society. Again, you appear to accept all of my arguments.

        if the British were persecuting non-Christians, why were there so many successful leading Muslim, Tamil, and Sinhalese businessmen in Colombo?

        Your hollow argument is no different from the common Sinhala claim that the minorities are perfectly happy because if you go to Liberty Plaza or Majestic City, you can see plenty of clearly wealthy Tamil or Muslim women distinct with their hair covered or pottus. That argument, much like yours misses the larger point that there were many more people than the few success stories who were not doing well.

        Perhaps you also believe there was no discrimination against the blacks after the US Civil War because of one or two success stories like Booker T. Washington or George Washington Carver.

        Your claim that S.W.R.D was a Christian and that he implemented his racist agenda through a Christian lens, is absurd.

        The point is that the two worst leaders in Sri Lanka had a Christian upbringing, and you have no answer for that.

        By your logic, since the Sinhalese are descendants of North Indian Hindus, I can blame Hinduism for every other thing that went wrong on the island.

        No, because SWRD and JRJ themselves were converts from Christianity, whereas the Sinhalese living over 2300 years ago were not the same people who lived in the last 60 years. Your argument will only hold if you can find a similarly destructive leader who was a convert from Hinduism.

        I hardly think Dharmapala was a “missionary in slumber.”

        Anagarika Dharmapala was not a missionary, and nothing that I cited mentioned “missionary in slumber.” If you had better reading comprehension skills, you would have noted that the quote read, “the Buddhists appeared to the [Christian] missionaries as ‘slumbering in their security.'”

        You also missed the entire second paragraph stating, “Confronted by religious adversity, there was a transformation in the character of the bhikkhu, a transformation that was to have long-term effects on the sociopolitical life of the community.” In other words, we would never have had an Anagarika Dharmapala had Christianity never come to Sri Lanka.

        On another note, Dharmapala’s rhetoric regarding the “pure” and “Aryan” lineage of the Sinhalese was borrowed from European scientific racism:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nikhil,

        “Of all the religions it is only Christianity that came to the island drenched in blood and violence. The worst period of religious persecution in Sri Lanka took place at the hands of Christians when they were running the country.”

        An undeniable truth

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Presidunce,

        When a Dunce cannot understand what religious persecution means what can anyone do?

        In ALL the Sinhala majority areas the Hindu’s carried the statues of their Hindu Deities, in procession, on public roads, celebrating the Hindu Vel festival. They celebrated Thai Pongal and Deepavali without let or hindrance.

        And P Dunce claims that their was Religious Persecution …..

      • Nikhil

        Dear Presidunce, since you go off tangent, please permit me to do the same.

        If you have a problem with the Sri Lankan (or the ‘Sinhalese Buddhist army’ according to you) army, then you certainly should have a problem with the Christian God – the God that Sri Lankan Christians venerate, worship and pray to. Why? Let me explain. One only need to open the Bible – the book that Sri Lankan Christians hold in very high regard – to gather the evidence. Many people have already done so and all you need to do is to open your Bible as well:

        “The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.

        It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.

        For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife.

        Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody.

        In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

        ———–
        In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
        ———–

        The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). ”

        ====

        So surely if you have an issue with the “Sinhalese Buddhist army”, then you would have a problem with the Christian God? Should people who worship such a blood thirsty and vengeful creature who has killed thousands upon thousands of human beings (as explained in the Bible itself), be pointing fingers at others?

        Any rational person would say no.

      • Christian

        Nikhil

        I see your diatribe against Sri Lankan Christians. Now what beats me is why so many people who are blame Christians end up sending their kids to Christian schools. Was it because they teach something that Buddhist schools do not

      • Nikhil

        Dear Christian, why get annoyed with the truth? Do you or do you not accept what is written in the Bible? The Bible is a book that Christians hold to be the word of their God, so I don’t understand why referring to it could remotely offensive.

        The truth is, that “in much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of the Christian God’s irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.”

        As for Christian schools in Sri Lanka they are the original schools that were based on religion, which one could well argue is a form of segregation – and that’s what they originally were; an education system reserved only for Christians and those that converted to Christianity. If you happened to be non-Christian, well then too bad for you. In any case, there are equally good if not better Buddhist and Hindu schools in Sri Lanka.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Wijayapala,

      You wrote, “Actually the Christians bear far more of the blame, which is where I disagree with OTC who pins everything on the Tamils.

      I agree with you that Christians are the main actors and the architects of the current situation. The Brits, Portuguese and probably to a lesser extent the Dutch (all Christians) persecuted the Sinhalese and Tamils who were either Buddhists or Hindus. Virulent Christianity came with the Portuguese. The Tamils suffered the most at their hands. At that time Christianity was unknown to Lanka.

      I do not place blame on All Tamils but I do blame the Tamil Christian converts (who converted to obtain favours), the Vellala ruling class and the Sinhala opportunists (converts themselves) who were instrumental in enforcing the inhuman foreign Rule on the Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim population for a few crumbs that were thrown at them. I blame the section of Tamil and Sinhala intelligentsia that instigated the ordinary Tamils and Sinhalese.

      What I write is aimed at these opportunists, who by helping the oppressive foreigners to keep the peasantry under their jackboot for over 150 years, created the conditions for a reaction from the downtrodden. That included the majority, just like in Apartheid Africa. But today they are trying their best to white wash what they did. The oppressor is now projected as a Victim, by drawing a curtain on the earlier 150+ years and focusing on the 63 years after independence although during part of that time they remained in control of Govt Bureaucracy.

      I write against the Homeland claim as I believe the Public land holding of over 80% of Lanka’s land should provide equal benefit to all, irrespective of ethnicity.

      I write against any attempt to misrepresent facts. The Trinco issue by Burning Issue is a case in point.

      I used to characterise the Thesavalami as a Racist Legislation but I do not do so any more after I was convinced that it is not Racist by Burning Issue.

      I am aware that you are a member of a mixed family resulting in a better understanding of Tamils than me. I studied with Tamils, Muslims and Burghers and we never had a race consciousness in class.

      I try to keep an open mind but not a gullible one.

      If we are to search for reconciliation then we must negate the intelligentsia who are active on the web spreading misinformation (but remain silent when questioned) with factual counter arguments that reach the silent majority.

      • Nikhil

        The Christian Church in Sri Lanka was opposed to free education and universal franchise. Perhaps they feared the advancement of the all the heathen, idol worshipping non Christians in the island?

  • sabbe laban

    The Western invaders persecuted the natives in the countries they accupied for a good reason. They thought that they(the natives) were not complete human beings, without the spirit! The spirit comes to a human being ONLY if he believes in Jesus and (Christian) God! That’s why they made such a great attempt in the colonies to “civilize” the natives!

    • Nikhil

      Sabbe labban, I think this attitude is present among many of our own brown skinned converts to Christianity. Many a time the converted are even more vociferous and extremist than their masters and look down upon their ancestral religions with hatred and acrimony — they have been taught to do so.

      • @Nikhil

        At least the ‘Suddah’ politicians have the guts and the dignity to resign from their posts when something goes wrong or when they get egg on their faces…but our ‘Boomiputhra’ politicians??? Wild horses couldn’t drag them away from all the power and perks that comes with being a member parliament.
        Have you ever wondered why David Cameron or Barrack Obama haven’t bought in an 18th Amendment so that they can be in power indefinitely?
        This country today has become the sick man of Asia, and it became so with the connivance of the majority in the country.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nikhil,

        Blind Faith thrives only where ignorence exist.
        That is why even reading about Communism was banned for the Catholics. The True Believers.

  • Nihal Perera

    @ Panditharana:

    The roads and rail roads were made from forced labor of our ancestors.

    And a big contribution to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and America was made through the forced labor of small (white) children. What you, Wijayapala, and Off the Cuff fail to realize, in your quest for the gold medal of racism Olympics, is that the British did not treat their own people much better than they treated the average Sri Lankan. You are judging people of 200 yrs ago by the standards of today. 200 years ago, most people in the world thought slavery was okay.

    @ Nikhil:

    Of all the religions it is only Christianity that came to the island drenched in blood and violence.

    Well, as Bean has correctly pointed out, the 99.9% Buddhist armed forces have killed X1000 the number of people killed by the colonials. Another thing about the colonials, they did not evict 100K people from their land to build big churches, high security zones, and army camps. Also, they did not engage in large scale colonization of traditional Tamil lands. I suggest you check the Sri Lankan census data and see how Trincomalee went from a 10% Sinhalese demographic to 40% Sinhalese after Independence, thanks to State-sponsored colonization.

    @ Off the Cuff:

    It’s unfortunate that you think medicine should be taught in a dying language that less than 1% of the global population speak. My only advice to you, beyond what I’ve already said, is to keep in mind that we live in a global world now. Hence, communication is essential regardless of one’s professional capacity. Students not be taught in English or Sinhala because one language is “better” or “worse”, but because one of those languages will open up more opportunities to them. It will let them compete in a global marketplace, as opposed to just the Central Hospital.

    • Panditharatne

      Hey Nihal

      There are no traditional Tamil Lands. It was a myth concocted my Tamil racists.

    • Nikhil

      I was talking about religious persecution. And to tell you the truth, I think that Christianity has been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths all around the world. Christian history is drenched with blood and violence. You don’t have to go far to realise this – just upon the Bible and count how many people the Christian God killed in his genocidal rampages. And to be honest, Sri Lankan Christians have nothing to be proud about when it comes to the history of their religion in the island, nor do they have they the moral high ground to point fingers at others.

      Unlike Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, Christianity came to Sri Lanka with pillaging, looting, iconoclasm, and the religious persecution of non-Christians. People were killed simply for not being Christian, or for not converting to Christianity. The Muslims were brutally persecuted and ethnically cleansed from the coastal areas where Christians ruled and they sought refuge amongst the Buddhists in the highlands (where they found a religious freedom that Europe never had).

      Christians ran an apartheid state in Sri Lanka where if one wanted a job or an education, one had to change one’s religion to Christianity. Christians were also the ones who introduced schools based on religion and the practice of segregating cemeteries according to religion — apparently a Christian dead body can’t lie next to the dead body of a ‘heathen’. They banned the holy days of the non-Christians and only Christian holy days were celebrated in grand fashion.

      To add to that, many of the Christian churches that are standing in Sri Lanka are actually built on the destroyed remains of Buddhist and Hindu temples. The much venerated “Madhu Church” is actually built on the destroyed remains of a Pattini Devale which was venerated by Tamil Hindus and Sinhalese Buddhists who share worship of that deity.

      So should Sri Lankan Christians apologise to their Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim brethren for all the harm and suffering they have caused over the course of 500 years when they were ruling the roost?

    • Off the Cuff

      My Dear Nihal Perera,

      Well well, Nihal the Brown Sahib, ridicules his Mother tongue and believes he can communicate in English.

      That you can’t is plain for anyone to see.

      A swollen headed Ego is no replacement for Knowledge.

      This is what you wrote “It is not possible to teach modern science or medicine in the Sinhala vernacular.”

      This was my counter assertion.
      It can be done very effectively in Sinhalese as well as Tamil.

      Here is your latest response.
      “It’s unfortunate that you think medicine should be taught in a dying language that less than 1% of the global population speak. My only advice to you, beyond what I’ve already said, is to keep in mind that we live in a global world now.”

      I doubt whether you will even notice your error in spite of the emphasised text.

      I have only pointed out ONE of your numerous errors (in English and Logic) that points to your inability to understand and communicate in the English Language.

      If you have a medical background how did you ever learn Latin when you have such poor knowledge of English and probably even a lesser knowledge of your mother tongue?

      How can anyone carry out a Rational discussion with a person like that?

      And you say Science and Medicine cannot be taught in the Vernacular!!!

      My advise to you is to get yourself an English Tutor before you venture to use your misplaced sarcasm in Public.

      I agree with you that communication is essential but that is an ability that you don’t posses.

      You would do better, if you come down to Earth and get rid of your Pseudo Superiority complex.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Despite the fact that you think it should be done, it will never be done. Sri Lanka is not an advanced country, neither is there a significant body of literature in the native language to make medical students competent in the global marketplace. That is why your examples of China, Russia, and Japan fail completely. If it was attempted, what would happen is that the mortality rate in SL would skyrocket; furthermore, the shortage of unqualified doctors would cause a major social crisis. Do not forget what happened when SWRD implemented Sinhala-Only. The civil service became almost 100% Sinhalese by 1970, but the quality declined substantially. We are stuck with this lack of quality even today. If it cannot work for the civil service, it certainly cannot work for the medical profession, which is a much more sophisticated profession.

      • Nihal Perera

        Apologies for the grammatical error: it should read as “the shortage of qualified doctors.”

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        Again you have written phrases like “Despite the fact that you think it should be done,…… “ “It’s unfortunate that you think medicine should be taught”

        A fact is a truth but you are repeating a Lie.

        You have confirmed what I suspected. You do not have the capacity to understand written English.

        Without writing gibberish because of you poor knowledge of English, you should spend some time with an English dictionary before posting your comments in a public space.

        Specifically look up the words Can, Could and Should as they are not synonymous and cannot be interchanged.

        I have no problem in breaking down all your arguments as I did with your main objection which was based on the requirement of Latin knowledge to study medicine but I do have a problem in debating with you when you cannot even see the difference between “can, could and should”.

        You contend that …. “Astronomy and astrology are not mutually exclusive. If one is dabbling in astrology, then he is also dabbling in astronomy.”

        So you say all Astrologists are Astronomists (the scientists) which of course is rubbish and is akin to stating that all English speakers are English or all French speakers are French or all Tamil speakers are Tamil.

        Are you also contending that All Astronomists (the scientists) are Astrologists as well?

        That is just one example of how the limited capacity of your brain works. Such illogical examples proliferate within your comments and you don’t even realise it.

        Here on GV a doctor loses the aura of infallibility and the God like supplication that he receives from his patients. That goes for anyone else who is used to unquestioning obedience and a Godly image in real life. GV is an equaliser that some cannot stomach.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Nihal Perera,

      You wrote “You are judging people of 200 yrs ago by the standards of today”

      And what were you doing when you made your Vain attempt at ridiculing Medical practice 2000 years ago? That’s is two Millennia not just two Centuries.

      • Nihal Perera

        And what were you doing when you made your Vain attempt at ridiculing Medical practice 2000 years ago? That’s is two Millennia not just two Centuries.

        Actually, you were the one trying to claim that modern medicine can be taught in Sinhala, because Ayurvedic physicians have been picking at people’s eyes with a dose of morphine for 2000 yrs. When I challenged you as to why these Ayurvedic genisuses could not save Duminda Silva, you quickly ran off to a corner.

      • Nihal Perera

        I see your diatribe against Sri Lankan Christians. Now what beats me is why so many people who are blame Christians end up sending their kids to Christian schools. Was it because they teach something that Buddhist schools do not

        Excellent point. While Buddhism has a certain aesthetic value, it is nihilistic at the end of the day. Christianity is more proactive. We can see this in the evolution of different societies. Sri Lanka was a feudal state, where the people were stuck with a caste/class mentality for several thousands of years. There was never a major push towards equality. The colonials are the really the first group of people on the island who tried to create a secular, class/caste free society. Unfortunately, change is a threat to the prevailing nihilistic Buddhist mindset, which strongly rebelled against it and continues to do so even to this day.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        I vote with you to send him to an Ayurveda Hospital. Don’t you think in the name of justice, an Ayurveda hospital would do a greater service. If I were a person with some authority, I would send him there without fail.

        I think Ayurveda System is a more justifiable form of medicine than Allopathic medicine. Do you agree with me Nihal?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “Excellent point. While Buddhism has a certain aesthetic value, it is nihilistic at the end of the day. Christianity is more proactive.”

        1. Can you explain a bit how Buddhism is nihilistic and Christianity is proactive? Back your claim a bit please, so that we also could understand that profound statement of yours.

        2. On the other hand can you tell your reasons for coining Nihilism in a negative connotation. Can you say Nihilism is always wrong or bad and any proactive thing is better than all the nihilistic things?

        3. In plain words can you show that so called Proactive Christianity is better than the so called Nihilistic Buddhism?

        Wahen oro naethiwa kelin kathawata bahimuda?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        “Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

        – Macbeth

        Thanks!

      • @ Off the Cuff

        …you said “it is akin to stating that all English speakers are English or all French speakers are French or all Tamil speakers are Tamil.”
        So just out of curiosity…are all Sinhala Buddhists…really Sinhala Buddhists? One SWRD Bandaranayake comes to mind… 😀

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear P…Dunce…,

        Your post of October 23, 2011 • 3:51 pm refers.

        The word Akin means alike, similar etc.

        Only Humanity is recognised in Buddhism Ethnicity does not exist.

        I hope that would enlighten you about Buddhism.

        Unlike in Hinduism a Buddhist is not prevented from entering a place of worship due to man made barriers such as Cast, creed or ethnicity. The Mavidapuram Temple and the High cast Tamil Vellala struggle to keep the low cast Batu Tamils out of temple comes to mind.

        The Tamil Separatist invention, the so called “Sinhala Buddhists” do not exist.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “Actually, you were the one trying to claim that modern medicine can be taught in Sinhala,” on October 20, 2011 • 6:15 pm

        I gave my reasons, as to why it can be done but you could not counter a single.

        Your first excuse, Vernacular students are disadvantaged by Latin.
        Unexplained contradiction- Yet NONE of the students who enter Lankan Universities have an IOTA of Latin knowledge but they do pass out as qualified doctors.

        Your second excuse – Thousands of Latin words are used in Medicine to name bones, organs, disease that do not exist in the vernacular and would be difficult to memorise.

        You made a fool of yourself here, as I had named it from the beginning, as a Pitfall to be avoided, by directly adopting the foreign words in to the Vernacular, without attempting to localise them in to the vernacular. You had no answer when it was pointed out that the Lankan University med students memorise these words without a problem even though they had no prior knowledge of Latin. Again an Unexplained contradiction.

        You wrote “…because Ayurvedic physicians have been picking at people’s eyes with a dose of morphine for 2000 yrs.”

        Again your poor knowledge of English resurfaces.

        Never have I written “…for 2000 yrs.”

        This is what I wrote “Remember that Lanka had one of the most advanced Irrigation systems of the old world. And even hospitals that did Ophthalmic surgery. And all of these were taught in Sinhala”

        Any sane person would realise that the above statement conveys the ability to teach advanced scientific knowledge in the fields of Engineering and Medicine using Sinhala. Only an irrational or idiotic mind can interpret that as a continuous 2000 year Ophthalmic practice.

        Your first response proved you did not even know the History of Morphine one of the most important analgesics in western medicine. You were clueless about Opium being the parent of Morphine and that Opium which was known to the ancient doctors for millennia, contained Morphine!!!

        You wrote “But no anesthesia. Perhaps the poor patient was given a good dose of arrack to “soothe the nerves”

        Your own uneducated sarcasm keeps haunting you and returning to you like a Boomerang.

        You wrote “When I challenged you as to why these Ayurvedic genisuses could not save Duminda Silva, you quickly ran off to a corner.”

        We were discussing the teaching of WESTERN Medicine using the Vernacular as the medium of instruction. You seem to be having a reading disorder like Dyslexia.

        Apparently you are also suffering from short term memory loss. Many diseases such as Amnesia, early symptoms of Dementia, MCI etc can be the cause.

        I would not rule out Dementia as you show a marked weakness in thinking, reasoning, learning, problem solving, memory and language. If in addition you have speech and behavioural changes as well, early attention would be advised.

        As you can see Nihal, I don’t run, as I have the ability to respond with Facts.

    • wijayapala

      Dear Nihal

      the 99.9% Buddhist armed forces

      What is your evidence that the armed forces are 99.9% Buddhist?

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal

    ” The colonials are the really the first group of people on the island who tried to create a secular, class/caste free society.”

    The evidence of what you say above may be how aarachchilas and Vidaanes treated the peasentry as trash and had themselves treated like trash when they were with the White Master!

    Sinhala has become a dying language because of people who think like you. On the other hand the Israel “resurrected” their “dead language” Hebrew after their country was founded. Icelandic is also a dying language that is being preserved at a great cost in that country. Maybe they don’t have your wisdom!

    • @ sabbe laban

      Any bets on the Sinhala Language being around (in it’s present form) a 100 years from now?

      I have a gut feeling that a 100 years from now the Sinhalese language will become like the Welsh language…a dying language spoken only by old people…of course younger people might be still speaking street Sinhala with English and Hindi and maybe even Chinese words included which would then make it a form of pidgin Sinhala…and eventually it will die a natural death…that’s life. 😀

      • sabbe laban

        That’s the very reason that it should be preserved!

        Do we allow endangered animals to subsequently become extinct and say, “that’s life”?

      • wijayapala

        Dear Presidunce

        I have a gut feeling that a 100 years from now the Sinhalese language will become like the Welsh language…a dying language spoken only by old people

        I fully agree with you. 100 years from now we will all be speaking Tamil, and then people like yourself will be pulling out your hair trying to find a proper grievance to split the country.

      • @ sabbe laban and wijayapala

        …either you evolve or you get extinct. Remember what happened to the Dinosaurs? The attitude of living in the past adopted by most Sinhala Buddhists is only taking them on a fast track to nowhere. The never ending argument over how the Sinhalese arrived in this country on a Monday, and the Tamils arrived on a Tuesday and the Muslims and others arriving on Wednesday and Thursday…therefore this country belongs to the Sinhalese doesn’t hold and water in this day and age. The sooner you except the fact that this country is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country instead of the Dinosaur thinking that this is a Sinhala Buddhist country, sooner you will be able to develop as a nation. If you think you can become the ‘Wonder of Asia’ by excluding the minorities, then you are just fooling yourselves.

        …the Buddha himself said that nothing is permanent. So if the Sinhala Buddhists do not evolve, they will become extinct. And it won’t take a couple of million years to happen like it did to the Dinosaurs but only a couple of 100 or so years.

        Let me leave you with 3 quotes from Buckminster Fuller (an American philosopher, systems theorist, architect, and inventor)

        “The procedure we are pursuing is that of true democracy. Semi-democracy accepts the dictatorship of a majority in establishing its arbitrary, ergo, unnatural, laws. True democracy discovers by patient experiment and unanimous acknowledgement what the laws of nature or universe may be for the physical support and metaphysical satisfaction of the human intellect’s function in universe.”

        “As a consequence of the slavish “categoryitis” the scientifically illogical, and as we shall see, often meaningless questions “Where do you live?” “What are you?” “What religion?” “What race?” “What nationality?” are all thought of today as logical questions. By the twenty-first century it either will have become evident to humanity that these questions are absurd and anti-evolutionary or men will no longer be living on Earth.”

        “The most important thing to teach your children is that the sun does not rise and set. It is the Earth that revolves around the sun. Then teach them the concepts of North, South, East and West, and that they relate to where they happen to be on the planet’s surface at that time. Everything else will follow.”

      • @ wijayapala

        You said, “I fully agree with you. 100 years from now we will all be speaking Tamil, and then people like yourself will be pulling out your hair trying to find a proper grievance to split the country.”

        For your information my dear wijayapala, the country was split the day the ‘Sinhala Only Act’ was enacted in the 1950s…

      • yapa

        Dear PresiDunce Bean;

        Where did you find that outdated philosophical fool? He must have dead when the modern Scientific and philosophical knowledge of the 20th and 21st century was generated.

        Your wishful thinking seems to be based on such outdated foolish ideas? Do you want me to show how your hero of the 20th century was not more than an utter fool in the context of modern knowledge?

        If you want give me a ring?

        Many think foolish ideas are full of wisdom, because they don’t even understand that those ideas are foolish.

        Thanks, Bean!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear P..dunce..,

        You wrote “For your information my dear wijayapala, the country was split the day the ‘Sinhala Only Act’ was enacted in the 1950s… “

        You are misinformed. The country split long ago, in the 1800s …. when a small section of a minority thought that instead of sticking together with the rest of the inhabitants and opposing the British invaders together, they would be better served by sucking up to the conquering foreigners.

        They were successful in Lording over the inhabitants and keeping them under their Jackboots for two centuries (Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim and other).

        They miscalculated, when they made devious attempts to perpetuate such rule, even after Foreign forces left Lanka’s shores, pulling the rug from under their minority minions.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear P…Dunce…,

        You wrote “I have a gut feeling that a 100 years from now the Sinhalese language will become like the Welsh language…a dying language spoken only by old people… “

        Why don’t you listen to your gut and wait for it to die?

    • Buddhist-to-Christian

      The bickering between Buddhists and Christians on this forum is shameful.
      Unfortunately their words reveal their level of religiosity.
      As a former follower of the Buddhist “religion” I am saddened by the comments of the so-called Buddhists. I did not learn the intolerance displayed by them in the Buddhism I studied.
      As a current follower of Jesus Christ I am equally saddened by the comments of the so-called Christians. If you really know the truth, you do not have waste time and energy on criticizing other religions.
      It is true that the Catholic/Christian religions were thrust upon the Sinhala and the Tamil people by invaders to this nation. Of course, the people sold their souls for personal gain.
      It is also a fact that Buddhism was brought to Sri Lanka from India and the sponsorship of the King caused the expansion of same.
      To the person who counted the number of deaths in the Bible, all I have to say is, “what a waste of research time?”

      • yapa

        Dear Buddhist-to-Christian;

        I am very much interested in comparative merits and demerits of religions. It seems you are an ideal person to know some of the information in this respect as a person who knows both Buddhism and Christianity.

        1. Is your reason for converting from Buddhism to Christianity based on its merits over Buddhism? Please elaborate a bit.

        2. In a discussion on comparison of Buddhism and Christianity why do you say counting number of death by the God himself is a waste of research time? Here is your statement,

        “To the person who counted the number of deaths in the Bible, all I have to say is, “what a waste of research time?” ”

        I think your reference is to the post of Nikhil of October 20, 2011 • 12:09 pm

        Thanks in advance for your modesty for answering my two questions.

    • Nihal Perera

      @ Wijayapala:

      I gave an example how the SL military used to be dominated by Christians who abused their authority and tried to overthrow an elected government, leading to their replacement by Buddhists, to which you had no answer.

      LOL, do you think anyone will take the above theory seriously?

      Finally, I showed you an article about how the Christians in the 1960s eventually turned away from confrontation when their special privileges not enjoyed by non-Christians were being taken away, which explains why most Christians today (you excepted) are integrated in larger society. Again, you appear to accept all of my arguments.

      Once again, absurd logic. Why don’t you try to argue with actual data that can be corroborated? How many Christians are even in the Government, besides Rosy, John, and Ranil? How many prominent Christians have occupied top posts in the military during the last 60 years? The only one that comes to mind is Srilal Weerasooriya. The wealth of the nation in the hands of a tiny Sinhala-Buddhist elite, and where the wealth lies, that is where the power lies. It’s the same story in any country; those who control the wealth influence the politicians the most.


      Your hollow argument is no different from the common Sinhala claim that the minorities are perfectly happy because if you go to Liberty Plaza or Majestic City, you can see plenty of clearly wealthy Tamil or Muslim women distinct with their hair covered or pottus.

      But if I went to Jaffna or Mullaitheevu, the picture would not be so rosy. Colombo has provided a successful multiethnic business environment for centuries, because the British transformed it into a major trading hub. Consecutive SB governments have not dared to touch Colombo, with the exception of JR, because it is one of the two places (the other is Kandy) where the wealth of the nation lies concentrated. Not even the rich man likes to see his neighborhood go up in flames.


      The point is that the two worst leaders in Sri Lanka had a Christian upbringing, and you have no answer for that.

      But it was Sinhala-Buddhists, not Christians, who followed their orders. Are you suggesting that the Buddhists lack a conscience of their own?

      No, because SWRD and JRJ themselves were converts from Christianity, whereas the Sinhalese living over 2300 years ago were not the same people who lived in the last 60 years. Your argument will only hold if you can find a similarly destructive leader who was a convert from Hinduism.

      The time frame does not matter. Jesus revolted against Judaism and in one lifetime ended up dead (because the Jews condemned him). Your argument suggests that a convert still possesses the mindset of the old religion, which is not at all true. Dharmapala was jailed by the British numerous times; SWRD was ultimately killed by a monk. If SWRD had been killed by a Christian, your argument would hold water, but the fact that the man gave up his life for SB nationalism shows that his state of mind was nowhere close to Christianity.


      Anagarika Dharmapala was not a missionary, and nothing that I cited mentioned “missionary in slumber.” If you had better reading comprehension skills, you would have noted that the quote read, “the Buddhists appeared to the [Christian] missionaries as ‘slumbering in their security.’”

      I am surprised that you don’t include Dharmapala in your list of “converts.” Do you consider him a champion of SB rights?

      You also missed the entire second paragraph stating, “Confronted by religious adversity, there was a transformation in the character of the bhikkhu, a transformation that was to have long-term effects on the sociopolitical life of the community.”

      Of course, the trend was towards secularism . In a secular society, bhikkus do not form political parties, nor do they decide on the merits of legislation, nor do they participate in political protests. Perhaps you believe otherwise?

      In other words, we would never have had an Anagarika Dharmapala had Christianity never come to Sri Lanka.

      That is like saying, the thief would not have robbed the bank had the bank never existed.

      On another note, Dharmapala’s rhetoric regarding the “pure” and “Aryan” lineage of the Sinhalese was borrowed from European scientific racism:

      Again, more chicken and egg. Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

      By the way, your argument that “Christian converts” are responsible for the demise of Sri Lankan society has another slight glitch. At one point, all the ancestors of these converts – whether Dharmapala, SWRD, or JR – were actually Buddhist. So if we use your logic, these people possessed a Buddhist mindset all along. Now its up to you prove that they were acting with the “Christian gene” and not the “Buddhist gene.”

      • wijayapala

        Dear Nihal Perera

        LOL, do you think anyone will take the above theory seriously?

        The 1962 coup by Christian military officers is a historical fact, not a theory. I already provided the link but you don’t appear to know how to access it. Just move your little mouse to the below line, and click on it:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Ceylonese_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

        In case you still cannot figure it out, here is what the link said:

        “The 1962 Ceylonese coup d’état attempt (also known as the Colonels coup ) was a failed military coup planned in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Several Christian senior military and policy officers planned to topple the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike[1] in the night of 27 January 1962, however, key leaders were arrested before the coup was carried out.

        “Ceylon gained independence from Britain in 1948 and was called the Dominion of Ceylon. This marked the beginning of self rule for the local population. However much of the political and government leadership of the country was passed down from the British to the Ceylonese Christian elite, who had served the British before 1948. As a result, all of the high offices of state were held by these elite.

        “In 1956 S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, an Anglican who converted to Buddhism, was elected after a nationalistic movement in which he gathered the support of the Sinhalese people majority of the country, who were considered underprivileged compared to the Christian minority. As promised during the election Bandaranaike began a rapid Sinhalisation of all parts of the government, which culminated in the passage of the Sinhala Only Act.

        “Prior to these changes, the officer corps of the army were composed of three-fifths Christian, one-fifth Tamil, and one-fifth Burgher. Bandaranaike moved to balance this by increasing the number of Sinhalese officers.

        How many prominent Christians have occupied top posts in the military during the last 60 years?

        Your ignorance is truly astounding. Can you tell us the religion of this fellow, who happens to be the current uniformed head of the military? Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roshan_Goonatilake

        But if I went to Jaffna or Mullaitheevu, the picture would not be so rosy.

        Correct, and when we revisit your flimsy notion that non-Christians were not discriminated against during the colonial era, the statistics bear out that the Christians had all the privileges.

        “The point is that the two worst leaders in Sri Lanka had a Christian upbringing, and you have no answer for that.
        But it was Sinhala-Buddhists, not Christians, who followed their orders.

        Thank you for finally acknowledging that the two worst and most anti-Tamil leaders had Christian origins.

        Your argument suggests that a convert still possesses the mindset of the old religion, which is not at all true.

        I’m afraid it is true.

        If SWRD had been killed by a Christian, your argument would hold water, but the fact that the man gave up his life for SB nationalism shows that his state of mind was nowhere close to Christianity.

        Actually, we can turn that argument around to show that the person who murdered SWRD did not consider SWRD to be a real Buddhist. Why would a monk of all people murder someone considered to be a paragon of Buddhism? Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

        I am surprised that you don’t include Dharmapala in your list of “converts.”

        Don David Hewawitharane was not born a Christian and never belonged to the Christian faith, although he attended a Christian college. Dharmapala’s own father was educated by a Buddhist monk and his uncle became a monk:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Carolis_Hewavitharana

        Of course, the trend was towards secularism.

        If that was true, then why were the Christians getting all the benefits to the exclusion of non-CHristians? Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

        “In other words, we would never have had an Anagarika Dharmapala had Christianity never come to Sri Lanka.
        That is like saying, the thief would not have robbed the bank had the bank never existed.

        Your analogy is a non-starter, given that Dharmapala never harmed any Christian. Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

        “On another note, Dharmapala’s rhetoric regarding the “pure” and “Aryan” lineage of the Sinhalese was borrowed from European scientific racism:
        Again, more chicken and egg.

        Sorry, but you’ll have to back up your claim with proof. Before the Europeans came to Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese did not use the term “Aryan” to describe themselves (although it was used in other contexts, such as describing N. Indian mercenaries) nor considered themselves to be a separate race. Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

        By the way, your argument that “Christian converts” are responsible for the demise of Sri Lankan society has another slight glitch. At one point, all the ancestors of these converts – whether Dharmapala, SWRD, or JR – were actually Buddhist. So if we use your logic, these people possessed a Buddhist mindset all along.

        Sorry again, but your argument is demolished by the reality that no one can be held accountable for what their ancestors did, nor can one be accountable for what their descendants do. SWRD’s and JR’s ancestors cannot be held accountable for what they did. As I have shown, it was their specific Christian upbringing that gave them the moral compass to oppress others. Your desire to avoid responsibility by resorting to trivialities, is laughable at best.

    • Nihal Perera

      @ sabbe laban:

      Sinhala has become a dying language because of people who think like you. On the other hand the Israel “resurrected” their “dead language” Hebrew after their country was founded. Icelandic…

      Why bring first-world countries into the picture? A country like Iceland is a miracle, considering the environment there. Icelandic language has no reason to become a “dying language” when the Icelanders can create a first-world nation out of snow and ice with no outside help . Let the Rajapakses create a first-world nation using indigenous methods and we won’t have to talk about saving the Sinhala language.

      @ Christian:

      Now what beats me is why so many people who are blame Christians end up sending their kids to Christian schools. Was it because they teach something that Buddhist schools do not

      Exactly. If it is possible for the Sri Lankan society to survive as it was during colonial times, then the rulers should not hesitate. No electricity, cars, buses, trains, only travel by oxen elephant, and boat. No modern medicine – only Ayurvedic – no need to elect the Government, we can have a King and his monks to advise. Everyone will have a job working in the paddy fields or fishing. Well, this was the achievement of our ancestors; unfortunately, I am not sure how many of their descendents would willingly go back to it, despites the hollow odes and anti-Christian bashing.

      @ yapa:

      I think Ayurveda System is a more justifiable form of medicine than Allopathic medicine. Do you agree with me Nihal?

      I do not agree with you, but I respect your belief. I think you are one of the few patriots here that would make an honest attempt to live in the pre-colonial society which I have described above.


      1. Can you explain a bit how Buddhism is nihilistic and Christianity is proactive? Back your claim a bit please, so that we also could understand that profound statement of yours.

      Well, as I see it is, Buddhism is the solitary philosopher who lets people make their own choices. It offers advice only if people come and ask. On the other hand, Christianity takes people by the hand and guides them, as if they were small children. My opinion is that the former is suited towards the later stages of a persons life, whereas the latter is more suited towards the beginning. The reason I say this is because most people, even if given the opportunity to think for themselves, will still look for leadership elsewhere. Otherwise, why do Sri Lankan children worship the parents and teachers? It takes a long time for people to begin to think for themselves; it takes even longer for a society to do so.

      On the other hand can you tell your reasons for coining Nihilism in a negative connotation. Can you say Nihilism is always wrong or bad and any proactive thing is better than all the nihilistic things?

      3. In plain words can you show that so called Proactive Christianity is better than the so called Nihilistic Buddhism?

      Yes, it is better for people to take charge of their own affairs. Rather than blindly trusting politicians or religious leaders. However, these values can be learned in a perfectly secular society without recourse to any particular religion. I have no interest in which religion is “better” or “worse.”

      • yapa

        Dear Niha Perera;

        Thanks, Nihal for the excellent (delayed) answers for my questions asked at October 20, 2011 • 10:07 pm and at the previous post. Your posts say a lot about your character as well.

        1. There is no difference for you to write between what you know and what you don’t know. One of the instances this was clearly displayed was your writing on “Uncertainty Principle”. You had no idea, but you tried to push through your imaginations as scientific facts. Writing about the recent CERN experiment you said Neutrinos in the experiment started with zero velocity and I relied on your wrong information/lie and ultimately found my arguments based on it went nowhere having no value. When I thought about the experiment it was realized that no such experiment can be carried out starting neutrinos at zero velocity. This the first instance where I understood your irresponsibility of writing.

        After that I have been observing you were using all sort of tactics: semantics, rhetoric, acting, imitating etc. etc. to turn lies to truths. We have come across some dishonest posters in the past as well and we proved them that it was not a long way. It was/is not difficult as the seeds of destiny are born together with the action and in this case with dishonesty.

        Just think back and see whether you stand your big pronouncements like “Excellent point. While Buddhism has a certain aesthetic value, it is nihilistic at the end of the day. Christianity is more proactive.” in your answer when I questioned at http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-37923.

        Are you satisfied and are you sure you gave a satisfactory and justifiable answers to my questions emanated from your pronouncement, or you feel some inferiority and guilty feeling about slip away from the questions? You might feel a some feeling of joy that you deceived by giving a crafty answer.

        All those feelings and ideas of yours are can give you self satisfaction/self deception. People judge others not by their false smartness, but they pick some scent and identify them. I also have scented you from the very beginning. You said in your brief answer addressed to me “I do not agree with you, but I respect your belief. I think you are one of the few patriots here that would make an honest attempt to live in the pre-colonial society which I have described above.” Let me also guess and tell you that I think you are one of the Tamil eelamist posters disguised in a Sinhala name.

        Honesty is the best policy.

        Thanks!

  • wijayapala

    Christian

    I see your diatribe against Sri Lankan Christians.

    How do you feel about Nihal’s diatribe against Buddhists?

  • CJ

    At the risk of drawing the ire of the exponents of our glorious land and glorious history (the bickering in the comments only proves Sunela Jayewardene’s point), consider the following:

    1) Lee Kuan Yew in a 2007 interview in the International Herald Tribune: “In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid – racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon. Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we’d be damned. So, there’s no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We’re all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.”

    2) Monty Python’s Life of Brian “What have the Romans [British] ever done for us?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

    How sad it is that we remain intoxicated by our historical “greatness”, living in the past – in the great “ophthalmology surgeries” (performed without sterile technique, antibiotics, instruments, anesthesia – I, as a physician dread to imagine the outcomes of these human experiments), in the gemstones on the Princess’ ring (mined to this date in the most primitive of ways by people indentured to the caste system), in the rice paddies and irrigation tanks.

    What have we achieved in 60 years of independence – ruinous systems of governance, public service, judiciary, law and order, education, infrastructure. A rail track from Matara to Kataragama has taken 20 years to build, a single road from Colombo to Matara dilly dallied for 15. The universities in Sri Lanka are not even rated among the top 1000 institutions in the world (as a rough guide, University of Peradeniya is 2200, University of Colombo, 2240. http://www.webometrics.info/rank_by_country.asp?country=lk). The vast majority of our people can’t speak, read, or write the global lingua franca, English.

    There is perhaps no better testament to our national ineptitude than the fact that our coping mechanism is to invoke the “greatness” of our ancestors.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear CJ,

      You seem to admire Lee Kuan Yew and his Style of governance in Singapore.

      Singapore too had Ethnic Riots between the Majority and the minority.

      Singapore eliminated such ethnic Riots by introducing and strictly enforcing a policy known as the Ethnic Integration Policy. This policy is still in operation in Singapore and has been in operation for about 3 decades. It’s success is very plain to see as inter ethnic marriages have continued to rise blurring the ethnic boundaries.

      This policy operates on the principle of per capita distribution of Public Housing and maintains the National Ethnic Ratios throughout Singapore. It eliminates ethnic enclaves that Lee Kuan Yew’s Govt correctly identified as the root cause of ethnic disharmony.

      Would you be in favour of the adoption of such a successful policy in order to eliminate the ethnic divide forever form Lanka?

      It is one thing to quote what Lee Quan Yew says today but quite another to tread the path he trod to get where he is today.

      • CJ

        Off the cuff,

        My opinion on your question is two fold. First, I don’t believe the specific policies adopted by another country – let alone a city state like Singapore which has always been so vastly different from the socioeconomic, political, historical, and geospatial milieu of Sri Lanka – necessarily should be applied to another. Second, in my opinion, it is certainly not the role of government to modulate the ethnic makeup or distribution of a country. (As a matter of fact, it is plain to see the Sri Lankan government is doing this anyway in the liberated areas, as it did in the East in the past).

        I do feel it is the role of government to ensure that all social groups – ethnic and otherwise – have equal opportunity, live within a meritocracy, are availed to freedom of expression. It would be naive to expect this utopia in the foreseeable future, but my point is that the path we have trodden in the six decades of self-governance diverges from any semblance of such a society. The classic examples are our post-independence language policies.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear CJ,

        You said “First, I don’t believe the specific policies adopted by another country – let alone a city state like Singapore which has always been so vastly different from the socioeconomic, political, historical, and geospatial milieu of Sri Lanka – necessarily should be applied to another.”

        That sounds hollow given that you quoted Lee Kuan Yew’s Philosophy of Governance in the first place.

        It looks as if you were taken by surprise, by LKY’s Ethnic Integration Policies that goes against the Traditional Homeland call of the separatist Tamils and you are now trying to do damage control.

        You wrote “Second, in my opinion, it is certainly not the role of government to modulate the ethnic makeup or distribution of a country. “

        It is of course the role of government to ensure equitable distribution of PUBLIC resources and to ensure that fruits of any publicly funded development is distributed equally amongst the citizenry on a per capita basis disregarding Ethnic, Religious and Cast considerations while safeguarding the right of any citizen to live anywhere within Sri Lanka.

        You wrote “I do feel it is the role of government to ensure that all social groups – ethnic and otherwise – have equal opportunity, live within a meritocracy, are availed to freedom of expression.”

        I totally agree with you here, except for the “otherwise” proviso as that can include anti social groups as well.

  • Dhanapala

    The writer says:
    “we were Sri Lankan or rather still obediently, ‘Ceylonese’. This was a common patriotism that spelled a common love for this country. This was until, slowly, in the process of leadership, we alienated the minority races.”
    And then talks of the “sinhala Only” coming to replace the English only administration that existed prior to 1956.

    It was G. G. Ponnambalam, who, speaking in the State council in 1934 stated that he is proud to be a Dravidian, and rejected the “Ceylonese’ epithat. It was G. G. Ponnambalam who started off the first sinhala-Tamil riot in 1939 with his speech in Nawalapitiya. It was SWRD Bandaranaike who, until then a moderate, decided to push ahead with creating “Sinhala Maha Sabha” branches in every village that Ponnambalam had created trouble (see Dr. jane Russell’s book on Communal Politics in the Donoughmore era).
    It was E.M.V.Naganathan who declared that he is a descendant of the Chola Aristocracy and not a “Ceylonese”. It was Natesan who declared in the state council that he is a “First and foremost a Tamil and not a Ceylonese”. It was S. J. V. Chelvanayagam and his friends who set up the Ilankai Arasu Kadchi in 1949, with the cry that “They must drive out the invaders – Muslims and Sinhalese- from their exclusive traditional homelands- the North and East. It was SJV and the Ilankai-Arasu-Kadchi which rejected any “reasonable use of Tamil”, but wanted a land separation or, to start with, at least Federal powers. The Banda-Chelva pact as written and advertised in the Tamil language explained that this was a part of their “little now, some more later” push towards Arasu – i.e., sovereignty, and driving out the Sinhalese and the Moslems from the North.
    This writer belongs to the Colombo-English liberals who have no idea of the political machinations of the Tamil Nationalists and the equally hard response of the Sinhala Nationalists who, being in the majority, and long denied of a dominant position in the country (occupied by Tamils), reacted strongly. It is just this reaction that the Arasu kadchi of SJV wanted, to polarize the country
    into two warring ethnicities. According to Sebastian Rasalingam (Island article,
    Thomas John Pulle and other well-known writers, there was another reason, namely, for the landed upper castes to hold onto their land and privileges at all costs, by separating off and there by stopping the creeping liberalization of the North, stopping dismantling of caste, stopping empowering women etc. So, the 1949 race-based apartheid concept (sugar-coated as federalism only in the english-language propaganda) of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi became the Vaddukkoddai resolution of 1976. The very leaders who proposed this apartheid were assassinated by the even more ruthless “boys” that they bred. This writer should look at his own face in the mirror, and see in that image, the image of politically naive back-slapping easy-go-luck types fooled by racists like Ponnambalam and Chelvanayagam.

    • Sajana Kalansooriya

      Dear Dhanapala

      your comment above is excellent and is slap in the face for ealamist lobby
      Can you please have it translated to Tamil/Sinhala and have it published in major Sinhala /Tamil news papers

      Thanks

  • Y. Tambiraja

    Sunela, an interesting and serious warning in an objective article. The comments show that there is enough blame to go around. The question for Sri Lankans now is ‘Quo Vadis’?

    I quote the Jul 18 2011 “Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Harder than Ever” report by International Crisis Group:

    “Post-conflict efforts to bring societies together are always fraught with difficulties, particularly in cases of deep ethnic division. In Sri Lanka the challenge is even greater, because the government denies that ethnicity was the driving factor behind the civil war. Instead it appropriated the language of the “war on terror”, dehumanising its enemies and dismissing the possibility that they, or those they claimed to represent, have legitimate grievances. It has controlled the narratives of the conflict both within and outside the country, reacting furiously to any challenge to the official version. Its hand is strengthened by the unwillingness of much of the million-strong Tamil diaspora to recognise the brutality of the LTTE and its share of responsibility for a largely broken Tamil society.”

    As an expatriate Tamil who looks forward to visiting Sri Lanka annually I am personally aware and encouraged by two organizations run by two remarkable individuals from the Sinhalese community engaged in social activism to uplift disadvantaged youth from all communities including Tamils. Namely ABINA Performing Academy teaching acting and yoga to disadvantaged youth including IDP’s and FARO that has opened its third Business Processing Center in Jaffna recently. I would like to think that, as victors in the war, the Sinhalese community step forward to help in healing; and the Expatriate Tamil Community lets go of bitterness in defeat and apply their vaunted work ethic and diligence in rehabilitating the broken Tamil community as well as all Sri Lanka. We all need to contribute our two cents to rebuild Sri Lanka as the envied pearl of the Indian ocean.

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal Perera

    You say:

    “Why bring first-world countries into the picture? A country like Iceland is a miracle, considering the environment there. Icelandic language has no reason to become a “dying language” when the Icelanders can create a first-world nation out of snow and ice with no outside help . Let the Rajapakses create a first-world nation using indigenous methods and we won’t have to talk about saving the Sinhala language.”

    Are you implying that only the First World countries have the right to preserve their language? If so, under what principle are you sayig it?

    Whether Iceland is a miracle or not(or whether they collapsed without Europian Banks) is irrelevent to this argument!

  • Nihal Perera

    @ yapa:

    Writing about the recent CERN experiment you said Neutrinos in the experiment started with zero velocity and I relied on your wrong information/lie and ultimately found my arguments based on it went nowhere having no value.

    What is your proof that the neutrinos did not start at zero velocity? If you’re still interested in the reasons for the outcome of the experiment, I refer you to http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php. The basic reason for the outcome is that experiment did not account for relativistic effects, which has nothing to do with what you claimed, e.g. HUP.

    When I thought about the experiment it was realized that no such experiment can be carried out starting neutrinos at zero velocity.

    Hopefully your reasons for the experiment are not based on HUP and Newtonian science, yet again.

    After that I have been observing you were using all sort of tactics: semantics, rhetoric, acting, imitating etc. etc. to turn lies to truths.

    Is it a lie to claim that the basis of modern civilization is Western science, Western medicine, and Western technology? All I have done is stated that the Sri Lankan society should adapt these things, in order to move forward. The colonials were the ones to take the first step in that direction, but that is merely a product of historical circumstances.

    Let me also guess and tell you that I think you are one of the Tamil eelamist posters disguised in a Sinhala name.

    Honesty is the best policy.

    A claim is only valid insofar as the supporting evidence for it exists. Speculation does not amount to evidence.

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera;

      “Let me also guess and tell you that I think you are one of the Tamil eelamist posters disguised in a Sinhala name.

      Honesty is the best policy.

      A claim is only valid insofar as the supporting evidence for it exists. Speculation does not amount to evidence.”
      …………..

      Why are you hiding the evidence? At least you can say whether my claim is true or not. No fire, no smoke. Do you say no fire?

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera(?);

      “After that I have been observing you were using all sort of tactics: semantics, rhetoric, acting, imitating etc. etc. to turn lies to truths.

      Is it a lie to claim that the basis of modern civilization is Western science, Western medicine, and Western technology? All I have done is stated that the Sri Lankan society should adapt these things, in order to move forward. The colonials were the ones to take the first step in that direction, but that is merely a product of historical circumstances.”
      ………
      That is not all you said dear Nihal, it seems now you want to forget the rest of what you said, because they are not in favour of you. However, the first sentence of the second para above is a total lie taught to the imitating parrots to cry from their inner throat in return of the bones thrown at them by the white masters to white wash them.

      The main basis of modern western civilization is the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or in other words Old and New Testaments (Bible). It also has the influence of Greek thinking, that is the basis of science component of the western civilization. Thinking of the western people was shaped mainly on these traditions.

      The (unsupported)beliefs based on the teaching of the Bible is the main source of western thinking until recent past. Even the brightest Scientists of the west could not get rid of the mythical beliefs taught to them in their early stage of life. While the scientist believed the scientific facts which are totally contradictory to the beliefs in the Bible in their laboratories, when they went to Sunday masses in the church they prayed the God to give them the scientific wisdom, which goes against the God himself. That is how the split and dualistic mentality of the western scientists, what to talk about the average masses of the west and the black skinned imitators like the person appeared in the name of Nihal Perera in this blog. Though the westerners borrowed “Middle Excluded Two Valued Logic” from Greeks, these foolish westerners think that both ends(options) can exist together. One could have seen the nudity of this pack of fools, if not they cover up their civilization with robbed resources from the whole world. If Europeans treasure hunters did not go in rampage out of the Europe, I don’t think their GDP per capita will be over USD 500, even today. Robbed continents; South America, North America, Australia and siphoned resources from all the other continents through barbaric means are the main reason behind the material riches of the west. Their greed based on the justification in the Bible that every thing including all the other animals were created for the consumption of the humans and a later pronouncement by a pope that “uncivilized barbarians” of other faiths who have no faith on the God can be killed not contrary with the words of the God, supported by the development of Science and technology paved way to the present materialistic west. This itself is an evidence for their moral and spiritual poverty. On the other hand western science is not totally free of Bible bias. Robbed resources based on the Judeo-Christian ideology provided the capital base for the development of science, and still the there are many fundamental concepts in Science that shows the imprints of the Bible mythologies.

      If one goes to the real roots and assesses the basis of the western civilization(modern?)it could better be attributed to the cruelty preached in the Bible, rather than the half baked lies mentioned in your post in prejudice and ignorance.

      If you can see beyond the nose’ length of yours I will show you that even western science, technology and even western medicine ultimately (very soon)will bring nothing else than “the disaster” to the human kind and to flora and fauna and to the whole planet. That is the path paved by the “Judeo-Christian Tradition”, it has no any other alternative.

      Don’t you believe, me?, I am the prophet of the new era.

      God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
      —Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

      (A heartless thought from one of the fruits of the Judeo-Christian Tradition.)

      Thanks!

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Nhal Perera;

        I think I showed how Christianity is proactive. Now can you please show how Buddhism is nihilistic?

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        @ yapa:

        Your view of history is rather interesting. Somewhat misguided, but interesting. Let me begin by saying that by modern civilization, I am referring to “modern society”, which includes modern technology – which is a product of modern science – and modern medicine. By modern medicine, I am referring to a standard of medical care that has raised the life span (in all developed nations and many developing nations) by quite a few decades. Now, my point is that these modern amenities first came to SL during the colonial period. Regardless of the motivation behind their introduction, (e.g. regardless of why the British built railroads and hospitals), it does not take away from the fact that it was the colonials, and not the indigenous people, that brought these things to the island. The reason is simple: these things already existed in Europe, and the European administrators wished to raise the standard of living in SL to at least partially reflect that of the one back home. There is also an economic component, of course: better transportation makes trade easier, healthier people creates a stronger labor force, an educated populace able to communicate in English improves the quality of labor, all of which, when taken as a sum total, raises the real GDP.

        Regardless of your opinion of indigenous technology and the prevailing indigenous class system, I do not think the indigenous economic system was efficient, compared to the one introduced by the British. As I pointed out to Off the Cuff, most of the natives, prior to the arrival of the colonials, were engaged in subsistence farming. Subsistence implies little chance of a surplus output, so in the event of a famine or other natural disaster (such as a tsunami), tens of thousands of natives would be wiped out. It makes sense if you think of how tied to the land the natives were. That is why the mercantalist/capitalist economy introduced by the British is superior: (I) it allows upward class mobility, (II) people can gain actual wealth, (III) people can engage in more occupations, as they so choose, and (IV) the overall standard of living is greater.

        Of course, there were issues with the colonial system. I do not dispute this point, but I am of the opinion that you, and Off the Cuff, have grossly exaggerated them. For example, I don’t think religion was such a big issue, at least with the British. Religion was just a tool to create a more capable class of native administrators. It had to do with bringing the natives in line with Western values than Christian values. Environmental damage – yes. That is always a problem in a developing (and even developed) nation. And of course, there is the most basic question: “what right do these foreigners have to be here?.” I do not want to answer that, but keep in mind that the British colonized six continents, so colonialism was not based on just racism. In fact, the racism was probably more a product of its times than a justification per se for colonialism. Even if your argument is that the only interest the British had in Ceylon was the exploitation of natural resources, such a goal could not have been realized without the explicit cooperation of the natives. The British had to create an economy that was conducive to such an exploitation, and this would invariably lead to structural changes in the native society itself.

        Regarding the CERN experiment, kindly give your reference for the initial velocity being non-zero.

        I am not a Tamil Eelamist. However, I have engaged with such individuals in debates regarding the merits of so-called Tamil Eelam, and found that some of their ideas were interesting. I am a fan of new ideas; the idea of a new political system not bogged down by beauracracy and nepotism, or an educational system that stresses modern history, as opposed to Lion King mythology, is appealing for reasons that go beyond political ideology. I am not a fan of reincarnations of King Dutugemunu, particularly when the reincarnation is expanding the family empire at the expense of the poorer citizens. Or when his Parliament is full of drug lords and ex-militants that killed 600 policeman in cold blood. I have never donated money to the LTTE cause, but I am not sure if the same is true for the reincarnations. Do your own research: http://lankawhistleblower.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-mahinda-rajapaksa-channeled-money.html.

      • yapa

        Dear Niha Perera;

        It seems that you have given up your stern stance you had against Buddhism, Sinhala Language and Sinhala people(racists/chauvinists by popular vote)and changed to day to day talk instead. It seems that your pronouncements have been pushed to the forgotten history. However, I should give you a friendly advice, if you cannot stand and substantiate a pronouncement, please refrain from making it. There are only a few people, especially in this blog who would accept what ever a thing pronounced in a seemingly high tone by self assessed people as smart. This friendly advice is given to you because it seems you are fairly new to the blog at least by the present name.

        Your economics is one of the very popular sermons of the materialists/consumerists to justify what ever a mean thing they do. What you try to preach and promote superficially, even more naively is the cynical theory that end justifies the means. You are a more westerner than westerners or a ignorance of what is going against the present system of wealth gaining in Wall Street and many major cities of the western countries. There is a sinhala saying if you are familiar with Sinhala, “Kapuva hitagena Choo karana kota golya duva duve E vaede karanavalu. It is a well known fact that imitators are better performers than their masters. Do you think collecting wealth is the best invention the man has ever made? You are thinking only of your belly dear Nihal, think a bit about your hands, legs, head and brains, if the Got has gifted you a bit. Pushing hard what you presume as correct is good, but it does not guarantee that it is the truth. I think that the might in your case, you try bulldozing. But bulldozing has become an outdated tool Nihal, first armed with honesty and knowledge. If you think your God has gifted you the knowledge and wisdom, and other are not so fortunate it is a mistake. We are nonbelievers of the so called God and we believe that we can gain knowledge than what the God has given to you. So don’t be over estimated about the absoluteness of what you believe and what you know to bash what others believe or know. I still think you should substantiate your empty pronouncement/insult that Buddhism is Nihilistic.

        Nihal I told you are too assertive of everything and give your opinions simply without looking around, ultimately end up with irresponsible writing. You want me to show that you did so without knowing anything in the case of CERN experiment?

        My Dear friend, do you know the simple Mathematical concept of “Aaverage”?

        If the Neutrinos started from the rest as you said from the emitter, and the velocity was calculated using the distance they traveled and the time taken by the neutrinos to reach the target, that velocity should be the average velocity of the neutrinos, do you understand Nihal? If the average velocity is more than the velocity of light 9or even in the case of it is close to the velocity of light, if the initial velocity is zero the final velocity of them should be twice the velocity of light or a value close to it. Then the Scientists could have claimed that their they achieved the twice the velocity of light as per their experimenta results.

        More precisely, if the velocity of light is C, their claimed reading was C+0.0000…., now if the initial velocity is zero, can
        [0 + (C+0.0000…)]/2 > C?, Simple mathematics, Nihal, Your mind is trained take everything come into you mind easily as correct. Ignorance is bliss Nihal, idiots are the bravest!

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Do you want me to show you all other arguments of mine in the discussion of the CERN experiment is correct to the point? I said My arguments had a precision error, can you remember. I calculated the difference that would be attributed to the HUP using the Plank’s constant and the using the precision of time by the best clocks available in the world. The calculated amount was not sufficient to account for the figure received in the experiment, and the HUP difference was a smaller value. Not a speck of my arguments were wrong, it was not only sufficiency to explain the difference. However, HUP also has some effect on the error though it is not significant compared to the magnitude of error. That is why I said I withdraw my arguments in the post there due to problem of precision not because your argument that the errors in HUP can be decreased repeating the experiment. Really that idea of your is nothing but ignorance about HUP,even about which you have no knowledge.

        Further more, I should tell you no one else was yet able put forward what I had said in there. My arguments were based on that the time in the experiment was measured using the most precise clock in the world. If I knew the time was measured using GSP, I would also have predicted a gleam of the answer given in the article you cited and would have refined it with the discounting the error taken place due to HUP as well, (though it is comparatively very small to the error cited as taken place due to Relativity itself.)

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        @ yapa:

        I see that you have no factual answers to my responses. Let me begin by addressing some of your misconceptions regarding economics. First of all, the European nations are not wealthy today because of the mineral resources that they may have plundered from Third-World nations several hundred years ago. There is a very simple reason for this: the value of capital depreciates over time . By capital, I am referring to technology, buildings, factories, etc. Are you aware of the type of technology that was used several hundred years ago? Here is one example: http://www.tritec-inc.org/voices/blog/uploaded_images/Mill-751576.jpg. This technology has no value today. Furthermore, a factory of today would cost several hundred million dollars to build,operate, and maintain. Unless the colonialists plundered enough mineral wealth to finance hundreds of billions dollars worth of machinery and other equipment for centuries to come , then it is clear that colonial wealth and today’s wealth are mutually exclusive. Also, have you heard of a thing called inflation? It means that today’s money can buy less than what yesterdays money bought. The only exception is commodity money, but once again, no Western nation is on a gold standard , so once again, the wealth of the Western nations cannot be measured by the quantities of natural resources they may have taken from Third-World nations. The Western nations are wealthy today because they are industrialized, because they have a highly literate population, because of the comparative advantage offered by trade, etc. Most Western nations do not rely on domestic manufacturing anymore (once again, no need for the minerals you claim they stole!); this has been outsourced to developing nations. Developing nations like China and India are following a similar pattern of industrialization that the West went through – the standard of living in those nations is increasing (this can be seen in the increase in per capita GDP) – so your ridiculous argument that the colonialists are to blame for the sorry state of nations like Sri Lanka, is exactly that, nothing more than ridiculous.

        Your argument about the CERN experiment is nonsense. What does HUP have to do with relativistic effects? I asked you to give me a link that says the neutrinos do not start from zero velocity. I don’t care about how you may have performed the experiment using your imagination; seeing the other results of your imagination, there is no need to speculate about the accuracy of your scientific arguments. By the way, you have nothing to say about MR’s possible connection to the LTTE? Is this the kind of Sinhala-Buddhism that you practice in SL? Not only MR, but many, many other politicians and army officers were in the pocket of the LTTE – and still are. Do you know where the CH4 videos really came from? Go and read LankaEnews; there are hundreds of such tapes in existence. You merely parrot the lies put out by the Defense Ministry and Daily News and then call others LTTE supporters. Ignorance is bliss!

      • yapa

        Dear Niha Perera;

        I think following article also will also help you to understand something which you haven’t had a chance to think of. I think you are beginning have new learning experiences.

        http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/10/dont-be-fooled-by-human-rights-its.html

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        Did you read the following article on Ground views?article

        “In the current hype on ‘Development’ have any of us questioned its intent? Does it just mean ‘progress’ in the manner referred to by Anada Coomaraswamy when he published the comment that “we who call art significant not knowing of what, are also proud to progress, not knowing wither” ? Wandering aimlessly, with success measured only by an increase in industry and consumerism. The current vision of development certainly could not refer to cultural or philosophical development. So exactly what type of development are we referring to in Sri Lanka when we have various public figures exhorting us towards ‘development’?

        It would seem bizarre indeed if it transpired that we have been developing for the past 40 odd years manly in a western consumerist perspective. One of the standard answers to the question of what is development? is that it means economic growth. On this point Prof. Dudley Seers notes, “in fact, it looks as if economic growth may not merely fail to address social and political problems, certain types of growth can actually cause them”. Economic growth, measured by such indices as GDP, is fundamentally dependent on consumption. The more one consumes the better. To consume more, one must crave more, but to us in a Buddhist society the consequences of such action should be obvious.”

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/17/development-or-maldevelopment/

        Are you still assertive about your views?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        What babyish economics you know, Nihal? A few terms picked up from here and there to colour wash your masters. Have you ever learnt Economics? You are naive not only in Economics and Science but also in ethics.

        You want to know about the Economics of colonialism? We have discussed it even before you thought of coming to this blog with fundamentals of Economics. Please read,

        http://groundviews.org/2011/01/11/political-opposition-in-a-nihilistic-sinhala-society-responses-and-clarifications/#comment-26995

        You again say,

        “Your argument about the CERN experiment is nonsense. What does HUP have to do with relativistic effects? I asked you to give me a link that says the neutrinos do not start from zero velocity.”

        This again shows not only your ignorance, but also the dishonesty and the immorality. If you have any idea about HUP, I have described how I used it in the CERN experiment. Either you don’t understand anything or you are totally dishonest.Except just telling my argument is wrong why don’t you show why it is wrong and how it is wrong? You really know you played “bull” and don’t want to accept it. If you say my ideas about HUP is wrong I challenge you to show it. Any fool can say anything is wrong cynically.

        Now again you want me to show a link to prove what I say, why do you think my argument about it is not sufficient? I have Mathematically proved zero velocity is impossible. Read and see if you can disprove what I say. It is reproduced for your easy reference.

        Nihal I told you are too assertive of everything and give your opinions simply without looking around, ultimately end up with irresponsible writing. You want me to show that you did so without knowing anything in the case of CERN experiment?
        ………….
        My Dear friend, do you know the simple Mathematical concept of “Aaverage”?

        If the Neutrinos started from the rest as you said from the emitter, and the velocity was calculated using the distance they traveled and the time taken by the neutrinos to reach the target, that velocity should be the average velocity of the neutrinos, do you understand Nihal? If the average velocity is more than the velocity of light 9or even in the case of it is close to the velocity of light, if the initial velocity is zero the final velocity of them should be twice the velocity of light or a value close to it. Then the Scientists could have claimed that their they achieved the twice the velocity of light as per their experimenta results.

        More precisely, if the velocity of light is C, their claimed reading was C+0.0000…., now if the initial velocity is zero, can
        [0 + (C+0.0000…)]/2 > C?, Simple mathematics, Nihal, Your mind is trained take everything come into you mind easily as correct. Ignorance is bliss Nihal, idiots are the bravest!
        ……………….

        What is wrong in this? If you cannot prove it is wrong it should be correct.

        I still think you know simple Mathematics, though I was convinced that you were naive and ignorant in many you are assertive of.

        I prefer proofs rather than just narrations and empty pronouncements.

        ( I still believe you would honour what you pronounced by supporting it: How Buddhism is Nihilistic, as well.)

        Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera;

      “Writing about the recent CERN experiment you said Neutrinos in the experiment started with zero velocity and I relied on your wrong information/lie and ultimately found my arguments based on it went nowhere having no value.

      What is your proof that the neutrinos did not start at zero velocity? If you’re still interested in the reasons for the outcome of the experiment, I refer you to http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php. The basic reason for the outcome is that experiment did not account for relativistic effects, which has nothing to do with what you claimed, e.g. HUP.

      When I thought about the experiment it was realized that no such experiment can be carried out starting neutrinos at zero velocity.

      Hopefully your reasons for the experiment are not based on HUP and Newtonian science, yet again.”
      ………..

      Don’t try to be dishonest even in a debate of science. Come back to the original thread that took place our argument. With the help of the article you cited I will show that I was right in all my arguments, except in the case you misguided me, providing mis-information which really you had no knowledge. On the way I believed your statement the emitter emitted the neutrinos from zero velocity, I thought you made with some knowledge about the CERN experiment. But it was a total lie of yours emitted from your liking for show off that you had a knowledge about modern Science. Do you still say neutrinos started from rest?

      Please answer in the original post we had our discussion. That will be easy for all to know the history of the discussion and to follow our future discussion.

      Shall we try our honesty and ignorance?

      Thanks!

  • Nihal Perera

    @ sabbe labban:

    Are you implying that only the First World countries have the right to preserve their language? If so, under what principle are you sayig it?

    First-world countries have a greater justification to preserve their languages, so far as the applicability of said language is concerned. In other words, if the medium of instruction in an Icelandic school is Icelandic, it will not impact the progress of the larger Icelandic society.


    Whether Iceland is a miracle or not(or whether they collapsed without Europian Banks) is irrelevent to this argument!

    Iceland’s financial crisis is an extreme case. It is not due to decades of poor fiscal management and corruption, as is the case in SL. I suggest you read, http://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/why-iceland-collapsed-and-are-there-some-economies-like-icelands/.

  • Christian
    • Off the Cuff

      Christian,

      Neither would Buddhist bashing get the Christians anywhere

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal

    You say just because the Iceland started a process(preserving their language) earlier than us, that we can’t start the process now? If they didn’t start that process at some point they wouldn’t have reaped the results now!

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal

    Your pathetic attempt to say that the money plundered during the years of colonialism by the West was not enough due to “inflation” is laughable, to say the least! Do you think that it’s only you who know this common fact? It’s beyond doubt the money gained during the colonial period by exploiting the colonies provided the capital needed for the growth of capitalism and industrialization of the West at “that time”. True they have built on that later by making profit, but at that time is an undeniable fact that, that capital so gained played an important role!

    • Nihal Perera

      @ Sabbe Laban:

      The problem with your argument is that many countries have industrialized without any outside colonization of foreign lands: Finland, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, USA, and Canada. From these examples, it is clear that colonization is not necessary to finance industrialization. Japanese industrialization in particular is very interesting. Japan has virtually no natural resources. Its primary exports have been electronics. From this, it should also be easy to deduce that Sri Lanka, with its over-abundance of natural resources and highly literate population, should have no problem industrializing. In fact, if the British had stayed another 50-60 years, Sri Lanka/Ceylon would probably be industrialized, considering the success of British-controlled Hong Kong. What really happened is that when the British left, they left the country in the hands of some (Sinhalese) nationalists who have basically undone many of the gains achieved by the colonialists. Let’s start with the civil service, where merit is no longer a qualification. Proceed to education, which while still of high quality, is not as good as it should be. Then move to the Army, which could not defeat a group of slipper-clad Tamil youth for 30 years, because the politicians were too lazy and greedy (in bed with the enemy) to have a draft. Now, of course, we know the quality of the Army after seeing the CH4 tape. I can go on and on, evaluating the different sectors, but it is clear that the colonialists are not to blame for the present crisis, save for the fact that they left the country in the hands of militant Buddhists, upon leaving.

  • Nihal Perera

    @ yapa:

    Your arguments are becoming more and more bizzare. I know enough economics to know that your view of colonialism is entirely wrong, as well as your view of the present. For example, your view of the present is that capitalism begins and ends with “consumption.” In fact, consumption is only one component of GDP; there are four components: consumption, investment, savings, and net exports. Capitalism does not teach that consumption is the beginning and end; it places equal, if not more emphasis, on savings . The reason is that without adequate savings, future investment is not possible. Lack of savings also leads to a trade deficit ( a country imports more than it exports), which is the situation in Sri Lanka right now (Sri Lanka has a trade deficit of US$ 5.96 billion).

    Regarding CERN, I refuse to discuss it further, until you give me a valid link, not to your imagination, but to an article that says the neutrinos started at zero velocity.

    • Nihal Perera

      Slight error: The four components are consumption, investment, government spending, and net export. Savings is included in investment.

    • Off the Cuff

      Yapa says “When I thought about the experiment it was realized that no such experiment can be carried out starting neutrinos at zero velocity.”

      Nihal Perera says “…… I refuse to discuss it further, until you give me a valid link, not to your imagination, but to an article that says the neutrinos started at zero velocity.“

      Comprehension of English is key to an intelligent discussion conducted in English.

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera;

      Ha! Ha!, Dear Nihalwhat is the problem with you? You are citing the view of some others as mine and answering them and, refusing to answer and slipping away from my questions, what is your confusion. I will never refuse to answer anything and stand by every letter I mentioned in my writing. I think the difference is I talk only about what I know and I can stand them, I don’t know what your inability indicates to. Ha! Ha!!

      Dear Nihal, it was not me, who said “For example, your view of the present is that capitalism begins and ends with “consumption.”, it was the view of the writer of the Groundviews’ article I cited. However, your consequent (counter) views are not different from details written by a child. Anyway as a view of general acceptance, what the writer said about capitalism is not incorrect, for the people who know a bit Economics, I don’t want to tell you what your refusal amounts to.

      You say, “Your arguments are becoming more and more bizzare.” Who cares about your pronouncements, all of which are unsubstantiated up to now? Why don’t you prove/substantiate/say how/ say why/say what/ say where, it is so?

      Why do you refuse to discuss CERN experiment further. I have given a mathematical “Proof” and showed you were wrong, neglecting it like a child you are demanding only the moon. I did not think of the moon as I provided you with a pot of curd for your consumption, but you keep on insisting only the moon for your dinner, I think that will not be difficult as well, I didn’t try it anyway I will try it as well. I thought a better alternative would please you that is why I gave you the “most credible proof” than less credible “evidence”, especially any article from the net. You seems to think that articles in the net are Gospel truths. I will try to provide your Gospel truth as well. However, before that I think I should teach the methodologies human mind arrives at sound decisions/conclusions and gain sound knowledge. Humans are only endowed with a limited options to arrive at knowledge. The first is the Deductive Logic.

      Starting from an accepted presumption through sound arguments it arrives at true conclusions/decisions and knowledge. In this case the knowledge acquires is accurate. This is the method used in Mathematics (Geometry is a simple and good example) and I used this method to prove that Neutrinos in CERN experiment cannot start from the rest. You really know that if you accept my Mathematical proof you are done for. None can challenge a Mathematical proof.

      Still you refuse to discuss, dear Nihal, you are exhibiting either you are ignorance of Mathematics or you are totally dishonest and only just refusing adamantly to accept that you are wrong.

      Ok’ the second method of acquiring knowledge is the Inductive Logic and the accuracy of knowledge generated through this method should not always be true. This methodology uses a set of “observations”/data/information to arrive at conclusions. Really this is the most popular “Scientific Method”. Here we test the truth of knowledge with the “evidence” of the phenomenal world.That is knowledge in Science is not accurate as the knowledge generated through Mathematics.But you are insisting and favouring for “evidence” to the Mathematical proof, I provided. Your dishonesty is boundless, however, I will try to give what the baby is crying for. Please await that.

      By the way, do you also refuse to justify your pronouncement, Buddhism is Nihilistic, you forgot it or are you refusing it as well? Is there any reason for that?

      Hoover, dear Nihal there is another knowledge gaining method for the people of your caliber, “BLIND FAITH”, like the knowledge you obtained in your Pro-active Christianity. You believe everything said to you as truth by your never seen Creator God. You believe what he says, not Mathematical proofs, Oh!, my dear, what a confused person?

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        On the other hand can you give me a valid link to say the neutrinos in CERN experiment started with zero velocity?

        Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Nihal Perera,

      You wrote “I have already mentioned the decline in the quality of the civil and foreign service. Much of this decline can be attributed to Sinhala-language policies. If the mother tongue does not work for the civil service, what makes you think it will work for the medical profession? Your experiment has already been performed; “

      Is this supposed to be a reply to my comment at http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38055 ?

      I don’t see you answering a single point raised by any of my comments relevant to the discussion.

      You need to first understand my ORIGINAL post and then learn the English words “Can, Could, Should” before you even attempt to post an answer.

      That you do not understand what these three words mean is underlined by the fact that you continue to post irrelevancies and argue with yourself rather than debating the actual points raised. Logic has deserted you Nihal

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Are you avoiding the question? If you cannot answer this question, then there is really no use in debating the matter further. Let me restate the question for your viewing pleasure: If the mother tongue does not work for the civil service, what makes you think it will work for the medical profession?

        I don’t need to remind you that the medical profession is far more demanding than a civil service position. Also note, I am referring to 21st century “medicine”, not the 6th century kind which involved mixing cardamom with ginseng.

      • Nihal Perera

        @ Wijayapala,

        Nihal of course is blithely ignorant of Africa which had been colonised for the longest yet had the least development.

        Zimbabwe was a success story until Mugabe came to power. It was known as the “breadbasket of Africa.” Thank you for bringing that example up. It shows that colonialism has very little to do with the present state of the country, compared to the actions taken by the natives, following independence .

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        The question is whether ANY science including Medicine can be taught using the Vernacular. I say it can be done provided the Pitfall of coining or Sinhalising or Tamilising technical terms is avoided. This means that all Technical terms are directly adopted preserving the sound and the meanings.

        Examples of such teaching, which avoided the pitfall, cannot be found in Sri Lanka. Yet you try to use your misplaced sarcasm that has boomeranged on you several times before. Just goes to show that your Ego is bigger than your knowledge.

        You of course is still unable to comprehend the first paragraph and keep going round and round like a dog trying to catch it’s own tail.

        You do not know that the word CAN is not equal to SHOULD.
        Please do take a Dictionary and learn the difference.

        You do talk big about the 21st century medical profession but your Pharmacology knowledge is quite rudimentary. For starters, you did not even know that the 21st century analgesic Morphine was a derivative of Opium when you were pontificating about Anaesthesia.

        Now you are on to Ginseng. Probably that will help you if taken continuously for several weeks. It is a remedy for Erectile Dysfunction. You do have a penchant for throwing boomerangs don’t you. Thank you for keeping us entertained.

        You see Nihal it is you who have been trying to circumscribe the questions posed (you have failed to answer a single) by throwing in irrelevancies.

        Since GV is an English Blog, it would of course be of little use, debating any subject with you, as you have displayed a very poor grasp of the language itself.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        The question is whether ANY science including Medicine can be taught using the Vernacular.

        The question is about medicine, not modern science. Also, another part the question is whether it is practical . The civil service example shows it is not practical. Your attempts to demonstrate the practicality by pointing to outdated Ayurvedic techniques is silly.

        Since you want to talk about modern science, the fact that the entire university curriculum is taught in the English medium shows that at the highest levels, modern science cannot be taught in Sinhala . At the highest levels, one must read journals to keep up with the latest developments. No such journals exist in Sinhala. Also, the foolishness of your idea can be seen in the fact that most future Sri Lankan university faculty do overseas post-doctoral research in an English-speaking country . Such high quality post-doctoral opportunities do not exist in Sri Lanka.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        Well Nihal you have proved yet again that you do not possess the English language skill to understand the written word. You run around in circles like a dog trying to catch it’s own tail.

        You wrote “The question is about medicine, not modern science.”

        Is it your contention that Medicine is not a modern science?

        You wrote “Also, another part the question is whether it is practical. The civil service example shows it is not practical.”

        As I stated before, Examples of such teaching, which avoided the pitfall, cannot be found in Sri Lanka. Your logic falters because you have V poor English Language skills that prevents you from understanding even that simple statement.

        Even if your assertion is true which you have not proved, for your example to be relevant, you need to prove that Technical Terms were not coined or Sinhalised when teaching the subject matter. You have failed to do that.

        You wrote “Your attempts to demonstrate the practicality by pointing to outdated Ayurvedic techniques is silly”

        Again your language skills are standing in your way.
        The material presented to you was designed to prove the level of scientific knowledge (acquired via Sinhala) the Sinhalese possessed at a time when the West had no such knowledge. It was not limited to medicine but included engineering, mathematics and instrumentation skills. After a puny attempt at ridiculing engineering, you stuck to medicine and it appears that you are more comfortable with the subject of medicine than the others. Yet you are struggling.

        You thought you could use ridicule to downgrade the factual evidence submitted. and your ridicule was aimed at Anaesthesia. Little did you realise that Opium was an age old anaesthetic and that the modern day pain killer Morphine was a derivative from Opium. There are many such drugs of plant and mineral origin that was used and are still used in indigenous medicine. Aspirin and the Heart drug Digitalis are also amongst them. Your latest was Ginseng. Little did you know that Ginseng is used to treat Erectile Dysfunction.

        You wrote “Since you want to talk about modern science, the fact that the entire university curriculum is taught in the English medium shows that at the highest levels, modern science cannot be taught in Sinhala.“

        Yet again your poor English is making you a joker.
        What the Universities do today does not prove it cannot be done in the Sinhala or Tamil Media.

        You wrote “At the highest levels, one must read journals to keep up with the latest developments. No such journals exist in Sinhala“

        Please refer back to my October 18, 2011 • 12:33 am post that challenged your assertion “It is not possible to teach modern science or medicine in the Sinhala vernacular.” made to Wijayapala and my subsequent posts. Can you please reference any statement made by me that conveyed that the Vernacular student would be ignorant of other Languages?

        Yet again your inability to coherently follow a discussion conducted in English resurfaces.

        Here is a hypothetical example.
        While performing a dissection on a cadaver an aneurysm in the brain is discovered and the medical teacher says

        “me aneurysm eka rupture wuna nam me ledaa brain ekata blood yama nisa athivana pressure eken miya yanawa.”

        The same thing could have been said in Tamil

        In the above Sinhala statement the technical terms aneurysm, rupture, brain, blood, pressure are directly adopted from Greek and English preserving the sound and meaning.

        The following terms have Sinhala equivalents but are not used.
        rupture = pipirima
        brain = Molaya
        pressure = pidanaya
        Blood = Le

        The student instructed in the mother tongue will acquire a better understanding than a student whose mother tongue is not English, having a mediocre knowledge of English, and instructed in English.

        You wrote “the foolishness of your idea can be seen in the fact that most future Sri Lankan university faculty do overseas post-doctoral research in an English-speaking country. Such high quality post-doctoral opportunities do not exist in Sri Lanka”

        Again your problem with English resurfaces.

        Why are you assuming that a student instructed in the Vernacular is ignorant of English?

        That Nihal, is foolish.

  • Nihal Perera

    sabbe laban:

    You say just because the Iceland started a process(preserving their language) earlier than us, that we can’t start the process now?

    That is not what I said. What I said is, what is the value of teaching a student in Sinhala, if the student is to compete in the global marketplace. Refer to my earlier debate with Off the Cuff: when it comes to advanced science, technology, and medicine, there is no pre-existing body of literature in the Sinhala language; all such literature exists in English or a European language with a tiny fraction existing in Japanese and Cantonese. Iceland has enough competent people to survive in the global marketplace, regardless of the language used, Sri Lanka does not. Let me make this point another way. If doctors were suddenly trained in Sinhala, the mortality rate would skyrocket. There would be a major shortage of qualified doctors, leading to a health crisis of enormous proportions. Right now, there is a shortage of qualified diplomats in the Sri Lankan civil and foreign services, one reason being that these people are unable to communicate properly in English (which becomes a problem when they are posted in foreign locations). It is not difficult to see how much bigger this problem would grow if the indigenous language were used.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Nihal Perera,

      You wrote ”Refer to my earlier debate with Off the Cuff:”

      And what debate with me are you referring to?
      The one you slithered away from, snake like and backed down without responding?

      http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38055

      This frequent loss of memory, strongly indicates that you are suffering from short term memory loss. Many diseases such as Amnesia, early symptoms of Dementia, MCI etc can be the cause.
      I would not rule out Dementia as you show a marked weakness in thinking, reasoning, learning, problem solving, memory and language. If in addition you have speech and behavioural changes as well, early attention would be advised.

      You wrote “when it comes to advanced science, technology, and medicine, there is no pre-existing body of literature in the Sinhala language; all such literature exists in English or a European language with a tiny fraction existing in Japanese and Cantonese”

      You forgot Russian and the vast amount of literature available there.

      The University of Iowa offers a degree in Asian and Slavik Languages and provides this description. I hope you wont attempt to argue that Russian is a European Language.

      quote
      The study of Asia provides a broad understanding of civilizations that extend back thousands of years. It includes ancient and modern languages and the history, art, literature, politics, anthropology, geography, religion, and drama of China, India, Russia, and Japan.

      Majors – Asian Languages and Literature – Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Sanskrit (BA); Russian (BA) from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

      Minors – Asian Languages—Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Sanskrit; Russian
      Unquote

      Your consistently weak, puny arguments are, due to your inability to comprehend that Teaching any science in the vernacular does not mean ignorance of other languages.

  • wijayapala

    Dear Nihal Perera,

    @ yapa:
    I see that you have no factual answers to my responses.

    And I see that you have no answers whatsoever, factual or otherwise to my response on October 26, 2011 • 8:17 am, where I shredded apart your ignorance of Christians holding high positions even today.

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal

    ” Iceland has enough competent people to survive in the global marketplace, regardless of the language used…”

    You mean the Icelandic people inherited that ability…? Or are they too chosen people just like the Jews think they are? When it comes to all other countries you say, “Oh, those people can..” but when it comes to Sri Lanka you say, “but we can’t, because we are not them..!”

    What’s the big mistery behind this attitude? Is it because you have a BIG hang-over from the colonial past that you would like to bask in forever? Or is it because English is more than just another language to you and it’s a feather on your hat, because of it’s elitist association in Sri Lanka?

    • wijayapala

      sabbe laban

      Or is it because English is more than just another language to you

      How can that be, when Nihal can’t even read English properly?

  • Nihal Perera

    Off the Cuff:

    I have already mentioned the decline in the quality of the civil and foreign service. Much of this decline can be attributed to Sinhala-language policies. If the mother tongue does not work for the civil service, what makes you think it will work for the medical profession? Your experiment has already been performed; we can see the consequences in people like Mervyn Silva, Karuna, and Duminda Silva (none of whom could have passed a civil service exam during the British times).

    In fact, your experiment has also been performed in the educational sector . Sinhala-Only language policies instituted in the 50’s created such a gap in standards between the village and urban youth, that the government was forced to implement standardisation for the universities, so that village youth could get a place.

    Now I must ask you, if your experiment has been performed twice with disastrous consequences, is there an iota of logic in trying to perform it yet a third time, in the medical school, of all places. I have already noted the most probable outcome, which even you dare not contest.

    sabbe laban

    There is no mystery. The Icelanders have proven themselves. The Sri Lankans have not.

    • sabbe laban

      Nihal

      “I can’t sing, I can’t dance…”(?)

      • Nihal Perera

        sabbe laban:

        So you agree the Sri Lankans have not proven themselves. All you can do is blame the present problems on colonialism. The difference between a grownup and a child is that the grownup takes responsibility. You’re either part of the solution, part of the problem, or only capable of parroting the problem in random directions.

      • wijayapala

        Sabbe laban, I missed this gem of Nihal Perera’s:

        In fact, if the British had stayed another 50-60 years, Sri Lanka/Ceylon would probably be industrialized, considering the success of British-controlled Hong Kong.

        Nihal rather predictably is cherry-picking when trying to find colonial success stories, as he could only come up with a Chinese city-state that did not have to spend resources to develop a neglected rural hinterland.

        Nihal of course is blithely ignorant of Africa which had been colonised for the longest yet had the least development. If he had the intellectual capacity to engage in debate, he possibly would have an explanation why Zimbabwe, which was colonised up to 1980 and has an overwhelmingly Christian population, is a model of backwardness and corruption.

        Given that he did not even know that there was a Christian-led coup plot in Sri Lanka in 1962, I hardly think he is capable of holding his own here.

    • Off the Cuff

      Nihal Perera,

      For some reason the reply to your post has appeared here

      http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38230

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal

    Are you unable to counter Mr. Wijayapala’s argument about the ex-British colonies in Africa?

    • wijayapala

      Sabbe laban, looks like Nihal finally tried to answer something:

      Zimbabwe was a success story until Mugabe came to power. It was known as the “breadbasket of Africa.”

      It seems that what Nihal is trying to tell us is that we should not put even brown-skinned Christians such as himself in charge of any country, given that Mugabe is a born and raised Christian!! Nihal, yet again, comes out as the loser in debate.

    • Nihal Perera

      sabbe laban,

      See my response of October 31. The main problem with Wijayapala’s argument is that it is too broad. When one takes a closer look, the argument begins to fall apart.

      Nobodies to Somebodies examines the origins and growth of the bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka during British rule – an important but neglected aspect of the country’s modern history. It traces its evolution from a ‘feudal’ society and mercantilist economy, to the age of plantations. In the course of this evolution local merchants accumulated capital through arrack and toll renting, subsequently diversifying into plantation cultivation and graphite mining, thereby making dents in the old caste-based division of labour.

      This study assigns primacy to class over caste, and details the rise of the new-rich ‘Nobodies’ of many different castes, ethnicities and religions into the ranks of the ‘Somebodies’. It discusses the links between capital accumulation, religious revivalism, ethnic identity and political movements, and the marriage ‘cartels’ which led to further concentration of wealth.

      The book focuses on the rentier nature of the bourgeoisie and how they adopted Western culture and lifestyles and were basically collaborative with the colonial rulers. It highlights the constraints on further capitalist development, the obsession of the bourgeoisie with land acquisition and social status, and its consciousness as a class, especially on issues of political reform.

      http://zedbooks.co.uk/hardback/nobodies-to-somebodies

      So, the “persecuted” Sinhala-Buddhists you speak of actually had a greater chance to climb the social ladder during British times than they do today. For example, in those days, one entered the civil service by passing an exam. These days, politics is a family affair. In those days, there were abundant economic opportunities. These days, thousands of people have to go to the Mid-East to find work, while even the educated university grads cannot find work. Wijayapala is not willing to comment on these narrower issues, instead bringing up irrelevent examples of why “Christianity” did this or that. As I have clearly demonstrated, the only “Christian” aspect of colonialism were the public schools. Religion was not a barrier to climbing the social ladder, as the hundreds of Muslim and Chetty shops in Colombo demonstrated.

      Regarding Africa, as I said above, the decline of Zimbabwe was due to Mugabe, not religion.

      • sabbe laban

        Nihal

        Then…why are you saying that the decline of Sri Lanka is due to Sinhala-Buddhists?

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “As I have clearly demonstrated, the only “Christian” aspect of colonialism were the public schools”

        Finally you have admitted that Colonialism used Religion to control Education. Specifically the key to an Education was being a Christian.

        What else remains to be said?

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    I am trying to join the discussion in the middle. I may not be able catch the thread of argument properly.

    Sabbe Laban And Wijepala,

    Talking about Africa, I do not think that the present situation is totally due to colonialism. It was the dark continent even at the time of David Livingstone’s pioneering explorations. It had improved much since those days thanks to the introduction of many new things by the colonisers. In my view, Africa gained much more from Colonialiasm than what they lost due to it. When imprialsts left the continent the administration was handed over to the locals, who did not have a proper mindset to use what they left for the common good for the country. The people did not have necessary knowledge, organization, means, economic power and traditions to safeguards the institutions introduced by the imperialists. So they went back to their old ways.

    Take for an example South Africa. It is the most developed and powerful country in Africa. Its true that it has lots of natural resources. But if the impreaslist had not colonized it what would have happend to it? Would there be a Nelson Mandela? From where did Mandela obtain the ideas of democracy, rule of law, human rights, freedom, etc? From the west. If the imperialists had not come to South Africa it would have been another land with miserable tribal wars, malaria and many tropical diseases, low maternal and infant mortality, low litracy, tribal hunter gatherers etc. Therefore, with all the bad effects of colonialism there has been much more good.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      You wrote, “When imprialsts left the continent the administration was handed over to the locals, who did not have a proper mindset to use what they left for the common good for the country. The people did not have necessary knowledge, organization, means, economic power and traditions to safeguards the institutions introduced by the imperialists. So they went back to their old ways.”

      Did you consider why they did not have the necessary skills even after getting a colonial education?

      “Belgian colonial rule saw massive transfers of wealth from Zaire [the Belgian Congo] to Belgium. Africans received only limited education, which would allow them to read the Bible, take orders efficiently from the missionaries, and function, at best, as clerks in the colonial bureaucracy.” (p. 132) Khapoya notes that in 1960 Zaire had a relatively high literacy rate and one college graduate.

      As Khapoya discusses (pp. 134–143) all colonial powers exercised significant attention to the economics of the situation. This included: acquisition of land, enforced labour, introduction of cash crops, even to the neglect of food crops, halting inter-African trading patterns of pre-colonial times, introduction of labourers from India, etc. and the continuation of Africa as a source of raw materials for European industry, therefore a continent not to be industrialised wiki

      You however, can stay blind to the truth, if your intent is to win a debate at all costs.

      • Darth Vader

        OTC

        The colonial administration in Africa was hardly a charity and was clearly brutal and racist and exploitative (as opposed to Asia ,clearly because white supremacists considered Africans as sub human) . But “learned” Dr. Uncle Bob did more harm to Zimbabwe than the white supremacist ruler Ian Smith.
        This is not to say Ian Smith’s ideology was correct ,indeed it was flawed and badly, but that do not exonerate nationalist leaders who came to power after the departure of the whites.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Darth Vader,

        My post was a response to the specific charges levelled by PitasthraPuthraya (please see the italicised quote) and is not an attempt to exonerate “Dr U.B” acting the goat.

        Do you agree with me, that the problem referred to by PP is a direct result of controlling access to Education by the colonials?

  • sabbe laban

    Pitasthara Putraya

    Oh! Good you suddenly noticed so much of good the colonists did to Africa! For an example take the noble slave trade; they opened the ways for the African head hunters to come to the developed world, no? The most hilarious thing about Mandela is he was waiting to be born in a country ruled by the Whites, no?

    • Nihal Perera

      sabbe laban:

      Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism has played a key role, no one can deny that. The difference is that I am speaking of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism/fundamentalism , not Sinhala-Buddhism. If Sri Lanka was really a secular society, and Sinhala-Buddhism was not given a special place above other religions, then no problem. On the other hand, Wijayapala is trying to blame Christianity in general for the problems on the island.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “If Sri Lanka was really a secular society, and Sinhala-Buddhism was not given a special place above other religions, then no problem”


        Sri Lanka was never a secular society not even during the colonial era during which Christianity was forced down the throat of Lankans

        It was not secular even when the Brits ruled this country.
        Even their own country is not secular.

        As exhibited many times on GV, you cannot read English.
        Nothing called “Sinhala Buddhism” exists in the Lankan Constitution.

        Your Religious Prejudice & Bigotry makes you see things.
        Your evil rhetoric has no bounds.

        You vehemently criticise the special place given to Buddhism in Section 9 of the Lankan Constitution even when that special place is conditional on the guaranteed freedom given to other religions within that same section.


        Hilariously, you could not even whimper about the DISCRIMINATORY special place given to one sect of Christianity in the UK, where by Law, The monarch “shall join in communion with the Church of England.” Which prohibits a Catholic Christian from ever holding the British Crown. This Law is not applicable only to the UK but extends to other Commonwealth realms as well and those Laws were passed in the 16 th and 17 th Centuries, long before the Brits Colonised Lanka.

        In the UK, the ultimate Executive Authority is the Monarch and it is exercised through the Royal Prerogative unchallengeable anywhere in the UK.

        The Privy Council officially advises the Queen on her use of the Royal Prerogative, but in practice evokes her powers to make executive orders quickly without consulting Parliament, in cases where time is of the essence.

        In 2004 the British Govt used two Orders in Council to subvert and overrule a British High Court decision in favour of the Chagoseans. This decision was never put before Parliament.

        In May 2009, Justice Minister Jack Straw admitted on BBC Radio 4 that he had “exchanged speed for legitimacy” when he chose to use Orders in Council in the Chagossian case, as they were “simpler” than putting the decision before the House of Commons.

        Even today, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) refuses to be answerable to anyone on this matter of basic human rights.

        If today, the Reigning Queen decides to become a Catholic, she is bound by Law to abdicate.

        Can you point to any such Religious Bigotry and Stupidity within the Lankan Constitution?

        Take a closer look at the West. The picture is not as Rosy as you like others to believe.

        You wont find a secular state amongst UK, USA, Norway and many other European states. All of them have some form of State sponsored Religious bias.

        If you want a secular State, China and Russia would fit the bill.

        For some Brown Sahibs the White Sahibs can do no wrong.

      • sabbe laban

        Nihal

        I don’t wan’t you to repeat what you have already told. I a waiting for your answer to this question:

        (1).(If the decline of Zimbabwe is due to Mugabe, and not due to the religion he belongs) why do you say the decline of Sri Lanka was due to the Sinhala Buddhist rule?

        And also if you are capable of please explain this as well:

        Why didn’t the British make “another Hong-Kong” out of the countries like Kenya and Zambia? Whose fault was that? And also how do you explain the rise of Thailand which was never occupied by any colonial power?

      • wijayapala

        Wijayapala is trying to blame Christianity in general for the problems on the island.

        Nihal Perera at last found his thinking cap and has made a valuable distinction between “Sinhala Buddhism” (or rather, Theravada Buddhism or just plain Buddhism) and “Sinhala Buddhist nationalism.” Here I actually agree with him and do not deny the phenomenon, although I would more accurately call it “Sinhala nationalism” as a good number of Sinhala Catholics/Christians adopted anti-Tamil sentiments later on!

        On that same token I do not blame Christianity or Jesus Christ for the problems on the island. I make a similar distinction between Christianity and “Christofascists” whom Nihal appears to be an avid member. Here is the Urban Dictionary definition:

        “Christian religious extremist. Often a person who believes in forcing a right-wing Christian agenda on the rest of the world. Also known as a ‘fundamentalist’ or more recently ‘evangelical’.”

        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Christofascist

        As I earlier proved through K.N.O. Dharmadasa’s scholarship (and for which Nihal had zero answers), the Christofascist missionaries in the colonial era provoked the then-passive Buddhist Sangha into adopting a xenophobic mindset that most certainly was one key precursor (if not THE key) of Sinhala nationalism. After independence, Christofascist military and police officers in 1962 tried to overthrow the democratically elected government, leading aforementioned government to purge the security forces of Christians and establish Sinhala Buddhist dominance.

        The Sri Lankan variety of Christofascists are a dying breed, as the article on Bishop Leo Nanayakkara showed. Actually I have never met one face to face, and I would say that most Sinhala Catholics/Christians that I know (including some relatives) tend to be more open-minded than many Buddhists I know- an observation that a monk friend of mine shared with me. Nihal is not one of them, unfortunately.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Dear Off the Cuff,

        You are always trying to compare UK, Norway with Sri Lanka when talking about the secularism and Speical Status given to Buddhism in SL constitution. You should remeber that the native population in UK, Norway and other similar countries are almost 100% christian. So it does not matter whether they give speical status to christianity or not. (The problem lies only the sectarian differences.) On the other hand SL is inhabited by natives of different religions. When the prominance is given to one forgetting the others they (the forgotton) would invariably feel that they have been left out. That’s why the special place of Buddhism given in our constitution is wrong.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

        Apparently you don’t have a counter to my reply to your attempt at white washing the Colonials and passing the blame to Africans. That was your theme in your first post in this thread. My post to you is awaiting your reply at this link.
        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38331

        Now you are complaining that I am always “trying” to compare UK, Norway with Sri Lanka when talking about the secularism and Special Status given to Buddhism in SL Constitution. I don’t try to do it, but I actually do it, factually and apparently you don’t have a counter.

        You wrote “You should remeber that the native population in UK, Norway and other similar countries are almost 100% christian. So it does not matter whether they give speical status to christianity or not”

        PP you make statements out of thin air.
        Is it due to ignorance or deceit?

        In 2001 only 71.6% in UK were Christian.
        That would have got diluted by 2011 due to the Tamil influx into UK.

        In 2001 Lanka had a Buddhist population of 69.1%
        That would have increased by 2011 due to the exodus of about a million Tamils from Lanka.

        In 2011 the percentage of Christians in the UK would be more or less equal to or less than the percentage of Buddhists in Lanka.

        Also note that in 2001 in the UK, 15.5% had no religion.

        How do you propose to justify your unfair stand now?

        You wrote “On the other hand SL is inhabited by natives of different religions.”

        Agreed.

        You wrote “When the prominance is given to one forgetting the others they (the forgotton) would invariably feel that they have been left out. That’s why the special place of Buddhism given in our constitution is wrong”

        The prominence that you are writing about existed in Lanka for millennia, prior to Colonial conquests. The Hindu’s and Muslims did not have any problem with that (there were no Christians in Lanka then). Even the British undertook to maintain the Special place to Buddhism in the Kandyan Convention.

        During the Colonial Period the Special Place was reserved for Christianity. The current constitution restored what was lost WHILE providing absolute religious freedom to all other Religions. Hence you cannot say they are forgotten. They have been remembered and protected in the Constitution within the very section that confers the special place to Buddhism.

        Hence this demand for Secularism is a comparatively new phenomenon (a few decades) that no one was concerned about when Christianity occupied the special place.

        It is impossible to make Sri Lanka secular now, without risking strife.

        As far as Religious freedom is concerned, Sri Lanka is far ahead of the UK and most other developed countries of the West.

        The Constitutional status of Buddhism cannot harm any other Religion.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Dear Sabbe Laban and Offthecuff,

    Yes, It is true that imperialists exploited the colonies for their raw materials, enganged in awful sorts of human rights abuses, etc etc. And they had colonoies for their own advantage and not for the advantage of their inhabitants. All that is true and we have known them since our primary school eductation.

    However, it is my understanding that impreialism took the backward feudal nations towards the more progressive capitalist liberal kind of society, which we enjoy today even with many deficiencies.

    When you try to picture the imperialists in black (total black not gray) it implies that the pre-imperialist society is white.

    However the evidence are for contrary. Take for a example ‘Kanda Udarata’ before 1815. What kind of a society did the Sinhalese have? They were ruled by an absolute monarch, whose whims were considered as law. His ministers (Adhikarams) were feudal lords who eternally conspired to outset the king. Sri Wickrama built the tank in the middle of the city using forced labour. In some point those who were failed to attend were impaled around it. I hope you know what happened to Ehelepola’s family for what he had done. So what do you say about such a society?

    What do you say about Kandyan cast system? When the maritime provinces enjoyed the relatively free society, which gradually evolved, as a reulst of introduction of trade and christianity by the Portugese, Dutch and British since 1505 the Kandyans were still suffering from full force of feudalism even in 1815. That was one of the reason why they still are unable to compete with the law country sinhalese in commerce. Thanks to the introdution of the new economic relations and christianity where there is no place for cast the imperialsits were able to help the oppressed classes of maritime provinces to make money and come up in the social ladder. The fruits of their pioneering efforts can be seen in various levels in our society. (Law cast buddhist (escpecially Karava, Durawa and Salagama)would not have been able to ordain their sons as monks if not for Amarapura and Ramanna nikays).

    (Nihal Perera has been explaining these to you throughout this discussion.)

    Would you like to go back to such a society? It is my understanding that whatever the nationalist historians say, the pre-colonial and colonial societies differ only the progressive ideas and institutions introduced by the latter.

    You were shedding tears about what impreialsists did to Africa. They took slaves to work especially in American south. These people had suffered untold miseries in the hands of slave traders and their masters. No body can deny them. But before they became slaves were their lives in Africa were any better? When you read romanticised versions of African village life when the slave traders came as depicted in Alex Haley’s Roots you would think otherwise. But I beleive the real life situations in Africa was not so romantic as in Roots with tribal wars and practices of cannibalism.

    Imperialists did much more than introducing the concepts of democracy, rule of law, human rights (The Kandyan Convention was first piece of law, which prohibited torture in SL), secularism etc and institutions parliament, public service, health services, judiciary, education etc they showed our people how great our civilisation was. Who descovered the lost civilizations, discovered historical chronicles and transalted them to English? Who repaired the ancient irrigation works in the Dry Zone? Why did the do that?

    You were talking about the Christianity as necessarily evil. (Here I am not talking about the religions or philosophies of Christianity or Buddhism. This is purely confined to the form of these religions practiced by the men). Christianity was (is) essentially more progressive than Buddhism as practiced in SL. Buddhist curch in pre-colonial era a most backward feudal institute (It still is). The fact that only Govigam was allowed to enter into priesthood is more than ample evidence for its backwardness. Christianity opened their arms to everybody irrespective of race, religion, cast or creed. In theory irrespective of your origins you can become the pope or bishop. The Buddhist clergy changed into a (semi-) prorgressive force during the latter half of 19th century thanks to the progressive influence of the christianity and monks ordained by the new Amarapura and Ramanna Nikayas, where there was no cast barriers. Allmost all of the more prorgressive, intelligent monks were from more enlightened low country temples.

    I would invite you to show us the disadvantages of colonialism in concrete form without indulging in abstract arguments. You can use a table, if they allow.

    • Nihal Perera

      Off the Cuff,

      Finally you have admitted that Colonialism used Religion to control Education. Specifically the key to an Education was being a Christian.

      That is nonsense. I did not even make such a claim. First of all, there was no requirement to be a Christian, to attend a school. Secondly, the British allowed people like Dharmapala and Colonol Olcott (of Theosophical Society) to start Buddhist and Hindu schools. There was never any persecution of non-Christians. Thirdly, the only reason Christianity was a compulsory subject in British-funded public schools is because Christianity was a compulsory subject in every school in Britain. It has more to do with history than with excluding a particular group of people. Finally, it is worthwhile to examine exactly who attended these schools and what purpose they served.

      The British seizure of power at first had a negative impact on education. The British closed many of the Dutch schools. The new British colonial government eventually addressed the issue of education. The Clonial government gradually began to fund schools. These schools promoted Christisanity. It was not, however, a major effort . One source suggests that by 1870 there were oinly about 20,000 children in the colonial schools. The schools were taught in English and the children were mostly Christians from the southwestern low country. It was this tis section of the population that became the mainstay of the colonial administration. The British did not tamper with the traditinal education system. Thus the Tamil and Sinhala schools with their Hindu nd Buddhist foundation continued. The colonial government began to make a more expansive role in education with major refors (1870). The government began to substantially increase the number of schools. They also made financial grants available to found private schools. (Provate schools were an important part of British education at the time.) Those wishing to found prvate schools had to been certain strndards. The government also founded medical and law colleges in Colombo. The result was a very substabtial increase in the number of children educated. Colonian records report over 200,000 students in 1900. The education system still focused on the Christian minority. As in Britain, the best road to a good career (often in the colonial government), was to attend one of the new private schools. These schools were mostly affiliated with Chritian denominations and located in the southwest. Most of the students were Christians and to a lesser extent Tamils. Primary schools education was available in English, Tamil, and Sinhala, but secondary schools were taught in English. This meant that parents who wanted their children to persue their educatioin had to enroll them in an English-language primary.

      http://histclo.com/schun/country/asia/sri/su-sri.html

      So, until about 1900, the missionary schools did not benefit any significant number of the population; the only thing they did was create a capable class of native people to join the civil service. But it is not the case that only Christians were benefitting; the article above clearly says both Hindu Tamils and Christians were benefitting. Furthermore, most of the Christians who were benefitting were Sinhalese. What is also interesting is that many of these Sinhalese who benefitted were low-caste Sinhalese (e.g. Karavas) who would have had NO chance for upward mobility under the Sinhalese caste system.

      Sri Lanka was never a secular society not even during the colonial era during which Christianity was forced down the throat of Lankans

      No one was forced to become Christian during British times. Attending a school that teaches Christianity as a subject does not make one Christian. Every Tamil child on the island is forced to study Mahavamsa mythology; how Dutugumenu killed the Tamil invader and saved the day. Mahavamsa is essentially a Sinhala-Buddhist document; does it mean Tamil children who read this will become Sinhala-Buddhist upon graduating?

      Nothing called “Sinhala Buddhism” exists in the Lankan Constitution.

      The only kind of Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka is Sinhala-Buddhism. Therefore, when the Constitution says Buddhism shall be given a “foremost place”, it is equivalent to saying Sinhala-Buddhism shall be given a foremost place.

      The monarch “shall join in communion with the Church of England.”

      Hehehe, you seem to think the British monarch actually plays an important role in UK politics, along with the Church of England. Let me tell you this; there is no Christian political party in Britain. There is no JHU to pressure the politicians. Christian priests do not come and sit in the front row of the Parliament as VIP guests when the Prime Minister speaks.

      You wont find a secular state amongst UK, USA, Norway and many other European states.

      It is not secular only according to people like you. Europe has had a very bad experience with religious fundamentalism; that is why it is overwhelmingly secular today. The USA was founded by people rejecting monarchy and a religious dictatorship.

      If you want a secular State, China and Russia would fit the bill.

      China and Russia are some of the worst human rights violators. It is no surprise that Rajapakse Ltd. is trying to emulate them.

      For some Brown Sahibs the White Sahibs can do no wrong.

      If there was ever a “people’s revolution” in Sri Lanka, all the political leaders at the top, who complain about imperialism and colonialism, would be on the first plane out to the West. Gothabaya is a US xitizen, Sarath is a US resident, Palitha Kohona is an Australian citizen, etc. All the politicos are maintaining huge Swiss Bank accounts, so that if the Sri Lankan “people” tried anything funny, this money would be safe. Already, these politicos send their children to the best Western schools from a small age. Example: CBK’s daughter attended a British medical school. Do you know the cost of such an education? There many thousands more who are capable of doing the same thing, by abusing the Sri Lankan taxpayer money. So, it is not the West that is exploiting the Sri Lankans anymore; it is the Sri Lankans exploiting the Sri Lankans. Ask Mahinda Rajapakse to publicly declare his assets, such as Obama and every other Western European leader is forced to do. Then we will see where the exploitation begins and ends!

      • Off the Cuff

        My Dear Nihal Perera

        [Edited out]

        Before making imbecile and putrid claims like “That is nonsense. I did not even make such a claim.” you should have checked whether you actually wrote the italicised quoted text from your post at the link below.

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38296

        You wrote “First of all, there was no requirement to be a Christian, to attend a school.”

        Oh sure, only the Baptismal certificate and the degrading submission to Christianity was needed.

        You have already stated that “As I have clearly demonstrated, the only “Christian” aspect of colonialism were the public schools”

        And what was that Christian aspect that the Govt schools professed, that can be considered fair and just?
        Was it not required to be secular?

        There were no Christians in Lanka when the Colonials arrived
        There were ONLY Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims.
        All Christians were converts from the above

        Conversion was forced by many devious means
        Withholding education and Jobs were amongst them.

        “Thirdly, the only reason Christianity was a compulsory subject in British-funded public schools is because Christianity was a compulsory subject in every school in Britain.”

        That is the dumbest excuse I have ever read on GV.
        Public Schools were not FUNDED by the British.
        It was funded by Govt Revenue and that means taxes from the population and proceeds of the sale of Lankan produce.

        Compulsion means the use of Force.
        It had no right to Force non Christians to compulsorily learn Christianity.

        It had no right to use tax money contributed by the majority to create a Ruling Class of Christians to allow them to subjugate the Majority.

        You wrote “No one was forced to become Christian during British times“

        [Edited out]

        “Every Tamil child on the island is forced to study Mahavamsa mythology; “

        Kindly provide proof if this is not rhetoric and propaganda.

        You have quoted the following “Most of the students were Christians and to a lesser extent Tamils.”

        Did not know that Christians are a separate Ethnicity.
        The above quote is plain deception as the Majority in the Govt Service even till independence were Tamils.

        You wrote “The only kind of Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka is Sinhala-Buddhism”

        [Edited out]

        Buddhism does not have any ethnic owner. The majority of Sri Lankan Buddhists are Theravada Buddhists. Theravada is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closer to early Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of Sri Lanka (now about 70% of the population) and most of continental Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand). Theravada is also practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia, while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western world. Today Theravada Buddhists, otherwise known as Theravadins, number over 100 million worldwide, and in recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the Buddhist revival in India. (wiki)

        You wrote “Hehehe, you seem to think the British monarch actually plays an important role in UK politics, along with the Church of England. Let me tell you this; there is no Christian political party in Britain.”

        Oh yes the Monarch does have a very important role. Your ignorance does not mean that it does not exist.

        The British Govt has used the Crown Prerogative to Nullify British High Court decisions against the Govt bypassing parliament. It is the ULTIMATE source of Executive Power unchallengeable in any UK court of Law, even when basic Human Rights are transgressed.

        Heh heh heh Pontificating in Ignorence.

        You wrote “It is not secular only according to people like you”

        Oh you must be right. The Monarch is denied Religious freedom by Law in the UK and of course that is Secular.

        The Christian Clergy does not have to sit in Parliament, the Monarch is a prisoner of the Anglican Church and the Church is the Govt.

        Even to day, all Public Schools in the UK are required by Law to hold a daily act of collective worship of a “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character “ and that of course is Secularism. UK is only 70% Christian.

        The USA advertises “GOD” on the most important and indispensable official document that is essential for everyday life and that of Course is Secular.

        American paper currency since 1957 has included the motto “In God We Trust.”

        The Dutch have had a religious motto on their money for over a century (one source says since the 18th century; an other says since 1816 CE). Coins carry the motto “God zij met ons.” (“God is with us.”). This motto has been carried over into the Netherlands version of the new 2 euro coin.

        Although not a motto, many British coins contain a drawing of the queen identified as “Elizabeth II D.G. REG. F.D.” This is an abbreviation of a Latin phrase which means “Elizabeth II by Grace of God Defender of the Faith.” In Britain, the monarch is the head of the Church of England.

        During the 1980?s, former president Jose Sarney introduced into Brazilian paper money the phrase “Deus seja louvado” (“God be praised.”)

        You wrote “China and Russia are some of the worst human rights violators.”

        [Edited out]

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        My post to you of November 5, 2011 • 3:32 am refers.
        The edited text of that post has been rewritten without naming certain medical conditions that my GV moderator found objectionable though it was allowed in my previous posts.

        You deny what you have written here on GV.
        Within just a short time span you forget what you write.
        Obviously your memory is short.
        Short term memory loss is a medical condition with many causes.

        You wrote “No one was forced to become Christian during British times. “

        They were only forced to learn Christianity and to be a Christian in order to be employable by the Govt. But then your memory is short.

        You wrote “The only kind of Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka is Sinhala-Buddhism”

        That is a statement made out of ignorance.

        You wrote “China and Russia are some of the worst human rights violators.”

        The subject is Secularism not Human Rights … the effects of short term memory loss again.

        This post should be read along with my post of November 5, 2011 • 3:32 am

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “As I have clearly demonstrated, the only “Christian” aspect of colonialism were the public schools” November 2, 2011 • 7:03 am

        I wrote, Finally you have admitted that Colonialism used Religion to control Education. Specifically the key to an Education was being a Christian. November 3, 2011 • 10:08 am

        You wrote That is nonsense. I did not even make such a claim. November 4, 2011 • 8:14 am

    • sabbe laban

      How can you say Britain, which itself was an absolute monarchy at that time-the time they conquered Kandian kingdom-paved the way for a liberal society in Sri Lanka? The crimes that you mention took place in a worse form in Britain at the time with rampant executions of serfs at will who were tramplled upon by the King and the feudel lords and with the additional cruelty of religious persecution-burning the heretics and suspected witches at the stake! What kind of civilized society was there in Britain when they were “teaching” us civilization then?

      Once again I would site the example of Thailand and ask you,”didn’t they evolve into a democracy without the help of a single colonial power?” Couldn’t we have done the same thing if our king was not taken away by the British in 1815? Isn’t the King of Thailand still being treated like a god, in spite of the fact that he is a mere ceremonial figure? Can you name any Monarch in the past who hasn’t been cruel to his people?

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        A lot of the claims you make are based on speculation . That means you are unable to prove them using any empirical evidence. What is interesting, however, is that as the amount of speculation grows, the number of self-contradictions increases propotionally.

        Oh sure, only the Baptismal certificate and the degrading submission to Christianity was needed.

        Proof?

        And what was that Christian aspect that the Govt schools professed, that can be considered fair and just?
        Was it not required to be secular?

        There was no such thing as secular education those days, anywhere in the world. On the other hand, as I have said, studying a religion in school does not make one a member of that religion.

        There were no Christians in Lanka when the Colonials arrived
        There were ONLY Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims.
        All Christians were converts from the above

        Again, you are making absurd claims without providing any evidence. Christianity has a long history in Sri Lanka, since at least the year 100:

        100 – First Christians are reported in Monaco, Algeria and Sri Lanka;[1] a missionary goes to Arbela, old sacred city of the Assyrians[9] .

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christian_missions#Early_Christianity

        Conversion was forced by many devious means
        Withholding education and Jobs were amongst them.

        The statistics say otherwise:

        Buddhist 70%, Islam 8%, Hindu 7%, Christian 6%

        http://sri-lanka.saarctourism.org/people-of-sri-lanka.html

        If we use your logic, only 6% of the population should have been literate in 1948, not 85 – 90%, as we know. Because according to your logic, only Christians had access to education. Also, there were 2.8 million people on the island in 1871, and going by the above article that says only 20,000 were attending Christian schools at the time, this means that 0.67% of the population was even attending a school – less than 1% of the total population! Please explain how witholding a job that less than 1% of the population had access to, forces people to become Christian .


        It was funded by Govt Revenue and that means taxes from the population and proceeds of the sale of Lankan produce
        .

        You mean to say that the taxes were used to develop the island? According to some of your comrades here, the government revenue and taxes were used to build factories in England and finance the Industrial Revolution.


        It had no right to Force non Christians to compulsorily learn Christianity.

        So now you admit that children were only learning about Christianity, they were not becoming Christians. Now you should modify your statement about witholding jobs and education.

        It had no right to use tax money contributed by the majority to create a Ruling Class of Christians to allow them to subjugate the Majority.

        Most of the major business owners were Sinhala-Buddhists, Tamil Hindus, and Muslims.

        Kindly provide proof if this is not rhetoric and propaganda .

        Any child on the island who uses materials provided by the Ministry of Education, e.g. books, is forced to study Sri Lankan history from the Sinhalese perspective , which as we all know, stresses that Tamils are invaders to the island.


        The above quote is plain deception as the Majority in the Govt Service even till independence were Tamils.

        Now we making progress. So your real objection to colonialism is not that the British put Christian interests first; rather, they put Tamil interests first.

        I would rather not argue with you in regards to the secular nature of the West.

        Let me get back to my original point. Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism has its roots in economic competition, not conversion to Christianity or missionary schools. This is the view taken by scholars such as Kumari Jayawardene.

        It is apparent from Kumari Jayawardena’s work that towards the end of the 19th century Buddhism was co-opted into a new ideology of Sinhalese-Buddhism that was originally directed by its sponsors against business competition from Indian and Moor firms. This ideology was silent about the British. The most vocal exponent of this ideology at the turn of the 19th century was Anagarika Dharmapala, Buddhist revivalist and son of the Pettah merchant H. Don Carolis. His teachings took the form of xenophobia directed against ‘aliens’ in general except the British, and temporarily excluded the native-born Tamils.

        Kumari Jayewardena observes for example that Dharmapala frequently made disparaging remarks against Indian workers, writing for example in 1902, that “under the English administration, the out-castes of South India are allowed to immigrate into the Island”. In fact in his works he wrote that a good Sinhalese-Buddhist should use a fork and knife and toilet paper.

        The semi-legendary victories of ancient Sinhalese kings against foreign invasions were adduced in campaigns against foreign traders. Dharmapala wrote after the Sinhalese–Muslim riots of 1915 that the peaceful Sinhalese “can no longer bear the insult of the alien. The whole nation in one day has risen against the Moor people. The causes are economic and spiritual.”

        In mobilising a following to consolidate the social position of the proponents of the Sinhalese-Buddhist ideology, with the twin aims of political power and commercial expansion, it was natural for them to co-opt other sections of the country. Two such sections were the Kandyan Sinhalese and a section of the Sinhalese working class.

        http://www.uthr.org/Book/CHA01.htm

    • sabbe laban

      Nihal

      I’m still waiting for your response!

      • yapa

        I am also waiting and waiting.

        Thanks!

    • Nihal Perera

      Sabbe Laban,

      (1).(If the decline of Zimbabwe is due to Mugabe, and not due to the religion he belongs) why do you say the decline of Sri Lanka was due to the Sinhala Buddhist rule?

      Well, that is an easy question to answer. The Sinhala-Buddhist majority has been unwilling to share power with the minorities, since the time of S.W.R.D. Why did monks force SWRD to tear up the Banda-Chelva pact? Why did so many monks appear in newspaper articles, saying that the military had to do whatever it takes to protect the “territorial integrity” of the country, at any cost? Why are there entire political parties composed of monks that play a significant role in formulating public policy? Which group of people dominates the government and military?

      Why didn’t the British make “another Hong-Kong” out of the countries like Kenya and Zambia?

      I never claimed that every former colony was/is a success. All I did, by pointing to places like Singapore and Hong Kong, is show that colonialism did not necessarily end in failure, each and every time.

      • wijayapala

        Why did so many monks appear in newspaper articles, saying that the military had to do whatever it takes to protect the “territorial integrity” of the country, at any cost?

        Nihal should specify whether he is referring to the pre-1961 Christian dominated military or the post-Christian coup attempt military, when discussing religion and the military.

        Why are there entire political parties composed of monks that play a significant role in formulating public policy?

        Is Nihal capable of specifying:

        1) how many political parties today are composed of monks?

        2) how many monks are currently in Parliament?

        3) what public policy they have formulated?

      • sabbe laban

        Nihal

        It may be wrong by the Buddha’s world to engage in the worldly matters like politics, but on the other hand do you think the reason behind the Christian clergy running behind the campaign of the LTTE’s international lobby to stop the war on the LTTE was their desire to stick to the word of Jesus? It’s rather a reflex reaction arising from their centuries of detesting of anything local, and their habbit of parroting anything the West advocates. Just because the West said, “stop the war” our sub-ordinates repeated the same thing. In contrast the Buddhist monks told, “go ahead and finish it off!” It’s anybody’s guess if the government heeded the former request what the situation would have been now with a terrorist organisation pulling the strings, and holding an entire population at ransom!

        On the other hand Nihal, all of Mugabe’s people are Christians from his tribe. Who postponed the elections for decades and abolished the opposition and imprisoned it’s leader? To which religion do they belong? Who’s people chased and killed the white farmers and occupied their farms? To which religion do they belong? In keeping with your thinking it should be apparent that it’s the Christians of Mugabe’s tribe who are responsible for all this! So why not blame the Christains of Zimbabwe for the calamity in that country?

        Yes, colonialism has very few success stories like Hong Kong as you too agree. They are few and far between and can be considered the exceptions to the rule. But what you are doing here is depicting the exceptions as the norm! This is called bigotry!

      • sabbe laban

        Pitasthara Puthraya

        You seem to be of the opinion that the Christians in Sri Lanka are so progressive and enlightened so as to have done away with the cast system! In my experience it is not so. They are equally cast minded and bigoted like their Buddhist counterparts. Take a Sunday newspaper and go through the matrimonial columns and you will see that each and every marriage proposal by the Christians is accompanied by a description of the caste! Caste in the Sinhalese society is nothing but a remnant of the feudel system and doesn’t play any role as a barrior or an obstacle in the day to day matters. But on personal level, yes it may, in both Buddhist and Christian communities and it is one of those things that exists in the minds of people of any country(like prejudice against coloured people, poor people, people with mental challenges and uneducated people, which is sad but hard to eradicate). This is of a miniscule scale compared to the effects of the cast system of the Hindus.

        Why don’t you hail the Muslims, who have no cast difference and part of a world brotherhood as “the most progressive people” on the planet in your line of thinking? Does your Western bias or some other tinted element in your mind prevent you from doing so?

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Sabbe Laban,

        You have taken my argument from the tail. What I am saying is Christian Church has been more progressive in every sense of the world than the Buddhist Church in SL. I was not talking about the individual members of Christian church. Yes, the christians and as well as buddhists are still suffereing from the vestiges of the ills of half dead/half alive feudal system.

        Christian church has been acting progressively manily because, I guess, both sinhalese and tamils are its members. And the church, as necessary feature of the way it had been introduced, is not confined to a single ethnic group. Whereas, the Buddhist church is a cast and race driven most backward primitive institution in Sri Lanka.

        Yes, Islam is much more progressive than the other two in the realm of race but in many otherways it is much more backward than the other two. However, the buddhist and christian churches have significantly much more influence than Islam in the affairs of Sri Lanka. That’s why I did not want to talk about Islam.

  • wijayapala

    PP

    You should remeber that the native population in UK, Norway and other similar countries are almost 100% christian. So it does not matter whether they give speical status to christianity or not. (The problem lies only the sectarian differences.)

    The problem, as you yourself laid out in your parentheses, is that “Christianity” is not the official religion of the UK or Norway. In England the Anglican Church is the state religion, even though there are plenty of non-Anglican “natives” such as Roman Catholics, and similarly in Scotland the Presbyterian Church is the official religion. Evangelical Lutheranism is the official religion of Norway.

    As for your bunk “it’s ok for the native religion to be the official religion” argument, you clearly are ignorant of the Sinhala nationalist claims that the Sinhalese are the real “natives” of Sri Lanka and that the Tamils and Muslims are foreigners. The last thing you want to say is that “natives” (however they are defined) should have more rights than “non-natives.”

    • PitastharaPuthraya

      Wijayapala,

      The issue is wheather the public is concerned with the special status given in the constitution to a single religion or sect. It seems that you are much more concerned than the British about this issue. As far as the religion is concerned it is a dead in UK, as most of the young people do not go to church. In fact the churches are being sold to other as they do not have funds to maintain them. So, this is not a issue of public disscussion or concern at the moment in UK as no body feels that they are being unfairly treated by this. As the monarchy the it generates only a historical interest.(at least about the monarchy there is a republic moment at the movement althogh they do not have much public support) Moreover, the government including the monarchy and the ruling politicians never show even by implication that the Anglicans have any superiortiy over the other sects of christianity in UK.

      I am not so ignorant not to know that the Sinhala racist view of the island belong only to sinhalese. No right thinking man would agree with their extreme ideas. In fact there is not evidence, historical, archeological, social, cultural, political etc to support this ‘Nazi’ view.

      Although the Presbytarian Church is the offical church is Scotland as you say it does not affect the other minority religious sects any way. It is only on the books unlike in SL. In fact, in Scotland, the christianity in whatever form is not taught in the public schools. They are so advanced and civilised thsan the Sinhala Buddhist in SL that the children in Scotland are taught a subject called ‘Relegious and Moral Studies’ where the student are taught about the every reglion in the world and their views on various issues. They never teach children that only christianity or presbytarianism for that matter is correct. That is how enlighted are the people there. It is truely a secular country.

      In Sri Lanka, the children in Buddhists schools are taught all the other religions are heresies, only buddhism is correct. (This should be true in other relegious schools as well. Irrespective of the relegion or race Sri Lankans are in the same boat). They still teach the chidren all the Mahavamsa myths as true never telling them they are part of our collecive mythology. So the children are brought up with only one single view of the history, relgion, and race as true.

      If you watch BBC you might have watched what happened to the Anglican Church in general and St. Paul’s cathedral in particular. Due to the protest of bunch of young people against captialism, who camped outside the cathedral, two senior church clerics had to resign and the whole attitude of Anglican church about the capitalism was questioned by the media and public. That is how the Anglican curch is treated in UK. What matters is not what constitution says or not. As you should understand changing long held traditions are not easy. How many years did it take to change the rules of ascedency to British throne?

      I do not think that natives should have rights over non-natives. Just because a particular religion is a official relgion in UK it does not impinge on the rights of its citizens. Morever, the non-Anglicans do not have a issue of Anglican being the official relgion. The situation in SL is totally different. The Sinhalese Buddhism ( I agree with the use of the term Sinhala Buddhism to describe the kind of Buddhism practiced in SL as it is a particular varity of Theravada buddhismm with its own myths about Sinhalese being the chosen race by the Buddha himself. And through out the history the Buddhist church and the monks have been closely associated with Sinhala racist agenda. The buddhist clergy has never stood for equal rights for minorities. This is totally different from the variety of Theravada Buddhism practiced in Thailand, Burma and other south east Asian countries.) has played a central role in promoting ethinic disharmony in SL. Contrary to the true Buddhist philosopy, which preach the equality of humans, Sinhala Buddhism has been a dividing force of the Sri Lankan ethnic mileu.

      If Sri Lankan Sinhala Buddhists had been true ‘Buddhists’ we would never have had this ethnic problem. In fact there is no true buddhism in SL. It may be in the books stored in the libraries in our temples. Definetely it does no exist among the so-called Buddhists in SL. In fact it is a insult to the Buddha and his great philosophy to proclaim that ‘Sinhala Buddhist’ are ‘buddhists’.

      • wijayapala

        PP

        Although the Presbytarian Church is the offical church is Scotland as you say it does not affect the other minority religious sects any way.

        You have yet to show how Article 9 of the Constitution affects the minority religions. Are they barred from practicing their beliefs?

        They are so advanced and civilised thsan the Sinhala Buddhist in SL that the children in Scotland are taught a subject called ‘Relegious and Moral Studies’ where the student are taught about the every reglion in the world and their views on various issues.

        Didn’t you earlier admit that you have never lived in a western country and therefore are not in a position to determine how advanced the west is or how it treats its nonwhite minorities? Is it possible that Scotland is so “advanced and civilised” because people there actually practice what they preach, as opposed to simply whining about the present as you do?

        In Sri Lanka, the children in Buddhists schools are taught all the other religions are heresies, only buddhism is correct.

        Nihal Perera believes that it is perfectly acceptable for Christian schools to preach that all other religions are false, so why are you so concerned about what Buddhists do? And since when did Sri Lankan schools teach that all non-Buddhist faiths are false???

        They still teach the chidren all the Mahavamsa myths as true never telling them they are part of our collecive mythology.

        What is an example of a “Mahavamsa myth” that is taught to children?

        This is totally different from the variety of Theravada Buddhism practiced in Thailand, Burma and other south east Asian countries.

        Then why is there a Muslim insurgency in Thailand, or a Christian insurgency in Burma??

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency
        http://www.christianpost.com/news/burma-army-targets-christian-civilians-in-war-on-insurgents-60340/

        You are aware that the current Nikayas of the Sangha in Sri Lanka originated in Thailand and Burma, right??

        If Sri Lankan Sinhala Buddhists had been true ‘Buddhists’ we would never have had this ethnic problem.

        And if hypocrites like yourself were true ‘Buddhists’ as well, then yes I agree we wouldn’t be having problems!

  • Nihal Perera

    Sabbe Laban,

    It may be wrong by the Buddha’s world to engage in the worldly matters like politics, but on the other hand do you think the reason behind the Christian clergy running behind the campaign of the LTTE’s international lobby to stop the war on the LTTE…

    LTTE had nothing to do with Christianity. The LTTE ideology was centered around martyrdom and hero-worship, specifically, worship of Prabhakaran. LTTE never built a Church or went out of its way to specifcally save Christians.

    On the other hand Nihal, all of Mugabe’s people are Christians from his tribe.

    Religion was never an issue in Zimbabwe. The issue is economics, specifically, ownership of the land. When Idi Amin came to power in Uganda, he wanted to nationalize the businesses, and gave tens of thousands of prosperous Indians 90 days to leave the country. Mugabe has done a similar thing, by trying to nationalize the White-owned farms. It looks like Rajapakse has also taken a cue, with the introduction of the latest bill.

    Yes, colonialism has very few success stories like Hong Kong as you too agree. They are few and far between and can be considered the exceptions to the rule.

    It all depends on your criteria for success. It would be more accurate to state that in 99.9% of the colonies, there were both successes and failures. For example, in the Sri Lankan case, the British introduced tea, which generates more than 1 billion USD in revenue on an annual basis. It was the British who united the three different kingdoms into a single administrative; it was they who offered Karavas and other low-castes the opportunities to become merchants, doctors, etc; it was they who introduced Western technology, Western medicine, and a Western form of government to the island.

    In judging the merits of the above, it suffices to consider what the island would be like today, had the British not arrived. I shall leave that to your imagination. But I will make one point: there would not be a single entity called “Sri Lanka”, as we know it. There would be three seperate kingdoms. So in some sense, the British, more by accident than choice, did a lot of the dirty work that the monks who wrote Mahavamsa could only dream of.

    • yapa

      Q: It may be wrong by the Buddha’s world to engage in the worldly matters like politics, but on the other hand do you think the reason behind the Christian clergy running behind the campaign of the LTTE’s international lobby to stop the war on the LTTE…

      A: LTTE had nothing to do with Christianity. The LTTE ideology was centered around martyrdom and hero-worship, specifically, worship of Prabhakaran. LTTE never built a Church or went out of its way to specifcally save Christians.

      Yanne koheda, Malle pol????

      A very easy and effective way to avoid questions. We have seen some people in the past in this blog acted insane when they were cornered with difficult questions. Ohoma yun Nihal, Ohoma yun!

      Thanks!

    • wijayapala

      It was the British who united the three different kingdoms into a single administrative;

      What three kingdoms is Nihal referring to? The only independent kingdom that existed at the time of the British was Kandy, which at that time (until 1815) controlled most of Sri Lanka’s territory.

      Is Nihal endorsing the unitary state here, because it was a creation of the British??

      Religion was never an issue in Zimbabwe.

      That is because the people were already overwhelmingly converted to Christianity. If Nihal’s ancestors had never converted in exchange for a handful of beads the way that they did, there would never have been a Buddhist-Christian problem in Sri Lanka, and Sinhala nationalism would have never arisen.

      It all depends on your criteria for success. It would be more accurate to state that in 99.9% of the colonies, there were both successes and failures.

      If Nihal Perera cannot answer what happened in the .1% of colonies that according to him were neither successes nor failures, could we conclude that he has met the criteria for a failure in thinking?

      • Nihal Perera

        What three kingdoms is Nihal referring to?

        Pardon my ignorance, if such history is not written in Mahavamsa.

        1619-1658 – Portuguese rule Jaffna. Philip de Oliviera rules Jaffna kingdom as a separate entity. His rule was marred by extensive destruction and pillage of Hindu temples.

        1658-1796 – Dutch rule of Jaffna. The Dutch capture Trincomalee and Colombo, but rule Jaffna as a separate entity. Thesavalamai Law was enacted during this period, giving legitimacy to the (customary) laws of the Jaffna kingdom.

        1796-1948 – British rule. The British captured Trincomalee in 1795 and the Kandyan Kingdom in 1815. The three states (former kingdoms of Jaffna, Kandy and Kotte) were amalgamated into a single administrative unit in 1831.

        http://www.sangam.org/FACTBOOK/Millennium.htm

        That is because the people were already overwhelmingly converted to Christianity.

        So Wijayapala admits Christianity is irrelevent to the modern history of Zimbabwe.

        If Nihal’s ancestors had never converted in exchange for a handful of beads the way that they did, there would never have been a Buddhist-Christian problem in Sri Lanka, and Sinhala nationalism would have never arisen.

        If Wijayapala’s ancestor Vijaya had remained in Orissa as a devout Hindu, instead of getting kicked out for stealing a handful of beads the way he did, there would never have been a Buddhist problem in Sri Lanka, and Sinhala nationalism would have never arisen.

      • Christian

        Wijeyapala

        Christians ridicule the culture that beget discrimination
        seriously can you agree with caste discrimination which was a cornerstone of Sinhala Buddhist culture
        Can you agree with tyrannical rule of the Sinahalese King ???

        Please advice

        Thanks

  • sabbe laban

    “It all depends on your criteria for success. It would be more accurate to state that in 99.9% of the colonies, there were both successes and failures.”

    An improvment on Sanjaya Bellattaputta?

    • Nihal Perera

      It would be more accurate to state that in 99.9% of the colonies, there were both successes and failures.

      I am not surprised that our nationalists have failed to comprehend the above statement. It means, simply, that like every human endeavor, colonialism was not without its faults.

    • yapa

      Amaravikkhepavada?

      Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    Pitasthara Puthraya

    What I said earlier was that as the Christianism came with the Western invaders, the Christians in Sri Lanka too have this peculiar quality of condemning their own culture, language and traditions which are linked to Buddhism. That is exactly why the Christian Church too seems to be acting as a local comprador of the Western masters.

    • Christian

      Sabbe Laban
      As a Christian I condemn xenophobic,anti Christian nationalism of JHU,NFF and certain academic who is also a rabid anti Christian
      Nothing wrong in that I suppose
      And do love to ridicule these guys whenever I have a chance and expose their activities .
      To me these nincompoops are no better than anti Sri Lankan forces that they are supposedly against.

      • wijayapala

        Dear Christian

        As a Christian I condemn xenophobic,anti Christian nationalism

        You still have not shared with us how you feel about xenophobic, anti-Buddhist bigotry by people such as Nihal Perera.

  • wijayapala

    Given that correcting Nihal’s ignorance of history has become a full-time chore, it’s time to keep score!

    The three states (former kingdoms of Jaffna, Kandy and Kotte) were amalgamated into a single administrative unit in 1831.

    But as Sangam.org clearly shows, Jaffna and Kotte were not independent kingdoms when the British arrived in Sri Lanka, hence the British did not unify anything. Nihal really can do better than to rely on Eelamist websites for his history lessons!

    wije: 1
    Nihal: 0

    So Wijayapala admits Christianity is irrelevent to the modern history of Zimbabwe.

    Just as Nihal admits that Christianity is relevant to the rise of Sinhala nationalism, given his silence over the Christian coup attempt in 1962?

    wije: 2
    Nihal: 0

    If Wijayapala’s ancestor Vijaya had remained in Orissa as a devout Hindu,

    But sadly, Nihal has the same ancestor as Wije, meaning that we would not have had a Christian problem in Sri Lanka had Vijaya remained behind!

    wije: 3
    Nihal: 0

    Game goes to: wije

    • Nihal Perera

      But as Sangam.org clearly shows, Jaffna and Kotte were not independent kingdoms when the British arrived in Sri Lanka, hence the British did not unify anything. Nihal really can do better than to rely on Eelamist websites for his history lessons!

      I never claimed the kingdoms were independent. This is what I said:

      It was the British who united the three different kingdoms into a single administrative

      Wijayapala has a poor understanding of the English language and does not know the meaning of the word amalgamated , because Sangam.org does indeed claim the British united the three different kingdoms. Furthermore, the three kingdoms need not have been independent for them to be united, all that matters is that they existed as seperate entities.

      In general, amalgamation is the process of combining or uniting multiple entities into one form.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation

      Just as Nihal admits that Christianity is relevant to the rise of Sinhala nationalism, given his silence over the Christian coup attempt in 1962

      Wijayapala should go back 47 years and explain why the Sinhala-Buddhists were rioting against Muslims in 1915.

      But sadly, Nihal has the same ancestor as Wije, meaning that we would not have had a Christian problem in Sri Lanka had Vijaya remained behind

      Actually, there were Christians in India as well! Many Indian Christians believe that Jesus even lived in Kerala for some time. Wijayapala with his lack of knowledge regarding anything outside of Sri Lanka does not know that India is the mother of all religions.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Wijayapala,

    Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act gurantees the freedom to practice any form of relgion. The Bill of Rights 1689 did not bar catholics from practicing their religion in UK. The barring of females from becoming the monarch has been taken away from the constituion very recently. The next step would be to let a non-anglican to sit on the throne.

    Mahavansa myths taught in schools include the Buddha’s confering upon ‘Vishnu’ to look after Sri Lanka and Vijaya at his death bed, Vijayas arrival on the same day as the Buddha’s Passing away,whole story of origin of vijaya, Sinhalese were of north Indian ‘aryan’ origin, whole of the island belongs to Sinhalese, all the others were aliens therefore they do not have any right to be in SL, Yaksha and Raksha’s were depicted as demons inspite of being the real owners of the island, the Buddha’s visits to Sri Lanka, teaching the theravada buddhism as only the true branch of buddhism, hiding the facts that the Buddha’s teaching had been distorted by the subsequent interpretation of theravada scholars (Visuddhi Magga by Buddhagosa), etc. There are many more.

    Just because Nihala Perera thinks that it is alright to teach other relgions as false in Christian school why should I accept his word?

    Those who have attended Buddhists school would understand how the teachers of Buddhism insert the idea of only Buddhism is true and others are ‘mithya vishvasa’ in to the children’s minds. Whenever you listen to sermons by buddhist monks they always refer to the fact that Buddhism was so advanced over the all the other religions that it does not accept the concept of ‘almighty god’. After listening to this kind of ideological barrages for 13 years in school the Buddhist child, if they does not have a capacity to think independently, they invariably think that Buddhism is the ultimate truth among all other religions in the world.

    Yes, I know all of the nikaya’s in SL originated from Thailand and Burma. As you may understand a religion, a particular community, practices, is not one its founder had orginally preached. This is common to all the relegions in the world. Christianity today is not what Jesus Christs preached. It is a mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas. It is more true with Buddhism as there is no central authority to guide if it deviates from its true path. Although in essence SL, Thailand and Burma practice theravada version of buddhismm there are many regional variations. In SL theravada has been mixed with Mahavansa mythology and produced a unique brand of theravada buddhism called Sinhala Buddhism.

    Why did they fail to convert Tamils to Buddhism in Sri Lanka? Why have SL Buddhist Monks gone to the other end of the world to preach Buddhism to the ‘ignorant’ but failed to have any program to convert at least estate tamils? Because Buddhism in SL is so entangled with Sinhala identity that it can not be separated even by well-meaning true followers of buddhism in SL. The minorities would never beleive that Sinhala Buddhist Monks have anything else in their minds other than the self-interest of the Sinhalese Buddhists.

    Therefore, it is my belief that the established Sri Lankan Buddhist Church does not have any prospect of being truely a universal relegion and a soothing and bonding agent of the rival ethnic groups of Sri Lanka as true buddhism would have done. Instead it has sided with one ethnic community and lost its credibility. It is an insult to the great philosopher, the Buddha.

    • Nihal Perera

      PitastharaPuthraya

      Just because Nihala Perera thinks that it is alright to teach other relgions as false in Christian school why should I accept his word?

      Please take note of the fact that Wijayapala, like Yapa, has a good imagination. When these guys lose the argument, they pretend the other guy said something that he didn’t actually say. It is a clever tactic designed to provoke. In any case, there is no evidence to support the claim that Christian schools taught the students that all other religions are false.

      As you may understand a religion, a particular community, practices, is not one its founder had orginally preached. This is common to all the relegions in the world. Christianity today is not what Jesus Christs preached. It is a mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas.

      You have brought up a very good point. No religion is pure. There is always the cultural influence.


      Christian church talks about minority rights as it does no confined to one single ethnic goup as the Buddhist church does. They have much more wider, progressive out look than the latter simply because it does not see itself as the saviour of the Sinhalese alone.

      Again, a good point. This is what I meant when I said Christianity is more proactive than the Sinhala-Buddhism. More proactive means it is easier to have a dialogue because there are less barriers, such as ethnicity, caste, etc. No one, other than Wijayapala, is concerned with when Christianity came to the island first. As a third-party institution, the Christian Church can indeed do a lot to initiate dialogue because it is not tangled in the web of ethnic identity.

      • Gamarala

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

        RE: “After listening to this kind of ideological barrages for 13 years in school the Buddhist child, if they does not have a capacity to think independently, they invariably think that Buddhism is the ultimate truth among all other religions in the world.

        Is it not the pathology common to all religions, that its adherents believe that their religion is indeed the ultimate truth, for convincing reasons X, Y, Z (convincing to them at least)? At the very least, does the adherent not believe that his/her religion is a cut above the rest?

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        RE: “In any case, there is no evidence to support the claim that Christian schools taught the students that all other religions are false.”

        Whether or not it’s spelt out in so many words, it’s always “implied” that religion X is true. Neither Christianity nor Buddhism is an exception. Why would someone subscribe to religion X if they weren’t indoctrinated to believe its truth?

        Christian schools imply to students that their religion is “better”, and Buddhist schools do the same. However, there may be a difference in degree. The only point worth debating appears to be how big a difference there is, in that degree.

        I suspect – not much.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Sabbe Laban,

    If the sole factor of christian success is that it came with western invaders, as you claimed, then why did the Dutch fail to convert the catholic christian community, already converted by the Portugese to their brand of christianity, which was Protestantism?

    King Dharmashoka was able to convert the Sinhalese to Buddhism because King Devanampiyathissa was a vassal of his empire. In fact Devanampiyathissa sent his royal regalia to Dharmashoka for his blessing before his coronation.

    These matters are so complex that you can not denounce them so simplistically by saying one came with the sword other came with peace.

    Christian church talks about minority rights as it does no confined to one single ethnic goup as the Buddhist church does. They have much more wider, progressive out look than the latter simply because it does not see itself as the saviour of the Sinhalese alone.

    Wiyapala,

    As Nihala Perera Says it is my understanding that as in India, the British was the first power, who took the whole island under one flag after Parakramabahu the 6th in 15th centuray. And they kept it unified unitl 1948 and handed over the same to Sinhalese majority ignoring the Tamils. That is the origin or Tamil’s fear of being ruled by the majority Sinhalese and the ethnic problems, we still face today.

    As the creator of Israel-Palestine problem they created the Sinhala-Tamil problem and vanished from the scene.

    In the point of view of the Sinhala nationalists the British should be their greatest ruler ever. (Dutugemunu should come after the British) If not for the British they, the nationalists would not have a unified country to talk about the territorial integrity.

    • wijayapala

      PP

      Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act gurantees the freedom to practice any form of relgion. The Bill of Rights 1689 did not bar catholics from practicing their religion in UK.

      And Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice any form of religion, so your attempt to show that the Europeans have a better setup falls flat.

      Mahavansa myths taught in schools
      “Those who have attended Buddhists school would understand how the teachers of Buddhism insert the idea of only Buddhism is true and others are ‘mithya vishvasa’ in to the children’s minds.

      My school never taught these myths that you are imagining. On the other hand, many people I know who have attended Christian schools in Sri Lanka have told me how they were made to sing hymns and were taught that Christianity is the only true religion.

      hiding the facts that the Buddha’s teaching had been distorted by the subsequent interpretation of theravada scholars

      If you want to prove that Theravada doctrine is a distortion of the Buddha’s teachings, you’ll have to show us what the Buddha’s original teachings were without referencing anything from the Theravada tradition. Good luck!

      Whenever you listen to sermons by buddhist monks they always refer to the fact that Buddhism was so advanced over the all the other religions that it does not accept the concept of ‘almighty god’.

      Then why is Mahinda, the “Sinhala Buddhist” leader proclaiming that he believes in God? And why does Gotabhaya claim that God saved him from the LTTE attempt on his life?

      Christianity today is not what Jesus Christs preached. It is a mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas.

      If Nihal Perera were in charge, he would have you burned at the stake- a Christian tradition he is extremely proud of- for preaching such heresy.

      Although in essence SL, Thailand and Burma practice theravada version of buddhismm there are many regional variations.

      And what are these “regional variations?” Are you aware that the Burmese Mahavamsa etched in stone is the oldest extant rendering of the text? Or that the Cambodian Mahavamsa is twice the length of the Sinhala version? Did you have any clue at all that these other cultures had adopted the Mahavamsa???

      Why did they fail to convert Tamils to Buddhism in Sri Lanka?

      And how do you know that they didn’t?? Did it ever occur to you that over the centuries, the south Indians who migrated to Sri Lanka (presumably because their homeland was a dump) either settled in “Sinhala” areas where they adopted the local language and religion- but not without contributing aspects of their original culture– or they migrated to less-populated areas where they did not assimilate and managed to preserve what they brought from India? How else can you explain why Sinhalese and *Sri Lankan* Tamils are genetically identical???

      A more interesting question would be why TODAY there are no outreach efforts to the Tamils. Historian K. Indrapala in his recent work showed that as late as the early colonial era, Sinhala monks would often brag about their ability to preach bana in Tamil. That is the foundation of my argument that if you want to understand the xenophobia found among Buddhists TODAY, you have to revisit the colonial era and *in particular the role that Nihal Perera’s sellout ancestors played in radicalizing the Buddhists.*

      As the creator of Israel-Palestine problem they created the Sinhala-Tamil problem and vanished from the scene.

      Try telling this to Nihal who starts foaming at the mouth when anyone even hints that the British created problems in SL and elsewhere.

      If not for the British they, the nationalists would not have a unified country to talk about the territorial integrity.

      How are you sure of that? I already lectured Nihal that at the time the British came to Sri Lanka, there was only one kingdom there. If the British had departed in 1796, what would have stopped Kandy from assuming rule over the entire country?

      why did the Dutch fail to convert the catholic christian community, already converted by the Portugese to their brand of christianity, which was Protestantism?

      Because if you had any knowledge of Sri lankan history, you would know that many Catholics fled inland to Buddhist Kandy to avoid persecution by the Dutch Protestants. The Kandyan Buddhists earlier gave refuge to Muslims facing persecution from Nihal’s Catholic ancestors.

      King Dharmashoka was able to convert the Sinhalese to Buddhism because King Devanampiyathissa was a vassal of his empire.

      What is your evidence of this, when neither the Sinhala chronicles nor the Asokan Edicts in India claim this?? If Asoka was really the overlord of Lanka, then how come there were no Major or Minor Edicts in the island?

  • yapa

    Dear Nihal Perera;

    You say:
    “Please take note of the fact that Wijayapala, like Yapa, has a good imagination. When these guys lose the argument, they pretend the other guy said something that he didn’t actually say.”

    You are a peculiar guy who tries to show your blunders as others’. Can you show specifically me where I have lost any argument to you? Can you show me what those arguments are? As always you are clinging on to claims, not evidence, unsubstantiated claims. Instead I can very specifically show you where you have lost your arguments(really not arguments, just claims) with me and slipped away.

    1. Can you remember what happened in your claims in CERN experiment? You yourself declared and abstained from answering when I proved what you said was wrong, without unethically accepting your folly. You just forgot it amidst my repeated questions.

    2. You claimed Buddhism is Nihilistic and Christianity is proactive, I challenged you to substantiate your claim. despite repeated requests you kept quite.

    You totally sidestepped from the discussion with me, as it was proven that you had no arguments.

    In contrary can you show me a single instance where I have not answered any of your questions?

    I think both dishonesty and ignorance are bliss for you.

    Thanks Nihal, I hope you will reply to this post at least if you can disassociate a bit from dishonesty for a moment.

  • wijayapala

    It was the British who united the three different kingdoms into a single administrative

    Yet these three kingdoms did not exist when the British arrived-only the European-controlled areas and those controlled by Kandy. Hence the British did not unite anything and Nihal’s pitiful effort to claim otherwise remains demolished.

    When the Europeans first arrived in the 16th century, there were not merely three kingdoms but actually five, as this excellent map illustrates. Sadly, Nihal with his dependence on Sangam.org for his historical knowledge is ignorant of this. He is also clueless that the number of kingdoms throughout Sri Lankan history has fluctuated, and kings such as Dutugemunu and Parakramabahu were revered by the Sinhalese precisely because they united the island. Contrary to Nihal’s fantasy thinking, the British were not the first to unite the island.

    The score remains 3-0. 😉

    Wijayapala should go back 47 years and explain why the Sinhala-Buddhists were rioting against Muslims in 1915.

    When Nihal loses an argument- in this case being wholly unable to discuss the 1962 Christian coup attempt which helped entrench Sinhala nationalism- his tactic is to change the subject. If Nihal cannot explain how the Muslims were the victims in these riots *when more Sinhalese were killed than Muslims,* I’m afraid the score will be 4-0!

    Wijayapala with his lack of knowledge regarding anything outside of Sri Lanka does not know that India is the mother of all religions.

    Nihal is now spouting blasphemy. All self-respecting Christofascists worship a Jesus Christ who has blond hair and blue eyes, hence the Gospel could never have originated in India.

    • Nihal Perera

      Wijayapala,

      No point responding to you further, as all you do is play rubbish semantic games. There were indeed three kingdoms, as I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      When Nihal loses an argument- in this case being wholly unable to discuss the 1962 Christian coup attempt which helped entrench Sinhala nationalism- his tactic is to change the subject.

      Yes, yes, that is why Christian priests ran through the streets of Colombo in 1983 right. That is why in 1956 the Christian priests forced Banda to tear up his pact, That is why the Army brought in busloads of Christian monks to visit Mullaitivu, while 200K IDP Tamils were squatting in tin shacks built by the United Nations.

      Nihal is now spouting blasphemy. All self-respecting Christofascists worship a Jesus Christ who has blond hair and blue eyes, hence the Gospel could never have originated in India.

      As I said, you have a good imagination. But I am here to engage in debate with adults, not small children so I will not respond to you further. It is a shame that the mentality of the Southern Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist is still closer to a child than an adult, despite 63 years of “Independence.”

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        “No point responding to you further, as all you do is play rubbish semantic games.”

        Is it same for me? Is that the reason you keep on avoiding to answer me? Aren’t they not lame excuses?

        Thanks!

      • wijayapala

        Dear Nihal Perera

        No point responding to you further,

        As anyone following this thread can tell, you did not respond to any of my counter-arguments and only responded when I made sarcastic comments! It is good to see you finally acting like a man and writing to me directly, if only to admit your defeat.

        That is why in 1956 the Christian priests forced Banda to tear up his pact

        Nice try, but I already called you out on your pathetic tendency to change the subject when I make a point that you can’t rebut. To summarise, you utterly failed to refute my central argument that the phenomenon of “Sinhala Buddhist” nationalism was a direct result of discrimination and marginalisation conducted by the European colonists and their Christian-converted lapdogs. Sinhala nationalists like Anagarika Dharmapala used terminology that derived from colonial race theory but was foreign to Sinhala traditions. The fact that Christian military officers could even conceive of overthrowing the government in 1962 speaks volumes as to the power Christians wielded in the island at that time compared to the other communities.

        Fortunately, bigots such as yourself are a microscopic minority among Sri Lankan Christians, who for the most part adjusted to the loss of their dominance and privileges rather well and have thrived as a result.

    • Nihal Perera

      Dear Gamarala,

      Christian schools imply to students that their religion is “better”, and Buddhist schools do the same. However, there may be a difference in degree. The only point worth debating appears to be how big a difference there is…

      Actually, many Christian schools teach a subject called “comparative religion.” It is the study of various religions from around the world. It is still taught as a subject in many (now secular) UK and European schools. You are right that many students may intuitively feel that their religion is “better” than someone elses. This is something they have picked up at home. When they come to school, they seek reinforcement for such ideas via the peer group. However, the purpose of schooling in general is to expose the student to a variety of different viewpoints, so that he can make informed decisions. In the ideal scenario, the educated individual is able to find a balance.

  • wijayapala

    Dear Christian,

    Christians ridicule the culture that beget discrimination

    Then what do you have to say about the Christian culture that discriminated against Jews? Or the Protestant Christians who not only discriminated against Catholic Christians but waged pointless and bloody wars that Nihal delightfully approves of?

    One bit of advice- if you want to be a better Christian, you’ll have to improve your English skills. As all Christofascists believe, if English is good enough to be the language of the Holy Scriptures, then it is certainly good enough for the Flock to all speak!

    • Christian

      Wijeyapala

      Really ?
      And what is wrong with my English skills ? 🙂

      • wijayapala

        Dear “Christian”

        Still waiting to hear what you think about xenophobic, anti-Buddhist thinking among a few of your fellow Christians.

        And what is wrong with my English skills ?

        You wrote:
        As a Christian I condemn xenophobic,anti Christian nationalism of JHU,NFF and certain academic who is also a rabid anti Christian

        When it should read:
        As a Christian I condemn xenophobic, anti Christian nationalism of the JHU, NFF and certain academics who are also rabid anti Christians
        OR
        As a Christian I condemn xenophobic, anti Christian nationalism of the JHU, NFF and a certain academic who is also a rabid anti Christian

  • sabbe laban

    Pitasthara Puthraya

    I didn’t say anything about the success of Christianity-the success of it duRng the Portugese was solely due to thier teror and threats-, I was telling about a certain peculiar behavior of Sri Lankan Christians(servility to the West) and attributed it to the way it was brought to Sri Lanka. Pity that you missed my point once again!

    The misguided superiority complex of Sri Lankan Christians is not seen in the Western Christians and they don’t even talk about their religion. The onlly other Christian group who are more bigotted than the Lankan Christians are the Philipinos in my opinion. Maybe this is so in other other third world countries too, which have been totally converted by the evangelists-like in the case of Phillipines.

    The reason for this is the same mentality the colonial invaders starting from Colombus had when they invaded and routed the civilizations in Asia, Africa and Latin America: “The natives are not COMPLETE human beings as they do not have a “spirit”. This “SPIRIT” is only gained by believing in “Our Lord”! i.e.The Christian God.

    It’s not surprising to see that “modern” and “progressive” thinkers like you and Nihal too are still harbouring this view which is no longer prevelent in the Western Christian countries!

    • Nihal Perera

      sabbe laban:

      It’s not surprising to see that “modern” and “progressive” thinkers like you and Nihal too are still harbouring this view

      Progressive would be the ability to look at colonialism from different angles: e.g. ethnic dimension, religious dimension, and economic dimension. Unfortunately, you yourself refuse to look at it from any angle except the religious one; such a narrow viewpoint is little more than superficial. Another reason why your hypothesis is flawed, at least in the case of the British, is that the British never subscribed to religious fundamentalism in the same way that say Spain (which had the Inquisition) did. If you are familiar with the Spanish colonization of South America, which you probably aren’t, it is absolutely nothing compared to the British in SL. The Spanish brought missionaries along on boats and forced the natives to build Churches. At the same time, the Spanish also intermarried with the natives on a large scale, which is why South America is so many shades of complexion today.

      That is why I have stressed the economic impact of British colonial rule in SL, because the implications are much more far-reaching than anything which may have emanated from the virtually non-existent British affinity for religious zealotry.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Gamararala,

    Yes, it is true. The way that the relgions are taught in SL the student gets the idea that only his religion is true. It may be common to both Buddhists and Christians. What I wanted to emphasize is that Buddhists are no different to others although we used to boast that Buddhism is the most rational of all the relegions.

    Wijayapala,

    You wanted to show that England and Scotland have their official religions and threfore, they do not have religious freedom. Then I wanted to show that inspite of having official religions on the paper in practice they have absolute freedom to practice any form of religion and no minority has any issue of anglicanism or presbytarianism being the official religions.

    I did not say that the Christian schoold do not teach christianity as the only true relgion. What I said was that in Buddhist school the students are taught that except buddhism all the other relgions are wrong. The accepted ideology of schools I attended was that Buddhism is the only true relegion. No body has never tuaght us that Buddhism is only one of the ways that the mystery of human existance is explained.

    It falls in to the same line of argument. As far as I know it is not possible to identify the true teaching of the Buddha in the myriad of later addition to the scriptures. Therefore, theravada can not say that it is the only true interpretation of Buddhism. It is only one of the ‘vadas’, or doctrines as its name implies.

    Due to the close relationship between SL, Burma and Cambodia as theravada buddhist countries they had exchanged pali texts and translated them into their own languages. Even if the Mahavansa had been translated to Burmese and Cambodian languages they must have intpreted its meaning in different ways. Surely, they would not have thought that the Sinhalese had a special place in the Buddha’s mind over the other members of human kind at the time of his death.

    When I said that the Buddhists has failed to take the Buddha’s message to tamil community I was talking about the present. I know that there were tamil theravada scholars in the past. In fact Buddhagosha was from South India, as you know.

    When I said that the British created the Tamil-Sinhala problem I did not mean to say that the Sinhalese Buddhists were not part of the problem. The British created the problem inadvertantly by unifying SL in the first place and then by giving them democracy with its invarible ingrediant, ‘rule of majority’. If the Sinhlese Buddhists were able to understand the tamil fears of being ruled by the Sinhlese Buddhist majority we would have been able to avoid the ‘Ealam Wars’. I blame the British for not granting regional rule for the Tamils when they left the country.

    When the British came here there were two kingdoms, Maritime provinces and ‘Kanda Udarata’. In fact, there were five different kingdoms, Kotte, Raigama, Sitawaka, Kandaudrata, and Jaffna, in early 16th centuray. These finve were reduced to two by the Portuguese and Dutch.

    Yes, exactly that was my point. The Catholics fled to Kandyan kindgom rather than being converted to Dutch relgion. Why did they do that if they did not like their relgion? If they had been converted forcefully they would have gone back to their original relgion or get the relgion of their new masters.

    It was in Mahavansa that Devanampiyathissa sent his royal regalia to Dharmasoka for his consecration. Why did he do that if he was not a vassal?

    • Nuwan

      PitastharaPuthraya:

      You say that you blame the British for not granting federalism to the Tamils–however, isn’t also true that the Tamils didn’t want devolution until the Sinhalese-only act was passed? In fact, the only group that even wanted devolution/federalism prior to the British leaving was the Kandyans, if I’m not mistaken.

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Gamarala:

        This is exemplified by Wijayapala with his apparent failure to comprehend why anyone would convert to “irrational” Christianity from the “rational” Buddhism, other than through coercion or bribery

        My view has been that during the period of British colonial rule, religious concerns took a backseat to economic development. I would say that this is the general human tendency, regardless of the particular historical circumstance – if people have an opportunity to improve their socio-economic status, they will put aside all other concerns and do so. Free market capitalism, unlike any other economic system, offers this opportunity. On the other hand, as people’s wealth increases, so too does their awareness of ideas and places which are not tied to the direct environment . So from this angle, it is inevitable that some Lankans who became prosperous during the British period would have converted to Christianity, with little to no coercion. We can see a similar, but somewhat opposite trend in the West: as the living standard increased, the trend was more and more towards a secular society. Still today in Europe, religion, for all practical purposes, is “dead” in Western Europe, but it is thriving in the less economically well-to-do Eastern Europe. At the end of the day, religion is just an idea. The greater the % of educated persons in a society, the greater will be the % of those who deviate from acceptance of said idea (because there are more ideas to choose from). Let’s face the truth: the vast majority of Lankans were not educated when the colonials came; as their wealth and standard of living increased, they became exposed to newer and more ideas, including new religions. It is silly to think that SL would have remained an insular Buddhist nation of caste, class, and plantations forever. If the British had not brought their Western ideas, the ideas would have come down through contact with India. In other words, more than bringing religion, what the colonials brought are new ideas, specifically Western ideas, most of which have nothing to do with religion, but a lot to do with capitalism. So rather than debate the merits of Buddhism vs. Christianity, it would be more instructive to compare Buddhism to capitalism, because this is where the real conflict (or what is perceived to be a conflict) lies.

      • Nithyananthan

        Mr. Nuwan, Greetings to you!

        You have not mistaken. Your sincere conviction is correct. You have tried to straighten the ongoing diligent tendency in distorting the post colonial history that inducts and spreads an unreal insipid psychosis by misleading wrong interpretations and assumptions. It craftily displays your keenness and ability, in right context, to intellectually conduct chronological follow-up and itemize those events that had transpired during the last 60 years of political history of Lanka; and thus culminated in current horrid still sordid state of affairs. Thanks, Nithy!

      • Nuwan

        Nithy:

        I hope your not being sarcastic(it is hard to tell via internet sometimes). Anyways, yes, both sides have a tendency to really skew history, particularly the post-colonial part. If I hear that it was the purely the evil Sinhalese who disenfranchised the Indian Tamils or Tamils from Tamil Nadu want to invade Sri Lanka one more time, I will die. Can’t we just look at the facts?

      • wijayapala

        If the British had not brought their Western ideas, the ideas would have come down through contact with India.

        And if the British had properly taught Nihal Perera’s ancestors how to write, the above mush possibly could have been divided into legible paragraphs.

        So rather than debate the merits of Buddhism vs. Christianity,

        Excellent shift in the topic, given how badly the Buddhism vs. Christianity debate went for Nihal! 😉

        Perhaps if Nihal read more and theorised less, he would know that the Europeans did not invent capitalism.

      • Nithyananthan

        It is neither sarcastic nor wrong to say ‘It’s good’ when something is really ‘Good”.
        Never be hesitant to register your appreciation / praise when & where it deserves.

        Mr. Nuwan!

        I am not at all sarcastic about your observation the way you have established and made it known. I believe, in Good Faith, the Goodness and usefulness of it is opportune, at a time like now in our long history of civilization which we both always brag about – even senselessly most of the time. It’s the inviting conspicuousness of the fact that it’s delivered by a Sinhalese brethren, in particular, which prompted me to log my appreciation. My comments to the subject / topic are selective and the words are always measured and carefully chosen – in order to prevent / avoid trespassing and roaming around in unrelated topics thus engaging into volleys of tit for tat unpleasant exchanges. It’s my honest appreciation – as to how I feel and mean about it. Keep up the Goodness in everything. Thanks, Nithy!

    • wijayapala

      PP

      You wanted to show that England and Scotland have their official religions and threfore, they do not have religious freedom.

      Wrong, I wanted YOU to show how Article 9 prevents non-Buddhists from practicing their religions, and you failed to deliver.

      The accepted ideology of schools I attended was that Buddhism is the only true relegion.

      Then we attended different schools. I am sorry that your school failed to educate you properly, as your writing demonstrates.

      When I said that the Buddhists has failed to take the Buddha’s message to tamil community I was talking about the present.

      Yes, and as I clearly indicated the xenophobia of contemporary Buddhists traces back to the persecution and discrimination they faced during the colonial era, a point that Nihal Perera could never successfully squirm around.

      I blame the British for not granting regional rule for the Tamils when they left the country.

      What makes you think there would not have been a war if regional autonomy had been given? Do you really think the Sinhalese would have accepted such a system imposed on them without their consent???

      When the British came here there were two kingdoms, Maritime provinces and ‘Kanda Udarata’.

      Wrong, “maritime provinces” was not a kingdom.

      The Catholics fled to Kandyan kindgom rather than being converted to Dutch relgion. Why did they do that if they did not like their relgion?

      They fled to Kandy precisely because they knew the Buddhists were a tolerant lot, unlike their bigoted Protestant brethren. I hope Nihal doesn’t get spastic after reading this.

      It was in Mahavansa that Devanampiyathissa sent his royal regalia to Dharmasoka for his consecration. Why did he do that if he was not a vassal?

      Because vassals by their very definition pay tribute to their overlords, and the chronicles do not say that Asoka kept this regalia for himself!

  • Gamarala

    Dear PitastharaPuthraya

    You said: “What I wanted to emphasize is that Buddhists are no different to others although we used to boast that Buddhism is the most rational of all the relegions”

    Granting Buddhism a “more rational” label offers solace to the adherent – a sense of superiority even. But in the final analysis, religions are religions because they – by definition – have no rational foundation. This is understood by many, hence the vain attempts by some Buddhists to re-brand Buddhism as a “philosophy”. However, this endeavour is even more of an exercise in self-deception, for many of these same Buddhists do not bother to separate facts from faith, continuing to accept wholesale, that which cannot be demonstrated to be fact – eg. karma or rebirth, astral planes and what not. Therefore, there is a failure on their part, to understand that one indemonstrable faith, is as good as any other.

    This is exemplified by Wijayapala with his apparent failure to comprehend why anyone would convert to “irrational” Christianity from the “rational” Buddhism, other than through coercion or bribery – as evidenced by his repeated claim that Nihal Perera’s ancestors converted to Christianity for a “few beads” (and a pat on the back?). The aggressively proselytizing Christianity wins over the meek and mild (and rational) Buddhism – clearly a situation that infuriates the fanatical Buddhist!

    Hence, the so-called protestant Buddhism – an unholy union between relentless indoctrination inspired by Christianity and a fanatical belief in the “rationality” of Buddhism – with an existential crisis just to round things off.

    I don’t see any rationality in such a situation at all.

    • yapa

      Dear Gamarala;

      “Granting Buddhism a “more rational” label offers solace to the adherent – a sense of superiority even. But in the final analysis, religions are religions because they – by definition – have no rational foundation.”

      I think above is a conclusion arrived at within the domain of average human understanding. The universe is not made for the purpose of understanding of humans. Humans are just another component of the universe, and I think you would understand components are not supposed to understand the totality in general.

      Human understanding is based on five sensual sensitivity and the capacity of the mind to analyze the sensual data, that is rationality. Other than just “faith/belief”, rationality is the only tool “endowed” to humans for the purpose of “understanding the universe”. However, many other species of animals are some times endowed with better tools than “rationality” to understand the universe. For example migratory birds fly from north pole to south and go back to their starting point at the end of the winter. To plan such a journey, human mind needs to use a lot of very subtle level of rationality such as Mathematics, Physics etc., really no single Mathematician or a Physicist plan such a journey single handed. You need very modern equipment such as GPS developed through such subtle subjects developed through improved rationality. So, as a migratory bird does not know Mathematics or Physics, and it grasps subtle results humans can only obtained through such improved rationality, it shows that some animals possess some alternative (and easy)methods to grasp the universe or parts of it. This again implies that there are areas in the universe that are not easily graspable by the humans or “methods endowed for the purpose for humans”. In other words just as we accept that a dog or a cat is not “created” to understand the universe, as humans we also have to humbly accept that human too are not “created” to understand the universe as well. Just as we accept the capacities endowed to to other animals are meant for their survival, why do we hesitate to accept that our endowment for understanding is limited to our survival and nothing more? No rabbit can understand everything understands by a fox, a fox cannot understand all what a tiger understand. What is the big reason to believe humans can understand everything. So, what is the big reason to believe, everything could be assessed and evaluated through “Rationality” and to reject every other thing doesn’t come under that yardstick?

      Buddhism never claimed it is totally rational. It has some rational part and some part that does not come under the purview of rationality. Is this a reason for humiliation and a sufficient condition to declare that “But in the final analysis, religions are religions because they – by definition – have no rational foundation.”? I don’t think so.

      Modern Science, especially Quantum Physics is not based on rationality. The phenomena in the “Quantum World” cannot be explained through rationality or understood by rationality or just raw human mind. For an average mind Quantum Physics is weird. So do you say addition of Quantum Physics to Science made it weak? No, it made Science stronger. The era that more rationality means more truth era has gone. That is the era of “the world of the worm of the bitter guard”. It thinks bitter guard is the tastiest, what it has tasted is the tastiest. However, we knot that it is not so, but most of us don’t know that “Rationality” is not the tastiest.

      Please do not arrive at big conclusions such as “religions are religions”, on the basis of the assessments based on rationality. Religions are not wholly Rational. Rational parts you can compare and come to conclusions like, that part of that religion is better than this religion, this part is not so good in that religion and so on and so forth, there is no good reason to say all religions are religions and grossly humiliate them putting in the same basket. There are grave differences in religions, and there are some areas in religions that does not come under the purview of raw human capacities. I think we must be humble before we state general statements on things. Generalization is a mighty task!

      Thanks!

    • wijayapala

      Dear Gamarala

      This is exemplified by Wijayapala with his apparent failure to comprehend why anyone would convert to “irrational” Christianity from the “rational” Buddhism, other than through coercion or bribery

      You are incorrect to believe that I consider Buddhism to be a philosophy. If you had ever followed earlier threads here on Buddhism, you would have observed that I have consistently termed Buddhism as a religion that involves faith.

      It is a historical fact that Christianity spread throughout the world primarily through coercion and/or bribery, quite unlike Buddhism. There may have been exceptions, but I am talking about the norm. How else would you explain why artistic depictions of the Buddha conform to the particular races that adopted his teachings, but all depictions of Jesus portray him as a European? If you would like to dispute this, by all means proceed.

      • Gamarala

        Dear Wijayapala,

        I do not dispute that Christianity has resorted to coercion and bribery, but that coercion and bribery alone are are not sufficient for an individual to internalize a belief. Pretending to believe something and actually believing something are different. Christians today are Christians because they internalized their beliefs at some point or the other.

        The second point is that Buddhists in Sri Lanka have learnt only too well from Christianity, emulating most of what made Christianity a successful religion. As such, it too exists by exploiting ignorance, promoting tribalism, indoctrinating children, politicization and/or whatever other method necessary to ensure its survival. The corollary is that maintaining a retrogressive culture is advantageous to its, or for that matter, any religion’s, survival, which is why third world countries and bad economic conditions are prime breeding grounds for them.

      • yapa

        Dear Gamarala;

        1.What do you mean by “internalize”? Is it anything other than “brain wash”?

        2. In what perspective do you say Christianity is a successful religion? In terms of degree of truth it carry, compared to other religions like Buddhism? Or in terms of numbers it believe? Or just tell us your criterion of its success.

        “Success” is an another ambiguous word like “development”, “proactive” many misuse. Such words are frequently used by many in arguments to confuse and manipulate the others to gain advantages. They create “illusions” in arguments with or without knowledge to turn discussion in confusion. These are obstacles and pitfalls in arriving at truthful conclusions in discussions. Many create messiness,disorderliness and confusion in arguments to arrive at desired conclusions.Dear Gamarala, you think you are not one among them?

        Clarity and precision in arguments is a must, if anybody wants true conclusions from their arguments.

        Thanks!

      • wijayapala

        The second point is that Buddhists in Sri Lanka have learnt only too well from Christianity,

        The problem with this half-baked theory is that Buddhism had survived for centuries before Christianity, and all this promoting tribalism, politicisation blah blah blah found in Buddhism today is merely a symptom of Christianity’s negative impact on Sri Lanka, and not necessary for Buddhism to survive today.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Wijayapala and Yapa,

    I also think that no religon is rational. In essence, there is no much difference between Christianity (or any theistic relgion) and Buddhism. Both depend on the ability of certain individual to see/communicate with the Ultimate. The rest is expected to follow them with faith. In other words there is no fundamental difference between ‘Nirvana’ and ‘God’. Therefore, it is a waste of time arguing which is more rational or scientific than the other.

    However, I want to make a point on Yapa’s argument. It has not been proved that any human being has or had any extra ability to comprehend the universe other than the five senses. Therefore, I do not accept the fact that some people were/are able to comprehend something the others can not. Quantum physics or any scientific theory for that matter is different from relgious pronouncement that either the ‘God’ or ‘Nirvana’ is the ultimate realtiy. Siceintfic theories are there for others to prove or refute or improve. No body would say either the Einstein’s theory of realtivity or Quantum physics is the ultimate realtiy. No scientist would say that he says so because he arrived at the conclusion by some ‘extra-sensory means’.

    Wijayapala,

    When you say that Christianity spread through bribary and coercion wheras Buddhism spread through peaceful means you are trying to take the issue of religious converstion out of the context.

    Like Buddhists the early Christians spread their faith by purly peaceful means. In contrast to the early Christian missionaries Buddhists always had the blessings of the kings. If it were not for Emperor Dharmasoka, there would not have been a Buddhist Sri Lanka. Whereas the early Christians e.g. St. Paul, spread the word of Jesus through out Middle and Near-East as well in Rome without the support of any King or Emperor. For the crime of preaching the Gospel Paul and Simon Peter were executed in Rome. Until the Emperor Constantine had converted to Christianity in 313 A.D the Christians did not have any state support.

    The early Buddhist never had to suffer the fate of early Christians. Buddhism has never been an underground movement like the Christianity had been. They never faced the kind of persecution faced by early Christians in the hand of Romans. One would argue that the Buddhists had always managed to get the support of the Kings first and then convert his subjects through some kind of state sponsored program. Which one is better, conversion because your king has also converted or conversion inspite of being killed as a result of conversion.

    It is true that Catholic Missionaries came with Portuguese after 1505. However, how much of the traditional thinking that all the conversions to Catholicism were forceful and bribed, as Wijayapala claimed, is true. When people of Mannar were converted to Catholcism by a catholc priest under the insturtions of Fracis Xavier Jaffna king, Sankili massacred hundreds of them. What does it mean?

    Probably the inhabitants of coastal areas of SL were not Buddhists or Sinhalese for that matter when Portuguese came. Even if they were Buddhists, they were not Buddhists in the sense we understand Buddhists to be today.

    Were the any whole sale massacres of Buddhists just because they did not convert to Catholicism? Were the Buddhists prevented from worshiping their religion? Has the Buddhist escaped en masse to ‘Kanda Udarata’ for fear of being converted? As far as I know there is no evidence to suggest the so-called buddhists in early 16th century opposed so-called forceful conversion. The portuguese destroyed many buddhists places of worship such as Kelaniya, Devinuwara, Saman Devale etc but, I suspect, they were partly plundering for treasures, not for the religous hatred alone.

    • yapa

      “The early Buddhist never had to suffer the fate of early Christians. Buddhism has never been an underground movement like the Christianity had been. They never faced the kind of persecution faced by early Christians in the hand of Romans. One would argue that the Buddhists had always managed to get the support of the Kings first and then convert his subjects through some kind of state sponsored program. Which one is better, conversion because your king has also converted or conversion inspite of being killed as a result of conversion.”

      That is not the strength behind Buddhism. It is the quality of the religion, the incomparable Philosophy of Buddhism.

      Otherwise why Christianity is declining in its original place in the west and Buddhism is fast popularizing there?

      All religions are same, is just a mythical belief. None can substantiate it though many aspire for it.

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        You need to put lot of effort to sell low quality goods. Even with such continuous effort in the long run the you cannot stop declining the sales. That is what happened and happening to Christianity in the west. But good goods are sold without much effort. That is what is happening today in the west, especially with the modern thinking spreading with the new ideas of the modern Science. The ideas of Buddhism are being reiterated with the development of Epistemology. At the same time religions with God and his creations are becoming obsolete.

        What success is there in Christianity? It is fast becoming a religion of “Red Data Book”.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Sorry, above post is addressed to Gamarala.

        Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      You wrote “I also think that no religon is rational. In essence, there is no much difference between Christianity (or any theistic relgion) and Buddhism.”

      Man created a complex Car and without Man the car would not exist.
      God created a very complex man and without God man would not exist
      The infinitely complex God needed no Creator, why?
      Then why should man, who is infinitely simpler than God need a creator?
      That is a question which a theistic religion cannot answer and is the basic difference between a Theistic religion and Buddhism.

      Buddhism does not rely on any communion with the “ultimate” as you erroneously state because Buddhism does not have an “ultimate” to commune with.

      The only thing that a Buddhist is required to commune with, is self, as no one, other than oneself, can eliminate the causes that gives rise to an effect.

      As Yapa pointed out, this is a subject that was discussed at length here on GV.

      You wrote “Were the Buddhists prevented from worshiping their religion?”

      The practice of Buddhism does not depend on external manifestations such as going to a Temple or offering flowers or prayers or burning incense or lighting lamps or candles etc. It is mind centric and hence cannot be prevented by any means.

    • wijayapala

      PP

      One would argue that the Buddhists had always managed to get the support of the Kings first and then convert his subjects through some kind of state sponsored program.

      Kindly supply evidence that any Buddhist king forced his subjects to convert, the way that the Christians did.

      Probably the inhabitants of coastal areas of SL were not Buddhists or Sinhalese for that matter when Portuguese came.

      Then what were they?

      Were the any whole sale massacres of Buddhists just because they did not convert to Catholicism?
      The portuguese destroyed many buddhists places of worship such as Kelaniya, Devinuwara, Saman Devale etc

      Your second sentence answered your first.

      As far as I know there is no evidence to suggest the so-called buddhists in early 16th century opposed so-called forceful conversion.

      That is because the distance of your knowledge let alone common sense is not very far. If the Portuguese or anyone else tried this today they would get bullets in their heads, because the Buddhists of today have a far more militant mindset than their ancestors 400 years ago. And as I successfully proved to Nihal Perera, it was the misdeeds of those Christians back then that had paved the way for this modern mindset.

  • yapa

    Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

    We have compared and discussed a lot of religions in the past, in this blog and number of posts ran over 1000 in some of the discussions. If you are interested you can go through them, we cannot re-start the topic from the beginning. I think your response belongs to somewhere of the beginning of those discussions. Anyway I would like to give you some short responses to your opinions.

    You say(A): I also think that no religon is rational.

    Answer(B): I think every religion has a rational component. However, all the mundane doctrines in Buddhism are Rational. I think you must have heard of Paticca Samuppada(Dependent Origination). It is nothing but “Cause and Effect” which is the base of Classical Science. I think more than 75% of Buddhism is rational. It is not different in Science as well. The Modern Science component of Science is not rational.

    As I have mentioned earlier, non rationality did not make Modern Science invalidate, as had been believed earlier. That was a thinking of the people of the west before 19th century. Modern Science changed that mentality of the western thinking and today it believes that there are many non rational realities in the universe. Buddhism knew this over 2500 years ago and it never claimed that reality is totally rational.

    Can you show me any knowledge system that claims it can grasp the reality with rationality alone? No it is not a problem of Buddhism or any other knowledge system, it is the problem of the people like you who think everything can be grasped through rationality and rationality is supreme to other knowledge gaining systems. Really modern Scientists think, reality is more close to non rationality than rationality. Thinking believing on rationality as a merit is a thinking belong to bygone era. That deterministic thinking era has ended after 19th century, for the knowledgeable people of the world.

    (A):In essence, there is no much difference between Christianity (or any theistic relgion) and Buddhism. Both depend on the ability of certain individual to see/communicate with the Ultimate.

    (B): Totally different and poles apart. Buddhism never claimed on the ability of an individual to to see/communicate with the Ultimate. I think you are writing with no understanding or misunderstanding of Buddhism. There is no God for Buddhism, to whom people can appeal for favours, as in the case of Christianity or any other religion. Buddhists have to rise up by themselves with their own commitment. Nothing in Buddhism has been disproved by rationality/science. However, any religion believed to have come from the mouth of the Omnipotent/omniscient God or his agent becomes totally invalid and incorrect when the existence of such a god is disproved. Epicurus and Muslim philosopher Averroes disproved the existence of such a god. (You can Google and See how)

    Do you still think “there is no much difference between Christianity (or any theistic relgion) and Buddhism”?

    A: Quantum physics or any scientific theory for that matter is different from relgious pronouncement that either the ‘God’ or ‘Nirvana’ is the ultimate realtiy. Siceintfic theories are there for others to prove or refute or improve. No body would say either the Einstein’s theory of realtivity or Quantum physics is the ultimate realtiy. No scientist would say that he says so because he arrived at the conclusion by some ‘extra-sensory means’.

    A: First I think we have to understand what is meant by extra sensory. Things that are perceived by the use of five senses can be called known through sensory means and if there is anything else perceived other than by the above method should call as known through some extra sensory means, I thing you agree to this.Now you say, “No scientist would say that he says so because he arrived at the conclusion by some ‘extra-sensory means’.”

    What do you think scientists would say about the followings and how would the scientists call them? Conclusions arrived by sensory means?

    1. Conclusions about “electrons, protons and neutrons”?
    2. Conclusions about “gravity”
    3. Conclusions about “magnetism”
    4. Conclusions about “time”

    Can anybody including scientists sense them?

    Further, can anybody sense that

    5. Can anybody sense potential energy?
    6. Can anybody sense kinetic energy?
    7. Has anybody ever seen a straight line?
    8. Has anybody ever seen a circle?
    9. Has anybody ever sensed phenomena described in Einstein’s Relativity?
    10. Has anybody sensed anything in Quantum Physics and can anybody explain any of the phenomena with rationality?

    What would a scientist say about the above mentioned fundamental things they speak in science? Would any scientist say them as conclusions arrived by sensory means? Please show me a single scientist to claim so.

    So what is the difference of knowledge in Science? Ability to refute or disprove? You think it is a good quality in knowledge? Why don’t you think inability to disprove as a better quality in knowledge? What is wrong with us? We are believing what were taught to us blindly, without critically analyzing them? Don’t you think we have become victims/slaves of others’ thinking?

    We have lost our free thinking. We have become slaves of our views, ditties. In Buddhism it is called “Drustigathaweema”. When you become a slave of your view you don’t see anything outside of it. Liberating your thinking from this drustigathaweema is the key to see the truth, though it is a difficult task. I don’t know an English word for this but I think we will have to invent one, “Dittizisation” might fit.

    Thanks!

    • Nihal Perera

      @ Yapa,

      The Modern Science component of Science is not rational.

      Where did you get that idea? Modern science is far more rational than any religion. That is because modern science finds its justification in mathematics, which is the highest level of rationality the human mind can aspire to. I saw your earlier remarks regarding Quantum Mechanics; clearly, you are not familiar with the basic rules of probability. Probability is the rational approach to dealing with “chance.” The probabilistic universe is the alternative to Newton’s mechanical universe; taken in conjunction, these two are capable of explaining the behavior of ALL objects in the universe. The fact that QM works can be seen in the all the technologies it has been used to create: GPS, semiconductors, lasers/fiber optics, etc.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “I saw your earlier remarks regarding Quantum Mechanics; clearly, you are not familiar with the basic rules of probability.”

        Entirely wrong wild guess, my first degree is from the Mathematics stream.

        “Where did you get that idea? Modern science is far more rational than any religion. That is because modern science finds its justification in mathematics, which is the highest level of rationality the human mind can aspire to.”

        Pooh!, Where did you get that idea?

        “Probability is the rational approach to dealing with “chance.”

        Is chance rational?, May be you can explain it for our knowledge.

        “The probabilistic universe is the alternative to Newton’s mechanical universe; taken in conjunction, these two are capable of explaining the behavior of ALL objects in the universe.”

        Are you sure about your assertive pronouncement again? You mean to say ALL objects in the universe? Have you ever heard of Godel’s theorem?

        “The fact that QM works can be seen in the all the technologies it has been used to create: GPS, semiconductors, lasers/fiber optics, etc.”

        As an information disseminater it seems you have a good future, to copy from a source and to preach others.

        However, Nihal it is glad that you got a thought to answer post of mine. I should remind you that there are a few more questions long awaiting your justice, please kindly answer them as well.

        Thanks, Nihal for the kind response.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        ““The probabilistic universe is the alternative to Newton’s mechanical universe; taken in conjunction, these two are capable of explaining the behavior of ALL objects in the universe.””

        That means, Science becomes omniscient!

        Then there is nothing for you all to learn from your omniscient God? He can be replaced by science? Will your God then become an invalid entity?

        See Nihal, your whole leg is in your mouth.

        Thanks!

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Dear Yapa,

    Thank you very much for restarting discussion on religion for my sake.

    Classical science as I understood is both rational and empirical. As you said when it comes to modern scietific theory it can be described as irrational but still empirical. Whatevr happens with the theory, the basic scientific method has not changed. The observation, measurment, hypothesis, testing, reproducing etc are still the basis of the scientific method. However much the ‘modern quantum mechanics’ is ‘irraional’ it should comply with the scietific method. Otherwise it would become another branch of ‘black magic’.

    What is rational about Buddhism? The basis of Buddhism is ‘rebirth’ and ‘Karma’. Patticca Samuppadaya or dependent origination is not rational but logical way of how the unceasing human existance travels from birth to birth occur. A normal human being will never be able to experience the truth of ‘rebirth’ and ‘Karma’ unless he/she acheives the ability of ‘extra-sensory perception’. Since the Buddha claimed that he acheived this extra-sensory ability and hence he knew the truth of Rebirth and Karma one has to beleive it and follow him. Can any body acheive this by reasoning or experiment? No. But in the case of any scientific theory, a normal human being like you and me without claiming to process some extraordinary mental capacity can see the truth of what some sicientist say using scientific methods and relevant instrument.

    In theistic religions, a human being always claimed that he had a special ability to communicate with the God, e.g. Mosses, Jesus, Muhammad. If you accept his claim then you can beleive in God and follow him. Likewise in Buddhism, the Buddha claimed that he found the truth of human suffering using his extra-sensory ability. If you beleive him you can follow his relgion. What is the difference? The Buddhism may be more logical than the other. But isn’t it not logical to believe that God created the universe in the same way that one beleives people are reborn according to their ‘Karma’ (I know that there are many other factors affecting human suffering.)

    Scientists have proved the presence of proton, electron, gravity, magnatism etc not by any exra-sensory means. They have used instruments, which have extended the power of their 5 senses. Rutherford put forward the model of atom after bombarding a gold foil with alpha paritcles. Then he noticed that some of the alpha particles deviated sharply. He thought this was due to the central nucleus. After Rutherford the model has changed much but not body claimed that they have used any extra-sensory powers. As you know scientitsts are working hard to find the very basic of subatomic particles in the name of Higgs Boson using large Hadron Collider. No body their claim that they have extra-sensory powers.

    Einstien’s theory was proven correct by explaining the Mecury’s orbit, which was unable to be explained using Newtonian mechanics. That was how the scientific theories are proven. There is nothing esoteric or mystic about that. Any body with average intelligence can understand that.

    When we studied botany and zoology we also extended our senses using scientfic instruments. The opticla microscope is such an instrument. When we saw the cells with their nuclei through the microscope we never claimed that we had extra-senosory powers.

    After all what is so unique about Buddhism? The Buddha had only improved the existing doctrines to suit his way of thinking. Rebirth and Karma were already existing doctrines both in Jainism and Hinduism. What he did was to claim a middle ground on the status of soul (Athma). He did not say whether it is present or not. He was so intelligent that he circumvented the dillemma of either supporting the ‘Carvaks’ by saying there is no soul or supporting Hindus by claiming there is soul by claiming ‘Anathma’. According to him there is something which transmigrates from birth to birth. But no body can explain it or experiance it unless they have this all elusive extra-sensory power.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      I think you would have my questions directly one by one, rather than trying to answer them as a whole. However, please turn back and see whether you were able to prove that the concepts in Science mentioned by me are perceived or understood with the aid of five senses?

      Have anybody seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched a single one out of 1 to 10, I mentioned in my last post?

      You say “No body their claim that they have extra-sensory powers.” But do you mean to say they can claim the opposite of this as well, that is though it is true that they do not have sensory powers, can they claim that every knowledge they gained was gained though sensory perception? That was really the question, not the opposite of it for which you gave answers.

      It is evident and an accepted fact that even science contains the knowledge did not gain through sensory perception. Scientists may not like to claim them to say they are gained through extrasensory means, and may call it by another name, and Buddhists may like to call some of their components in Buddhism as extra-sensory perception, this does not make any difference to conclude that both Science and Buddhism have knowledge components not gained through sensory means.

      You can call a rose by another name, but still the object is same, none can say it is not a flower. Will you call it is a flower only when you call it your preferred name but not when it is called by the popular name rose? What is the difference when Buddhists call something extra sensory perception and scientists call it by another name? Does it make the thing different?

      Again, You have cited karma and rebirth to prove that Buddhism is not rational. In Buddhism karma, rebirth and Nirvana belong to non mundane or transcendental component of Buddhism. By proving them as not rational you prove nothing against Buddhism. I think all the other doctrines except these are mundane and rational. What you should try to do is to disprove something claimed by Buddhism as rational if you want to prove that Buddhism is not rational.

      Again, you have mis-understood the Doctrine of Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Origination). You have taken its practical application to Sansara, not the abstract theory. The theory says, “Multiple causes and conditions give rise to effects”, not the application you have taken as the original. This theory is rational(I think nothing is more rational).

      Again, you say karma was in Hinduism and Jainism, Dear these are three different flowers in a single name. Name is only same, flowers are different. Karma doctrine in Buddhism is entirely different from the concepts in the Hinduisms and Jainism by the same name.

      We have discussed these in details in the past, I think the people touching the surface and trying to describe and explained these only can do so only as the blind man described the elephant.

      I think rather than differentiating knowledge systems as Science, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism etc. and trying to evaluate them using different yardsticks, you can evaluate all the knowledge system with a single yardstick under the subject called Epistemology. It is the subject that deals with knowledge. There you can compare all systems without any prejudices towards any knowledge system. Very common prejudice among the people about knowledge systems is that “Scientific knowledge system is Supreme”. Only a very few people are there free of this popular bias. Pre-conceived ideas we inherit prevent us from seeing things as it is. Science bias is very strong bias, almost all the people are suffering from, today.

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        You have also said rebirth was already existing in Hinduism and Jainism, but it is again an entirely incorrect notion. “Rebirth” was not there in those religions, it was “reincarnation” in those religions. Want to know the difference? Give me a ring.

        Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      You wrote “Since the Buddha claimed that he acheived this extra-sensory ability and hence he knew the truth of Rebirth and Karma …… “

      Agree with you.

      You wrote “…..one has to beleive it and follow him.”

      Nope, you don’t have to believe him ….. but to know what He knew you would have to acquire the extra sensory ability that the Buddha acquired. It was not God given but achieved through developing the mind. How He did it is no secret, as he described it in detail to all.

      You wrote “Can any body acheive this by reasoning or experiment? No.”

      You should now rethink the answer that you gave to your own question.

      Can a child attending Pre School understand Calculus?

      You are that child, if you have not trod the path that the Buddha trod.

  • Nihal Perera

    Dear Gamarala,

    Why would someone subscribe to religion X if they weren’t indoctrinated to believe its truth?

    One need not be indoctrinated to believe the truths put forth by a religion. In philosophy, the truth is not absolute. As Einstein said,

    “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”

    Also, the fact that the truth is relative, does not necessarily make such an endeavor irrational. As I said earlier, religion is just an idea. It is a very old idea, but it’s aesthetic value has not diminished over time.

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal:

      “Also, the fact that the truth is relative, does not necessarily make such an endeavor irrational. As I said earlier, religion is just an idea. It is a very old idea, but it’s aesthetic value has not diminished over time.”

      What are you talking in high tone, i do not understand. aesthetic value Of religions???? May be the spiritual and rational value of Christianity have already diminished to talk about some thing irrelevant to replace them?

      When I read you post it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland.

      “`Well!’ thought Alice to herself, `after such a fall as this, I shall think nothing of tumbling down stairs! How brave they’ll all think me at home! Why, I wouldn’t say anything about it, even if I fell off the top of the house!’ (Which was very likely true.)

      Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end! `I wonder how many miles I’ve fallen by this time?’ she said aloud. `I must be getting somewhere near the centre of the earth. Let me see: that would be four thousand miles down , I think–‘ (for, you see, Alice had learnt several things of this sort in her lessons in the schoolroom, and though this was not a very good opportunity for showing off her knowledge, as there was no one to listen to her, still it was good practice to say it over) `–yes, that’s about the right distance–but then I wonder what Latitude or Longitude I’ve got to?’ (Alice had no idea what Latitude was, or Longitude either, but thought they were nice grand words to say .)

      Presently she began again. `I wonder if I shall fall right through the earth! How funny it’ll seem to come out among the people that walk with their heads downward! The Antipathies, I think–‘ (she was rather glad there was no one listening, this time, as it didn’t sound at all the right word) `–but I shall have to ask them what the name of the country is, you know. Please, Ma’ am, is this New Zealand or Australia?’ (and she tried to curtsey as she spoke– fancy curtseying as you’re falling through the air! Do you think you could manage it?) `And what an ignorant little girl she’ll think me for asking! No, it’ll never do to ask: perhaps I shall see it written up somewhere.’

      Down, down, down. There was nothing else to do, so Alice soon began talking again. `Dinah’ll miss me very much to-night, I should think!’ (Dinah was the cat .) `I hope they’ll remember her saucer of milk at tea-time. Dinah my dear! I wish you were down here with me! There are no mice in the air, I’m afraid, but you might catch a bat, and that’s very like a mouse, you know. But do cats eat bats, I wonder?’ And here Alice began to get rather sleepy, and went on saying to herself, in a dreamy sort of way, `Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?’ and sometimes, `Do bats eat cats?’ for, you see, as she couldn’t answer either question, it didn’t much matter which way she put it. She felt that she was dozing off, and had just begun to dream that she was walking hand in hand with Dinah, and saying to her very earnestly, `Now, Dinah, tell me the truth: did you ever eat a bat?’ when suddenly, thump! thump! down she came upon a heap of sticks and dry leaves, and the fall was over.”

      ____ Alice in Wonderland

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Correction….

        “When I read you post it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland.”

        In here it should read as “posts” not as “post”.

        Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal

    There’s nothing that I disagree with you in your last post to me except for the fact that I am well aware of the atrocities committed by the Spinish is South America. This shows a dramatic “softenning” of your stand and I am quite happy about it! I have already told you that without the British interference we too could have evolved from a feudel to a capitalist society. There are apparent “gains” of colonialism(especially the British period) but none of these could offset the pathetic “slave mind-set” that some of us are still suffering from. This looks like a common ailment in the ex-colonies!

    Now you can try to answer the question: What right did they have to rule us?

    And also I said that the Christians suffer from this more than the Buddhists in Sri Lanka due to the obvious association of their religion with the colonial powers. Although some of you were branding this as a “backward quality” of Buddhism, I don’t see how this can be so!

    Buddhism is not “nililistic” at all just because it teaches about a modest life-style and evils of greed nor of its lack of a God. The Buddhists believe in Karma, rebirth, hell and heaven that give a positive motivation to live a pious life(the same way the fear of God deters people from doing bad in other religions) The lack of a communicating God is overcome by the invention of various deities and regional gods by the average Buddhist followers. Therefore I don’t see any nihilistic features in Sri Lankan Buddhism “as it is practised” there!

    • Nihal Perera

      Sabbe Labban:

      There’s nothing that I disagree with you in your last post to me except for the fact that I am well aware of the atrocities committed by the Spinish is South America. This shows a dramatic “softenning” of your stand

      Actually, if you read my earlier posts, you will see there is no “softening.” My argument was always limited to British colonialism in SL, since it is the British who were responsible for most of the development of the island during the colonial period.

      I have already told you that without the British interference we too could have evolved from a feudel to a capitalist society.

      And what proof do you have of that, other than mere speculation? First of all, what is the likelihood that the island would even exist as a single entity, had the British not merged the various kingdoms? The Kandyans were asking for asking for federalism as late as 1929; they had no interest in a “Sinhala-Buddhist” nation. The British did the dirty work of capturing Kandy and upon leaving, handing 100% control of the island to the Southerners. But even before the British, there were several kingdoms, that were captured by the Dutch and Portugese and administered as a single unit. So, what proof do you have that these kingdoms would not exist today, were it not for the Dutch and Portugese? What proof do you have that “Sri Lanka” would not be run by a monarch (king) who owned all the land, and a select group of advisors from the Sangha? What makes you think that “Sri Lanka” would suddenly choose a Western form of government? Even Japan, which was industrialized well before WWII, was administered by an Emperor. The Japanese did not willingly choose the form of government that they have today; it was imposed on them by the Americans after WWII.

      There are apparent “gains” of colonialism(especially the British period) but none of these could offset the pathetic “slave mind-set” that some of us are still suffering from. This looks like a common ailment in the ex-colonies!

      What is this slave mind-set you speak of? Most of the people were peasants before the Europeans came. Before “yes sir”, there was “ow mahatthaya”; Sri Lankans were worshipping monks, worshipping parents, worshipping ancestors, dabbling in horoscopes, and doing the “Bodhi-Puja” for at least 1500 years before the colonials came. That is where this slave mind-set comes from. Sri Lankans did not believe in equality before the colonials came. There was little reason for them to, because economic conditions did not fluctuate much since the primary occupation was subsistence farming. There was no reason to “cooperate” with the other fellow to enhance the greater common good. On the other hand, equality is an important component of capitalism. It (in the form of laws) is what guarantees property rights for example, and it allows people to specialize in what they do best.

      Now you can try to answer the question: What right did they have to rule us?

      From a moral or legal point of view, no right. But that has nothing to do with the contribution they made relative to the development of the island.

      And also I said that the Christians suffer from this more than the Buddhists in Sri Lanka due to the obvious association of their religion with the colonial powers.

      Colonialism ended 63 years ago. So most people who are old enough to remember anything about colonialism are either dead or in their latr 80’s to 90’s. Your point is moot.

      Buddhism is not “nililistic” at all just because it teaches about a modest life-style and evils of greed nor of its lack of a God. The Buddhists believe in Karma, rebirth, hell and heaven that give a positive motivation to live a pious life(the same way the fear of God deters people from doing bad in other religions) The lack of a communicating God is overcome by the invention of various deities and regional gods by the average Buddhist followers. Therefore I don’t see any nihilistic features in Sri Lankan Buddhism “as it is practised” there!

      I doubt that the average Buddhist fears god. To fear god, it is necessary to believe in a soul . The extent to which the average Buddhist in SL believes in the “soul” can be seen in destruction of LTTE cemeteries by the SLA. For you guys, “life” is just a series of reincarnations until eventually you disappear, who knows to where. Now, there is nothing wrong with such a belief (I personally do not believe a religion can be right or wrong, since the belief is relative to the believer); I am just pointing out that at the end of the day, Therevada Buddhism is nihilistic. The “deities” and “regional gods” you mention, aka Kataragama – well, that is nothing compared to a Creator God. Without a Creator God, the system is incomplete. For example, what is the beginning and end of the Universe? Buddha the Hindu refused to answer these questions (?dittapariy?ya Sutta), thereby leaving his future followers full of doubt for all time to come!

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “Without a Creator God, the system is incomplete. For example, what is the beginning and end of the Universe?”

        You mean to say beginning and end of the universe is there because of the Creator God? Can you explain how?

        Further, can you tell me the fate of HIM with one of your previous statements and its logical consequence, I pointed out to you in a post addressed to you. (I don’t think you are purposely avoiding the difficult questions, though you did so several times,despite my repeated humble requests.)

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38585

        Thanks!

    • PitastharaPuthraya

      Dear Sabbe Laban,

      This is my response to yours directed to Nihal.

      I totally agree with Nihal about the ‘slave mind’ you were talking about. If there is any ‘slave mind set’ among the present day Sri Lankans it is with the people who blindly follow their ancestors religion without criticism. To seek the truth you have to break the bonds with past and look at them with unconditional mind. Imagine if you were born as a Christian or Muslim what would you do today? Definitely you would defend your religion with the same vehemence as you defend Buddhism today.

      Look at the people who think Buddhism is the sole truth and Sinhalese is the favoured race, today in Sri Lanka. They are the most backward, bigoted, xenophobic and tribal minded of them all. That is the fate of people who does not have an open mind to appreciate the imporvements the human race have acheived both materially and ideologically in the recent past. They live in a archaic world, which probably had existed centuries ago.

      In essence Buddhism is a ‘nihilistic’ religion. That is my understanding. It starts with the statement ‘life is suffering’ (Dukka). It may be translated to English as ‘unsatisfactoriness’. Whatever the meaning of ‘Dukka’ it says the life is ‘not good’. How many people, you and I know, think that this life is not good? Do you really beleive that you life is suffering? I do not think so. I am happy with my life as all of my relatives and friends. At the same we also understand there are temporary sadness and rapture. But all and all the life is worth living. If I am given a chance to extend my life I would happily do so. If I can be reborn as a human being in my next life I would be happy to do so. What Buddhism does is, it starts with the assumption that the life is ‘dukka’ and tells us about the remedies to avoaid it. It is my beleif that the starting poing of Bddhism is ‘nihilistic’ and therefore, wrong.

      Since it is ‘nihilistic’ the vast majority of Buddhists in Sri Lanka do not take Buddhism seriously. In fact they do not practise or beleive Buddhism. It has been reduced to a mere cultural instrument. Buddhist temple has been downgraded to institutions providing certain services to the public. The Buddhists monks are nothing more than officials who manage these institutions and organize these services.

      These so-called Buddhists engage in non-Buddhist practices and attend other places for their real sprititual needs. They have all sorts of deities in the temples themselves and special places like Katharagamam, Munneshwaram, even Catholic holy places like ‘Kochchikade’ for this purpose. In addition they have all other sorts of ‘wisadry’ , ‘black majic’, ‘kattadiyas’, ‘pena karayas, ‘washi gurukam’, etc. They also engage in practices like Bodhi pooja, ‘astrolgoy’, and many others, which the Buddha had relegated at the begining of Buddhism as ‘mithya dushtrika’.

      If somebody ask me what is the real relgion of Sri Lankan so-called buddhists I would say it is polytheisic religion with many remanants of pre-historic paganistic practices.

      Why so-called buddhists behave in such un-buddhistic way? Becuase it does not give any positive incetive to the average man to look at the life as worth living who comprises the 99% of the Sri Lankan population.

      The Sinhales Buddhists today boast about being Buddhists, very quickly up in arms defending if somebody challeges its doctrines, pride themselves of being the repository of true theravada Buddhism, happy that westerns are increasingly interested in Buddhism etc. But they live a life according to Christian or Westerna Tradition, because it is tradition which has the positive approach to human life. Since the Sri Lankan Buddhists live in this dichotomy they have become the worst kinds of hypocrites. Forced to beleive in certain religios ideology by the tradition and their own conditioned mind but live their lives according to different set of values making everything Sinhalese Buddhists do showing their hypocricy.

      If I am asked to give a name to the Sinhalese Buddhist national character I would have a single word to describe it ‘HYPOCRICY’.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Yapa,

    This is an addendum to my earlier reply to you.

    According to you, scientists should have some ‘extra-sensory ability’ to discover things like gravity, proton, magnetism etc.

    Do you see a difference between the way Prof. Nalin de Silva et. al, came to their conclusion about the presence of arsenic in rice using ability (clairvoyance) of a member of the team to communicate with ‘samyakdushtrika’ deities such as ‘Natha’ and the methods of modern scientists?

    All the modern Scientific discoveries can be reproduced by any body who has the necessary means and knowledge about the subject. It is not a mystery, which can not be explained. Whereas, the knoweldge obtained by clairvoyance, as in the case of Nalin de Silva’s so-called discovery, is unexplainable and mystic. (In fact Nalin de Silva calimed that this particular individual can see arsenic in the liquid!!).

    This the difference between the scientific truth and mysticisms such as Buddhism and other relgions.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      I would like to answer your last post a bit specifically.

      You say(A): According to you, scientists should have some ‘extra-sensory ability’ to discover things like gravity, proton, magnetism etc.

      Answer(B): What a illogical conclusion! I think you make mistakes in handling even the two valued logic, and end up with logical fallacies.

      I will explain,

      I said some of the things in science were not gained though five sensory perception. I gave clear examples and I think you didn’t raise any objection for this fact.Is there any reason to classify everything that are not gained through sensory perception as “extra-sensory”? There could be many categories belong to “non-sensory perception”, one among them with specific features is called “extra-sensory perception”. Others though they are non-sensory perception, if those specific are not available they are not considered as “extra-sensory perception”. If I tell this in glossary terminology, “non-sensory perception” is “an necessary condition” for “extra-sensory perception” but is not a “sufficient condition”. Necessary conditions alone may not sufficient to come to a definite conclusion in a multi-optional situation. For example, migratory bird’s perception to come to south and go back to north pole is a “non-sensory perception” for humans, but no one claims it is “extra-sensory perception”. Does anybody claims the ability of Sniff dogs to detect fire arms hidden in a bag as an extra-sensory ability? I don’t think.Same way, though the scientists have knowledge gained through “non-sensory perception”, it does not mean that scientists have an extra-sensory ability. Really in the case of science, such knowledge is gained though (intelligent) guesses, as assumptions, in Sinhala it is called “anumanaya”. Science has intelligent guesses as knowledge in addition to knowledge gained through sensory perception and rationality. Form of an atom is a intelligent guess, gravity is a guess, time is a guess. Einstein’s whole theory of Relativity came as an intelligent guess. He has never perceived anything in his theories through any of his five senses.

      So, as I have said many times people go astray, due to their inability handle an argument properly and ends up with fallacies. You don’t need to know all these scientific details to understand that your conclusion was wrong. If you had some knowledge to handle an argument properly, you wouldn’t have put your finger on the key board to type the above conclusion. However, Logic is not for everybody.

      (A):Do you see a difference between the way Prof. Nalin de Silva et. al, came to their conclusion about the presence of arsenic in rice using ability (clairvoyance) of a member of the team to communicate with ‘samyakdushtrika’ deities such as ‘Natha’ and the methods of modern scientists?

      (B): I don’t go to issue certificates to their method how they arrived their results, however, Prof. Nalin De Silva et. al were more right than the scientists in the opposition. Registrar of Pesticides had to ban, I think 13 pesticides due to availability of arsenic in them. I personally had a chance to talk with the Registrar of Pesticides, I don’t think he had sufficient arguments against Prof. Nalin De Silva’s arguments. On the other hand He challenge anybody for a debate on his view, why no scientist of the opposition didn’t take up it? However, no one was ever able to prove that there is no anything called clairvoyance. Can you tell it with certainty, with facts and evidence or with a sound argument? Those are just over assertive pronouncements of the “Science Believers”, not of the persons with some knowledge of Science. Science activists and ignorant lovers of science parrot them as slogans thinking that it would do some good to science, but really they do only harm to science, Just like what is done by the monkey who loved the king.

      (A): All the modern Scientific discoveries can be reproduced by any body who has the necessary means and knowledge about the subject.

      (B): It is true for Scientific discoveries, how it is about scientific theories?

      Can you reproduce (at least initiate, as no one has ever done it yet)any device or any arrangement to prove Einsteins theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, for example?

      (A): It is not a mystery, which can not be explained.
      Whereas, the knoweldge obtained by clairvoyance, as in the case of Nalin de Silva’s so-called discovery, is unexplainable and mystic.

      (B): Can you please explain why anything cannot go faster than light? Have you heard of “Twin Paradox” in Relativity? Why it is called a paradox, if it can be explained as you say? Do you name all unexplainable things as mystic?

      (A):(In fact Nalin de Silva calimed that this particular individual can see arsenic in the liquid!!).

      (B): can you prove it is not so? I don’t say it is so, but i don’t think you have sufficient reasons to refuse and humiliate it, as a person who has a respect to Scientific method. No arbitrary statements without proofs/evidence are entertained in science.

      (A):This the difference between the scientific truth and mysticisms such as Buddhism and other relgions.

      (B): I think I have already corrected your incorrect presumptions and incorrect arguments used to arrive at the above wrong conclusion.

      Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      You wrote “All the modern Scientific discoveries can be reproduced by any body who has the necessary means and knowledge about the subject. It is not a mystery, which can not be explained. “

      Your proviso that I have highlighted, applies equally to Buddhism as it is to science.

      If you want to understand Buddhism you have to acquire the knowledge about the subject. How it can be acquired is no mystery either as it has been described in detail by the Buddha.

      Do you have that knowledge?

      That is a question I have asked you in this post
      http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38613

      What Nalin Silva does is irrelevant to a discussion on Buddhism as he is not the Buddha

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Wijayapala,

    Those days it was natural for the loyal subjects of a king to follow him in whatever he did. When this tendency was coupled with incentives such as free meals/lodging/clothing the people, who did not have any alternative, established and organized religion, would have converted to the new religion without any hesitation.

    As you may know the majority of the inhabitants of the costal regions, especially west and south-western, were migrants from the malabar coast of India in 16th century. It was shown that the ancestors of Karava, Durava and Salagama casts, who inhabit those regions today were likely to have been the immigrants from India between 13th and probabily 19th century. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the population, who converted to catholicism in 16th century, was unlikely to be buddhists nor Sinhalese for that matter.

    I said that the Portuguese destroyed the temples and Devales. I did not say that the buddhists were massacred. If the buddhists were forcefully converted there should have been evidence of en masse emigration the more safer areas such as ‘kanda uda rata’ and systematic persecution of buddhists including torture, imprisonments, massacres etc. (During the Dutch period, Catholics emigrated to Kandy to escape protestant persecution.)

    So you accept that the buddhists in 16th centuray were totally different from those who we see today, due to whatever reason. In fact this was what I wanted to emphasize also. Since, the buddhists those days were not ardent or fanatical buddhists like we see today, the Portuguese did not have to use force to convert them to Catholicism. It was a matter of showing them the benefits of conversion both material and spritual.

  • It’s funny to see how yapa and wijeyapala and a few others on groundviews have taken it upon themselves to be the sole defenders of ‘Sinhala Buddhism,’ Sinhala culture and the present despotic regime by branding all things from the West and other countries as bad. Reminds me of one V.Prabahakaran who thought he was the sole representative of the Tamils.

    There is a word for such people. Xenophobes. 😀

    • yapa

      Dear PresiDunce Bean

      “It’s funny to see how yapa and wijeyapala and a few others on groundviews have taken it upon themselves to be the sole defenders of ‘Sinhala Buddhism,’ Sinhala culture and the present despotic regime by branding all things from the West and other countries as bad.”

      This shows your lack of modern knowledge an your blind allegiance to west. Can you show with facts how our endeavours are funny? No one in the present day is ready just to accept pronouncements with popular big words but without evidence as truth. Everything coming from west is always right tradition we challenge with facts and reasons. We don’t accept “Suddha’s are smarter than concept”. Suddhas are belong to bygone era and their followers are also not different. Today we are armed with better tools and Suddhas and their followers and they cannot play their traditional trumpet without interruption or competition as in the past. To day Suddha is not a Superman, he cannot protect you. I feel sorry about your pathetic situation. Ha! Ha!!

      Thanks, PesiDunce Obama!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Presidunce,

      Phobia means fear.

      Where do you see fear in Yapa and Wijayapala and the others who are writing about Buddhism?

      Sole used as an adjective means “Only”, “single”

      You are already referring to a “Plural” did you not notice?

      Oxford Dictionary
      1. only; single
      the sole surviving member of the family
      My sole reason for coming here was to see you.
      This is the sole means of access to the building.

      2. belonging to one person or group; not shared
      She has sole responsibility for the project.
      the sole owner

      No wonder you go off at a tangent so often.

      It appears that you are suffering from some form of phobia in defending your own position here on GV

  • Xenophobia can take two forms.The first is a population group present within a society that is not considered part of that society.Often they are recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries, or became part of this society through conquest and territorial expansion. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, pogroms or in other cases, genocide.

    The second form of xenophobia is primarily cultural, and the objects of the phobia are cultural elements which are considered alien. All cultures are subject to external influences, but cultural xenophobia is often narrowly directed, for instance, at foreign loan words in a national language. It rarely leads to aggression against individual persons, but can result in political campaigns for cultural or linguistic purification. In addition, entire xenophobic societies tend not to be open to interactions from anything “outside” themselves, resulting in isolationism that can further xenophobia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

    • Krish

      Dear Presidence Bean

      Before you label Wijayapala or Yapa Xenophobes, please go thru the trail of this thread. Nihal Perera specifically says in one of his earlier posts and I quote:

      “Sinhalese-Buddhists share 100% responsibility for the war and whatever atrocities ensued.”.

      He could have used words like “Government” or “Army”, but he chose not just Sinhala but Sinhala-Buddhists. Whatever his justification may be, it is going to draw some response. Just imagine if someone were to mention that “Tamil-Hindus” bear the responsibility for LTTE bomb blasts! Although, I see Yapa blaming Tamils for a lot of issues, I have never seen him use a “Sinhala-Buddhist” equivalent towards Tamils. And not to forget that Wijayapala even mentioned “militant mindset” when he referred to the current state of mind of Sinhala folks as compared to their ancestors 400 years ago. Frankly, calling them xenophobes would be very unfair.

      And to begin with, if you formulate an argument by blaming an ethno-religious group, then you are a xenophobe.

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Krish,

        He could have used words like “Government” or “Army”, but he chose not just Sinhala but Sinhala-Buddhists.

        The “Government” and the “Army” are both 99.9% Sinhala-Buddhist. If you disagree, show me just one church that the Army has built in the North and East. On the other hand, I can point you to a dozen Buddhist temples which the Army has built in the North and East since May 2009. Even your friend Wijayapala does not deny that Sinhala-Buddhist individuals are responsible for Sri Lanka’s downfall after Independence; what he does is try to downplay that responsibility by pointing to JR and SWRD’s “Christian” upbringing. I am sure if you look hard enough, you can also find your very own equally ridiculous conspiracy theory. Cheers!

      • yapa

        Dear Krish;

        “I see Yapa blaming Tamils for a lot of issues,……”

        That is because, I don’t want to name all Tamil wrong doers as eelamists or LTTE tigers, though there must be a lot of them among those wrong doers.

        I do so, to be a bit mild towards them.

        Thanks Krish.

      • Krish

        Dear Nihal Perera,

        The impression that I get from your response is, if SL army had a built a church or two in NE, they don’t bear any responsibility for the war or atrocities that ensued. If they don’t, they are 100% responsible. Why are you turning every discussion into a Christians vs Buddhists argument. 🙂

        Regarding Wijayapala’s logic on SWRD and JR, it was a response to your post! The trail of it is this!

        Sunela Jayawardena: “Post independence, the island’s rulers have been the majority Sinhalese”.
        Nihal Perera:
        Sinhalese yes, but if you want to be more accurate, Sinhalese-Buddhist. Every President since Independence has been a Sinhala-Buddhist.

        It was only after this that Wijayapala brought up the upbringing of JR and SWRD. You selectively bring Buddhism when convenient and run away when their Christian upbringing is pointed out. 🙂

        I guess it will be great if you can put forward your arguments in a reasonable manner rather than polarize discussion on religious lines!

        best wishes
        Krish

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “The “Government” and the “Army” are both 99.9% Sinhala-Buddhist.”

        Then you give the credit of saving the country from cynic terrorism to Sinhala-Buddhists??

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Krish,

        The impression that I get from your response is, if SL army had a built a church or two in NE, they don’t bear any responsibility for the war or atrocities that ensued. If they don’t, they are 100% responsible. Why are you turning every discussion into a Christians vs Buddhists argument. 🙂

        It seems that you, too, have quite an imagination. Like a teledrama, you are imagining the impossible. First of all, there is a world of difference between “Buddhism” and “Sinhala-Buddhism.” As PP has explained in detail, “Sinhala-Buddhism” is a combination of Sinhalese cultural practices and traditional Buddhist ideas. What has happened with Sinhala-Buddhism is that it has taken on an ethnic dimension . It has become entangled in a web of nationalism and identity-politics . On the other hand, these are the exact some culprits that led to the war. So it is impossible to say that Sinhala-Buddhism did not play any role in the war, relative to both initiation and propagation.

        It was only after this that Wijayapala brought up the upbringing of JR and SWRD. You selectively bring Buddhism when convenient and run away when their Christian upbringing is pointed out. 🙂

        Wijayapala could not answer my fundamental question, and I doubt you can do so either: what did SWRD and JR achieve for the Christians? If the answer is nothing , then the upbringing was obviously irrelevent.

        “…The time has come for the whole Sinhala race which has existed for 2500 years, jealously safeguarding their language and religion , to fight without giving any quarter to save their birthright… I will lead the campaign…”

        J.R.Jayawardene, – reported in Sri Lanka Tribune, 30th August 1957

        Which religion was JR talking about? Was it Christianity?

        I guess it will be great if you can put forward your arguments in a reasonable manner rather than polarize discussion on religious lines!

        My arguments are perfectly reasonable; their merits are independent of any appeal to the third-rate minds of nationalists.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        With your response to Krish do you think you justified your pronouncement, which goes thus, ?

        ““Sinhalese-Buddhists share 100% responsibility for the war and whatever atrocities ensued.””.

        You and your LTTE terrorists you think can just wash hands? You say they are 100% innocent?

        Dishonesty has no bounds!

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Yapa,

        You and your LTTE terrorists you think can just wash hands? You say they are 100% innocent?

        Where was the LTTE in 1915, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1977, and 1981? Where was the LTTE when a monk put a bullet to SWRD’s head, and where was the LTTE when hundreds of monks forced SWRD to tear up his pact with Chelva.

        Dishonesty has no bounds!

        I fully agree. The Rajapakses are now billionaires and people like you are still blaming the Western colonialists!

      • yapa

        Totally irrelevant worthless stuff again, Nihal, why always answering something other than the questions?

        Thanks!

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Yapa,

    Thanks for the long reply.

    It is my understanding that whatever instrument the scientists use to observe certain phenomena it is ultimately the five percepts, which read the observations. It is true with both the most simplistic scientific instruments such as the optical microscope and the most sophistacted such as the LHC. There is no other way a scientist can read their observations. What the scientist should have is the necessary knowlege about the phenomenon under study and technical know how of the instruments to operate them. As you know, some people are more intelligent than the others. Therefore, only a few people can engage in these highly sophisticated scientific research. They do not have any extra-ordinary ability other than their intelligence, which is understood by people like you as some extra-sensory power.

    There is a huge difference between the religious teachers and scientists. Eienstein used his intelligence and put forward a theory explaining some natural phenomenoa. Others who followed him were able to understand it and test it for its accuracy. He never claimed that he had some sort of extraordinary mystic power, which can not be scietifically tested and explainable.

    There is only one truth in the world, which is the scientific truth. Why because any body can test them and satisfy that they are true. There is noththing mystic or esoteric about it. I am not saying that Science can explain everything. But where the science can not the others have also failed. The people in the world enjoy the scientific discoveries every day. From our birth to death, we are indebted to science for everyting, we enjoy in this life. Only those who do not want to accept it, deny it.

    The relgions are also important for the mankind. I am not against any relgion. When science look after the material side of the human kind the religion look after the spiritual side. The mystery of human existance, the birth, death, the purpose of human life etc. bothers humans for mellenia. The religions have tried to explain them for the humans in different ways. Although people like Yapa and Wijayapala try to uphold one from the others, all thre relgions are the same in different ways. For the followers, their religion explains everything pefectly for them. That is how we should see them. There is no point in arguing to show one is better than the other. I engaged in this discussion to show that there is no difference in different religions.

    Yes, I know that Rebirth, Karma, Athama have different meanings in
    Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. But these differences are so subtle that it won’t affect my argument. An adherent of a particular religionn can satisfy himself that his version of these concepts is the true one. Others can argue with him till the end of the world. Those who beleive will beleive and other won’t. The general rule is that those who were born to a particular religious community would end up being an ardent supporter of that religion. I suspect that Yapa and Wijayapala were born to Buddhists parents and raised from the childhood as buddhists. If they were born to a Christian family what would have happened? They would have defended Christianity in the same zeal as they do today to defend Buddhism from the infidels like me.

    Whatever the knowlege system you think is true only one has proved itself as true, which is science. All the other so-called knowledge systems are much more inferior to science. The human existance can be deduced to a one single fact, which is the struggle with the nature. While understanding that there are negative effects to the enviornment we should be realistic enough to accept that we have become such a successfull species only because we were able to subdue nature for our own benefit. Who helped us in this long struggle? The empirical knoweledge we gathered during the past thousands of years of our existance. The epitome of that knowlege is Science.

    I do not deny that relgions have given us things which science can not give. But it is the icing on the cake. The cake itself, orobably the 99% of the finished product, is a result our rational and empirical knowledge. Science is the latest and the most effective manifestation of them.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      You say “There is only one truth in the world, which is the scientific truth.”

      Back to square one I should say. In Sinhlala you can say “Watama gohin geta”.

      This is not big discovery of yours to pronounce victoriously. Many common people in the world today believe so, and there are people to say the god of the present era is Science.When we were Science Students we too believed so and when we grew a bit we understood that it is not a fact.

      You seems to be an advocate of Science, but you do not seem to follow it. Science consider every fact for and against it and change itself giving up incorrect ideas though it believed them for ages. But despite all my facts given to counter your arguments, even touching none of them you repeat and pronounce the same beginning.

      For this what I can say is “Ignorance is bliss” or rather, “Old habits die hard”.

      Thinking out of the box is not an easy task. In that respect I think you too failed the test.

      Thanks!

  • Nihal Perera

    Yapa,

    Entirely wrong wild guess, my first degree is from the Mathematics stream.

    Was Nalin Silva the examiner, by any chance? : )

    “Where did you get that idea? Modern science is far more rational than any religion. That is because modern science finds its justification in mathematics, which is the highest level of rationality the human mind can aspire to.”

    Pooh!, Where did you get that idea?

    Pooh! Because physics can be reduced to mathematics:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics

    Is chance rational?, May be you can explain it for our knowledge.

    “Chance” best describes the natural behavior of the universe. The Sun does not set at 5:00 pm each day, the monsoon rain does not begin at the same date every year, the number of stars in the sky is never the same on any two consecutive days. So it is better to take about averages than absolutes.

    Are you sure about your assertive pronouncement again? You mean to say ALL objects in the universe? Have you ever heard of Godel’s theorem?

    Godel’s Theorem refers to mathematical objects, not physical objects.

    “The fact that QM works can be seen in the all the technologies it has been used to create: GPS, semiconductors, lasers/fiber optics, etc.”

    As an information disseminater it seems you have a good future, to copy from a source and to preach others.

    Unlike you, I know what I am talking about. I do not try to put karma and reincarnation on the same plane as modern science; only a third-rate mind would do that.

    In one sense, the final proof of what works is in the technology. The fact that modern science works can be seen in the numerous technologies. What technology has Buddhism or any other religion created?

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera;

      “Unlike you, I know what I am talking about. I do not try to put karma and reincarnation on the same plane as modern science; only a third-rate mind would do that.”

      You are trying to say the opposite of the truth.

      Thanks!

  • yapa

    I think “Freedom to Faith” is an absurd concept. It is a mandate given for people to believe any nonsense. In Geography, you cannot have several opinions or beliefs of a single thing. For example no body would allow one to believe the earth is round and another to believe it is flat. In Mathematics, I don’t think anybody would allow somebody to believe anything other than 2+2=4, in Mathematics. In Science no one would encourage to believe alike poles of magnets attract each other. In all these cases objective analysis/investigation helps to screen out the correct notion and throw away the wrong ones. That is the practice in any subject, theories in Science give way to the better theories and get discarded. Why this is not happening in Faiths/Religions? Why aren’t the wrong ideas in religions discarded, and let the people believe the true notions, but advocating to believe all wrong and right ideas, with the slogan idea of “Freedom to Faith”? Why cannot we have an objective analysis of religions and throw away the wrong ones whether it is Buddhism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion?

    For example why we allow/approve and encourage our children to believe the wrong religious notion: God created the Universe, when we all know that it is incorrect?

    Is it because we believe that every wrong of might is right? Is it because our slave mentality does not allow us to oppose wrong political ideas like “Freedom to Faith” are originated in the west?

    Why should we believe untruth in the place of truth? Why should we encourage others’ to believe untruth? Why should we let political theories to force people to believe untruth? Why should we believe political systems with such wrong theories?

    We must free ourselves from this slavish mental bondage. We must be able to think free without the forced wrong religions or political notions. Popular vote is not the tool in this respect, but an objective investigation/analysis is the suitable tool. Why not we critically analyze our religious and political beliefs?

    Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
    Where knowledge is free;
    Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
    Where words come out from the depth of truth;
    Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
    Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
    Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever-widening thought and action;
    Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

    by Rabindranath Tagore

    (Patu adahas nam pavren lokaya kaebeli valata nobedee….)

    Thanks!

    • yapa

      I think Freedom to Faith” should change as “Freedom from Mythical Faiths”.

      This burden of “God and Cross”should be removed from the shoulders of the human kind. Man, son of the God, should be relieved from the burden of God and from the Cross.

      Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    Nihal & P.P.

    As I do not think nor have I ever said that Buddhism contains absolute truth, I don’t have to answer your queries regarding that aspect! I have written enough about religion on previous threads and I don’t want to repeat them here. All I was discussing about was the cultural and social aspects of religions as they are are practised in Sri Lanka, and not what the founders of those religions actually meant.

    According to PP Buddhism becomes nihilistic because it says “life is suffering-or it is unsatisfactory”. What I think is life is not happiness either, because you as an individual and the people around you and the world in which you live decay and get distroyed one day. In that case as life end in death, the sum of life couldn’t be happiness;it is merely interspersed with happy events and we tend to think that those happy moments are forever. So, happiness is not forever, right? You can accuse Buddha of being a stoic, and I wouldn’t defend Buddha on this count as it was the way he perceived life.

    If that is the reality, what’s wrong with telling that reality to the peple? If a person has a cancer you can either tell him that he has cancer or lie to him and let him enjoy till he dies. Which approach is correct? I think you can’t find fault with either, as the final out come is the same! But, it’s a matter of telling the truth as it is and not telling it! I don’t know about Buddha’s path of liberation from this “state of suffering” as I am not convinced on that matter.

    Nihal on the other hand seems to think that the belief of a God and a soul gives that “positiveness” in Christianity(and other theistic religions) which plays an essential role in the “progressive” Western culture. So, what about the people who are convinced that there is no God or a soul?(just like you are convinced they are there?) Buddha is silent on the origins of life and the world(universe). Further he has said that those questions are unanswerable and serves no purpose to his path of liberation. Similarly the theistic religions don’t have an answer to the question of the origin of God. They would say that “God was always there” or “God is the energy of the universe”, Energy or not He couldn’t have been always there! There should be a beginning to God or a starting point! And then what existed befor that becomes a question! As you know, science too is unable to answer this question! Even if we accept that there were milions of universes undergoing cycles of birth and death we still can ask, “what was before that?” and then it becomes unanswerable.

    As PP says if the Sri Lankan Buddhists don’t take Buddhism seriously, then the whole argument of Sinhalese-Buddhist fanaticism falls flat, doesn’t it?

    How do I know that if the British didn’t interfere with us that we ould have naturally evolved into a capitalist society? Because thing won’t remain forever, and I showed you the example of Thailand which was never occupied! People borrow ideas from abroad and mould them to suit their culture; it doen’t have to be a Western model(I never told so!)

    The “slave-mind set” I was talking about is a colonial hang-over which gives the suffer of it, a contemptuous view towards one’s own language, culture and traditions and is confused over his own identity.

    • Nihal Perera

      Sabbe Labban,

      I have lived in both the East and the West. I can tell you that, culturally speaking, the Western attitude to life is indeed more positive. Mostly because, people in the East are still possessing a “tribal mentality”, e.g. loyalty to the family and others, whereas such boundaries do not exist in the West, so individuals are less risk-averse.

      Buddha is silent on the origins of life and the world(universe). Further he has said that those questions are unanswerable and serves no purpose to his path of liberation.

      It is because Buddha the Hindu believed in the existence of a Creator God. On the other hand, belief in a Creator God will not by itself lead to “liberation.” Liberation is an inner spiritual journey; the “God” figure is there for guidance; however, many people lose sight of the ultimate goal and the “God” belief actually becomes a crutch. On the other hand, few people possess the mental capability to approach the difficulties that life presents, via the power of the mind alone. Like PP pointed out, that is why people in a so-called perfectly rational “Buddhist” society do not take the Buddhism seriously. Once I read the story of a famous mathematician, Von Neumann. At the end of his life, Von Neumann’s mathematical powers decline considerably (as is common with most people), and the man rediscovers God. In fact, let me tell you that most people, if they try to live a perfectly rational life, will go crazy. There is a true story about a Malaysian girl in UK, whose father locked her up for hours at a day, and taught her mathematics. Eventually, thanks to his superb teaching methods, this girl went to Oxford at age 12 and graduated at 16 or so. A few years after that however, she had a mental breakdown and became a prostitute.

      My point is that people need to believe in “God” and concepts such as “faith” and “freedom” not because they are weak, but because they are human . The need for these “irrational” concepts is probably evolutionary. Perhaps as humans evolve further, they can let go of the crutches, but I do not think we are even halfway there yet (most people are still having difficulties with algebra).

      • yapa

        Nihal Perera says,

        “It is because Buddha the Hindu believed in the existence of a Creator God.”

        I think this person is mad or shameless or totally dishonest or totally ignorant. I don’t think anybody else could utter such untruths.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “My point is that people need to believe in “God” and concepts such as “faith” and “freedom” not because they are weak, but because they are human .”

        We also could not find fault in believing in Gods other than the “Creator God”, which is a provable myth.

        Dear Nihal, do you say it is not so? If you are dare to say Creator God, that omniscient, omnipotent God is not a myth, please answer this post. Otherwise I will have to believe that you also have no any other notion than HE is a myth.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        “Mostly because, people in the East are still possessing a “tribal mentality”, e.g. loyalty to the family and others,…….”

        Loyalty to family members and others is tribal mentality to this person! Peculiar theories this person is making in this public forum. Must be his wife, children and parents were seen as tribal to him. Any lie is complied to insult Sinhalese and Buddhists. I have seen a few shameless and assertive people before. When there is no different feeling towards truth/untruth and good/bad, there is nothing such a person cannot do. Only the God would be only help for such people. What does a shameless man cannot do?

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “It is because Buddha the Hindu believed in the existence of a Creator God.”

        PROOF?

        Please provide authoritative proof if you are not writing rubbish as always.

        Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
        (The Religion, Revelations, Motives and Mission of George Fox (1881) by Thomas Ellwood Longshore, p. 154)

      • yapa

        Dear Off the Cuff;

        Our Nihal Perera does not need proofs to prove anything. Just jabbering with some weird mind is sufficient. He is God’s son and was exempted from the requirements other people need to accomplish to get anything. He is so privileged and extra ordinary that HE doesn’t need proofs like other ordinary men like us. He also could be omniscient as his FATHER.

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Read the following and tell me who “Brahma” is:

        The four immeasurables in early Buddhism

        In the Tevijja Sutta: The Threefold Knowledge of the Majjhima Nikaya set of scriptures, Buddha Sh?kyamuni is asked the way to fellowship/companionship/communion with Brahma. He replies that he personally knows the world of Brahma and the way to it, and explains the meditative method for reaching it by using an analogy of the resonance of the conch shell of the a??ama?gala:

        A monk suffuses the world in the four directions with a mind of benevolence, then above, and below, and all around – the whole world from all sides, completely, with a benevolent, all-embracing, great, boundless, peaceful and friendly mind … Just as a powerful conch-blower makes himself heard with no great effort in all four [cardinal] directions, so too is there no limit to the unfolding of [this] heart-liberating benevolence. This is a way to communion with Brahma.[13]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara#The_four_immeasurables_in_early_Buddhism

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “Read the following and tell me who “Brahma” is:”

        This Brahma is not the Creator for sure.

        Do you want the opposite answer? Never and if possible show it to me, I will become a disciple of yours and become a Creator God believer as you do in ignorance.

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You stated that

        a) the Buddha is a Hindu
        b) Buddha believed in the existence of a Creator God.

        Without running around the Mulberry bush, please provide Authoritative proof of what you said.

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Off the Cuff and Yapa:

        Do they teach logic at the government school?

        Brahma (Sanskrit: ???????; IAST:Brahm?) is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimurti

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma

        Buddha Shakyamuni is asked the way to fellowship/companionship/communion with Brahma. He replies that he personally knows the world of Brahma and the way to it, and explains the meditative method for reaching it by using an analogy of the resonance of the conch shell of the a??ama?gala

        Buddha Shakyamuni is the same as Guatama Buddha, in case you did not know.

        By the way, I like to correct my earlier statement that Therevada Buddhism is highly corrupt. In fact, Theravada Buddhism is not corrupt, what is corrupt is the Sri Lankan interpretation of Therevada Buddhism and Buddhism in general. The more research I do, the more I find that Sri Lankan monks, such as the ones who write on the website accesstoinsite.org, have done a superb job of distortion .

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “Do they teach logic at the government school?”

        Climbing the High Horse Nihal?
        Be careful the fall would be harder.

        So Private School educated Nihal Perera has learnt logic at his Private School

        Let’s see how good you are at Logic.

        Fornication
        Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
        Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other is a common type of fornication. Adultery is a type of fornication.
        “The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, in**st (the first asterisk = c and the second = e) , remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28).” (Dr. Henry M. Morris) http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fornication.html

        Was Adam married to Eve?
        The Bible is silent on that.
        If they were married who performed the marriage?
        Again no mention in the Bible
        Whether married or not were they living together?
        Obviously they were.
        Did they have children?
        Yes, else how can 7 Billion humans exist today?
        The first couple lived in sin and fornicated if they were unmarried.

        Let’s assume that Adam and Eve were actually Married by the Creator Himself as there was no one else who had the power to marry them.

        The Creator that he worships day in and day out Created one human male.
        He then Created one human female from a rib of that male.
        The DNA of both were the same.
        The first couple then produced children.

        How did Adam and Eve get Grand Children?

        Did the brothers and sisters have sexual intercourse?
        Obviously they did else there would have been no second generation.

        Hence the Creator God that Nihal Prays to, day and night, inbuilt sexual misbehaviour in to His plan of procreation.

        In the first one or two decades Adam and Eve gave birth to children and when the children came of age, they started procreating. How did the females conceive?
        The Only Females were the Mother and the Sisters.
        The ONLY males were the Father and the brothers.
        Great Omniscient Plan is it not Nihal?

        Your Creator God did not have the foresight to create more than just one couple and avoid INBREEDING amongst Siblings.

        This is what the Journal of Genetics has to say on inbreeding.
        “Inbreeding has been shown in almost all species to be associated with impairment of function because of homozygosity of recessive alleles. This occurs across a wide range of traits and suggests a large number of deleterious alleles in the human genome. This has been predicted from the reduced early survival of offspring in first cousin marriages (note: in the case of the first family, they were brothers, sisters, mother and father. That is much more closer than just first cousins) and from similar results in other organisms. As most identified genetic variants causing complex disease in humans are partially recessive we predict that inbreeding in humans might influence a wide range of complex diseases” http://jmg.bmj.com/content/40/12/925.extract

        Nihal has a penchant to pontificate on matters Medical.
        Inbreeding amongst very close relations has a high risk factor of an increased risk of genetic disorders. Nihal’s Creator God made sure that it will be as close as it can get.

        That is Omniscience for you.

        Nihal without an Iota of knowledge on Buddhism, thinks that the following phrase proves that the Buddha is a Hindu.

        “Buddha Sh?kyamuni is asked the way to fellowship/companionship/communion with Brahma. He replies that he personally knows the world of Brahma and the way to it,”

        He does not realise that if a Christian lived during the Buddha’s time and asked the Buddha the same question the answer would have been the same. That would not have made the Buddha a Christian.

        Little does Nihal realise that Buddhist philosophy REJECTS a CREATOR outright.

        Little does Nihal realise that practising the meditative method described by the Buddha would lead one to the first of the four sublime states of the Therav?da school of Buddhism

        This is what the wiki state
        “Mett? (Pali) or maitr? (Sanskrit) is loving-kindness, friendliness, benevolence, amity, friendship, good will, kindness, love, sympathy, close mental union (on same mental wavelength), and active interest in others. It is one of the ten paramis of the Therav?da school of Buddhism, and the first of the four sublime states (Brahmavih?ras). This is love without clinging (up?d?na).

        The cultivation of loving-kindness (mett? bh?van?) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, this practice begins with the meditator cultivating loving-kindness towards themselves, then their loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, this practice is associated with tonglen (cf.), whereby one breathes out (“sends”) happiness and breathes in (“receives”) suffering. Tibetan Buddhists also practice contemplation of the four immeasurables, which they sometimes call ‘compassion meditation’

        “Compassion meditation” is a contemporary scientific field that demonstrates the efficacy of metta and related meditative practices.”

        That is the Logic that has been imbibed by Nihal at his Private School

        May God help Nihal’s Private School.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        “Brahma (Sanskrit: ???????; IAST:Brahm?) is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimurti”

        That is the belief of Hindus, not of us; Buddhists. Brahma himself too mistakenly thinks HE is the creator, due to lack of his knowledge. That is what our understanding about that misled Brahma, who thinks others are creations of him. For Buddhists, Brahma is just another “Prutajjana”, who is prone to mistakes.

        You also seem to have misled as the Brahma himself. Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Little does Nihal realise that Buddhist philosophy REJECTS a CREATOR outright.

        The Buddhists reject a creator; Buddha himself does not.

        Avyaakata, the ‘indeterminate questions’ are given as ten in number:

        Whether the world is eternal

        or not eternal

        Whether the world is finite

        or infinite

        Whether the soul and body are identical

        or different

        Whether the enlightened one exists after death,

        or does not exist after death,

        or both exists and does not exist after death,

        or neither exists nor does not exist after death

        http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html

        Unless the above questions are answered, it is impossible to prove that there is no Creator God.

        By the way, it is interesting how you speak of Christianity in a vaccum. I do not wish to correct all of your mistakes, since they are too many, and the task would require too much time. But let me point out that Christianity is an Eastern religion. Most of its influence comes from Judaism; however, it has also been influenced by Zoroastrianism (the ancient religion of the Persians), Greek paganism, and Hinduism. The “Adam and Eve” myth you speak of, for example, has a counterpart in the Zed Avesta, and also the Babylonian “Epic of Gilgamesh.”

        Abstract

        Christianity was born in a region and age full of cross-pollination between different religions and philosophies. In particular, Indic traditions had been influencing the intellectual climate in the Eastern Mediterranean and among them, Buddhism made its mark most strongly on the scriptures and doctrines of the nascent religion named after Jesus Christ. Some of these borrowings are anecdotal and peripheral, others go to the heart of Christianity’s distinctive beliefs, e.g. the doctrine of Incarnation…

        http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/chr/hinduinfl.html

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        Well, well, well. The High Class Private School Educated Nihal has no counter argument about His Creator’s loss of Omniscient Status. Not even One Word in Defence! Quite a testament to the quality of his Private School Education.

        He has no Defence for his Creator God’s Foolish design of forcing Fornication and I*n*c*e*s*t (read without asterisks) upon Adam, Eve and their children.

        Nihal the expert on Medical Science has no counter to the dangers of inbreeding that the Creator exposed His creation to.

        Nihal’s Creator God flouts his own Laws. He prohibits Fornication but forces it on His first human creations. Double standards is the name of the game when it comes to his Creator.

        Nihal’s Creator has been found wanting in knowledge and foresight.

        What other creations were done without knowledge and foresight?

        Let’s look at the Earth itself.
        The Earth’s crust is not continuous. Its broken up in to several pieces. A design fault. When these pieces grind on each other it causes Earthquakes and Tsunamis with consequent large scale destruction and untold suffering. Another folly of the Creator God.

        Volcanoes are another fault in the Earth’s crust. When they erupt massive destruction and suffering is the result. Who is to blame other than the engineer who built Earth?

        We know the destructive power of colliding heavenly bodies. Why do they collide? Again the Engineer who built Heaven and Earth is to blame for a shoddy job done. He is responsible for the extinction of all living things of the Dinosaur age.

        That Nihal is just a small sample of the Disorder that your Creator God has caused.

        The Creator has not been knowledgeable enough and powerful enough to prevent that disorder. He has now lost His claim of being Omnipotent too.

        You are now left with a Creator who is neither Omniscient nor Omnipotent. The Creation Theory has sprung a leak.

        Is He at least Omnipresent?

        Nihal the Defender of the Faith has been found wanting.
        He has finally been silenced in spite of the arrogance acquired via his supposedly High Class Private School Education.

        You wrote “But let me point out that Christianity is an Eastern religion”

        Nihal I am not concerned with whether Christianity comes from the East, West, North or South. I am only concerned with the doctrine and the postulations made. The Doctrine and Postulations that you try to defend by slinging mud at Buddhism, the Public Schools, the Sinhalese and in short on all and sundry.

        The Adam and Eve that I speak of is what is taught to you from a very young age. In spite of your lame excuses you can do very little to defend your arrogant position.

        When you went on the attack you never thought that a close analysis of your beliefs will expose you to ridicule.

        I never want to attack someone’s religion but when Unjustified attacks are directed at my religion and my country I believe I have to defend. I sincerely hope that the foregoing discussion had taught you humility and decorum.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        The High Class Private School Educated Nihal has no counter argument about His Creator’s loss of Omniscient Status. Not even One Word in Defence! Quite a testament to the quality of his Private School Education.

        Off the Cuff has no counter argument as to why the founder of his religion/philosophy, Guatama Buddha, spoke of the Creator God Brahma in positive terms. Perhaps Off the Cuff should ask his monks why Guatama the master logician did not reveal this knowledge of infinity to the believers; was it because such an idea would create chaos in their pea-brained minds?

        He has no Defence for his Creator God’s Foolish design of forcing Fornication and I*n*c*e*s*t (read without asterisks) upon Adam, Eve and their children.

        Poor Off the Cuff thinks myths that the Jews borrowed from other cultures, are believed as 100% accurate by all Christians.

        Nihal the expert on Medical Science has no counter to the dangers of inbreeding that the Creator exposed His creation to.

        On the other hand, Off the Cuff has no proof that reincarnation is real.

        That Nihal is just a small sample of the Disorder that your Creator God has caused.

        LOL, actually, Nature is more reliable than the pea-brained nationalists in the Sri Lankan South, who actually think they practice the religion of the master logician Guatama Buddha. Perhaps when the pea-brained followers are down with the arsenic experiments at Kelaniya Uni, the “Creator God” can create enough destruction so as to remove the rock from Hambantota Port, so that maybe half a ship will sail into it.

        The Adam and Eve that I speak of is what is taught to you from a very young age. In spite of your lame excuses you can do very little to defend your arrogant position.

        The Adam and Eve that you speak of is from of a Babylonian myth called “Epic of Gilgamesh.” But I am glad that you consider the Adam and Eve story to be 100% historically accurate; you would give good competition to the fundamentalist Christians (0.01% of all total Christians) who try to oppose evolution.

        I never want to attack someone’s religion but when Unjustified attacks are directed at my religion and my country I believe I have to defend. I sincerely hope that the foregoing discussion had taught you humility and decorum.

        You have no answers to the questions rasied by the Aviyakatha, neither do you have any answers as to why Buddha not only spoke of Brahma the Creator, but indicated where Brahma could be found. All you have is your makebelieve Sinhala-Buddhism, which has accomplished nothing in 2500 years, other than glorifying a book of myths called Mahavamsa.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “the founder of his religion/philosophy, Guatama Buddha, spoke of the Creator God Brahma in positive terms”

        Positive Terms?
        Did the Buddha say Brahma CREATED the Universe?
        As usual you write BS.
        Please provide Proof from an authoritative source please.

        You wrote “Poor Off the Cuff thinks myths that the Jews borrowed from other cultures, are believed as 100% accurate by all Christians”

        So you reject the Old Testament.
        You must be greater than Jesus Christ Himself.
        Well why not? You went to Private School while Jesus did not.

        In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

        My statement:- Nihal the expert on Medical Science has no counter to the dangers of inbreeding that the Creator exposed His creation to.
        Your response “On the other hand, Off the Cuff has no proof that reincarnation is real”

        Finally you have excepted that Your Creator God depended on Inbreeding to propagate Mankind and exposed His flock to the Medical dangers that you have no counter to.

        Reincarnation is not recognised in Buddhism.
        Provide PROOF if you don’t agree.

        You wrote “LOL, actually, Nature is more reliable than the pea-brained nationalists in the Sri Lankan South, ……“

        Nature?
        Did it exist by itself?
        Your Creator God was not it’s Creator?
        You have LOST your Creator God Argument on your own.
        Nice work. That is a very good example of Private School Education.

        You wrote “The Adam and Eve that you speak of is from of a Babylonian myth called “Epic of Gilgamesh.” But I am glad that you consider the Adam and Eve story to be 100% historically accurate; you would give good competition to the fundamentalist Christians (0.01% of all total Christians) who try to oppose evolution.”

        And who is denying Adam and Eve?
        Nihal the new son of God or the old son of God Jesus Christ?

        “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,” Matthew 19:3–6

        Jesus says, “…. —Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:45–47,

        Now you bring another Revelation. That there are fundamentalist Christians.

        We have known that all along.

        How did you get those statistics?
        From thin air as usual?

        Great Logical analysis. Private School education perhaps.

        You wrote “You have no answers to the questions rasied by the Aviyakatha, neither do you have any answers as to why Buddha not only spoke of Brahma the Creator, but indicated where Brahma could be found.”

        BTW what is the meaning of Aviyakatha?

        I am not responsible for your inability to understand what I wrote earlier. Perhaps the result of the excellent mastery of English and Logic, that you achieved at your Private School.

        The MEDITATIVE method that the Buddha described, as the way to the world of Brahma, was actually the way to the first of the four sublime states of the Theravada school of Buddhism.

        A person achieving the first sublime state would be enlightened and would know that Brahma the Creator does not exist.

        Hope you understand it this time around.

        Quote
        Little does Nihal realise that practising the meditative method described by the Buddha would lead one to the first of the four sublime states of the Theravada school of Buddhism
        This is what the wiki state
        “Metta (Pali) or maitri (Sanskrit) is loving-kindness, friendliness, benevolence, amity, friendship, good will, kindness, love, sympathy, close mental union (on same mental wavelength), and active interest in others.
        It is one of the ten paramis of the Theravada school of Buddhism, and the first of the four sublime states (Brahmaviharas). This is love without clinging (upadana).
        Unquote

        You wrote “……..you would give good competition to the fundamentalist Christians (0.01% of all total Christians) who try to oppose evolution”.

        This is a GEM of a Statement.
        The best you have ever written about Christianity.
        But you were too short sighted just like your Creator God.
        There is now a question that is begging an answer from the new Messiah Nihal Perera.

        How can an ABSOLUTE Truth EVOLVE?

        If it can, it was not the absolute truth to begin with.

        But according to the New Messiah Nihal Perera,
        Christianity NEEDS to evolve to keep pace with the Truth.

        Hence it was not the Absolute Truth to begin with.

        Thank you Private school educated Nihal, for sharing your “wisdom” and “Logic”.

        Your powers of Logical analysis and the ability to keep your focus on the subject under discussion is exemplary and well documented. The result of an excellent Private School education undoubtedly. Unfortunately quite substandard when compared to the Public schools.

        You have been throwing Boomerangs that you could not catch when it returned.

        Keep throwing.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Did the Buddha say Brahma CREATED the Universe?

        The first question is, did the Buddha DENY Brahma exists? The answer is no. The second question is, did the Buddha affirm that Brahma created the Universe? The answer is YES, although the Buddha did not say so directly. In the “Avyaakata”, Buddha remains silent regarding the important questions of infinity. To refresh your mind, here are the central questions again:

        Avyaakata, the ‘indeterminate questions’ are given as ten in number:

        1. Whether the world is eternal

        2. or not eternal

        3. Whether the world is finite

        4. infinite

        5. Whether the soul and body are identical

        6. or different

        7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,

        8. does not exist after death,

        9. both exists and does not exist after death,

        10. neither exists nor does not exist after death

        Refer to questions (1) and (3). If (1) is true, then there was no Creator God. If (3) is true, then there was a Creator God. Refer to question (5). By refusing to answer this question, Buddha is leaving open the possibility that the soul exists. If the soul exists, then this is an affirmation of the existence of the Creator God. Now, as I have asked you numerous times, why did the Buddha refuse to answer these questions? One explanation is because they had nothing to do with his mind-centric , as opposed to God-centric path to liberation. On the other hand, if it was so easy to answer NO to the relevant questions above, I am sure the Buddha would have done so. But by answering NO, it would be equivalent to him saying that the God-centric paths to liberation were false. But the God-centric paths to liberation are NOT false, which is why Buddha did not answer the above questions.

        So you reject the Old Testament.

        I understand the Old Testament, unlike you, who has obviously never read it and thinks it is part of every Constitution in the West.

        My statement:- Nihal the expert on Medical Science has no counter to the dangers of inbreeding that the Creator exposed His creation to.

        You are assuming that the Creator exists to save people from danger and difficulties. That is a rubbish theory. It is perfectly possible for the Creator to create something, and let the Creation manage itself. Your assumptions of the Creator are based on the logical fallacy called appeal to pity :

        http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-pity/

        You are also assuming that people do not possess a free will.

        Reincarnation is not recognised in Buddhism.

        Yes, yes… the followers of Buddhism took another concept from Hinduism and thoroughly corrupted it. But they have failed to offer proof for their claim. What proof do you have that the soul does not exist?

        Provide PROOF if you don’t agree.


        And who is denying Adam and Eve?
        Nihal the new son of God or the old son of God Jesus Christ?

        “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,” Matthew 19:3–6

        Jesus says, “…. —Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:45–47,

        Hehehe, who is denying it are the people that study the Bible in its original languages, to understand what part is meant to be taken literally and what part is to be taken metaphorically . Only government school prodigies like you, who believe lions can concieve with women, think that someone can blindly believe every word of a book to be true. The truth is otherwise, however:

        But that is a dishonest way to interpret the Word of God. These examples show figurative interpretation can be taken too far. But that does not mean we should reject it or resist its every use. Insisting on the literal meaning as being true and accurate, and figurative interpretation as a watering down of the intended meaning, is an exaggeration.

        When we read, we understand words in a literal sense first, then in a figurative sense if the literal doesn’t make sense. That’s the normal way we use language, and it’s a sensible way to start. Literal first, figurative second.

        http://www.gci.org/bible/literal

        The MEDITATIVE method that the Buddha described, as the way to the world of Brahma, was actually the way to the first of the four sublime states of the Theravada school of Buddhism.

        Nice try, you are trying to claim that for Buddha, Brahma existed only in the meditative sense, which is pure rubbish. Buddha said elsewhere that one can be reborn into the world of Brahma.

        Sikh? Buddha and Abhibh? are also said to have visited the Brahma world (A.i.227f.). The Buddha could visit it both in his mind made body and his physical body (S.v.282f.)

        http://glossary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/6306/brahmaloka

        How does one vist the world of Brahma in the PHYSICAL BODY, if Brahma is a purely meditative concept, such as you claim is the case?

        How can an ABSOLUTE Truth EVOLVE?

        If GOD did not create the Universe, then you are assuming the Universe has always existed. But if the Universe has always existed, then it has existed in some kind of energy-state . Now we can ask the same questions about this energy-state that you atheists ask about the Creator-God. What was the first energy-state that led to the second energy-state? How can an ABSOLUTE energy-state EVOLVE? But this time, you have been caught in a trap. First of all, you cannot do away with your assumption that the Universe has always existed. But if you cannot do away with this assumption, neither can you do away with the assumption that energy has always existed , because the Universe can only exist within some energy-state. So, regardless of whether you believe in a Creator God or not, you believe in the existence of an INFINITE quantity (quantity that has always existed), other than the Universe. You call it energy, we the God-believers call it God :).

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “The first question is, did the Buddha DENY Brahma exists?”

        The singular creator in Hinduism is Brahma.
        The singular creator in Christianity is God, the father of Jesus.
        Islam’s singular creator is Allah.

        Are you writing of a SINGULAR creator?

        You wrote “I understand the Old Testament, unlike you, who has obviously never read it and thinks it is part of every Constitution in the West”

        Please explicitly state your understanding of the ORIGIN of the Human race as per your Bible?
        Who was created first? Man or Woman?
        What were the raw materials used in the case of man?
        What were the raw materials used in the case of woman?
        How many were created?
        Please provide references from the Bible.

        You wrote “You are assuming that the Creator exists to save people from danger and difficulties. That is a rubbish theory.”

        Nope, that is not my assumption.
        I am assuming however, that the Creator has intelligence to know all as claimed by your Bible.

        You wrote “It is perfectly possible for the Creator to create something, and let the Creation manage itself.”

        If you are writing about a fallible Human then the answer is yes.

        But if you are writing about an Omniscient being with unlimited powers then your answer is foolish.

        You wrote “Your assumptions of the Creator are based on the logical fallacy called appeal to pity :”

        My only assumptions are that the Creator is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent as claimed by the followers of Christianity.

        Hence by what stretch of a perverted imagination can you claim that my assumption is an appeal to pity?

        Is it you position that your Creator God is NOT omnipotent, NOT omniscient and NOT omnipresent?

        You wrote “You are also assuming that people do not possess a free will.”

        Who gave it to them KNOWING what the consequences are?
        God KNEW that the Nuclear Bomb would be made
        He knew that it would be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
        (That is just ONE example of the Free will)

        He knew that millions of INNOCENT people born and yet to be born would suffer an unprecedented catastrophe due to the free will. Yet he gave it. Why?
        Was GOD a fool?

        A loaded gun can Kill
        You know that for a fact
        Would you give that Gun for your child to play with?
        If not why not?

        You wrote “Yes, yes… the followers of Buddhism took another concept from Hinduism and thoroughly corrupted it. “

        Your Logic has gone haywire.
        The followers of Buddhism did nothing of the sort.
        The Buddha however improved on the concept as he did with many other concepts.

        You wrote “What proof do you have that the soul does not exist? “

        Please define Soul.

        You wrote “Hehehe, who is denying it are the people that study the Bible in its original languages, to understand what part is meant to be taken literally and what part is to be taken metaphorically . Only government school prodigies like you, who believe lions can concieve with women, think that someone can blindly believe every word of a book to be true. The truth is otherwise, however:”

        You see Nihal you are laughing at yourself now as you are displaying a total inability or lack of intelligence, to apply what you pontificate on, outside the frame work of the Bible “….to understand what part is meant to be taken literally and what part is to be taken metaphorically”.

        You claimed to be a Sinhalese yourself. Forgotten that already? Not surprising with your proven illness of short term memory loss D*I*M*E*N*T*I*A

        BTW, Males don’t conceive or did you change that too (he he hee)?
        A Result of your Private School perhaps?

        You wrote “Nice try, you are trying to claim that for Buddha, Brahma existed only in the meditative sense, which is pure rubbish. Buddha said elsewhere that one can be reborn into the world of Brahma. “

        There is nothing to try as I have already proven you wrong but your comprehension apparently is wanting, which is underlined by your statement above “…….Brahma existed only in the meditative sense,…”

        I will show why you are wrong, after you answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post, “Are you writing of a SINGULAR creator?“

        You wrote “If GOD did not create the Universe, then you are assuming the Universe has always existed. But if the Universe has always existed, then it has existed in some kind of energy-state .”

        Before I answer your statement above and the rest of your argument, please describe what you understand from Genesis 1 of the Old Testament reproduced below. Please provide Biblical references.

        Genesis 1
        The Creation of the World
        In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

        And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

        You wrote “Now we can ask the same questions about this energy-state that you atheists ask about the Creator-God. What was the first energy-state that led to the second energy-state? How can an ABSOLUTE energy-state EVOLVE?”

        Absolute (from Oxford Dictionary)

        not qualified or diminished in any way; total:

        Meaning of absolute in Philosophy
        a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things:good and evil are presented as absolutes

        (the absolute) that which exists without being dependent on anything else.

        (the Absolute) ultimate reality; God.

        If it is ABSOLUTE it cannot evolve
        If it has to evolve then it is not ABSOLUTE.
        If it has to evolve then it may not have been even a truth.
        Because a false claim has to keep changing in order to continue fooling those who believed in it in the first place.

    • Nihal Perera

      Off the Cuff,

      Are you writing of a SINGULAR creator?

      There is only one God, but there are many prophets.


      Please explicitly state your understanding of the ORIGIN of the Human race as per your Bible?
      Who was created first? Man or Woman?
      What were the raw materials used in the case of man?
      What were the raw materials used in the case of woman?
      How many were created?
      Please provide references from the Bible.

      The Bible does not have any scientific value, so it is pointless to argue about evolution using the Bible as a reference. It has great historical value, however, as it gives a description of many ancient civilizations. It also has an ethical value; e.g. one can learn basic morals by following the Bible.


      I am assuming however, that the Creator has intelligence to know all as claimed by your Bible.

      Did Buddha not claim to know all at the point of his Enlightenment? How is it possible for Buddha to know all, but not the Creator God?

      You wrote “It is perfectly possible for the Creator to create something, and let the Creation manage itself.”

      If you are writing about a fallible Human then the answer is yes.

      But if you are writing about an Omniscient being with unlimited powers then your answer is foolish.

      It looks as if you were a classmate of “Yapa” during the “Standardisation era.” Did they teach you about “energy” at the Vihara? Energy is everywhere. The total amount of energy in the Universe is constant, meaning it is impossible to create new energy. So, energy has unlimited powers. It is everywhere at once. It is formless. It created the Universe. Any questions?

      My only assumptions are that the Creator is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent as claimed by the followers of Christianity.

      I have already explained this point to your classmate. If you believe in supernatural begins, who have special powers, then it should be possible to concieve of a supernatural being who possesses ALL possible supernatural powers.


      Is it you position that your Creator God is NOT omnipotent, NOT omniscient and NOT omnipresent?

      Is it your position that energy is NOT timeless, formless, and omnipresent?


      Who gave it to them KNOWING what the consequences are?
      God KNEW that the Nuclear Bomb would be made
      He knew that it would be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
      (That is just ONE example of the Free will)

      God gives people free will to make choices. According to Christianity, no one is punished because of what they did in a past life. There is no caste system. All are equal before the eyes of the Creator, judged only on the basis of actions .

      He knew that millions of INNOCENT people born and yet to be born would suffer an unprecedented catastrophe due to the free will. Yet he gave it. Why?
      Was GOD a fool?

      Again, you are appealing to pity. When one is born, it is assumed automatically that he/she will die eventually. This is the rationality behind Nature, it is how Nature maintains population control, distributes scarce resources, etc. From the point of view of Nature, It does not matter WHEN or HOW someone dies, but that they die eventually, so that the cycles of Nature can continue onwards. If they do not die from an atom bomb, then they die from old age, or heart condition, or some such. So your question should really be phrased as, why does a rational all knowing God make people who will eventually die? The answer can be found in the extraordinary ability of Nature to self-regulate itself. Nature is the true reflection of God, not an atom bomb.


      I will show why you are wrong, after you answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post, “Are you writing of a SINGULAR creator?“

      You have completely failed to answer the central question of HOW Buddha could enter the abode of BRAHMA in the PHYSICAL BODY. Obviously, you do not have answer for that. Nevertheless, the Buddha himself said that this abode exists, which means you and the other followers have got lost on the wrong road.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “The first question is, did the Buddha DENY Brahma exists?”

        I understand it as referring to the Hindu Creator who is a Singular God. Since you agree that you were referring to a Singular Creator God, the answer is yes the Buddha denies a CREATOR.

        You claimed that you understand the Old Testament.
        I also trust that you understand all of Christian Theology that pertains to Creation.

        If Humanity was created by your Creator, please provide the sequence of creation as expounded by Christianity.

        You are attempting to circumvent the question with semantics when you state that “The Bible does not have any scientific value, so it is pointless to argue about evolution using the Bible as a reference”

        We are discussing CREATION not Evolution of Humanity. This is not a scientific discussion but a religious one. Your religion and you, claim that Humanity was created by your Creator. Please substantiate the chronology of that creation using religious references.

        You ask a counter question “Did Buddha not claim to know all at the point of his Enlightenment? How is it possible for Buddha to know all, but not the Creator God? “

        Yes I agree with you, the Buddha was Omniscient.
        Your question implies that your Creator God was Omniscient just like the Buddha.

        However what you are trying to hide is the difference between the two.
        Buddha did not CREATE the Universe, but your GOD did.

        You wrote “It looks as if you were a classmate of “Yapa” during the “Standardisation era.” Did they teach you about “energy” at the Vihara?”

        Semantics again

        You wrote “Energy is everywhere. The total amount of energy in the Universe is constant, meaning it is impossible to create new energy. So, energy has unlimited powers. It is everywhere at once. It is formless. It created the Universe. Any questions?”

        Your scientific knowledge is not up to the mark. I will discuss them after you answer the question of CREATION of the Universe.

        You wrote “I have already explained this point to your classmate. If you believe in supernatural begins, who have special powers, then it should be possible to concieve of a supernatural being who possesses ALL possible supernatural powers”

        More Semantics.
        No contest about your concept except that Supernatural being described in Buddhism cannot create a Universe with all it’s contents but the Supernatural being in Christianity is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent and to have Created everything in the Universe including Life.

        You have avoided answering the following about you (not God)

        A loaded gun can Kill
        You know that for a fact
        Would you give that Gun for your child to play with?
        If not why not?

        Are you using the word Energy, interchangeably with the Creator God of Christianity? Please state unambiguously whether Nature is a Creation of God or God itself.

        You wrote “You have completely failed to answer the central question of HOW Buddha could enter the abode of BRAHMA in the PHYSICAL BODY“

        I will answer that in due course after you state your position unambiguously regarding the Chronology of Creation with specific references from within your Theology.

        You have avoided answering the following from my previous post

        please describe what you understand from Genesis 1 of the Old Testament reproduced below. Please provide Biblical references.

        Genesis 1
        The Creation of the World
        In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
        And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

        You wrote “……..you would give good competition to the fundamentalist Christians (0.01% of all total Christians) who try to oppose evolution”

        You have stated above, that the Fundamentalist Christians oppose the EVOLUTION of Christianity. The Fundamentalists a correct in doing so as Christianity Claims that it is an ABSOLUTE truth.
        Your statement is also an admission that Christianity needs to EVOLVE.

        Absolute (from Oxford Dictionary)
        not qualified or diminished in any way; total:

        Meaning of absolute in Philosophy
        a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things:
        good and evil are presented as absolutes

        (the absolute) that which exists without being dependent on anything else.

        (the Absolute) ultimate reality; God.
        end extract

        If it is ABSOLUTE it cannot evolve
        If it evolves then it is not ABSOLUTE.

        If it has to evolve then it may not have been even a truth.
        Because a false claim has to keep changing in order to continue fooling those who believed in it in the first place.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        I understand it as referring to the Hindu Creator who is a Singular God. Since you agree that you were referring to a Singular Creator God, the answer is yes the Buddha denies a CREATOR.

        Give Buddha’s exact statement where he denies a Creator.

        And also explain the contradiction that arises when Buddha claims the physical body can wake up in the abode of Brahma.

        If Humanity was created by your Creator, please provide the sequence of creation as expounded by Christianity.

        I am here to debate facts, not religious stories.

        We are discussing CREATION not Evolution of Humanity. This is not a scientific discussion but a religious one. Your religion and you, claim that Humanity was created by your Creator. Please substantiate the chronology of that creation using religious references.

        My opinion is that God is the singular energy that was present at the time of the Big Bang Theory. Science takes the presence of the singular energy as an axiom, so there is no contradiction here.

        Yes I agree with you, the Buddha was Omniscient.

        A human being cannot be omnscient. If Buddha was omniscient, it would mean he possessed all the knowlegde of Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger, Ramanujan, Gauss etc. But that is impossible, since the knowledge acquired by these people spans more than 300 years, and is impossible for a single human being to know without any reference books. Let us look at the quality of Buddhist “science” just to prove the point:

        A human is a combination of five aggregates (khandhas), namely body or form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations or thought process, and consciousness, which is the fundamental factor of the previous three.

        http://buddhismteacher.com/five_aggregates.php

        Don’t you think if Buddha was really OMNISCIENT he would have said human beings possess 206 bones and 100 billion neurons. If he had said just those two things, everyone in the world would be believing him today. Instead he gave some theory about “aggregates” that has zero scientific value. Look at what else he said:

        These three basic facts of all existence are:

        Impermanence or Change (anicca)
        Suffering or Unsatisfactoriness (dukkha)
        Not-self or Insubstantiality (anattaa).

        http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html

        Can ANY of the above three be proved empirically? The answer is NO. In fact, the modern scientific answer to the above question comes from economics, which says that the basic fact of existence is scarcity , e.g. the fact that the Earth has limited natural resources, and so human wants will always exceed human needs. The question then, is how to distribute the resources most efficiently. Denying that the self exists and that non-attachment is the best solution – this does not solve the riddle of existence. It would seem that the Buddha offered nothing more than a psychological coping mechanism , which may have philosophical value, but does not have ANY scientific value. On the other hand, we should be aware that during Buddha’s time, there was no distinction between science and philosophy. But the fact that Buddha was not aware of this distinction proves he was not omniscient!

        You wrote “Energy is everywhere. The total amount of energy in the Universe is constant, meaning it is impossible to create new energy. So, energy has unlimited powers. It is everywhere at once. It is formless. It created the Universe. Any questions?”

        Your scientific knowledge is not up to the mark. I will discuss them after you answer the question of CREATION of the Universe.

        It is your scientific knowledge that is lacking. I have used your own logic and shown how it is impossible to disprove the existence of a quantity that has always existed. If you assume God did not create the Universe, then you assume the Universe has always existed. But if you assume the Universe has always existed, then you assume energy has always existed. On the other hand, asking how energy created the Universe is the same as asking how God created the Universe. What created the energy that created the Universe? It is impossible to answer such a question; one must simply assume the energy was there, as the Big Bang Theory does.

        No contest about your concept except that Supernatural being described in Buddhism cannot create a Universe with all it’s contents but the Supernatural being in Christianity is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent and to have Created everything in the Universe including Life.

        How do you know the above to be true? Have you met such a supernatural being? Kindly pass on the names of said supernatural being(s) so that we may verify for ourselves. Also state which powers these supernatural beings possessed and which they didn’t.

        I will answer that in due course after

        Clearly you have no answer to this question, so I will take it as an admission of defeat on your part, and pass it on to your classmate Yapa.

        You have avoided answering the following from my previous post

        please describe what you understand from Genesis 1 of the Old Testament reproduced below. Please provide Biblical references.

        As I said, the Bible does not give a scientific description of how the Earth was created. One should always understand the purpose of a book. The Bible was not written to be a scientific document. On the other hand, as a source of history, the Bible is far more accurate than Mahavamsa . Mahavamsa purposefully distorts the facts.

        The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, better known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism) is different from the Theravada Buddhism practiced in other countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and so on. The Buddhists in these countries follow only the Buddhist scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma), whereas in Sri Lanka the ‘Mahavamsa,’ which was written by one of the Mahavihara monks (Ven. Mahanama) more than 1000 years after the passing away of Lord Buddha is also considered as a part of the Buddhist scriptures, although it deals mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of which are copied from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana.’ Since the Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history (Mahavamsa) were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between the two and, therefore, he/she believes everything that the Buddhist monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha.

        Due to ignorance, even the present day Sinhala-Buddhists still believe that they are blood relatives of Buddha because, according to the Mahavamsa, their forefather Pandu-Vasudeva belongs to the Sakya clan, and is a relative of the Buddha where as the historians believe that the term ‘Pandu’ in Pali means Pandyans.

        http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1886

      • Nihal Perera

        Correction: *human wants and human needs will always be infinite.”

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        I would like to answer some of the queries addressed to Off the Cuff.

        ***”Give Buddha’s exact statement where he denies a Creator.”***

        Read Agganna Sutta.

        ***”And also explain the contradiction that arises when Buddha claims the physical body can wake up in the abode of Brahma.”***

        I don’t understand your question, to which incident are you referring to?

        ***”If Humanity was created by your Creator, please provide the sequence of creation as expounded by Christianity.

        I am here to debate facts, not religious stories.”***

        You are again displaying your dishonesty, by avoiding the queries you are trapped with.

        ****”We are discussing CREATION not Evolution of Humanity. This is not a scientific discussion but a religious one. Your religion and you, claim that Humanity was created by your Creator. Please substantiate the chronology of that creation using religious references.

        My opinion is that God is the singular energy that was present at the time of the Big Bang Theory. Science takes the presence of the singular energy as an axiom, so there is no contradiction here.”***

        Creator God concept was fabricated before the Big Bang Theory was proposed. So do you say until that theory was presented there was no way to defend the Creator god in blind faith?

        On the other hand that Creator God must have the form of the man, as Creator created the man in his form. So do you mean to say the Singular energy before the Big Bang was there in the form of a man? Madness!

        ***”Yes I agree with you, the Buddha was Omniscient.

        A human being cannot be omnscient. If Buddha was omniscient, it would mean he possessed all the knowlegde of Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger, Ramanujan, Gauss etc. But that is impossible, since the knowledge acquired by these people spans more than 300 years, and is impossible for a single human being to know without any reference books. Let us look at the quality of Buddhist “science” just to prove the point:

        A human is a combination of five aggregates (khandhas), namely body or form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations or thought process, and consciousness, which is the fundamental factor of the previous three.”***

        I too agree that just an average human being cannot be omniscient just as your Creator God cannot. However, the Buddha is not an average human being. So your query has no relevance.

        Reading book is not the only way of acquiring knowledge, as your tiny brain has understood. If so a migratory bird, goes back to north pole after coming to south should read thousands of books before it starts its journey. A leopard must calculate its relative velocity with respect to a deer using a calculator before it runs after his prey to catch it. A single cell understands all the inheritances of a father and mother to take it to the next generation, to their baby. It is said that the knowledge it carry to the next generation, needs 1000 books with 1000 computer written pages.

        It is the empirical conditioning of your tiny brain thinks that only what you know is existing in the world.

        There are many ways of knowledge acquiring. You know only about your foot.

        ***”Don’t you think if Buddha was really OMNISCIENT he would have said human beings possess 206 bones and 100 billion neurons. If he had said just those two things, everyone in the world would be believing him today.”***

        Buddha was not a gossip or a chatter box like some people who always talk of irrelevant facts. He kept all his teaching confined to his objective, you know according to Modern Management Concept MBO, you know what MBO is? It is Management By Objectives.

        ***”Instead he gave some theory about “aggregates” that has zero scientific value.”***

        Your short vision does not go beyond Science. Science, more appropriately Biology cannot define a ‘BEING” yet, though Buddhism perfectly define it as “FIVE AGGREGATES”. According to materialistic Biology a man is not more than a big piece of flesh. It has no answers for thinking capacity of the man. How does Science define Consciousness(Vinnana). How does it define free will. Science(Material) has no solutions to conscious beings. Buddha explicitly explains it as a combination of five material and mental aggregates, and perfectly explains how the consciousness arise.

        Your blind faith to your “kokatath thailaya”, Science is not my fault. Your eyes are dazzled with Science and the blind faith to disproved God. What can I do about it other than sympathizing with you.

        ***”Look at what else he said:”

        These three basic facts of all existence are:

        Impermanence or Change (anicca)
        Suffering or Unsatisfactoriness (dukkha)
        Not-self or Insubstantiality (anattaa).

        http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html

        Can ANY of the above three be proved empirically? The answer is NO.”***

        What I can say about you is you are an empirical fool. Empiricism is not the only way to assess, verify and to know. I think I gave startling examples, if you can and willing to understand.

        Is anything wrong with those three basic facts? They are perfectly sensible.

        ***”In fact, the modern scientific answer to the above question comes from economics, which says that the basic fact of existence is scarcity”***

        Exactly, the Buddha’s answer was as there is no unlimited resources, one cannot achieve all what he aspires. What one can do is to limit his wants and to be content with some moderation, “Middle Path”.

        I will answer rest of your queries as well. Please be prepared with some honesty.

        Thanks!

        To be Continued………..

      • yapa

        Continuation………….

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        ***”The question then, is how to distribute the resources most efficiently. Denying that the self exists and that non-attachment is the best solution – this does not solve the riddle of existence. It would seem that the Buddha offered nothing more than a psychological coping mechanism , which may have philosophical value, but does not have ANY scientific value.”***

        You are again playing somersault where even your God fear to fet his feet.

        Buddha’s doctrine does not deny the existence of a self. This is how even most of the Buddhist understood the deep concept. The doctrine say as a Paramaththa, there is nothing called self. Paramaththa Sathya in Buddhism means the analytical truth. The conclusions arrived at looking at things from an analytical perspective. Buddha analyzed a being in order to show the insignificance of being attached to self and to be pride of self, and to tell about the evils beings do on that basis of attachment to a non significant thing(self) and to advice to refrain from doing evil,as a consequent to an insignificant attachment, that is to valueless notion of self. It teaches people to be humble and moderate as self is not a thing to be adored, and it is the root of all evils, that is attachment to self.

        Buddha analyzes the whole body of a man in “Pilikul Meditation” by dividing it into its constituent parts as “Asthim masmin, kaye, kesha,…. and shows that when the body is divided in to its constituent parts, they have no any value, and hence the totality of them that is the body has no significant value to be taken as self with any sort of value. Paramaththa sathya about a person or his body is that it has no value to be adored and to drink and dance about it. Showing dead body of a beauty, Buddha asked any whether anybody was willing to sleep with it a night, as they had done before after paying a massive amount to her. In many ways the Buddha showed the valueless, hopeless, and useless nature of attachment to this decaying body and the changing mind taking it as a distinct entity. As it is subject to decay the Buddha said there is no permanent soul, against the one of the popular beliefs of the time “Saswatha Vaada”, which advocated the notion that, every person has some permanent entity called soul, which does not obey the law of impermanence,and kept intact for ever even though it transmigrated to another body by way of reincarnation. In that view a person reincarnated as a dog has the same soul of that man. A dog with a man’s soul! Ha! Ha!!. The Buddha rejected this absurd view and said that there is not to call as a (permanent) soul in a being, but the being keeps on changing without any pause and there fore there is no a self of the permanent nature. Is the Infant named “Chaminda” and and his changed form after 80 years, still with the name of Chaminda are same? Chaminda has kept on changing. Old Chaminda is neither the infant Chaminda nor any other person than him. So, this shows that no single person has something that could be permanently taken as self in him. Everything in him undergoes the universal law of anicca:impermanence.

        ***”On the other hand, we should be aware that during Buddha’s time, there was no distinction between science and philosophy. But the fact that Buddha was not aware of this distinction proves he was not omniscient!”**

        What foolish fantasizing? Buddha did not talk of Biology, Physics Chemistry or Philosophy, for one reason the language he used was not English. Ha! Ha!!. On the other hand how do you announce the Buddha guilty of the things he has not done? Can you imprison somebody for not committing murder? for not committing theft?

        Buddha has never given any promise that he would talk of this thing or that thing to any body, Just like your God’s broken promises. All kind, omniscient omnipotent and omnipresent God make his own sons to suffer in wars, famines, floods, tornadoes and Tsunamis as well. Why don’t you ask your omnipresent who is always with you in the dining table to prevent you from those calamities? I think he is not omnipotent, but -mpotent.

        ***”You wrote “Energy is everywhere. The total amount of energy in the Universe is constant, meaning it is impossible to create new energy. So, energy has unlimited powers. It is everywhere at once. It is formless. It created the Universe. Any questions? It is your scientific knowledge that is lacking. ”

        Your scientific knowledge is not up to the mark. I will discuss them after you answer the question of CREATION of the Universe.”***

        Off the Cuff’s unpolluted/uncorrupted Science knowledge gained though his brilliant common sense and general reading is much more superior than your contaminated half science mixed with blind beliefs of discarded theology. No person with an iota of science knowledge would say there is a energy form known as God.

        In which Physics book you read about the “God Energy”. Ha! ha!! (Mewa ahala pana palayan pereda, Haaah Haah Hah Ha!!!!!!!!

        ****”I have used your own logic and shown how it is impossible to disprove the existence of a quantity that has always existed.”***

        Are you talking about the God that was existed in the form of the image similar to the man? Is the God a man or a woman? I am asking because the God gave birth to Adam. Ha! Ha!! Great Scientific knowledge!

        ***”If you assume God did not create the Universe, then you assume the Universe has always existed.”***

        Do you have any reason to prefer the first option than the second or do you have any methodology to eliminate the second option? Have you heard of the more recent “Crunch Theory” of Science about the universe?

        I think you know only popular science and to believe discarded theological myths as science. Scientific God energy, Oh, my my , Oh! my sinus! God Energy the 2nd of the Physics Book of the Series by Prof. Niha Perera, PhD (some people say PhD stands for Permanently head damaged. Ha! Ha!!

        ****”But if you assume the Universe has always existed, then you assume energy has always existed. On the other hand, asking how energy created the Universe is the same as asking how God created the Universe.”***

        Trying impossibles. Don’t waste your energy(God). Ha! Ha!!

        ***”What created the energy that created the Universe? It is impossible to answer such a question”***

        That is the reason for Buddha’s naming the question as Avyakata. Now I think the meaning of Avykatha. Avyakatha is something imposable to understood by the human mind. The Buddha asked “Malunkeyya Putta” not to waste time contemplating on impossibles, that is Avyakathas, and advised him to look into his own matters.

        ***”What created the energy that created the Universe? It is impossible to answer such a question; one must simply assume the energy was there, as the Big Bang Theory does.”***

        What a simple/humble choice? Since I cannot think what sort of a thing it is, I would take it as as a “pumpkin”. What smart logic?

        ***”No contest about your concept except that Supernatural being described in Buddhism cannot create a Universe with all it’s contents but the Supernatural being in Christianity is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent and to have Created everything in the Universe including Life.”****

        …and hence disprovable and non existent.

        ***”How do you know the above to be true? Have you met such a supernatural being? Kindly pass on the names of said supernatural being(s) so that we may verify for ourselves. Also state which powers these supernatural beings possessed and which they didn’t.

        I will answer that in due course after

        Clearly you have no answer to this question, so I will take it as an admission of defeat on your part, and pass it on to your classmate Yapa.”***

        We have neither empirical proofs for the existence of super natural beings of the order give in Buddhism and neither have any reason to reject the existence of them. Therefore unlike believing in the Creator God, one can sensibly believe that such beings exist. I might be able to shed some light into this in the future, when we proceed through the discussion.

        On the other hand, it is a fact that there are things in the world that out of the five sensory perception. Do you accept it?

        ***”You have avoided answering the following from my previous post

        please describe what you understand from Genesis 1 of the Old Testament reproduced below. Please provide Biblical references.

        ***”As I said, the Bible does not give a scientific description of how the Earth was created. One should always understand the purpose of a book. The Bible was not written to be a scientific document.”***

        Oh Ho!!, Now you accept the contents of the Bible is unscientific or scientifically untruth? At the first instance,we have proved that there was no God to dictate to write tat book as well.

        I think this fact you can cite as the reason for contradictions in the Bible. You can say, the thing contained in the Bible are not the words of the God. Then you and your theories will be safe and sound. Ha! Ha!!

        ***”On the other hand, as a source of history, the Bible is far more accurate than Mahavamsa . Mahavamsa purposefully distorts the facts.’***

        What a biased notion? On the other hand why Mr. Nihal Perera are you insulting your ethnicity, Sinhla? Ha! Ha!! Nihanan Pereram Ha! Ha!!

        Mr. Nihal Perera Mahawanasa cannot be disproved just as your nonsense. Further, its truth has been established by corroborate writing here and abroad and also with archeological evidence of this country ans foreign countries as well. Many Indian archeological sites were found by going on the details given in the Mahawansa. Thousands of still existing ancient Dagabos, Temples, wevas(Irrigation tanks), stone inscriptions etc, etc., are testimony for its credibility. However, as you said, one must think of the purpose of writing a book. You cannot find a perfect book.

        ***”The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, better known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism) is different from the Theravada Buddhism practiced in other countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and so on.”***

        The name Sinhala-Buddhism is a name given by the eelamists to insult Buddhism and Sinhalese as they knew that they are the main obstackle for them to realize their wicked plan. Supporters of eeam still prefer to use that insulting name even after their dream was shattered and broken into pieces.

        There are differences among Practices in each country. However, the crux is same. It is the four Noble Truths. no one practice Mahawansa as Buddhism as you said in hatred.

        ***”The Buddhists in these countries follow only the Buddhist scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma), whereas in Sri Lanka the ‘Mahavamsa,’ which was written by one of the Mahavihara monks (Ven. Mahanama) more than 1000 years after the passing away of Lord Buddha is also considered as a part of the Buddhist scriptures, although it deals mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of which are copied from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana.’ Since the Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history (Mahavamsa) were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between the two and, therefore, he/she believes everything that the Buddhist monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha.”***

        What a fabrication of nonsense with an evil intention? Every evil act has evil results as its consequences. Beware of you bad Karma.

        ***”Due to ignorance, even the present day Sinhala-Buddhists still believe that they are blood relatives of Buddha because, according to the Mahavamsa, their forefather Pandu-Vasudeva belongs to the Sakya clan, and is a relative of the Buddha where as the historians believe that the term ‘Pandu’ in Pali means Pandyans.

        http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1886“***

        So what? What is wrong with it? Pandu in Pali may be Pandyan but it does not say every Pandu is a Pandyan. Pandu Bandaranayake is a Sinhalese MP in the Sri Lanka Parliament? Don’t go to tell him he is a pandyan, in any case, he will break your beautiful neck.

        I think you will be satisfied with my answers and look forward for a comprehensive feed back.

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Yapa,

        Parrots only can repeat what ever he was taught over and over again.

        Can you find a famous parrot who also claims to have proved that a Creator God does not exist? Do you know why birds prefer to fly together? 🙂

        I too agree that just an average human being cannot be omniscient just as your Creator God cannot. However, the Buddha is not an average human being.

        There are many human beings who defy the definition of “normal.” On the other hand, none of them are omniscient or claim to be omniscient. Now you are showing your true colors; you do not believe that a supernatural being can be omniscient but you believe that a human being can be omniscient. If this thread has a gold medal for logical fallacies, you are the top candidate.

        Reading book is not the only way of acquiring knowledge, as your tiny brain has understood. If so a migratory bird, goes back to north pole after coming to south should read thousands of books before it starts its journey.

        Reading a book is the only way of acquiring advanced mathematical knowledge. Kindly explain how someone who has never read a book can answer the following question:

        Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?

        Can someone who has never read a book even concieve of such a question? Please show where I can find such a question in the Tripitika, then I might change my mind, hahahaha.

        You have given some silly examples from the animal kingdom, which are not worth commenting on.

        Your short vision does not go beyond Science. Science, more appropriately Biology cannot define a ‘BEING” yet, though Buddhism perfectly define it as “FIVE AGGREGATES”.

        Let us look at some of what science has contributed to the world: (1) cars, (2) computers, (3) life-saving medicines, (4) electric light bulbs, (5) semiconductors, (6) airplanes, (7) a better way to print books (aka printing press), (8) sanitation systems……

        Now, what has Buddhism contributed to the world, to improve the quality of life? Name one thing? I challenge you. If science had not advanced, you would have died at age 30, as people did in those days. Hahahaha. The joke is on you, my friend.

        Empiricism is not the only way to assess, verify and to know. I think I gave startling examples, if you can and willing to understand.

        What are these other ways? To close one’s eyes and imagine how he was a lizard in the past life? 🙂 Regardless of whether science or Buddhism is “better” what is clear is that science WORKS for the PRACTICAL life, and Buddhism DOES NOT.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal Perera;

        Can I conclude that you agree wit all my post above other than the few queries you raised?

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Yapa,


        Buddha analyzes the whole body of a man in “Pilikul Meditation” by dividing it into its constituent parts as “Asthim masmin, kaye, kesha,…. and shows that when the body is divided in to its constituent parts, they have no any value, and hence the totality of them that is the body has no significant value to be taken as self with any sort of value… A dog with a man’s soul! Ha! Ha!!.

        What is the difference between a dog with a man’s soul, and a man born as a dog in the next life?

        The Buddha rejected this absurd view and said that there is not to call as a (permanent) soul in a being,

        Only your monks who have been falsfiying history for 2500 years said so.

        Avyaakata, the ‘indeterminate questions’ are given as ten in number:

        1. Whether the world is eternal

        2. or not eternal

        3. Whether the world is finite

        4. or infinite

        5. Whether the soul and body are identical

        6. or different

        7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,

        8. or does not exist after death,

        9. or both exists and does not exist after death,

        10. or neither exists nor does not exist after death

        If Buddha rejected the soul, then why did he refuse to answer questions (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10)? So I think your assertion is wrong; Buddha did not deny the existence of the soul explicitly, just like he did not deny the existence of Brahma explicitly. If you disagree, then explain why Buddha did not answer questions (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10).

        In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”,[17] which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

        As I said, the Sri Lankan form of Buddhism, so-called “Sinhala-Buddhism”, seems to be a thoroughly corrupt form of pure Buddhism.

        Everything in him undergoes the universal law of anicca:impermanence.

        And yet you have no answers to questions (1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9), and (10).

        What foolish fantasizing? Buddha did not talk of Biology, Physics Chemistry or Philosophy, for one reason the language he used was not English. Ha! Ha!!. On the other hand how do you announce the Buddha guilty of the things he has not done? Can you imprison somebody for not committing murder? for not committing theft?

        An omniscient being would have been fully aware of the coming of science and at least predicted its uses, limitations, etc.

        Buddha has never given any promise that he would talk of this thing or that thing to any body,

        Because he did not possess such knowledge. The Greeks who thought about atoms and the Vedic Hindus who wrote about flying saucers and great weapons of mass destruction in Ramayana had more knowledge of science than the Buddha.

        In which Physics book you read about the “God Energy”.

        It seems you do not know the meaning of axiom. And that you do not know the Big Bang Theory, which I have explained in detail in this thread. The Big Bang Theory assumes a singular source of energy existed at the time of creation of the Universe. It does not say anything about how this energy was created or where it came from, because to do so would be begging the question.

        Are you talking about the God that was existed in the form of the image similar to the man? Is the God a man or a woman? I am asking because the God gave birth to Adam. Ha! Ha!! Great Scientific knowledge!

        It seems you are unable to concieve of God as energy. This shows the extent of your scientific abilities. 🙂 Even a small child will understand that nothing in so-called “life” is possible without an energy transformation of some kind.

        ***”If you assume God did not create the Universe, then you assume the Universe has always existed.”***

        Do you have any reason to prefer the first option than the second or do you have any methodology to eliminate the second option? Have you heard of the more recent “Crunch Theory” of Science about the universe?

        Why don’t you answer the question directly, or perhaps you have no proper answer, as usual? My logic is flawless because it begins with the assumption that God did not create the Universe , and leads to a contradiction, where the contradiction is that if God did not create the Universe, then energy created the Universe (as the Big Bang Theory says), but asking who created the energy is the same as asking who created the Creator God. Adam and Eve, as I explained to your classmate, is a Babylonian myth that is a useful cosmological model for people who are not capable of higher-dimensional thinking. 🙂

        I think you know only popular science and to believe discarded theological myths as science. Scientific God energy, Oh, my my , Oh! my sinus! God Energy the 2nd of the Physics Book of the Series by Prof. Niha Perera, PhD (some people say PhD stands for Permanently head damaged. Ha! Ha!!

        My theory is complete. There is no inconsistency in it.

        Your theory, on the other hand, consists of deny, deny, deny, without any solid arguments to back up your position.

        ****”But if you assume the Universe has always existed, then you assume energy has always existed. On the other hand, asking how energy created the Universe is the same as asking how God created the Universe.”***

        Trying impossibles. Don’t waste your energy(God). Ha! Ha!!

        Again, thank you for showing your lack of knowledge about energy. By the way, here is an experiment for you to try: try putting your head underwater for 15 minutes. Then you will understand how energy gives life (if you are still alive).

        ***”What created the energy that created the Universe? It is impossible to answer such a question”***

        That is the reason for Buddha’s naming the question as Avyakata. Now I think the meaning of Avykatha. Avyakatha is something imposable to understood by the human mind. The Buddha asked “Malunkeyya Putta” not to waste time contemplating on impossibles, that is Avyakathas, and advised him to look into his own matters.

        Without answering this question, it is impossible to prove that no soul exists, and that there is no Creator God. But you are right that the human mind cannot understand infinity. Infinity is not a counting number. It is really an assumption. It is there for the sake of completness, nothing else. On the other hand, without completeness, a system of logic has certain gaps in it. For example, how does one answer the question of what is the biggest natural number? To say that there is no biggest natural number is ambiguous, unless one has already defined “biggest” or lack thereof.

        ***”What created the energy that created the Universe? It is impossible to answer such a question; one must simply assume the energy was there, as the Big Bang Theory does.”***

        What a simple/humble choice? Since I cannot think what sort of a thing it is, I would take it as as a “pumpkin”. What smart logic?

        That is the whole point of the proof. One cannot say exactly what the energy was that created the Universe. But one cannot deny the energy was there either.

        We have neither empirical proofs for the existence of super natural beings of the order give in Buddhism and neither have any reason to reject the existence of them. Therefore unlike believing in the Creator God, one can sensibly believe that such beings exist. I might be able to shed some light into this in the future, when we proceed through the discussion.

        As I said before, a pure rationalist would not have any need for gods, or supernatural beings which possess some/all of the powers of said gods. So by accepting supernatural beings as objects in your system of Buddhist logic, you are admitting that it is not a purely rational system after all.

        On the other hand, it is a fact that there are things in the world that out of the five sensory perception. Do you accept it?

        Do you accept that one of these things could be a Creator God? 🙂 Because if it is beyond the five sensory perceptions, it could refer to a deviation in time, mass, or space.

        Oh Ho!!, Now you accept the contents of the Bible is unscientific or scientifically untruth? At the first instance,we have proved that there was no God to dictate to write tat book as well.

        The Bible is a document of history, not of science. The only ancient religion/philosophy that has ever come close to modern science is Vedanta; these people were also excellent mathematicians who invented the number zero and approximated the value of pi. The Greeks also had some good ideas, but they did not know of algebra, and many of their ideas about motion were wrong.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You claim that the Universe and everything within it was created by a Creator God who has the OOO attributes (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent).

        I see that claim being made in Genesis 1.

        You say Genesis 1 is a Myth.

        If it is a myth as you claim, where else in Christian Theological Text, is Creation described and attributed to the Christian God?

        Please reproduce here on GV, the EXACT theological text that convinced you to believe in Creation.

        Genesis 1
        The Creation of the World
        In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
        And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “Give Buddha’s exact statement where he denies a Creator”

        Buddha denies a Creator in many places

        Did you read Aggana Suttha as Yapa advised?
        You should read the Tittha Sutta too for another instance where a Creator is denied.

        The Buddha asks Priests and Thinkers who hold the view that ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’ the following

        In that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief… unchaste… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’ When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort required to think about right or wrong. When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a Thinker. ( Tittha Sutta)

        Hope the following extract from wiki will clear the confusion about the name “Brahma”

        Extract
        The name Brahma originates in Vedic tradition, in which Brahma appears as the creator of the universe. By contrast, early Buddhist texts describe several different Brahmas coexisting in the same universe; some of them think they are “all powerful” creators of the world, but they are corrected by the Buddha. The myths, characters, and functions of these Brahmas are distinct from those of the Vedic Brahma. However, at least one of the Buddhist Brahmas is identified as being the object of worship of pre-Buddhist brahmins. The Buddha described the Vedic Brahma as a misunderstanding, or mistaken remembrance, of one or more of the Buddhist Brahmas, as explained in the Brahmajala-sutta (Digha Nikaya 1).

        There is no identity between the Buddhist Brahmas and the Hindu conception of brahman as an all-encompassing divine force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_%28Buddhism%29
        (observe the plural in the Buddhist context and the singular in the Hindu context)

        There are Christian Nihal Pereras and Buddhist Nihal Pereras in Lanka.
        Similarly the name “Brahma” is not exclusive to Hinduism.
        To believe that every instance of Brahma, appearing in some text, exclusively refers to the Hindu Creator God, is simply idiotic.

        In response to my call to substantiate the following “Your religion and you, claim that Humanity was created by your Creator. Please substantiate the chronology of that creation using religious references.”

        You wrote “My opinion is that God is the singular energy that was present at the time of the Big Bang Theory. Science takes the presence of the singular energy as an axiom, so there is no contradiction here”

        Your opinion is not what I have asked for.
        Your opinion is irrelevant and insignificant as you are neither Jesus the Son of God nor Moses who saw God. Hence without any authority to Pontificate

        Please answer the question directly with Authoritative references from within Christian Theology.
        Are you AFRAID to answer the Theological Question on Creation?
        Are you now in DOUBT about your Creator God?

        Please note that this is s Theological Question that requires a Theological answer.

        I am limiting this post to the question of Creation as you have consistently AVOIDED to answer it and provide Authoritative Theological references.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        If it is a myth as you claim, where else in Christian Theological Text, is Creation described and attributed to the Christian God?

        Please reproduce here on GV, the EXACT theological text that convinced you to believe in Creation.

        You are committing a logical error called straw man fallacy.

        ——

        Description of Straw Man

        The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

        Person A has position X.
        Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
        Person B attacks position Y.
        Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

        ——

        The fact of the matter is that the existence of a Creator God is not exclusive to Christianity. So, you cannot prove the non-existence of a Creator God on the basis of just a weaker version of the “Creator God,” aka Babylonian myth. Furthermore, I never made the claim that the “Christian God” created the Universe; my claim was that God created the Universe.

        Anyway, I will let you keep doing your logical fallacy puja, while your classmate chants in the background.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You are a Christian.
        You believe in Creation.

        Please tell us WHY you profess that belief.
        Please describe
        what was Created,
        the chronology of Creation,
        who Created them and
        why they were Created.
        Please substantiate your belief using Christian Theological Text.

        Genesis 1 describes Creation.
        If the Christian Church that you belong to, rejects Genesis 1 but has it’s own version of Creation that they subscribe to, please reproduce the exact statement and the source of that statement.

        I hope that you are not Afraid to tell the GV Readership, why you believe in Creation and the Christian Church’s position on Creation, in precise terms.

        Please note that I have not taken any position but am asking for yours and your Church’s Positions.

        He he hee Straw man indeed!

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        Buddha denies a Creator in many places

        No he doesn’t. If you believe he does, then give a direct quote of what the Buddha said. The burden of proof is on you. The fact that you are so far unable to give a direct quote indicates you’re wrong.

        Also, you have failed to explain why said Buddha said someone can PHYSICALLY wake up in the abode of Brahma.

        Sikh? Buddha and Abhibh? are also said to have visited the Brahma world (A.i.227f.). The Buddha could visit it both in his mind made body and his physical body (S.v.282f.)

        http://glossary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/6306/brahmaloka

        How does one vist the world of Brahma in the PHYSICAL BODY, if Brahma is a purely meditative concept, such as you claim is the case?

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        As usual not a word about Creation.
        Why?
        Afraid of Blasphemy?

        Why can’t you make a SIMPLE statement explaining why you believe in the Creation Theory?
        Are you waiting for GV to close this thread to save you from ignominy?
        Waiting to be saved by the bell?
        Pray to GV to close this thread as God can’t do it and only GV can.
        You have become as impotent as your Creator.

        This is all I asked in my previous post and you cannot say a word about it?

        Please tell us WHY you profess that belief.
        Please describe
        what was Created,
        the chronology of Creation,
        who Created them and
        why they were Created.
        Please substantiate your belief using Christian Theological Text.

        Your inability to even justify your own thinking about a Creator God speaks volumes about Creation ha ha haaa.

        Is it because God’s Plan of reproduction included fornication and I*n*c*e*s*t?

        Yapa and I provided two instances, Aggana and Tittha Sutthas, to prove that the Buddha denies a Creator in many places.
        And you are now responding with a Dumb statement
        No he doesn’t. If you believe he does, then give a direct quote of what the Buddha said. The burden of proof is on you. The fact that you are so far unable to give a direct quote indicates you’re wrong.

        I have carried the burden of proof and have given references that anyone can refer to.
        But were you able to carry the BURDEN OF PROOF regarding Creation?
        Not even when directly asked about your own position…. Pathetic.

        Again and again you have come out with delaying tactics when questioned about Creation.
        Now you are returning back to the Vedic (Hindu) Brahman when that has already been explained in the following extract from wiki that I quoted in an EARLIER post
        Quote
        The Buddha described the Vedic Brahma as a misunderstanding, or mistaken remembrance, of one or more of the Buddhist Brahmas, as explained in the Brahmajala-sutta (Digha Nikaya)
        There is no identity between the Buddhist Brahmas and the Hindu conception of brahman as an all-encompassing divine force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_%28Buddhism%29
        Unquote

        You wrote “How does one vist the world of Brahma in the PHYSICAL BODY, if Brahma is a purely meditative concept, such as you claim is the case? “

        I hope you have a sufficient mastery of English to understand the extract from wiki and to realise how dumb your question is.

        Who told you Brahma was a meditative concept?
        Apparently Honesty is not your strong point either.

        Meditation is the Method by which the Buddhist Brahmas (note the plural) can be reached (references given long ago).

        Without beating about the bush further, please provide DIRECT answers to the following.

        Please tell us WHY you profess a belief in Creation.
        Please describe
        what was Created,
        the chronology of Creation,
        who Created them and
        why they were Created.
        Please substantiate your belief using Christian Theological Text.

        Genesis 1 describes Creation.
        If the Christian Church that you belong to, rejects Genesis 1 but has it’s own version of Creation that they subscribe to, please reproduce the exact statement and the source of that statement.

  • sabbe laban

    “Because thing won’t remain forever,…”
    What I meant by the above is, “things won’t remain the same forever…”

    And to add to my previous post it is closer to the truth to say the question about the origin of the universe is “unanswerable” rather than giving a certain point in time where it was created. If anybody can answer the question about the origin of God or what was before the universe I would think otherwise.

    • PitastharaPuthraya

      Dear Sabbe Laban,

      You see life as something, which is basically dominated by ‘suffering’. Happiness is something of a temporary occurrance. How about the other way round? The life is something which is basically happy but interspersed with temporary suffering. That is how I see it. The Percentage of ‘suffering’ in one’s life depend on many things, personality, culture, socio-economic status, education, politics etc. Therefore, the basic assumption that life is ‘Dukka’ is wrong and giving a wrong message to the human kind.

      Sinhala Buddhism and ‘true’ Buddhism are two different things. Just because present day sinhalese buddhists do not beleive in true teaching of the Buddha does not negate the presence of the enitity called ‘Sinhala Buddhism’. In fact it one of the fundamental charachteristic features of ‘Sinhala Buddhism’.

      Although I am an atheist, I strongly believe that the beleif in one ‘creator God’ gives average folk a more positive attitude towards life and uncomplicated perception of the origin, end and purpose of life.

      As the scientists came to understand the beginning of the universe from singualrity with the big bang by the fact of expansion of the universe it is logical to think that human kind proceed on a line of development from the humble beginning as hunter gatherers. So there is a definite begining and it is anybody’s guess what the end is. Even if the humans are reborn according to their ‘Karmic Foreces’ and some would be able to break that chain by attaining ‘Nibbana’ as the Buddha taught, it is my humble view that it will not have any significant effect on this proecess. Moreover, it does not have any explaiation either. On the other hand theistic relgions especially, monotheistic, give a ready explanation to this mysterious process putting the average man at ease.

      The question you are asking whether we would be able to attain capitalist development even if we were not colonized, does no have a ready made answer. According to your understanding of the situation answer would be either yes or no. As Nihala P. already said there would have been several kingdoms rather than the one unified by the Portuguese, Dutch and British. Thailand did not need an outside power to unify there Kingdom. When considering the present feudal mind set of our political leaders even after being exposed to capitalist liberal thinking for over a century I strongly doubt that our kings and their ministers would have had the capacity to take the country to the next stage of development.

      Therefore, it is my belief that the Colonizers were instrumental for changing Sri Lankan from a backward feudal nation to a capitalist economy with many feudal vestiges.

      As far as Sri Lanka is concerned British exploited our wealth is a myth. They never took ship loads of our precious metal, diamonds, oil or antything for that matter as we were not rich of them. In fact they developed our infrasturcture with unprecedented zeal (rail road, highways, communication etc.) and turned the impregnable rain forests to rubber and tea plantations (and coconut plantations). What was the capital and human coast for developing most under-developed country to a country with a developed export sector, which we enjoy even today? Have we extended the British built railways even by a single inch after independenc? In fact we have closed down a Kelaniveli railway line. I do not have to repeat the kind of institution the introduced to our counry and moreover new liberal ideas they infused to our political culture. In fact it is my beleif that their contribution to our economy, culture, political thiking etc outweigh what they had taken from us. Therefore, we should be thankful to them if we only know what the word gratitude means.

      • yapa

        “As far as Sri Lanka is concerned British exploited our wealth is a myth. They never took ship loads of our precious metal, diamonds, oil or antything for that matter as we were not rich of them. In fact they developed our infrasturcture with unprecedented zeal (rail road, highways, communication etc.) and turned the impregnable rain forests to rubber and tea plantations (and coconut plantations).”

        Benevolent colonialists! Dishonesty has no bounds. This was the type of arguments and propaganda made by the eeamists, even before they were irradiated. Still they have not stopped foul tactics. They are at least trying to hurt the sentiments of Sinhalese/ Buddhists with a vengeance mind. But now they can do nothing other than pushing the moderates Sinhalese towards Rajapakhs administration and delaying reconciliation process which would benefit innocent Tamils in this country. Unjustified argumnets/consultations will not bring them good results.

        Thanks!

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Correction….

        “Unjustified argumnets/consultations will not bring them good results.”

        “consultations” should correct as “insults”.

        Thanks!

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Yapa,

    I do not understand how a person, who thinks ‘nibbana’ is the ultimate truth, argues that the ‘God’ is provable myth. Please prove that ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ ‘punabbawa’ are true.

    .

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      You wrote “I do not understand how a person, who thinks ‘nibbana’ is the ultimate truth, argues that the ‘God’ is provable myth. Please prove that ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ ‘punabbawa’ are true. ”

      You are misquoting Yapa

      This is what he said

      “We also could not find fault in believing in Gods other than the “Creator God”, which is a provable myth.“

      Why did you drop the word “CREATOR”?
      As Yapa stated, the concept of a CREATOR God is disprovable.

      Consider the following

      The Creator God is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent.

      He created one Human male and another Human female from a rib of that male.

      Hence both would have identical DNA.
      This original couple produced offspring and that offspring produced more.

      How was that possible without an incestuous relationship?

      Was it the Omniscient Creator’s design to have such incest?
      It is a fact that such relationships lead to problematic medical conditions.

      How is that an Omniscient Creator was ignorant of that?

      Hence the Creator’s fundamental design of reproduction was faulty.

      If the inexplicably complex Creator did not require a still more powerful Creator, why was it necessary for the comparatively simple man to have a Creator?

      There are many such factual events, that prove that the idea of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent Creator God, is a Myth.

      Nibbana means the end of the cycle of Birth.
      Karma is a Pali word that means Action.
      Vipaka is a Pali word that means Result.

      Vipaka usually follows Karma (result follows an action … nothing to prove there. This is visible to anyone in real life.

      What is in doubt is whether the result of an action can occur after death.

      In order to understand that you need to develop your mind.
      How the mind can be developed has been described in detail by the Buddha and is no secret.

      Unless you are willing to acquire that tool no one can prove what you ask as you don’t possess the capacity to understand.

      You are not alone in not being able to understand even physically observed events.

      In a paper in the journal Nature, a team led by the physicists John Morton of Oxford University and Kohei Itoh of Keio University describes bombarding a three-dimensional crystal with microwave and radio frequency pulses to create the entangled pairs. This is one of a range of competing approaches to making qubits, the quantum computing equivalent of today’s transistors.
      Transistors store information on the basis of whether they are on or off. In the experiment, qubits store information in the form of the orientation, or spin, of an atomic nucleus or an electron. The storage ability is dependent on entanglement, in which a change in one particle instantaneously affects another particle even if they are widely separated. The new approach has significant potential, scientists said, because it might permit quantum computer designers to exploit low-cost and easily manufacturable components and technologies now widely used in the consumer electronics industry. (New York Times)

      Quantum Entanglement has been observed but yet baffles Scientists. An entangled pair of particles will instantaneously reflect any change on one, in the other, even if those particles are thousands of miles apart.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      I don’t see any reason why God cannot be proven myth if karma, punabbhava and nirvana are not proven true.

      Do you see any valid reason for that? I think proving so called creator God is a myth and proving karma, punabbhava and nirvana are mutually exclusive.

      On the other hand what sort of a proof you need for karma, punabbhava and nirvana? With empirical evidence or logical proof?

      However, proving the Creator God a myth is an easy task. I will prove it. Can you prove karma, punabbhava and nirvana as myths?

      I will give three exclusive logical proofs to prove your Christian God is nothing but a myth.in addition if you want I will give you thousands of contradictions the God creates, as consequence of his existence and thousands of fallacies HE leads to.

      I will first give you the three direct proofs that So called God is a myth.

      1. It is said that God created the universe, on the argument that nothing can create it self, and there was nothing before that so called deliberate creation.

      Then who created the God, there must be somebody before that God to create HIM. This shows that HE is not the original creator, if there is a creator. Further, extension of the argument says that there cannot be any original creator, as any original creator must have a preceding one to create him.

      2. Omnipotence paradox- Averroes

      Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?” If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.

      3. Problem of evil- Epicurus

      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?

      These are definite proofs in effect to called God is a Myth.

      Now try your turn, please prove karma, punabbawa and nirvana myths.

      (I assert you one of the the biggest damages done so far to the human kind is to make millions of people to believe this untruth of so called God for thousands of years. Even in the 21st century man cannot get rid of this mythical belief/lie and struggling in the darkness, while the light of truth is shining before their very eyes. I think at least in the 21st century we must request people to give up untruth and get ready to see the truth.)

      Thanks!

      Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      Part 1
      This is reposted in several parts as two attempts at posting the complete comment (#38693 and #38713) did not succeed.

      You wrote “I do not understand how a person, who thinks ‘nibbana’ is the ultimate truth, argues that the ‘God’ is provable myth. Please prove that ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ ‘punabbawa’ are true. ”

      You are misquoting Yapa

      This is what he said

      “We also could not find fault in believing in Gods other than the “Creator God”, which is a provable myth. “

      Why did you drop the word “CREATOR”?
      As Yapa stated, the concept of a CREATOR God is disprovable.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        I am sorry. When I say ‘God’ I mean the ‘Creator God’. I am not interested in the 330 million lesser gods.

      • Nihal Perera

        Off the Cuff,

        “We also could not find fault in believing in Gods other than the “Creator God”, which is a provable myth. “

        The idea of a Creator God has never been disproven. That is why most of the world’s population, including most Buddhists, still believe in it. Theravada Buddhism seems to be a highly corrupt form of Buddhism. That is the impression I get everytime I read something from there.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        How about my three exclusive disproving of the Creator God? You don’t agree with it? What objections do you have about them?

        I would like to know your ideas specifically about that post of mine. Here it is for your easy reference.

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38698

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        My reply to your post is here

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38750

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      This is Part 2
      (continuation of http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38715)

      GV’s content filter seems to be blocking the word that describe a reproductive relationship among immediate family (ixxxxx). Hence I have removed that word.

      Consider the following

      The Creator God is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent.

      He created one Human male and another Human female from a rib of that male. Hence both would have identical DNA.

      This original couple produced offspring and that offspring produced more. How was that possible without a reproductive relationship within the immediate family?

      The Omniscient Creator’s design included a reproductive relationship within the immediate family. It is a fact that such relationships leads to problematic medical conditions.

      Can you explain why an Omniscient Creator was ignorant of that?

      This proves that the Creator’s fundamental design of reproduction was faulty.

      If the inexplicably complex Creator (He has infinite senses) did not require a still more complex Creator, why was it necessary for the comparatively simple man, who has only five senses, to have a Creator?

      There are many such factual events that prove that the idea of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent Creator God is a Myth.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Offthecuff,

        If the God had created so-complex human being in the form of Adam. Surely He should have been able to change the DNA of Adam’s rib before creating Eve. And morevoer, woman can not be created by man’s cell without any modification to the Chromosomes as men have XY and women have XX. Therefore, the notion that Eve was a clone of Adam does not arise.

      • Off the Cuff

        Nihal Perera,

        You wrote “The idea of a Creator God has never been disproven. That is why most of the world’s population, including most Buddhists, still believe in it.

        Proof please, from an authoritative reference

        The world’s Population is 7 Billion now.

      • Off the Cuff

        PitastharaPuthraya,

        You have avoided the question about the Creator’s Plan of Reproduction. His Plan for Reproduction has been inbreeding amongst Siblings

        In breading has Medical problems.
        Your Omniscient Creator has been Ignorant of that.
        That proves He was not Omniscient at all.

        Adam had only 5 senses. Hence Adam was an utterly simple creature compared to an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent Creator (OOO) who had to have an INFINITE number of senses to be an OOO being.

        Now please justify why a simple being with just 5 senses required a Creator, while a Creator, with INFINITE SENSES, did not require a Creator.

        How could He, who is INFINITELY more COMPLEX than Adam, just appear, out of nowhere, without the help, of another, MORE POWERFUL Creator.

        If such a COMPLEX OOO being can exist without a Creator, why can’t an infinitely more simple man, exist without a Creator.

        Who or What Created the Creator?

        You wrote “If the God had created so-complex human being in the form of Adam.”

        Sorry, Adam is not complex, he is INFINITELY more Simple than the Creator himself.

        You wrote “Surely He should have been able to change the DNA of Adam’s rib before creating Eve. ”

        You are speculating and groping at straws. Please provide PROOF from the Bible even though it is also speculative.

        You wrote “And morevoer, woman can not be created by man’s cell without any modification to the Chromosomes as men have XY and women have XX. ”

        Sorry again.
        Man has BOTH X and Y
        What your creator needed to do was just suppress the Y.

        You wrote “Therefore, the notion that Eve was a clone of Adam does not arise.”

        According to your Bible Eve was produced from Adam’s Rib. Hence the Mother cells of Eve, came from Adam. Your Creator did not ADD anything but of course He could have discarded what he did not need (the Y chromosome) Nothing contrary to this is stated in the Bible.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya,

      This is part 3, the final part
      continuation from part 2 http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38718

      Nibbana means the end of the cycle of Birth.
      Karma is a Pali word that means Action.
      Vipaka is a Pali word that means Result.

      Vipaka usually follows Karma (result follows an action … nothing to prove there). This is visible to anyone in real life.

      What is in doubt is whether the result of an action can occur after death. All Religions accept this on Faith. Buddhism does not.

      This is because the truth (or falsity), of the first statement, can be realised by anyone who develops the mind, to the required level, before death. Hence such a person knows (not by faith) that Vipaka (result) can follow (or not follow) Karma (action) even after death.

      How the mind can be developed has been described in detail by the Buddha and is no secret. Unless you are willing to acquire that tool, no one can prove to you, what you ask, as you don’t possess the capacity to understand.

      You are not alone in not being able to understand even physically observed events.

      In a paper in the journal Nature, a team led by the physicists John Morton of Oxford University and Kohei Itoh of Keio University describes bombarding a three-dimensional crystal with microwave and radio frequency pulses to create the entangled pairs. This is one of a range of competing approaches to making qubits, the quantum computing equivalent of today’s transistors.

      Transistors store information on the basis of whether they are on or off. In the experiment, qubits store information in the form of the orientation, or spin, of an atomic nucleus or an electron. The storage ability is dependent on entanglement, in which a change in one particle instantaneously affects another particle even if they are widely separated. The new approach has significant potential, scientists said, because it might permit quantum computer designers to exploit low-cost and easily manufacturable components and technologies now widely used in the consumer electronics industry. (New York Times)

      Quantum Entanglement has been observed but yet baffles Scientists. An entangled pair of particles will instantaneously reflect any change on one, in the other, even if those particles are thousands of miles apart.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Offthecuff,

        If possible give me some real life example of ‘karma’ giving ‘vipaka’ to any body.

        This is an argument with a dead end. If I give you an example of a person, who has done thousands of ‘evil’ deeds including murder, rape, robbery etc but living a happy life in this world you would say he would face ‘vipaka’ in the next life. If I give an example of a person, who leads and exemplary life of merit but suffers from many personal and other problems you would say he is facing ‘vipaka’ of misdeed he had done in previous lives. What kind of a circular argument that would be?

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        That is not a circular argument at all. You have no idea what a circular argument is.

        You are trying to bring knock out arguments, but you are mistaken. You cannot knock out such subtle doctrines with such naive queries. Your lack of knowledge is not a problem of karma. It may be bad karma of yours to know only superficially of such valuable doctrines.

        Karma has a day to day applicability and examples which you can experience and understand yourself but it does not limit to that surface level. It is a deep discourse that spreads harmoniously with the whole doctrine of the Buddha.

        Can you show it is wrong by using a circular argument or any other methodology, just as I proved Creator God is myth?

        Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    So, the f.dinosaurs lived alongside the humans after God created the world, eh?

    • @sabbe laban

      No.A few dinosaurs survived, and now comment on groundviews about what a great nation we are, and what big bad wolves the people in the west are… 😀

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Dear Yapa, Offthecuff, and Sabbe Laban,

    Yapa’s argument that If I am unable to prove that the concepts of ‘Nibbana’, ‘Karma’ etc are false they should be considered as true is utter nonsense.

    According to this kind of logic (I do not know how to call this) any absurd concept or idea put forward by any imbecile is considered true unless somebody disprove it. (I am not saying ‘nibbana’ is an absurd idea and Yapa is imbecile). It is like saying that an empty chair is occupied by a supernatural being unless you prove it otherwise.

    According to my logic (and logic of the majority of the people) the person who claims the existance of something should prove it for others to accept. As you know, Higgs Boson is considered to be the most fundamenal of subatomic particles. Now the scietists are trying prove its existance. If they fail, (This is the purpose of LHC), then no body would maintain that Higgs Boson exists.

    The claim that only certain people with developed mental capacity could undersand the truth of ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ etc applies to the ‘creator God’ as well. Only a person who is close to ‘God’ by his/her way of life could understand and communicate with their creator ‘God’. People like you and me, who does not believe in creator ‘God’ will never be able to appreciate his existance. What would you say about that argument?

    Yapa is so sure about his arguments disproving the existace of God. How many scholars before him tried to do the same? Had they been successful? No. When Charles Darwin published his incomparable book ‘origin of the species’ everybody thought that it was the end of the ‘myth’ of the creaor God. What happened since then? Believers of God had found counter arguments to suit the new scietific discoveries. The existance of God and concepts of ‘nibbana’, ‘Karma’, ‘universal supreme being’, ‘Brahma’ etc will survive the onslaught of the ratioalists for many more centuries to come (perhaps, even to the end of the man kind).

    I have one point against Yapa’s arguments disproving the existance of God such as ‘ominipotent paradox’, ‘probelm of evil, ‘who created the ceator God’. You and your fellow non-beleivers raise these doubts because your ordinary, mundane personalities do not understand the works of the ‘God’s Mind’. His mind is so complex that you and me will not be able to understand it unless you get cose to Him.

    Don’t you see the similarity between the arguments defending God and Nibbana?

    I am an atheist or perhaps an agnostic. What I wanted to show you is that there is no fundamental difference between the followers of ‘Creaor God’ and beleivers of ‘Nibbana’. One does not have a spiritual high grounds over the other to claim that one is ‘light of truth’ and the other is ‘darkness of false’.

    This is the difference between the scietific truth and relegious belief. After centuries of arguments between the atheists and theists and Buddhists and Christians we still in the squre one. No body can cliam victory over the other because the truth of religions can not be tested so that the human mind can understand without resorting to mystic and esoteric practices.

    The science can not be more different from that. Day by day scietific theories are proven correct. No sane person would argue against the notion that the certain types of illnesses are caused by micro-organisms and some of these bugs can be killed by penicillin. You would agree with me that millinos of lives have been saved by this scientific discovery. Only a person, who is hell-bent on disproving science with whatever means, would not be able to appreciate this fact. As I had many experiences in my personal life, you should also have many instances where scientific discoveries have saved lives of the people who you love.

    Finally, it is my humble view that the religious arguments will remain as it is for many more centuries to come until science will prove or dispove them. If at all, the religious truths would be revealed only to selected few. These people would never come forward with concrete evidence of their revealed truth. This ‘truth’ will remain a deeply personal human experiance. Those who wants to experience this ‘truth’ need to go into their own personal worlds isolated from the rest of the world. This is how it had happened in the past and it wil happen in the future.

    On the other hand the science will prove their theories day by day. These new discoveries would improve human conditions beyond our wildest imagination. They would not be confined only to a selected few. Instead they would benefit the whole human kind, as you see today.

    Therefore, guys cone down to the earth from your self imposed exile in the tower. Wash you minds off all the pre-conceived prejudice. Then look at the world. You should able to see as it is .

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya

      “Yapa’s argument that If I am unable to prove that the concepts of ‘Nibbana’, ‘Karma’ etc are false they should be considered as true is utter nonsense.”

      Yes, If I had said so as you said it is utter nonsense. Have I ever said so, where have I said so?

      I think you are creating a friendly monster to play with conveniently, just like a baby plays with his Barby Doll.

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      What I said was though I proved your Creator God is myth, you cannot prove my karma, punabbawa and nirvana myths. That is all I said. I asked you to do tit for tat! Can you do it?

      I asked to disprove them if possible, not to prove them, that I didn’t expect from you.

      Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      PitasthraPuthraya,

      You wrote “Yapa’s argument that If I am unable to prove that the concepts of ‘Nibbana’, ‘Karma’ etc are false they should be considered as true is utter nonsense.”

      Please Reread Yapa’s post.
      He has never made such a claim.
      What he wrote refers to your own ill conceived statement “I do not understand how a person, who thinks ‘nibbana’ is the ultimate truth, argues that the ‘God’ is provable myth. Please prove that ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ ‘punabbawa’ are true.”

      Proving that a Creator God is a Myth does not depend on whether ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ ‘punabbawa’ are true. The Myth of the Creator God can be proved without simultaneously proving the other three.

      Yapa goes on to prove the Myth about the Creator and asks you to disprove the other three. Never has he stated that if you fail to disprove nibbana’, ‘karma’ ‘punabbawa’ that they should be accepted as True.

      That inference is your own construct.

      You wrote “It is like saying that an empty chair is occupied by a supernatural being unless you prove it otherwise.”

      If you did not declare that you are an atheist I would have found the above comment very strange. Anyone who believes in a Supernatural being who at the same time is an OOO being would not know for certain that a chair or any space is really empty or not. It could be occupied by the Omnipresence.

      You wrote “The claim that only certain people with developed mental capacity could undersand the truth of ‘nibbana’, ‘karma’ etc applies to the ‘creator God’ as well. Only a person who is close to ‘God’ by his/her way of life could understand and communicate with their creator ‘God’. “

      A child just starting school cannot understand concepts such as Calculus. Buddhism is mind centric and it’s understanding requires a developed mind.

      The Omniscience of the Creator God is degraded by the Reproductive Plan He devised for Adam and Eve. In that plan He inbuilt inbreeding amongst Siblings, without which, Human kind would have become extinct, within ONE generation. The first family of Adam and Eve was required to live in Sin.

      Leaving aside the distasteful aspects of such a design, He did not know that such inbreeding would be medically ill advised and could lead to deformed or deranged progeny. This fact alone strips the claim of Omniscience for the Creator.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      Your above post of November 13, 2011 • 6:20 pm, I should say was a mirror of total desperation and hopelessness you are in. This happens when the beliefs we are having for a long time start to break down suddenly. It seems you are trying to hide your desperate feelings by trying to tell that you are an atheist or agnostic, but it again shows the pandemonium in your mind that took place as a result of that sudden break down. Your declaration that you are an atheist or agnostic is not more true than our Nihal Perera is a Sinhalese.

      I was witnessing this phenomenon for sometime, another instance was when I showed you that Science is not totally rational with clear examples. Your response was issuing a general statement to praise Science ignoring those queries. Now when I totally disprove the existence of the Creator God you again resort to issuing general statements saying “Believers of God had found counter arguments to suit the new scietific discoveries. The existance of God and concepts of ‘nibbana’, ‘Karma’, ‘universal supreme being’, ‘Brahma’ etc will survive the onslaught of the ratioalists for many more centuries to come (perhaps, even to the end of the man kind)” and “Finally, it is my humble view that the religious arguments will remain as it is for many more centuries to come until science will prove or dispove them” when the Creator God concept is already disproved using the most powerful too of Science, Logic. Another cunning thing you have done was to put karma and nibbana together with your loved disproved concepts, God, Brahma(another creator), universal supreme being etc., However it should be noted that all your favoured concepts must have a separate place in classification as these disproved and discarded and no credible concepts with non disproved entities,which I will show has a very good credibility level to believe just as any concept in science or more in future if this discussion continues so far as that. However, I pray to the almighty god, not to make a total mental break down in our PitastharaPuthraya, when his long lasted beliefs continue to break down.

      One can believe any nonsense in hiding or in personally, but when that one tries to show it to the public world and tries to wag it with a threatening gesture that one has to take precautions and be careful. You cannot defend nonsense.

      Can you prove karma, punarbawa and nirvana too as nonsense, before you classify them together with your favourite disproved nonsense? Disprove and make them nonsense as the God, if possible I challenge you. I will never say If you are unable to prove that ‘Nibbana’, ‘Karma’ etc are false they should be considered as true. I am not that naive, to say so just as some still say disproved things are still true.

      Thanks!

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Dear Yapa,

        I would not like to fall back to age-old technique of resorting to personal insults when desperate to win an argument as you did several times in this discussion.

        For your information I am not desperate or hopeless. And I also do not think that a person is able to say by analysing arguments Nihal P. is not Sinhalese.

        According to you, a sinhalese should have an accepted set of ‘ideas’. Please be kind enough to let us know about them so that we would also be lucky enough to try them to see whether we are Sinhalese. .

        The difference between you and me is that I am prepared to accept that in the case of religion, there are different version of understanding the ‘truth’ and nobody has exclusive right to that truth.

        At the same time, people like me, who does not belong to any religion, can look at them with open mind appreciating why so many people for centuries have followed them in seeking the meaning of life.

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        “The difference between you and me is that I am prepared to accept that in the case of religion, there are different version of understanding the ‘truth’ and nobody has exclusive right to that truth.”

        This is your aspiration, not the truth.Many in jealousy would like to draw all the religion to their lower level and to say, “after all religions are religions”. That is only a slogan. Compare and contrast their qualities and see the difference.

        Buddhism is not just a religion within the commonly accepted meaning of “Religion”. It is more a philosophy and a way of life and a comprehensive system of knowledge generation.

        “I would not like to fall back to age-old technique of resorting to personal insults when desperate to win an argument as you did several times in this discussion.”

        You don’t have to because I don’t bring unsound/incorrect arguments or dishonest arguments. I have resort to those techniques to counter them.

        Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    P.P.

    Though you haven’t answered my point about the humans and dinosaurs living together, your last post contains some sense! But, on the other hand compared to the “small book” called called the bible, Buddha’s (supposed) sermons span over forty odd thick volumes! And take any of these, you’ll see a “self consistent” philosophy;a philosophy that tries to give a complete(and complicated) theory about the human mind. I’m not telling it is true or provable, but it makes some sense. In contrast the Bible is what Jesus was supposed to have said about the God’s kingdom in heaven. Qu’ran is what is believed to be Allah’s message through the messenger called Muhammad.

    In the final analysis only the quality of these religions differ, yet they remain unproven to the logical mind. I have further elaborated this in my discussion in the thread, “Vesak and violence against women”. Please see: http://groundviews.org/2011/05/17/vesak-and-violence-against-women/

    • PitastharaPuthraya

      Sabbe Laban,

      Honestly, I do not know how to explain the issue you raised.

      I do not agree with your contention that the Bible is a ‘small’ book whereas there are 40 odd volumes of scriptures in Buddhism therefore, Buddhism is better than Christianity.

      For a Christian, (this is true for the muslims as well), the Bible provides them with enough materials to live a good life in this world. It explains them the mystery of life. And we have Christian friends, ( I am sure you must also have (Yapa and Offthecuff as well))who beleive in a creator God and are truely compassionate and kind, literally good human beings.

      I do not understand why some people hate Bible and Christians so much. There may be historical wrongs committed by the people in the name of the Christ. We should look at the in the proper historical perspective. When you take the Portuguese invasion and conversion of people to Catholicism in the 16th century out of cotext and look at it using the 21st century values you get a wrong picture of the hole situation. On the other hand, is the Christ and his relgion responsible for what his followers do? Is the Buddha and Buddhismm responsible for what the so-called monks of Helaurumaya do in the present day Sri Lanka?

      As far as I understood what Buddhism is it does not promote the kind of hatred some so-called Buddhists harbour against the other religions. If the Buddha was alive today he would not have pronounced that his way of thinking is the only truth.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Yapa,

    The cocepts of creator God, Nibbana, Karma, reincarnation, Brahama, Bodhisatva,etc all belong to a single category of human thought, which is called mephysics (Derived from the Greek meta ta physika (“after the things of nature”); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

    Therefore, they can not be proved or disproved objectively. When you ask me to disprove Nibbana, Karma, Punabbawa or claim that you have disproved the existance of ‘creator God’ it does no make any sense as they are impossible tasks. Those who beleive in them would continue to beleive in them, in spite of whatever you or I do to prove or disprove them.

    This is the simple fact I wanted to emphasis. No rational person can argue that his/her system of explanation is the only way explaining truth (Apart from the material objective truths, which can be proved scientifically) because all these concepts are beyond our senses.

    Therefore, my position is that I do not beleive the existance of all these metaphysical concepts but I am humble enough to appreciate why people beleive in them.

    • Gamarala

      Dear Pitasthara Puthraya,

      Unfortunately, what Yapa and the others are going on about is an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god, which is a god that is paradoxical given Averroes’ argument or the “Problem of Evil”.

      However, Yapa seems unwilling to grasp the fact that some other God, devoid of these omnipotence, omniscience or benevolence attributes, cannot be refuted by either of these arguments. i.e. It is still possible that some “god” creature, who is not benevolent (or doesn’t really care) and has certain limitations, can continue to exist without being disproven.

      So Yapa’s statement that a Creator God can be refuted is incorrect.

      And consequently, the concept of a non-benevolent, not-omnipotent Creator God falls into the same bin as Karma, Rebirth and Nirvana, which is precisely what he prefers not to accept – for obvious reasons.

      Don’t expect an honest argument from people who are selective in their thinking – they themselves cannot reason honestly about the problem.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Gamarala,

        As you know these arguments such as ‘problem of evil’ have not been resolved after many centuries of discussion.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

        There will always be beleivers of creator God and non-beleivers.

        Can any body, especially people like you, me, Yapa, Offthecuff, Sabbe Laban etc, claim that he/she is so ‘omniscience’ that he/she knows the truth beyond any possible doubt?

        Your personal understanding or belief is one thing and trying to project your view as the ‘only’ true view is another thing.

        I do not understand why Yapa and Offthecuff can not understand this simple truth!!!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala and PitastharaPuthraya,

        You wrote “Unfortunately, what Yapa and the others are going on about is an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god, which is a god that is paradoxical given Averroes’ argument or the “Problem of Evil”.”

        I believe you have got your wires crossed.
        Neither Yapa nor I are writing about a Benevolent God.
        We are writing about a Creator God who created all things in this Universe. A God that is claimed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent.

        You wrote “However, Yapa seems unwilling to grasp the fact that some other God, devoid of these omnipotence, omniscience or benevolence attributes, cannot be refuted by either of these arguments.”

        You are mistaken again.
        Buddhism does not reject the existence of supernatural beings.
        A simple visit to the local temple at the end of a Damma sermon or during an Alms giving will confirm this to anyone.
        It rejects the existence of a Creator. Whether or not that Creator has the “OOO” and Benevolent attributes is immaterial as the question who created the Creator becomes unanswerable.

        You wrote “Don’t expect an honest argument from people who are selective in their thinking – they themselves cannot reason honestly about the problem.”

        The inability to reason honestly is not with Yapa or me but with those who are unable to read and comprehend what is written. A more careful reading of the comments would allow you to understand the subject matter better.

        You would have done better if you directed your comment to Yapa instead of making a comment that may or may not attract his attention.

      • yapa

        Dear Gamarala;

        Please specifically me a single dishonest argument, I have posted in this debate? I am responsible for each and every single argument I brought in this discussion and I would like to tell you there is no single incorrect argument among mime.

        However, I have proved several arguments of Nihal and PitastharaPuthraya were wrong and fallacious. I don’t know whose honesty is tested and proved in these circumstances.

        You say,

        “However, Yapa seems unwilling to grasp the fact that some other God, devoid of these omnipotence, omniscience or benevolence attributes, cannot be refuted by either of these arguments. i.e. It is still possible that some “god” creature, who is not benevolent (or doesn’t really care) and has certain limitations, can continue to exist without being disproven.

        So Yapa’s statement that a Creator God can be refuted is incorrect.”

        ………

        This is a wrong argument and the conclusion is a fallacy. The conclusion(last sentence)is not implied from the argument.

        I think keep aside the honesty of others arguments, you are unable to construct a single sound argument. The first argument of yours is an invalid, unsound argument.

        The bais

      • yapa

        Dear Gamarala;

        Sorry, I pressed the submit button without my knowledge…….

        Two of the parameters of a sound argument are

        1. Knowledge about arguments

        2. Honesty

        You say,

        “And consequently, the concept of a non-benevolent, not-omnipotent Creator God falls into the same bin as Karma, Rebirth and Nirvana, which is precisely what he prefers not to accept – for obvious reasons.”

        Not at all. Any creator god with or without any quality is disprovable and has no logical existence.

        However, ALTHOUGH ALL THE DOCTRINES OF BUDDHISM CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY PROVED, UNLIKE ANY OTHER RELIGION,IT CAN BE PROVED THAT ALL THE DOCTRINES OF BUDDHISM ARE “LOGICALLY TRUE” AND CONSISTENT AND COHERENT WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM.

        No any other religion has this quality and only Science among all the knowledge systems can claim to it.

        Science as a body of knowledge consists some empirically provable component, within its definition of its Empiricism and some logically true components, just as Buddhism. However, in one perspective as a knowledge system the scope of Buddhism is wider and deep. It spreads not only through spacious dimension but also spreads though temporal dimension almost indefinitely.

        Further in another perspective Buddhism is more advanced than Science as a knowledge system. Temporal consistency of Buddhism was never challenged within the 2600 years of its existence. Only the changed versions has some lapses, even in them the basic teaching were never challenged, and Buddhism did not have to change its original form to face any intellectual threat. Even in the 21st century, some people claim as the zenith of knowledge Buddhism stands on its own feet and no any modern knowledge can disprove it or go against it. In contrast, Science had to give up many of its concepts through out the history of science and still science itself was/is not certain about the accuracy of its knowledge. Many times it was proved that the concepts it “believed” as Scientific were proven wrong. Most recent and significant example is the invalidation of the “whole Newtonian System of Science”. What was believed by Science from Galileo’s period to 19th century as true by Science was totally discarded as in the 20th century. As a knowledge system Science is not consistence(temporally) and it is not a credible system of knowledge.

        Buddhism is still unchallenged in its original form for over 2600 years.

        If somebody is interested I will show that Buddhism is totally consistent and coherent within its knowledge system and empirical within its meaning of definition in Buddhism.

        Which fool will put other religions in the same basket with Buddhism? Those who say all religions are same are nothing but western parrots who repeat what ever taught to them by their masters. Their analytical organs have been amputated, otherwise no one would equate common pebbled to diamonds.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Differences between Buddhism and other religions.

        1. Buddhism is not just a belief system.
        1a. Other religions are totally belief systems.
        2. Religions with creator God or his agent/agents can be proved wrong.
        2a. Nothing in Buddhism has yet been disproved.
        3. Buddhism is logically true.
        3a. No other religion is logically true.
        4. Buddhism is consistent and coherent within its doctrines.
        4a. All other religions create logical fallacies and contradiction within their different doctrines.
        5. Buddhism teaches the methodologies for empirical testing of its doctrines, withing a given definition.
        5a. No any other religion offers such a verifiability test.
        6. It offers a considerably amount of rational doctrines.
        6a. No any other religion offers and can defend if they offer.

        Many more,………….

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        “Can any body, especially people like you, me, Yapa, Offthecuff, Sabbe Laban etc, claim that he/she is so ‘omniscience’ that he/she knows the truth beyond any possible doubt?

        Your personal understanding or belief is one thing and trying to project your view as the ‘only’ true view is another thing.

        I do not understand why Yapa and Offthecuff can not understand this simple truth!!!”
        ………..

        That is not simple truth, but popular untruth. We never claim that we are omniscient. But it does not mean that the people who follow sound arguments and some others who follow wrong arguments arrive at the same level of truth. Though our personal understanding is not the ‘only’ true view, it does not imply that everybody’s views should be equal.

        There are accepted norms to ascertain the truthfulness of statements. The most fundamental one is known as “First Principle”. Do you know what First Principle is? It is “Non-Contradiction”.

        Do you want views with contradictions to be equated to views without contradictions?

        There is no equality claim for contradicted views and others. Anybody’s views gained through sound arguments would be treated equally, not all.

        Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      “The cocepts of creator God, Nibbana, Karma, reincarnation, Brahama, Bodhisatva,etc all belong to a single category of human thought, which is called mephysics (Derived from the Greek meta ta physika (“after the things of nature”); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.”

      Ha! Ha!! Now you accept that there exists knowledge outside of the human conception. That means now do you accept that your earlier notion that ONLY SCIENCE WAS TRUE?

      Further, who told that all those outside the five sensory perception cannot be known(perceived). Can you know Mathematics? Is it within the five sensory perception?

      Outside of five human sense perception does not mean they cannot be perceived/tackled/handled by humans. Human mind can construct and tackle the things that cannot be perceived by five senses. That is why Buddhism consider man has six senses and mind as a very special sense among them. Unlike, other senses human mind can be developed and improved and improved minds can perceive the things others cannot. Einstein’s mind was not a similar mind to others, though his other senses were not that different from others. Improved minds can perceive special things that is evident.

      If humans cannot perceive the things outside the five human perception as you say how can there be a subject called Metaphysics, which is again a construction of humans and easily handled and tackled by humans.

      So there is no barrier to disprove Metaphysical realities, if they contain the intrinsic quality of dis-provability. God is such a concept, and that is why Off the Cuff and I could disprove it. There is no problem about it, God was disproved without any doubt. But karma, punabbawa and nirvana belong to non disprovable category.

      Off the Cuff and I disproved God. But you could not disprove karma, bunabbawa and nirvana, though I challenged you and others.

      Thanks!

      Thanks!

  • Human

    It’s amusing that the sl gov apologists like Off_The_Cuff are blabbering about Buddhism while turning a blind eye to the murder of thousands, the reduction of millions to slavery in Sri Lanka and other decidedly non-Buddhist actions of the SL state.

    • Off the Cuff

      Human,

      What is amusing is your inability and cowardice to directly engage in a discussion rather than make snide remarks.

      I am challenging you to show, by referring to any of my posts, where I have made excuses on behalf of the current govt.

      If you think I am blabbering about Buddhism and you have the Knowledge about your own Religion, whether Christianity or otherwise, that can counter what I have written, try making a direct challenge using a post of mine if you have the courage to do so.

      If you do not KNOW your OWN RELIGION you can try me on your own statement “….the murder of thousands, the reduction of millions to slavery in Sri Lanka “

      I hope you have the Guts to present your case about “the murder of thousands, the reduction of millions to slavery in Sri Lanka”

      Unlike in the old days where terrorist propaganda went unchallenged, today, the Terror Flag waver propaganda are being put to the acid test here on GV and elsewhere.

      • Human

        I personally think this whole debate is a waste of time especially considering there are more important things to discuss like how incredibly dishonest the Sri Lankan administration of Mahinda is and how it’s slowly eroding the little democracy that is left.

        I am nominally Buddhist leaning towards being an agnostic.

        You’re challenging me to show where you’ve made excuses? How about when you claimed the government is willing to be investigated (just not by anyone credible or neutral I guess)?

        My case — all the dead Tamils in the North + and their current state of living under army rule.

        It’s actually you gov. apologists who are facing increasing scrutiny as the LTTE is no longer there for the go-to blame game. No person really considers organizations like the BTF or GBF in the West. Pointing to them as the LTTE is not going to work.

      • Off the Cuff

        Human,

        You wrote “You’re challenging me to show where you’ve made excuses? How about when you claimed the government is willing to be investigated (just not by anyone credible or neutral I guess)? “

        Unfortunately your guess is wrong.
        Your ignorance is not my problem is it?

        Not even the rabid Terror flag wavers who write in to GV were able to challenge me on the Fact that Sri Lanka offered to be investigated but not singled out. You think that you know more about Lanka’s position regarding investigations, than them?

        Why did you not challenge me when I made that claim?
        Was it cowardice?

        It was stated by Dr Dayan Jayatilake at the UNHRC sessions.
        Please visit the UN web site and listen and VIEW the recorded video without making ignorant claims and making a fool of yourself in public.

        Now that I have disproved your misinformed puny challenge to my Credibility and Neutrality my challenge to you still stands. What else do you have in response to it?

        Next time, please make sure that you don’t throw FRIVOLOUS accusations, if you want to re-establish your now tattered Credibility.

        If you really want to discuss something that is really important read the discussion on Devolution and Standardisation in Uni Entrance Exam, starting from my post here. The main article was written by Dr Devanesan Nesaiah and the discussion was enriched by Wijayapala, Kadphises, Dr Nessaiah himself amongst others. Unfortunately, Dr Devanesan Nesaiah left the conversation mid way and some questions are begging answers. Hope you can give rational answers to them.

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/12/sri-lankan-tamil-destiny-is-inextricably-grounded-within-sri-lanka-a-response-to-d-b-s-jeyaraj/#comment-37705

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/12/sri-lankan-tamil-destiny-is-inextricably-grounded-within-sri-lanka-a-response-to-d-b-s-jeyaraj/#comment-38226

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/12/sri-lankan-tamil-destiny-is-inextricably-grounded-within-sri-lanka-a-response-to-d-b-s-jeyaraj/#comment-38050

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/12/sri-lankan-tamil-destiny-is-inextricably-grounded-within-sri-lanka-a-response-to-d-b-s-jeyaraj/#comment-38086

        I think that is sufficient to start you off.

        You wrote “My case — all the dead Tamils in the North + and their current state of living under army rule”

        Now that is blabbering.
        Please rewrite and re post in understandable language.

        You wrote “It’s actually you gov. apologists who are facing increasing scrutiny as the LTTE is no longer there for the go-to blame game”

        Since I am not a Govt apologist I do not care about increasing scrutiny.

        However I find your statement that the LTTE is no more as hilarious.
        Care to prove what you say?
        Are you just blabbering?

        You wrote “No person really considers organizations like the BTF or GBF in the West. Pointing to them as the LTTE is not going to work”

        Probably that is what you are wishing for but some members of LTTE fund raising organisations have been convicted in foreign courts, which flies in the face of your statement.

        You wrote “I personally think this whole debate is a waste of time……”

        No body is holding you here. So why waste time?

      • Human

        I don’t care about [Edited] what Dayan said at UNHCR. I do know [Edited out] whined about France and others committing crimes 100 years ago — well I don’t care what other countries did. He’s also said Mahinda’s a “moderate”.

        I will focus instead on actual actions that Mahinda’s government has taken on investigation. They’ve refused entrance to UN investigators and closely monitor any foreign journalist allowed in the country with army personal trailing them around the North.

        Devolution is a joke. The Tamils need a separate state or an autonomous region; your plans just intend to slowly squeeze them out of most their land while limiting them to small isolated communities.

        Prove my point that the LTTE of bombs is no more? There has not been a terrorist attack anywhere in the world since 2009. Also note that all of LTTE’s leaders involved in terrorist actions were annihilated at the end of the war.

        Tamil nationalists exist. This was part of the LTTE. They continue to use the LTTE image but so what? They have the right to do so.

        Yes, members who funded the LTTE are prosecuted in Europe. But none of these members who are being prosecuted are Father Emmanuel or the others you so fear.

      • Off the Cuff

        Human,

        You wrote “I don’t care about [Edited] what Dayan said at UNHCR. I do know [Edited out] whined about France and others committing crimes 100 years ago — well I don’t care what other countries did. He’s also said Mahinda’s a “moderate”.

        Your contention was that Sri Lanka did not offer to be investigate and that I lied when I stated so.

        That it offered to be investigated is on Video Record at the UN.
        That video recording is accessible and understood by anyone who can understand English. I wonder whether you can though.
        Whether you care or not is insignificant and totally irrelevant.

        BTW I suspect that even your claims to knowledge are as empty as your frivolous challenges. If you do have the knowledge that you claim, write them and post on GV. I doubt you have either the knowledge or guts to do that.

        The Fact is your PUNY and FRIVOLOUS challenge to my Integrity and Neutrality is in tatters.

        The fact is, today you stand exposed as a coward without an iota of integrity

        You wrote “I will focus instead on actual actions that Mahinda’s government has taken on investigation. They’ve refused entrance to UN investigators and closely monitor any foreign journalist allowed in the country with army personal trailing them around the North”

        Investigations can’t happen at your whim and fancy. It cannot happen at any country’s whim and fancy either (as Millibank, Kutchner etc found out). The way it can happen has been clearly spelt out at the UN by Dr. D.J.

        Watch the video and find out for yourself. Sri Lanka will not allow either interested countries or the UN to act Partially. It will not allow the Terror Flag wavers or their sympathisers to circumvent Justice and Single out Sri Lanka.

        You wrote “Devolution is a joke. The Tamils need a separate state or an autonomous region; your plans just intend to slowly squeeze them out of most their land while limiting them to small isolated communities.”

        Yes it is a joke the way you guys want it to happen. 84% of Land in Lanka is PUBLICLY owned and underdeveloped. I hope you know what that means. This Land is UNINHABITED.
        Are you claiming EXCLUSIVE right to that Land?
        What are your grounds?
        Please state them clearly and Unambiguously.

        If you think per capita distribution of scarce resources are UNFAIR please state clearly what you think is fair. However I doubt that you have the guts to make a clear case of what you deem is FAIR as we will question that fairness in public, on GV and elsewhere.

        You wrote “Prove my point that the LTTE of bombs is no more? There has not been a terrorist attack anywhere in the world since 2009. Also note that all of LTTE’s leaders involved in terrorist actions were annihilated at the end of the war”

        What point is there to prove? Proving should be done by you.
        Terrorist attacks were not there because of the vigilance of the Lankan Security forces.
        LTTE Leaders all Dead? Tiger female Supremo who caused the Deaths and Loss of Childhood of thousands of Vanni Tamil children and who adorned the necks of those children with a Cyanide necklace is still living in UK. Are you aware that she created and headed the Baby Brigade? The LTTE website Tamilnet carried their pictures remember? Where are the second rung commanders? Waiting for the security to become slack to relaunch terror attacks? Where are the Fund Raisers? Who are the TGTE? Raj Rajaratnam is known to have funded the LTTE. Where are the Credit Card scammers who funded the LTTE? Where are those who trafficked in Drugs and Humans to raise funds for that war? Where are the collectors who strong armed peaceful Tamils to collect funds for the LTTE? You see, not so human Human, those in Lanka are not fools not to understand the threat posed by all of them. Lanka will return to normalcy after the International arm of the LTTE is decimated, not before.

        You wrote “Tamil nationalists exist. This was part of the LTTE. They continue to use the LTTE image but so what? They have the right to do so.

        No they don’t have that right in countries which proscribed the LTTE. Although you like to label them as “Tamil Nationalist” they are not simply nationalist, they are LTTE as you yourself admit above.

        You wrote “Yes, members who funded the LTTE are prosecuted in Europe. But none of these members who are being prosecuted are Father Emmanuel or the others you so fear.

        Ah now you have changed your tune.
        Earlier you said “No person really considers organizations like the BTF or GBF in the West…” What makes you believe that Lanka is afraid of that terrorist Emmanuel? That is what you thought of the Fascist Prabhakaran as well. You thought he was Sun God the invincible. But events proved otherwise. Where is VP now? In Hell? Emmanuel and his gang will get their desserts in due course, there is no doubt about that.

  • abbe laban

    P.P.

    There’s nothing wrong with the Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews or Hindus and their beliefs don’t make them evil people unless they are fanatically into their beliefs and try to eliminate all the others who don’t agree with them. There may be differences in the way they explain nature, but once again this has no impact on the outcome.

    I’d like to correct an errorneous argument you brought up in the discussion. It’s not only the Buddhism that sees the world as “essentially unsatisfactory”-due to its state of decay-, if you read the “Sermon On the Hill” in Bible, Jesus is supposed to have said(something to the effect), “don’t think what you are experiencing is happiness in this world”, and asks the people to sacrifice their lives to love “God” instead. In that case the present day Christians seem to have contravened this teaching.

    The problem of evil is explained in the Bible by citing the “originl sin”-Eve eating the forbidden fruit and disobeying God- and all subsequent suffering of the people is explained by this. Once when I asked a Christian priest, “is it fair for a loving God to punish innocent new-borns etc. on account of some ancient minor traffic offence?”, he was unable to give a satisfactory answer except for quoting the story of Job. I said, “well, if you are a father and if you caught your daughter smoking or having sex with a street bum do you punish her entire generation for that “crime?”

    Similarly Buddhists think Karma account for most of the unfortunate events in their lives-the rest may be due to the other four Niyaama Dhammas or laws of the nature-and the Hindus and Jains too, with some subtle differences in the concept. “Karma” is basically different from Buddha’s other Niyaama Dammas or “Laws of the nature” as it is a moral law. A moral law is not in accordance with the flow of the nature and is in fact against it!

    As you say they belong in the metaphysical sphere!

    What the Sinhalese-Buddhist practise as Buddhism has all the characteristics of a trditional religion and they are quite content with it. As I said earlier too,the lack of a God to grant their requests is overcome by the (invention?) of thousands of other(is it 330,000,000?)gods and deities of “non-benevolent” and “non-omnipotent” nature and the lack of a soul is over come by the invention of a “changing soul”. Maybe because in its purest form Buddha’s teachings may not appeal to many people except for a few open minded people. Even this “purest” form cannot be verified as genuine as these texts were written centuries after Buddha’s passing away. This is same with Christianity’s holy book as well.

    The only religious founder who is reported to have written his own book is Lao-Tzu!!

  • Nihal Perera

    Yapa,

    How about my three exclusive disproving of the Creator God? You don’t agree with it? What objections do you have about them?

    I would like to know your ideas specifically about that post of mine. Here it is for your easy reference.

    Here are some answers to your proofs.

    Then who created the God, there must be somebody before that God to create HIM.

    If you are familiar with two-dimensional geometry, it is not possible to define “point”, “line”, and “plane.” If one tries to define any of these things, he ends up in a vicious circle of circular reasoning. On the other hand, the fact that point, line, and plane cannot be defined does not negate their existence. This example can be extended to other systems of logic. In fact, every system of logic begins with a set of unprovable axioms.

    2. Omnipotence paradox- Averroes

    I have not thought about this one yet.

    3. Problem of evil- Epicurus

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    That is only true if you assume evil has an absolute definition. What is your proof that evil has an absolute definition?

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera;

      Sorry I couldn’t participate the debate, as I had to attend some urgent matters. However, I would like to first touch your response.

      You say(A):
      “If you are familiar with two-dimensional geometry, it is not possible to define “point”, “line”, and “plane.” If one tries to define any of these things, he ends up in a vicious circle of circular reasoning. On the other hand, the fact that point, line, and plane cannot be defined does not negate their existence. This example can be extended to other systems of logic. In fact, every system of logic begins with a set of unprovable axioms.”

      Answer(B):Dear Nihal I think trying one after another tactics when one is failed to defend a formally disproved argument is unbecoming. No body can keep on denying the facts or raising another issue, but it is only a delaying tactic to accept the truth. Creator God has no place among people with common sense or/and honesty. Anyway you have made another try, but the contradictions are hiding in your answers it self. I will explain,

      You have mentioned about axioms. What are axioms? Axioms are NON-DISPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS. Point, straight line etc. are good examples for axioms and they are not disprovable, REALLY YOU CANNOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF NON-DISPROVABLE THINGS. THAT IS WHY I TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT (AND YOU CORRECTLY ACCEPT NOW) YOU CANNOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF KARMA,PUNARBAVA AND NIRVANA. I think now you are convinced it. HOWEVER, THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CREATOR GOD AS IT IS DISPROVABLE.

      So you should not expect your God to have the characters of axioms.

      Nihal, you are trying an impossible. Don’t keep on giving unending arguments when disproved one. Give your best argument about your god and I will disprove it without any doubt. So don’t let me keep on disproving your arguments, just post the best argument about him.

      (A): Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

      That is only true if you assume evil has an absolute definition. What is your proof that evil has an absolute definition?

      (B): You don’t know what evil is? I will give you one example of evil, with that can you prove your GOD can overcome the PROBLEM OF EVIL?

      Do you accept torturing people IS evil? That is happening in this world.

      TELL ME WHY YOUR GOD DOES NOT STOP TORTURING TAKING PLACE IN THIS WORLD, AS QUESTIONED BY Epicurus?

      Please give direct answers. Also comment about Averroes argument as well if you can find an answer, otherwise please say it is impossible.

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal;

      You say,

      “3. Problem of evil- Epicurus

      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

      That is only true if you assume evil has an absolute definition. What is your proof that evil has an absolute definition?”
      ………….

      Can you logically show me why it is true only if evil has an “absolute definition”? I don’t see any logical reason for that.

      I put to you that it is an arbitrary/unnecessary assumption of yours to raised to gain undue advantages.

      IT IS NOT A MANDATORY CONDITION AT ALL.

      YOU ARE TRYING TO GAIN UNDUE ADVANTAGES OR YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOGIC IS AGAIN IS JUST A SHOW OF AS MANY OTHER THINGS.

      Thanks!

  • Nihal Perera

    Yapa,

    Answer(B):Dear Nihal I think trying one after another tactics when one is failed to defend a formally disproved argument is unbecoming. No body can keep on denying the facts or raising another issue, but it is only a delaying tactic to accept the truth.

    The truth is that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, as PP has correctly pointed out.

    Creator God has no place among people with common sense or/and honesty.

    I see little difference between supernatural beings and a Creator God. If a supernatural being can have special powers, so too can a Creator God.


    You have mentioned about axioms. What are axioms? Axioms are NON-DISPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS. Point, straight line etc. are good examples for axioms and they are not disprovable, REALLY YOU CANNOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF NON-DISPROVABLE THINGS.

    You are missing the point. What is important is not that an axiom is non-disprovable. What is important is that the axioms are necessary to define other structures in the system of logic. For example, it is useless to talk about a triangle if lines do not exist. Furthermore, when one proves certain properties of triangles, such as the triangle inequality, he is taking for granted that certain axioms are true . Let us look at how this applies to a model of the Universe. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe was created from a singular energy . The existence of this singular energy is taken as an axiom in the Big Bang Theory. From this singular energy came chemical reactions which eventually led to the creation of the Universe, including so-called “life,” e.g. organisms that are capable of reproducing. So now, every chemical process in the Universe – whether it be photosynthesis, respiration, oxidation etc. – assumes that this singular energy existed. No one is concerned with where the singular energy came from. Existence and uniqueness questions pertaining to the singular energy are not debated. What is clear from this simple example is that human logic relies on axioms because it is impossible to prove everything from first principles .

    THAT IS WHY I TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT (AND YOU CORRECTLY ACCEPT NOW) YOU CANNOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF KARMA,PUNARBAVA AND NIRVANA.

    Good and bad are relative concepts, not absolute. In other words, you cannot objectively measure the properties of karma, punarbava, nibbana, and claim that under a particular set of parameters, these properties will yield empirically verifiable data. For example, you cannot observe a man being reborn 100 times, and say with any certainty that on the 50th birth, he will be reborn as a bird, while on the 100th birth, he will be reborn as a pig. The problem here is that karma is a subjective term defined by humans , not the Universe. There is no such thing as “good” and “bad” in the Universe.


    (B): You don’t know what evil is? I will give you one example of evil, with that can you prove your GOD can overcome the PROBLEM OF EVIL?

    I have explained this point above.

    Do you accept torturing people IS evil? That is happening in this world.

    If you did not know that torture is evil, then what? Torture is evil, relative to your perception, because that is how you have been conditioned to think. The problem is that such conditioning is purely arbitrary . There is no law in the Universe that says torture is evil.

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal Perera;

      **”The truth is that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, as PP has correctly pointed out.”

      This is nothing but unsubstantiated and unjustified narration. Convincing a dishonest man is a mighty task.

      **”I see little difference between supernatural beings and a Creator God. If a supernatural being can have special powers, so too can a Creator God.”

      Your seeing has nothing do with proofs or disproofs. Facts, evidence and proofs are what are needed.

      **”You are missing the point. What is important is not that an axiom is non-disprovable. What is important is that the axioms are necessary to define other structures in the system of logic.”

      If you say so give me a single axiom that can be disproved pother than your claim of Creator God. Any axiom if disproved it is more an axiom.

      Any way I prefer to see one’s dishonesty is displayed rather than he accepts the truth. It makes more damage to you. Keep in mind, all readers are not fools. None cannot deceive everybody forever.

      **”The existence of this singular energy is taken as an axiom in the Big Bang Theory.”**

      Does this prove,axioms can be disproved? Anything disproved is not an axiom, and hence disproved is not an axiom, and you cannot take Creator God for granted.

      **”THAT IS WHY I TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT (AND YOU CORRECTLY ACCEPT NOW) YOU CANNOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF KARMA,PUNARBAVA AND NIRVANA.**

      Good and bad are relative concepts, not absolute. In other words, you cannot objectively measure the properties of karma, punarbava, nibbana, and claim that under a particular set of parameters, these properties will yield empirically verifiable data. For example, you cannot observe a man being reborn 100 times, and say with any certainty that on the 50th birth, he will be reborn as a bird, while on the 100th birth, he will be reborn as a pig. The problem here is that karma is a subjective term defined by humans , not the Universe. There is no such thing as “good” and “bad” in the Univer”**

      Yanne koheda, Malle pol? I ask whether you can disprove them, not to ascertain whether they are empirically provable. Can you logically disprove them, just as Off the Cuff and I disproved your God?

      Anyway you accept that God cannot counter the problem of evil? Why are you go round the mulberry bush? You ask any question, I will give you direct answers, unlike you.

      **”Do you accept torturing people IS evil? That is happening in this world.

      If you did not know that torture is evil, then what? Torture is evil, relative to your perception, because that is how you have been conditioned to think. The problem is that such conditioning is purely arbitrary . There is no law in the Universe that says torture is evil.”**

      Is torture is not evil, what is it? Good? We are talking about good and evil and why your omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God cannot prevent evil? Do you say there is no any evil prevailing in this world?

      If a single evil is prevailing your God is not a God. Are saying only good things are happening in the world?

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        This debate began when you said Christianity is pro-active and Buddhism is Nihilistic. And also with your view that west is more developed.

        You could not substantiate your first statement, but we were able to prove the opposite. Not only we disproved your claim that Christianity is pro-active, we proved that it has no basis and it one of the disasters the world has ever faced. We proved that the belief of creator God is an insult to the human intelligence and dignity. Further, we showed how Buddhism is incomparable in terms as a knowledge system and as a philosophy and a way of life. You were never able to counter a single arguments raised by us and we logically countered all your arguments.

        With regard to the second claim, in one perspective I agree with you that west is more developed than us. That is in terms of “material development”. It is just one component of development. Further, we have shown that even material development of west is not solely attributed to them. Unjustified means are mostly responsible for so called development. This is an undeniable fact. Exploitation of people and resources of the other parts of the world though various tactics are the main reason behind the material success of the west. Unscrupulous teaching in the Bible and the priests and the world outlook developed on it paved the way to merciless exploitation of the world.

        In terms of the mental development west is far behind us. They believe such a nonsense as God as their center of belief but our people put their belief on a superior knowledge system, called Buddhism. A man in west has no any critical thinking capacity. Otherwise all the westerners must have given up the belief on Creator God. They cannot differentiate this clear myth the from facts. Though they are covered up with more sophisticated material wealth of the modern era, their mind is still covered with the primitive thinking belong to the by gone era. Do you consider a primitive man clad in valuable clothes and going in a luxury vehicle eating roasted flesh is a developed man?
        I think he is only a primitive man pampered with consumerism and utilitarianism.

        Their norm in development is more and more consumption. The more utilize the more they are civilized. A monitor lizard must be more civilized than them in that case, it swallows its prey without having some patient to taste it. Monitors are better.

        Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal;

      I would be delighted if you could answer all my queries rather than confining to selected questions.

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Nihal/PitastharaPuthraya/All;

      Now do you want me to show how Buddhism is even a better knowledge system than Science, by analyzing the Buddhist doctrines? I showed it as in brief in a previous post.

      http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38835

      http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38836

      If anybody challenges, I will take up it. Anybody thinks, my statement an exaggeration? I say only superficial thinkers who parrot “all religions are religions” would say so. Deep analytical thinking is allergic to them. They believe only what they were conditioned, whether it is true or not. They cannot even deviate from the simple and clear myth of the Creator God, what critical thinking ability they have?

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      *** “Convincing a fool is an impossible task.”***

      But, I never said you are a fool, I said only you are dishonest.

      ***”You believe in supernatural beings, but you do not believe in a Creator God. A Creator God is simply a supernatural being with extra powers.”***

      Yanne koheda Malle pol?

      This is another evidence for your lack of knowledge of logic?

      I have never said I believe in super natural beings. Can you you show me a place where I have said so. What I have said was the existence of some “super natural” beings cannot be disproved. But the Creator cannot stand in that category, as his existence is already disproved.

      It is like saying when a=5, all other letters b,c,d,……,z=5. No man with common sense would say so.

      I think your “extra power” in the above statement is equivalent to “disprovable”. There cannot have any other meaning for that.

      ***”Ad hominem attacks, as they are called in logic, do not justify an argument.”***

      Calling spade a spade is Ad hominem attack? You have amply displayed your “good qualities” in arguing in this forum.

      ***”You are forgetting that Creator God implies the Creator came FIRST. That is why it is possible to take the Creator God as an axiom. Just as point, line and plane come BEFORE angle, triangle, polygon, etc.”****

      Who is creator’s creator? Disprovable Axiom: Creator God Hah! Hah!! What a joke?

      ***”Good and bad do not occupy space or have volume. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of something with these characteristics.”***

      This is another “UMBAE”.

      This person has no a slightest idea, what a proof or disproof is. According to this person things with volumes only can be disproved. Do triangles have volumes? Do you know to prove Pythagoras theorem or Apolonius theorem?

      Light do not occupy any volume, does it prevent proving laws in light? Do you know how to prove laws of reflection? Laws of refraction?

      Tell me frankly whether they can be proved or not?

      Same way moral concepts like Good or Evil do not occupy volumes but no one before Nihal has found such a law.

      He frequently discovers arbitrary laws. Ha! Ha!!, Newton.

      ***”You have not defined evil. Also, you have not proved that .””**

      So do you say torture is not evil? Why should I prove evil is part of Nature? Nothing is denied by my not proving that.

      It is again an arbitrary sanction of yours.

      However, what do you mean by nature? Humanly perceived nature? Why it cannot contain the parts that are perceived by other animals? Do you know nature for a bee has a different meaning. A cat’s nature is entirely different from both of them. I think you mean by “Nature” is the “phenomenal world/material world” perceived by humans. I don’t see any reason to confine nature to that narrow definition if you want to understand the universe. For Classical Science that was the limit. However, modern Science has jumped over that narrow definition and explore the things that Classical Science did not recognized as nature. Now “nature” has a wider meaning, if it represents the “whole nature’ of universe both material and non material. Anyway in “conservative meaning” of Science, it belongs only the humanly perceived nature. When science defined it Science thought the world consists only of what is perceived by the humans. I think that outdated definition of nature has to be altered to contain everything in the universe, even including morality.

      ***”You have not answered the fundamental question: how does the Universe decide what is good and bad? Is there a scientific law that talks about good and bad?”***

      Another exhibition of lack of knowledge.

      Good and bad is not decided by the whole universe. These concepts belong to the subject are called “Morality”. Study of morality belong to the subject group called “HUMANITIES”. So it belongs to the dimension of “Living beings” and not to the “dead universe” or material universe. Material universe is tackled by mainly Physics and I don’t see any sense in telling Humanity should be tackled with Physics. Really Physics cannot tackle it. Even Biology cannot tackle it. Only some subjects that accepts “conscience” can tackle humanities.

      Why every thing should be evaluated in terms of materials? Such thinking belongs to the bye gone era, to the outdated deterministic mechanical world of Newton. That outlook has been discarded as outdated, still you are clinging to that, however, it is not surprising, you are still clinging on to tribal beliefs, people believed before there are civilized, worn of Creator God.

      ***”You could not substantiate your first statement, but we were able to prove the opposite.

      You have not proved anything, other than the extent of your imagination. Of course you are free to think otherwise. Good luck.”***

      To tell so you will have to show any error in our proofs. Just narration and denying will not negate that we totally disproved your God.

      ***”Why don’t you give some of your advice to the bhikku’s that drive BMW’s and the politicians who maintain jumbo Swiss Bank accounts. It seems you have a habit of giving advice only to those who do not blindly subscribe to your narrow view of a Mahavamsa fantasy world. Here is some advice to you: the new colonialists are not Westerners, they are Sinhala-Buddhists, and if you oppose them openly, you will end up like SF or worse yet Pradeep E. The new colonialists, who are your “leaders”, do not care about this Mahavamsa worldview that you speak of. They will sell out the whole country to China, if it adds an extra rupee to their bank balance. These new colonialists enjoy more wealth and luxury than most of the population in the West. Like I said, they are waiting to hear your message. Good luck.”***

      I don’t have to have any affinity to Bhikkus or to the government for an objective analysis of knowledge systems. I am doing only that. I did not use any power of Bhikkus or the government to support my arguments. It is a pure academic exercise. I have never used my personal or subjective arguments or claims in this. If I claim, I never fail to reason out it. Can you say this about your self?

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Above post is addressed to Nihal perera’s post of November 17, 2011 • 11:28 pm

        Thanks!

  • kadphises

    ha.. ha.. three opium adicts arguing over whose opium is better!

    • Off the Cuff
      • kadphises

        Hi Off the Cuff,

        I think we agree 95% on devolution and standardisation. If there is any argument it would only be over simplicity and implementability, two things I happen to hold dear, although I am prepared to compromise them away to achieve a settlement – some settlement to this vexed issue.

        The reason I suggested the 1981 census is because it is pre 1983 when large scale involuntary demographic changes took place. Call it my buddhist scruples but I am uncomfortable about benefitting (land entitlement wise) from (my community) forcing Tamils to flee the country in 1983. Holding referendums abroad in multiple countries is going to be cumbersome and even open to fraud.

        The most important principles to adhere to when formulating the devolution plan I think should be..

        1. It should not materially affect the day to day life of any citizen of SL w.r.t. freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment and domicile anywhere in the country.

        2. Give proportionate entitlement of land around the areas of origin.

        3. Whatever formula should be reciprocal and seem fair by all.

        I dont believe we need to worry about public/private ownership of land as it is going to be so so cumbersome. Also, questions about how do you treat state lands that are being quatted on? National Parks? Etc. If we understand that State land held by the regional authority is also for the benefit of its inhabitants, I think the distinction between the two fades into inconsequence. If there is any land that needs to be treated separately from total to be partitioned they are the lands occupied by the military cantonments in the North. This could again lead to disagreements as the Tamils could claim that, “Ok, we have been given devolution to a semi autonomous region. But a large proportion of the land there are military bases which you Sinhalese want and we dont!” So I think it would be prudent to exclude the areas inside the bases but nothing else like forrest reserves and wildlife parks.

        In Sri Lanka land ownership is in constant flux. Private lands are nationalised and public lands are privatised all the time. Also, the community holding the larger extent of state land stands to benefit more by receiving a larger entitlement. I think this is going to lead to further argument and accusations of unfairness. So the easiest, most straight forward thing to do is to devide the entire land proportionately between the constituent populations around the centres of their origin. Jaffna, Batticaloa, Kalmunai and the rest.

        I think what is most important is to give each community an area of the country to which they have a larger psychological claim than the rest, to develop, beautify, preserve and police as they feel fit.

        On Standardisation, I’ve been thinking about what you said and agree. Perhaps what we need is a tier based system for schools. Having no more than 4 tiers and standardise university entrance that way.

        Tier 1: Royal, Ananda, Visaka, Hartly College, Jaffna College etc..
        Tier 2: The Central Colleges, Matale Science, St Thomas’ Bandarawela, Bandarawela MV, Rahula, Maliadeva etc..
        Tier 3: Rural schools (but well managed)
        Tier 4: Shools only in name where there are no teachers and the kids are used to till the land in the Principal’s Manioc plot.

      • Off the Cuff

        Hi Kadphises,

        1. “It should not materially affect the day to day life of any citizen of SL w.r.t. freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment and domicile anywhere in the country.”

        If you have read all my posts on the subject you will realise that I too fully endorse the above. The Fundamental Rights of the Constitution will over ride any Regional Law. This will ensure the above throughout the country.

        2. “Give proportionate entitlement of land around the areas of origin.”

        That is what I have proposed too but instead of fragmenting the area I suggested the identification of one area where a majority of a specific minority lives as a nucleus for regional devolution. This will allow for any member of a minority community who is uncomfortable with living with another community to move in to an area of their choice. They will carry with them the per capita entitlement to the region of their choice.

        3. “Whatever formula should be reciprocal and seem fair by all.”

        This goes without saying. But rather than Reciprocity it should be common to all. This is why the Constitution of the Country should override any regional law.

        You wrote “I dont believe we need to worry about public/private ownership of land as it is going to be so so cumbersome.”

        That has already been conceded in subsequent posts.
        However the basis of distribution should be the per capita entitlement. This will create a Mathematical relationship that cannot be manipulated by anyone.

        You wrote “Also, questions about how do you treat state lands that are being quatted on?”

        This does not come into consideration as only the “Total population” who want to reside within a given region will decide the amount of land allocation. Ownership becomes irrelevant in computing the land allocation.

        You wrote “ National Parks? Etc. If we understand that State land held by the regional authority is also for the benefit of its inhabitants, I think the distinction between the two fades into inconsequence.”

        You are right in the above assumption. Once the Land is allocated to each region based on the total population of the region it is left for the Regional Govt to decide what it should do with that land.

        You wrote “If there is any land that needs to be treated separately from total to be partitioned they are the lands occupied by the military cantonments in the North. This could again lead to disagreements as the Tamils could claim that, “Ok, we have been given devolution to a semi autonomous region. But a large proportion of the land there are military bases which you Sinhalese want and we dont!” So I think it would be prudent to exclude the areas inside the bases but nothing else like forrest reserves and wildlife parks.”

        Yes the Minorities can look at it that way. The solution would be to reserve identified areas of land from the Total land mass for Central Govt purposes. This will change the per capita land allotment to a smaller value and consequently every Region would become smaller.

        You wrote “In Sri Lanka land ownership is in constant flux. Private lands are nationalised and public lands are privatised all the time. “

        Once the Land is allocated to a Region the Central Govt loses control over that Land. Any acquisition by the Centre without the concurrence of the Region would then be impossible.

        You wrote “Also, the community holding the larger extent of state land stands to benefit more by receiving a larger entitlement.“

        This does not arise as the per capita land and resource allocation is the same (resource/National population). Hence each person receives the same allocation wherever they reside.

        On Standardisation
        You wrote “Perhaps what we need is a tier based system for schools. Having no more than 4 tiers and standardise university entrance that way”

        I agree with you. This should be done by a National Panel that consists of Educators that command respect and representative of all communities

        You will also notice that discussions on the subjects of Devolution and Standardisation is avoided by the minority members who shout the loudest on these matters.

    • yapa

      Lack of knowledge and dishonesty are advantages for many. They can say/comment on anything without any doubt or hesitation. They can summarize comments of several thousand in a single sentence. So much is the capacity of ignorance and dishonesty.

      Thanks!

      • kadphises

        Yapa,

        Isnt it entirely subjective as to whether you or I are the embodiment of “dishonesty and lack of knowledge”? In my opinion you are a clear case of the condition known of “delusions of omnipotence” common in Schizophrenia. But then that is also subjective and may be it is I who is mad!

        Some questions on Karma for you then..

        1. Are bacteria and amoebas also life forms considering we all evolved from them and that they are our ancestors? (I think I remember you saying they did not count as life for Karmic purposes in one thread.) If not at what point did we make the break into being a karmic being as surely there would have been some point up the line of ancestry where father was a “non-being” but the son was a “being”?

        2. Where did this first “being” (since the big bang created the universe) inherit his karma from? To what can we attribute the “good” and “bad” things that happened to him?

        3. How can an organism with hardly a brain like a jellyfish gather karma? Or even a Lion or Tiger as they cannot become vegetarians? How can a Lion or Tiger ever make the transition to a “higher” status on account of their diet? Still we find their numbers dwindling and our numbers increasing at an alarming rate implying that it must somehow be happening?

        4. What earns more bad karma? Slaughtering one animal or taking a course of antibiotics killing a million or more bacteria..?

        5. In re-incarnation, there is no matter or energy transfered from the dead to the newly born. There is not even a memory, personality trait or anything else that is transferred. So for all intents and purposes why dont we just call them separate beings rather than two incarnations of the same being? We dont feel the pain or pleasure from our next birth nor would the new born feel the pain or pleasure from its previous life. So we need to be able to describe or define this “thing” that is passed. (Just naming it as “vinnanaya” or “soul” wont do)

        5. We tend to believe that there were hundreds of Rahathan Vahanses in the distant past. But none in the recent past which tends to indicate moral decay among humans. However at the same time animals seem to be behaving better and making the transition to becomming human as evidenced by the declining population of elephants, tigers etc. and the huge increase in the human population. Should we be looking forward to extinction of elephants and tigers as they will then in all probability be born in a higher karmic state as humans?

        Now before you start about God, be assured. I dont believe he exists either..

        What I believe is that we are all just chemical organisms that over billions of years have evolved an imperfect organ called the brain. It evolved so we can cleverly gather food where it was scarce. It is not good enough to understand all the mysteries of the universe although it has done very well to understand at least some of it. Just like it is impossible for a Chimp to understand calculas there will be truths about the nature or things that our brain will never be able to understand. There will be a maximum upper limit to human knowledge and understanding. But that does not mean there isnt a rational explanation for everything. Just that we dont understand it. But that does not mean we can grasp at any old theory flying about and pass it off as true just because we were born into that particular belief system. Good and bad is something that relates only to human because it is purely a human construct. Compassion and kindness are both manifestations of “empathy” which humans tend to have in abundance. Higer apes – a little less, other mamals – even less, birds – even less, fish and reptiles – very little, insects – practically none. It is a purely evolutionary response as being less selfish and acting for the common good even if it had an adverse outcomes to the self resulted in higher human numbers. Perhaps Neanderthals and Homo Erectus were not as capable of empathy as we were. Hence their extinction.

        When we die we just decompose into our constituen elements and compounds. End of story. There is no life or brain to feel the sorrow of one’s own passing away. No soul or athma that escapes. So there you go. Nirvana is assured for us all and we can all rejoice. At least that is my belief based on the known evidence..

      • yapa

        You have entered the debate with branding your self, as per your definition.

        “Isnt it entirely subjective as to whether you or I are the embodiment of “dishonesty and lack of knowledge”? In my opinion you are a clear case of the condition known of “delusions of omnipotence” common in Schizophrenia. But then that is also subjective and may be it is I who is mad!”

        However, I do not belong to it. Do you say using some negative words to somebody is always wrong? That is nothing but a hasty generalization. Do you say we should only talk of people with their good? Why should we abstain talking about their bad, if they have them prominently? If so is it wrong to tell them with evidence, and would you call something entirely subjective?

        Nihal Perera has been amply displaying his dishonesty in his arguments in many ways, wrong interpretations, claims without facts, just unsubstantiated narrations,just lies, avoiding questions, repeating again and again the same disproved thing as correct, not accepting the things formally disproved as disproved,…. what not?

        Calling spade a spade you cal subjective and going to name as “delusions of omnipotence”? You cannot call me by that name it is true as I do not resort to subjective judgments. Therefore calling your self mad or you are suffering from “delusions of omnipotence” is true as per your definition and as you have accepted.

        Why not say evil is evil or dishonesty is dishonesty or ignorance is ignorance? I have no faith or care about such false decencies. You may practice them, I will continue with my own way I have been practicing.

        Anyway, I will come to your questions.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear kadphises:

        Above post too was addressed to you. Anyway I like your serious questions, unlike Nihal Perera’s and some arguments/queries of the PitastharaPuthraya’s.

        A discussion should not be based on for the mere purpose of establishing somebody’s belief using what ever tactics. A discussion should be an scholarly exercise aiming at generating knowledge, at least at arriving at comparatively acceptable notions.

        This cannot be accomplish especially when a debater is dishonest and keep on just verbal denying without giving any reasons. Lack of understanding is another hindrance in a debate. I fee like you as a better debater as expressing your belief that the disproved God is non existent. In such a case your queries about karma are justifiable and reasonably demand a discussion.

        Yes, I am not an authority on Buddhism, but I think reasoning out things will not be an impossible task even without a thorough knowledge. I would like come for a discussion on the above issue in a serious and objective ground, however, honesty should be kept intact. You also must be ready to call spade a spade even if it is black or white.

        Give me a little time.

        Thanks!

      • Nihal Perera

        Dear Yapa,

        Nihal Perera has been amply displaying his dishonesty in his arguments in many ways, wrong interpretations, claims without facts, just unsubstantiated narrations,just lies, avoiding questions, repeating again and again the same disproved thing as correct, not accepting the things formally disproved as disproved,…. what not?

        Unlike kadipheses, I will not go so far as to claim you suffer from mental illness. However, it seems apparent that you suffer from a lifetime of bad education/miseducation. For the sake of clarity, let me summarize my conjectures here, none of which you or Off the Cuff has managed to prove.

        (1) The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. If you assume God did not create the Universe, then you assume that either the Universe created itself (which is impossible), that energy created the Universe (which is again begging the question of what created the energy that created…), or that the Universe has always existed (which assumes that energy has always existed, since the Universe can only exist within the boundaries of an energy-state). But if you assume the Universe has always existed and energy has always existed, then you are assuming that a quantity besides the Universe has always existed, which is a contradiction, since these two things particular things could not possibly have existed at the same time forever. The only way out of the paradox is to assume that energy existed before the Universe, and that energy created the Universe, but this is again begging the question, unless one takes the existence of the energy as an axiom.

        (2) Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism has its roots in economic competition, not colonialist policy targetting non-Christians

        (3) Buddha believed in the existence of Brahma, the Creator God

        (4) Buddha was not omniscient

        (5) Colonialism was more beneficial than harmful for Sri Lanka, given the prevailing caste/class system in place when the colonials came, the fact that the King owned all the land, and the fact that most of the population were engaged in subsistence agriculture

        (6) The only way for SL to move forward is to adopt Western technology – to the extent of industrializing – and teach all major subjects in the English medium (Singapore model), as well as Indian model.

        (7) A religion only has philosophical value; the distinction should be made between philosophical and scientific. Once this distinction has been made, the State should only promote scientific knowledge in the schools. The State as a whole should be secular. So that Buddhism should not be given a special place in the Constitution and monks should not be advising the politicians.

        (8) Western political models are superior to the Eastern ones. In this regard, I have given Japan as the prime example; not only was the industrialization of Japan accelerated after WW2, but Japan became a G10 nation.

        I challenge you to disprove any of the eight above assertions.

      • Nihal Perera

        *None of which you or Off the Cuff has managed to disprove.

      • yapa

        Dear Nihal;

        Parrots only can repeat what ever he was taught over and over again. It has no practice of substantiating what he repeats over and over again as it has any understanding what it is uttering. But it has no evil in his mind doing so and its utterance can only be attributed to its ignorance. But some selective repetitions of evil parrots who cannot fly are done with selfish cruel mind. Repeatedly denying facts, avoiding disadvantageous facts, repeated unsubstantiated claims, unjustifiable allegations are some of the symptoms of a person who needs somebody else’ care. He is trying “Defensive Strategies”. Such people must have have the sympathy of all. God bless you, my dear friend, take care.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear kadphises;

        ***”1. Are bacteria and amoebas also life forms considering we all evolved from them and that they are our ancestors?”***

        I did not know that you were an amoeba or bacteria. Is kadphises a sub species of them? Ha! Ha!!

        ***”(I think I remember you saying they did not count as life for Karmic purposes in one thread.) If not at what point did we make the break into being a karmic being as surely there would have been some point up the line of ancestry where father was a “non-being” but the son was a “being”?”***

        Life forms are of two kinds, flora and fauna. Beings in Buddhism (sathwa)consists of fauna only. I think this goes with the general definition of beings as well. To make it clearer, thing with consciousness care considered as beings or sathwa in Buddhism. It is obvious that from the definition of karma as “intentional action” or “volitional action” it is only applicable to the life forms with a consciousness, as without a consciousness no intention or a volition is formed.

        I think bacteria does not belong to that category, but amoeba does.
        Do you think kadphises has a consciousness? Ha! Ha!!

        ***”2. Where did this first “being” (since the big bang created the universe) inherit his karma from? To what can we attribute the “good” and “bad” things that happened to him?”***

        First being is available only in the theories of Big Bang and not even in the Creation”. Creator God too must have a predecessor and a series of the same species to justify its theory. Buddhist view point about the universe is a Crunch theory. It fits all the available scientific data of the universe.

        On the other hand what is rationale behind the claim that everything should have a beginning? Is it so as you limited empirical experience is so?

        So that is why your question when asked by Malunkeyya Puththa from the Buddha, as an excuse not to practice Dhamma, until he was give answer for it, Buddha name it as an Avyakatha. Avyakatha is something impossible by humans to know with their intellectual capacity.

        On the other hand if you believe Big Bang theory as the true theory of universe, can you explain how the first “being” was formed in terms of the theory. It can explain the formation of material universe, but not the formation of consciousness or beings. So, one of the Big lapses in the Big Bang Theory is it cannot explain the formation of life forms, especially animals(beings).

        ***”3. How can an organism with hardly a brain like a jellyfish gather karma?”**

        I have no knowledge whether jelly fish can think or not. if it can do something at its “free will” it can do some action based on its free will, that could give rise to consequent results. If it is the case, and its intention was not a neutral one, definitely its action has consequent results, that is it has accumulated some kamma, which would gives rise results at any time after the action was done.

        ***”Or even a Lion or Tiger as they cannot become vegetarians? How can a Lion or Tiger ever make the transition to a “higher” status on account of their diet?”***

        A tiger’s or a lion’s diet, gives rise to unwholesome karmas and they do not help them to transition to a higher status. They definitely will give them negative results some day in their journey in the sansara. However, a tiger or lion are not devoid of their past kammas both wholesome and unwholesome done in their previous births. Only a single kamma of theirs made them become animals. If one of the wholesome kamma they inherit from their past births become strong and activated at the death of the tiger or the lion it can rise up to a higher status.

        Buddhist doctrine of kamma is a complete theory, if it is taken as a theory as in Science. Just as Newton’s Laws of Motion can explain any motion in the phenomenal world with related laws, karma also can explain any phenomena of beings, together with the other “core theories” of Buddhism.

        A good theory should explain everything related to it. Theory of karma does.

        ***”Still we find their numbers dwindling and our numbers increasing at an alarming rate implying that it must somehow be happening?”***

        Have you counted all the beings on land and water? On the other hand Buddhism does not limit being to earth along. I should say your conclusion is a frog in the well conclusion. Buddha’s doctrine is not only concerns about the human beings on earth, its for the entire population of beings in the universe.

        ***”4. What earns more bad karma? Slaughtering one animal or taking a course of antibiotics killing a million or more bacteria..?”***

        Definitely slaughtering one animal. Bacterias are not beings. Even “killing” trees does not give rise to karma.

        ***”5. In re-incarnation, there is no matter or energy transfered from the dead to the newly born. There is not even a memory, personality trait or anything else that is transferred.’***

        In the first sentence the term should be rebirth, in the place of reincarnation. No reincarnation in Buddhism. Reincarnation is the concept of transmigration of soul(unchanged) to a different cloth or a body. There, the soul is same throughout the cycle of sanasara. this is the view point of Hinduism and also of the Creator God believing religions. This can be contradicted wit ease.

        Other than that the first sentence is perfectly agrees with Buddhist doctrine. The second sentence is perfectly ok with Buddhist doctrine.

        ***”So for all intents and purposes why dont we just call them separate beings rather than two incarnations of the same being?”**

        This fact I will explain with a day to day phenomenon.

        Consider about a caterpillar. It is a worm like creature with poisonous hair that lives on tree leaves. It walks with some leg like things and lives in hundreds. You know with time this ugly creature becomes a beautiful butterfly. No identifiable thing transferred from the caterpillar to the butterfly.

        Do you call butterfly a totally separate being that has no any relationship to the caterpillar?

        It is neither the caterpillar nor anything else.

        That is how the Buddha call a being that is born after its previous death. It s=is nether the previous being nor anything else.

        Does it make sense or you feel like still absurd?

        [Really this is Four Valued Logic used to explain the phenomenon. The knowledge base of Newtonian Science, popularly known as Science did not have the fortune to have the influence of Four Valued Logic. Its total knowledge system is based on Two valued Logic, and hence it cannot acquire some of the knowledge that is obtainable though Four Valued Logic. The arrival of modern Science began with the introduction of Four Valued Logic to Science in the 20th century. The first experience of Four Valued Logic came into it with the paradoxical behavior of light. According to some experiments it was proved that light is a wave. In some other experiments light behave as particles. Both were empirically proved. According to the logic so far adopted in Science: Middle Excluded Two Valued Logic, it should either be waves or particle,cannot be both. So the Newtonian Science or its basic tool became fruitless in solving this mystery. Four Valued Logic came into rescue Science and its four alternatives solved the mystery. According to Four Valued Logic, both wave and particle for light is a possible alternative, and the answer says, light can be either wave or a particle.

        If the Scientists of this incident decided to cling into Newtonian Science and its Four Valued Logic saying Science was the only truth, there wouldn’t have been Quantum Mechanic to improve our knowledge repository or to produce modern amenities to improve our quality of life.

        So this is an example that popularly known Science is not a credible knowledge system as many believe in with their limited knowledge of Science.

        However, Buddhism used Four Valued Logic 2600years ago, and Scientists only used it in the 20th century for the first time. (that is also only Physicists, Biologists or geologists still use only Two Valued Logic as their only tool)

        One can see the sea change Science went through when Four Valued Logic was introduced to it. Whole knowledge system based on Two Valued Logic:Newtonian Science, became invalid.

        So a knowledge system developed on Two Valued Logic is much more inferior to a knowledge system developed on a Four Valued system.

        The knowledge system popularly known as Science(Newtonian Science) was based on Two Valued Logic and the Doctrines of Buddhism is based on Four Valued Logic.

        From this observation what is the reasonable conclusion a reasonable man can arrive at? Invariably the conclusion should be “Buddhism is a better knowledge system than popularly known Science.

        For a mind trained in Two Value Logic, Buddhism might seen as absurd. However, to a mind that hasn’t touched Four Valued Logic, Wave Particle Duality of Light is equally absurd.]

        ***”We dont feel the pain or pleasure from our next birth nor would the new born feel the pain or pleasure from its previous life. So we need to be able to describe or define this “thing” that is passed. (Just naming it as “vinnanaya” or “soul” wont do)”***

        Now you can ask this question from that butterfly.

        ***”5. We tend to believe that there were hundreds of Rahathan Vahanses in the distant past. But none in the recent past which tends to indicate moral decay among humans.”***

        I also do not know the real reason for this. However, you notion may most probably true.

        ***”However at the same time animals seem to be behaving better and making the transition to becomming human as evidenced by the declining population of elephants, tigers etc. and the huge increase in the human population. Should we be looking forward to extinction of elephants and tigers as they will then in all probability be born in a higher karmic state as humans?”***

        I think I have given answer to this question before. You cannot come to such conclusions without considering the “Universal Set of Beings in Buddhism. The animals and humans on earth do not represent the Universal set of Buddhism.

        It is not even the Universal set of Science. Science is in the hope of the forms of life in the planetary system and the galaxies.

        ***”Now before you start about God, be assured. I dont believe he exists either..”***

        I appreciate it.

        ***”What I believe is that we are all just chemical organisms that over billions of years have evolved an imperfect organ called the brain. It evolved so we can cleverly gather food where it was scarce.”***

        Can you give any mechanism or a model to explain how it was happened rather than believing so. Science is stil answerless in this regard.

        ***”It is not good enough to understand all the mysteries of the universe although it has done very well to understand at least some of it. Just like it is impossible for a Chimp to understand calculas there will be truths about the nature or things that our brain will never be able to understand. There will be a maximum upper limit to human knowledge and understanding.”***

        Perfect.

        ***”But that does not mean there isnt a rational explanation for everything. Just that we dont understand it.”***

        Don’t you see that your perfect statement above is contradicting with this statement?

        Modern Physicists say there are no rational explanation for problems in Quantum Physics. They had to invent a new form of Mathematics:probability to analyze them.

        In Quantum world rationality is an invalid law.

        ***”But that does not mean we can grasp at any old theory flying about and pass it off as true just because we were born into that particular belief system.”***

        Surely! I am with you. Any belief system is not justifiable should be given up and easily disprovable systems should be thrown away. I said this from the very beginning. Do you agree with me?

        But what should be done with those that are justifiable? Can any sensible man propose to throw it as well with the discarded ones.

        Haven’t I justified all the queries you raised in terms if Buddhist doctrine, though I am not a master in Buddhism?

        So don’t you think you should think in a different way about Buddhism apart from most of the other religions?

        “”””Good and bad is something that relates only to human because it is purely a human construct.”***

        That is so for the moral systems based on the Bible. In that other animal are not included into that moral system and there is no good or bad towards them. Killing animal is not bad as the God has prescribed them for human consumption.

        But that particular human construct is different in Buddhism. All the beings are included in their moral system. Killing an animal is also bad.

        Buddhist moral system is a universally objective system. One should do and refrain from doing deeds comparing its results, to oneself. If you don’t like you to be tortured you should refrain from torturing others. If you don’t like to be slain you should not slay any one. All beings love their own lives.

        In Meththa Meditation Buddhists practice loving kindness to all beings not just to humans.

        ***”Compassion and kindness are both manifestations of “empathy” which humans tend to have in abundance. Higer apes – a little less, other mamals – even less, birds – even less, fish and reptiles – very little, insects – practically none.”****

        I can agree with you.

        ***”It is a purely evolutionary response as being less selfish and acting for the common good even if it had an adverse outcomes to the self resulted in higher human numbers.”***

        How do you so sure that it is purely a evolutionary response? Charles Darwin said so?????? or a intellectual guess based on Darwin’s Hypothesis???

        Are you sure Darwin is dead right? You believe so as in a religion??? Don’t you think Science is a religion for some people to believe without any hesitation????

        ***”Perhaps Neanderthals and Homo Erectus were not as capable of empathy as we were. Hence their extinction.”***

        Perhaps!

        ***”When we die we just decompose into our constituen elements and compounds. End of story.’***

        But in my earlier example when the caterpillar died a butterfly was born.

        ***”There is no life or brain to feel the sorrow of one’s own passing away.’***

        Haven’t you seen how some people lamenting and weeping at the threshold of their death?

        ***”No soul or athma that escapes.”***

        You don’t know, that is all you know.

        ***”So there you go. Nirvana is assured for us all and we can all rejoice.”**

        That is not more than your belief and wish and aspiration. You have no any credible means to come to that conclusion. You think you have?

        ***”At least that is my belief based on the known evidence.”***

        I think that is your humble belief. Can you relate some “credible” evidence? Are you very sure about your evidence?

        I hope I did some justification to your questions.

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Yapa,

        Your post of November 20, 2011 • 3:44 pm
        is very good

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Yapa,

    I said that metaphysics is a word to describe a particular branch of human thought which is out side human sense perception. I never said that ‘it’ is true as it would be absurd for some one to say ‘metaphysics ‘ is true as it does not make any sense. Therefore, I do not have to accept that my earlier notion that ‘only science is true’ is wrong. If I would rephrase my idea to give a clarity as well as brevity it would be ‘Science is the only branch of knoweledge which has been proven ‘true’.

    However, ALTHOUGH ALL THE DOCTRINES OF BUDDHISM CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY PROVED, UNLIKE ANY OTHER RELIGION,IT CAN BE PROVED THAT ALL THE DOCTRINES OF BUDDHISM ARE “LOGICALLY TRUE” AND CONSISTENT AND COHERENT WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM.

    Finally, you have accepted that Buddhism can not be empirically proved. That was my contention through out this discussion.

    Bravo!

    Now you say it is ‘logically true’ and consistent and coherent within the system.

    Please tell me what is the difference between explaining everything happening to a man’s life using the concepts of ‘karma’, ‘punabbawa’ and other Buddhist concepts and ‘God’ will?

    Your answer would be that you have already disproved the existance of the ‘God’ by ‘problem of evil’ and others. If I would say that the concept of God can not be fathomed by ‘falliable human logic’. What would you say? It is you and me who says that ‘evil’ can not exist if there is ‘ominipotent’ God. Who are we to judge the God’s actions? If God really exists and has created the Universe, surely we will not be able to understand his design as we haven’t understand the 99.99% of His work yet.

    Therefore, I do not see any difference between people like you, who ‘logically’ explain everything using ‘Karma’ and an somebody who says it is ‘God’s will’. When a baby is born with a congenitally abnormality you would say it happened because of its previous ‘karma’. Can any body prove it logically? No either you accept it or not. A ‘Theist’ would say its ‘God’s Will’. Can any body prove it logically? No. Either you accept it or not.

    Even if you accept that Buddhism is logical. It does not need to be ‘true’ as all ‘logical’ things in this world are not necessarily true. A baby of a married couple is logically their ‘son’ but it need not be true. The truth can only be ascertained not by ‘logic’ but by scientific investigation in to the baby’s DNA.

    If Buddhism is so true and explain everything ‘perfectly’ why it has been improved for centuries by other ‘buddhist scholars’ like ‘Nagarjuna’, ‘Vasudeva’ and others. When you say Buddhism is so true that It has never been challenged for 2600 years it contains only half truth. It is accepted that Abhidharma Pitaka has been written long after Buddha’s Death. It was an improvment on Buddha’s teaching. Why did the Buddhist scholars want to improve His teaching?

    1. Buddhism is not just a belief system.
    1a. Other religions are totally belief systems.

    If you want to become a Buddhist you have to beleive in the truth of the ‘logical’ system of explaining your existance using Karma and Punarbhava and Pattichcha Samuppadaya. Even if you accept that by ‘improving’ you mind you would be able to see the truth of these concepts you have to beleive in them to start ‘meditation’ in the first instance. There is no other way.

    If you want to become a Christian you have to first beleive in God. Then, if you live a life according to his teaching (like meditation and meritorious acts in Buddhism) you would see HIM.

    2. Religions with creator God or his agent/agents can be proved wrong.
    2a. Nothing in Buddhism has yet been disproved.

    Exitance of God is still a debating point between the atheists and thesits. Stephen Hawkins is still writing books disproving God but the debate is still as lively as 100 yeras ago.

    3. Buddhism is logically true.

    So as the concept of God Created everything. It is logically true. However, Logic is not always true.

    3a. No other religion is logically true.

    Answered.

    4. Buddhism is consistent and coherent within its doctrines.

    It does not make it true. No body would be able to prove Karma and Puanrbava are wrong concept as there is no way of doing it as Nihal Perera has lucidly explained. What about Hinduism and Jainism? Both used the same cocepts with subtle differences. Aren’t these systems consistent, coherent and logical within their doctrins? So why do you say only Buddhism is correct?

    4a. All other religions create logical fallacies and contradiction within their different doctrines.

    No. If you only humble enough to accept that human logic is falliable and faulty.

    5. Buddhism teaches the methodologies for empirical testing of its doctrines, withing a given definition.
    5a. No any other religion offers such a verifiability test.

    you have already accepted that Buddhism can not be empirically tested.

    6. It offers a considerably amount of rational doctrines.

    What is rational behind the doctrines which can not be objectively tested?

    6a. No any other religion offers and can defend if they offer.

    Does not make sense.

    Thanks.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya:

      **”Therefore, I do not have to accept that my earlier notion that ‘only science is true’ is wrong. If I would rephrase my idea to give a clarity as well as brevity it would be ‘Science is the only branch of knoweledge which has been proven ‘true’.”**

      Very good! Unlike our friend Nihal Perera you seems to have some respect to honesty. It is a good quality if you accept everything when your mistakes are shown. Thanks!

      **”Finally, you have accepted that Buddhism can not be empirically proved. That was my contention through out this discussion.

      Bravo!”**

      You must be mad to issue such statements as I accepted. I never accepted so, What I have been telling from the beginning was only a component of Buddhism can be empirically proved. Only a part cannot be proved so.

      On the other hand do you have any reason to say only empirical proofs are proofs? Ignorance is bliss.

      **”Now you say it is ‘logically true’ and consistent and coherent within the system.”**

      Yes. I repeat it. Can you show a single statement taken from the Buddhist doctrine logically untrue, like in the case of Christianity and many other religions?

      Buddhism is ‘logically true’ and consistent and coherent within the system.

      Can you say no, with evidence/reasons?

      **”Please tell me what is the difference between explaining everything happening to a man’s life using the concepts of ‘karma’, ‘punabbawa’ and other Buddhist concepts and ‘God’ will?”**

      Fundamental difference is there is nothing called “God’s will”. When there is no God(creator) how is it possible him to have a will. God is a disproved and concept. Other entities are not so.

      I have been repeatedly telling these things to you.

      **”If I would say that the concept of God can not be fathomed by ‘falliable human logic’. What would you say?”**

      What reasons/evidence do you have to say? Has any reason other than your aspirations. Why not?, not only God was fathomed he was totally disproved by simple logic. How can it be disproved if logic cannot fathomed it?

      Whole myth of God does not have to be fathomed to disprove it. His creation, omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience are sufficient to disprove it. God is such a feeble concept.

      Just tap to your heart and ask, what you desire is not always the truth.

      **”When a baby is born with a congenitally abnormality you would say it happened because of its previous ‘karma’. Can any body prove it logically?”**

      Why not? However, it cannot be proved with simple logic which disproved creator God. You need to pre- understanding some basic facts which are not found in any other subject. These are not clairvoyance, just a bit subtle knowledge just as any other knowledge used in any other subject.

      That of course I am prepared to prove logically. I will do it when I am a bit relieved with your most fundamental questioning. I told you this even without your questioning. If I am not ready, do you think I am a fool to commit suicide myself. I can logically prove it. Even empirical evidence is possible.

      **”Who are we to judge the God’s actions?

      Ha! Ha!!, Are you the same person called yourself an atheist/agnostic? I think you are also not less dishonest than Nihal Perera. He dishonesty is visible even from his Sinhala name. You are a good match to him.

      **”If God really exists and has created the Universe, surely we will not be able to understand his design as we haven’t understand the 99.99% of His work yet.”**

      If we cannot understand why he taught what is in the Bible to humans? Are they not meant for us? If so why are they contradictory to each other and create fallacies? To understand his myth we do not need anything other than most fundamental logic. No subtle logic is needed, just fundamental logic is sufficient. God can be killed with a simple stick, why you need a nuclear bomb? However, karma, nirvana and punarbawa are immuned even to nuclear bombs. None can disprove them(logically or empirically).

      What we have understood and other 99.99% we have not understood as per your assumption of the design, why you should attributed to To God arbitrarily? What reasons you have to attribute them to that disprovable God. That is the most foolish thing one can think of.

      **”Even if you accept that Buddhism is logical. It does not need to be ‘true’ as all ‘logical’ things in this world are not necessarily true.”**

      What a nonessential statement? I said Buddhism is Logically true and also some doctrines are empirically true.

      Can you tell me the meaning of just “true”? What do you mean by it? How do you define it? What are the mythologies to evaluate that truth?

      Can you give me an example for such a truth?

      **”Therefore, I do not see any difference between people like you, who ‘logically’ explain everything using ‘Karma’ and an somebody who says it is ‘God’s will’.”**

      Only blind and dishonest people will not see the difference between disproved things and non disprovable things. Are you bind or dishonest?

      **”A baby of a married couple is logically their ‘son’ but it need not be true. The truth can only be ascertained not by ‘logic’ but by scientific investigation in to the baby’s DNA.”

      Again what an ignorant general statement? logic can be used to verify the “logical truthfulness” and scientific investigation can be used to verify the “Scientific truthfulness”. Anyway can you show me how the truth about the above mentioned son can be ascertained only by scientific investigations without the help of Logic?

      Half knowledge is dangerous!

      **”If Buddhism is so true and explain everything ‘perfectly’ why it has been improved for centuries by other ‘buddhist scholars’ like ‘Nagarjuna’, ‘Vasudeva’ and others.”

      Buddhism is in its original form is a complete system of knowledge for its intended purpose. However, what most scholars tried was to provide a simple version tof the Buddhism so that average people can understand. That is how Atuva and Teeka came into Buddhist literature.
      Buddha did not preach his doctrine to show it as a philosophy or to become a knowledge system, that is some ways we understand it for our purposes. What Buddha taught is what is needed for liberation of the being and necessary details to understand by the people, really even not a doctrine or a philosophy or a religion. But some of the people who was delighted with the Buddhas teaching tried to interpret and extend it to different areas for their scholarly interests. Some even went wrong. I am of the view that Nagarjuna went wrong trying to extend Paticca Samuppada into other areas the Buddha did not wish to extend. However, even without those developments Buddhism is a complete system for its purpose. Really some who wanted to “improve” Buddhism went astray.

      **”When you say Buddhism is so true that It has never been challenged for 2600 years it contains only half truth. It is accepted that Abhidharma Pitaka has been written long after Buddha’s Death.”**

      Not only Abhidhamma Pitaka was written after Buddha’s death, whole Tripitaka was written long after his death. It was done in Sri Lanka by Buddhist Bikkhus during the period of king Walagamba.
      So, I don’t see that as any reason for what I had said to be half truth. It makes no any sense.

      **”If you want to become a Buddhist you have to beleive in the truth of the ‘logical’ system of explaining your existance using Karma and Punarbhava and Pattichcha Samuppadaya. Even if you accept that by ‘improving’ you mind you would be able to see the truth of these concepts you have to beleive in them to start ‘meditation’ in the first instance. There is no other way.

      If you want to become a Christian you have to first beleive in God. Then, if you live a life according to his teaching (like meditation and meritorious acts in Buddhism) you would see HIM.”**

      Is there any reason not to believe a logical system? Believing in a logical system is not faith. Therefore believing fundamentals of Buddhism is justified. It is not blind faith like in the case of believing the God. That belief is totally mythical as the God is not logically existent.

      **”If you want to become a Christian you have to first beleive in God. Then, if you live a life according to his teaching (like meditation and meritorious acts in Buddhism) you would see HIM.”**

      This evidently show that Christian living is totally a mythical living. The beginning itself that is believing god itself is myth.

      **”Exitance of God is still a debating point between the atheists and thesits. Stephen Hawkins is still writing books disproving God but the debate is still as lively as 100 yeras ago.”**

      Not at all. Only the blind believers like you believe so. Just like when the children do not like to accept when their father is dead and still lamenting not to bury his carcass, you and other sons and daughters of the God are also embracing the carcass of the God and lamenting and pleading not to bury him. God is no more. He is dead. You will have to let him bury, otherwise it will make whole world smelling.

      **”So as the concept of God Created everything. It is logically true. However, Logic is not always true.”**

      None other than a dishonest man with mythical faith and has no any sense of Logic can pronounce such nonsense. Can you show me how the above first sentence is logically true? It is logically untrue, as it can be logically disproved.

      **”It does not make it true. No body would be able to prove Karma and Puanrbava are wrong concept as there is no way of doing it as Nihal Perera has lucidly explained.”**

      Nihal has never lucidly explained it. He had to accept it unwillingly, when I convinced it to him and when he had no any alternative. At the beginning just as you he also wanted to show that they were equally myths as the God. That is why they equated them to mythical God by placing the all together in the same category.

      **”No. If you only humble enough to accept that human logic is falliable and faulty.”**

      what nonsense are you talking? Can you show me a single deductive argument based on a true premises? You cannot show a single one.
      I think it is better not to talk things what you don’t know and not familiar. I have told you that Logic is not for all.

      **”you have already accepted that Buddhism can not be empirically tested.”**

      Show me where I have said so.

      **”6. It offers a considerably amount of rational doctrines.

      What is rational behind the doctrines which can not be objectively tested?”**

      What a nonsense again! What do you mean by “objective testing”? I think you are not familiar about the terminology and their deep meanings.

      Do you mean “empirical testing” by “objective testing”? Empirical testing are always not objective. On the other hand all rational things not necessarily be tested empirically.

      **”6a. No any other religion offers and can defend if they offer.

      Does not make sense.”**

      Take it with number six and take the meaning, just parts do not have sense. That is not my problem. You must learn to understand implicit ideas as well. When taken together, it says” Buddhism offers a considerably rational system and many other religions do not offer. Even if some of them offer they cannot defend them compared them with other rational systems or they are not consistent with them. Now did you understand? Now please give your answer.

      There is a Sinhalalsaying” Nodanna demaleta gohin warige naha gaththa vaage”. You did the same thing going to meddle with Logic.

      Thanks!

  • Nihal Perera

    Yapa,

    **”The truth is that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, as PP has correctly pointed out.”

    This is nothing but unsubstantiated and unjustified narration. Convincing a dishonest man is a mighty task. </i?

    Convincing a fool is an impossible task.

    **”I see little difference between supernatural beings and a Creator God. If a supernatural being can have special powers, so too can a Creator God.”

    Your seeing has nothing do with proofs or disproofs. Facts, evidence and proofs are what are needed.

    You believe in supernatural beings, but you do not believe in a Creator God. A Creator God is simply a supernatural being with extra powers.

    **”You are missing the point. What is important is not that an axiom is non-disprovable. What is important is that the axioms are necessary to define other structures in the system of logic.”

    If you say so give me a single axiom that can be disproved pother than your claim of Creator God. Any axiom if disproved it is more an axiom.

    I have already stated my position clearly:

    (I) It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a Creator God.

    (II) It is possible to take the existence of a Creator God as an axiom in some model of the Universe

    There is no contradiction between (I) and (II).

    Any way I prefer to see one’s dishonesty is displayed rather than he accepts the truth. It makes more damage to you. Keep in mind, all readers are not fools. None cannot deceive everybody forever.

    Ad hominem attacks, as they are called in logic, do not justify an argument.

    **”The existence of this singular energy is taken as an axiom in the Big Bang Theory.”**

    Does this prove,axioms can be disproved? Anything disproved is not an axiom, and hence disproved is not an axiom, and you cannot take Creator God for granted.

    You are forgetting that Creator God implies the Creator came FIRST. That is why it is possible to take the Creator God as an axiom. Just as point, line and plane come BEFORE angle, triangle, polygon, etc.

    **”THAT IS WHY I TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT (AND YOU CORRECTLY ACCEPT NOW) YOU CANNOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF KARMA,PUNARBAVA AND NIRVANA.**

    I never denied the existence of Karma/Punarbava/Nirvana. But I did not confirm their existence either. Once again, my position is that these three cannot be proved or disproved.

    Yanne koheda, Malle pol? I ask whether you can disprove them, not to ascertain whether they are empirically provable. Can you logically disprove them, just as Off the Cuff and I disproved your God?

    Good and bad do not occupy space or have volume. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of something with these characteristics.

    Anyway you accept that God cannot counter the problem of evil? Why are you go round the mulberry bush? You ask any question, I will give you direct answers, unlike you.

    You have not defined evil. Also, you have not proved that evil is part of “Nature.”

    Is torture is not evil, what is it? Good? We are talking about good and evil and why your omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God cannot prevent evil? Do you say there is no any evil prevailing in this world?

    It is a concept that emanates from the human imagination, not the Universe itself. The Universe does not care what people do because the Universe can regulate itself. For example, people can fight 100 religious wars to decide whose religion is better, then a comet can strike the Earth (as happened with the dinosaurs) wiping out both the winners and the losers.

    If a single evil is prevailing your God is not a God. Are saying only good things are happening in the world?

    You have not answered the fundamental question: how does the Universe decide what is good and bad? Is there a scientific law that talks about good and bad?

    You could not substantiate your first statement, but we were able to prove the opposite.

    You have not proved anything, other than the extent of your imagination. Of course you are free to think otherwise. Good luck.

    Their norm in development is more and more consumption. The more utilize the more they are civilized. A monitor lizard must be more civilized than them in that case, it swallows its prey without having some patient to taste it. Monitors are better.

    Why don’t you give some of your advice to the bhikku’s that drive BMW’s and the politicians who maintain jumbo Swiss Bank accounts. It seems you have a habit of giving advice only to those who do not blindly subscribe to your narrow view of a Mahavamsa fantasy world. Here is some advice to you: the new colonialists are not Westerners, they are Sinhala-Buddhists, and if you oppose them openly, you will end up like SF or worse yet Pradeep E. The new colonialists, who are your “leaders”, do not care about this Mahavamsa worldview that you speak of. They will sell out the whole country to China, if it adds an extra rupee to their bank balance. These new colonialists enjoy more wealth and luxury than most of the population in the West. Like I said, they are waiting to hear your message. Good luck.

    Thanks!

  • @kadphises

    All this time I thought they were three heroin addicts arguing over whose needle was cleaner. 😀

    • yapa

      Dear PresiDunce Bean;

      Ignorance is the primary cause of every error, according to Buddhism.

      Do you have any knowledge about Buddhism?

      Some people think they have a divine boon/authority for giving verdicts, though they know nothing about the matter. Ha! Ha!!

      Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    A foot note to Nihal before I call quits:

    In your response to Yapa’s this comment:
    “Do you accept torturing people IS evil? That is happening in this world.”

    you say:

    “If you did not know that torture is evil, then what? Torture is evil, relative to your perception, because that is how you have been conditioned to think. The problem is that such conditioning is purely arbitrary . There is no law in the Universe that says torture is evil.”

    In that case it is as if there is no omnipotent God to watch over and prevent evil? In other words the things would be the same even without His “almighty” presence eh?

    I see you nailing your own coffin, Bravo!

    • PitastharaPuthraya

      Sabbe Laban,

      I do not know whether God exists or not. What I am trying to do is to show you guys the other side of the argument. By doing so I am trying to pass a simple message, which is respect the ideas of the others because you can not claim that only you are in correct side and all the ‘others’ are wrong.

      If God really exists and has created the universe would you expect Him to abide by the logic of human species, which has barely started to scratch the surface of the ‘mystery of universe’. Would you be able to understand His mind?

      If God exists and interferes with the human affairs to prevent ‘evil’ what would be the human life like? We will be like robots controlled by a remote controller. There is nothing for the humans to do. Even if I beleive the existance of the God I would not expect him interfere with human affairs.

      Therefore, what I am trying to say is that you can not disprove the existance of God by these flimsy arguments. People beleive in God not becaue somebody has proved the existance of Him to them but becaue they beleive He exists. This same arguments applies to Buddhism as well. People like you, yapa, OTC accept Buddhism to be true not because somebody has proved Karma, Nibbana or Punarbhave to you but because you beleive it is true. (You may also think its teaching is Logical and more attractive to intellectuals. But in essence there is no fundamental difference between religions. All can not be objectively proven. It is not like telling people that paracetamol is a pain killer. Anybody an experience the effects of Paracetamol. If you haven’t used paracetamol before you can meet people who have past experience with paracetamol everywhere. Have you ever ment a person who claims to have first hand experiences of the truth of all the Buddhist concepts? Have you ever met at least a man/woman who has attained simple ‘sovan pala’?

      • Off the Cuff

        PitastharaPuthraya,

        You wrote “Therefore, what I am trying to say is that you can not disprove the existance of God by these flimsy arguments. People beleive in God not becaue somebody has proved the existance of Him to them but becaue they beleive He exists. “

        Why do you consider the argument to be flimsy when the foundation of that argument is based on the claim of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God who is also claimed to have created everything in the Universe including life?

        It is this claim of the OOO being who not only created the purported order but the disorder as well that negates the existence of such a God.

        The Disorder that He created negates the claim for Omniscience and Omnipotence. Hence such a being do not exist.

        You wrote “This same arguments applies to Buddhism as well. People like you, yapa, OTC accept Buddhism to be true not because somebody has proved Karma, Nibbana or Punarbhave to you but because you beleive it is true. “

        How do you apply the same argument when no claim to creation exists?

        We have two belief systems
        One of them is proven to be false based on the claims made.
        The other cannot be disproved using the same framework

        Personally the reasons that I accept Buddhism is because it has no false claims to creation. It holds you responsible for your actions (no one can absolve you of anything). It makes you your own saviour. It does not prohibit inquiry. Meditation does bring peace of mind, reduces stress, reduces blood pressure and enhances the quality of life.

      • sabbe laban

        P.P.

        I have met two such individuals who claimed so; in retrospect I am not convinced at all. They look like self-absorbed lunatics to me. I don’t know whather that’s the case with the ancient claimers as well!

        And also I have met a couple of individuals in Christian faith who had experienced miracles and “communicated with God”. Some of the “miracles” seem to appear in church walls, pictures and statues of Jesus and Mary. I think that they need a big whack on their heads too.

        BTW, thank you for misquoting me in telling that I was trying to prove that Buddhism is the only truth. That shows how carefully you have read my posts!

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        But doesn’t everything happens according to the “God’s will”? Doesn’t it totally refute your entire argument above?

        You never will be able to reconstruct the disproved God with whatever an exercise. I think a better solution for you is to adhere to your first sentence addressed to Saban: I do not know whether God exists or not. At least it will ease your dishonesty to a certain extent.

        Thanks!

      • Gamarala

        Dear Off the Cuff,

        You said: “It holds you responsible for your actions (no one can absolve you of anything). It makes you your own saviour. It does not prohibit inquiry.”

        The utility of something has no bearing on its truth value.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        Were you unable to read the full paragraph?
        Here is the Full Text for ease of reference.

        “Personally the reasons that I accept Buddhism is because it has no false claims to creation. It holds you responsible for your actions (no one can absolve you of anything). It makes you your own saviour. It does not prohibit inquiry. Meditation does bring peace of mind, reduces stress, reduces blood pressure and enhances the quality of life.”

        The above paragraph is just a personal statement.
        It is not an argument for or against anything.
        That you could not differentiate between an argument and a personal statement points to a deficiency on your part.

        The prerequisite in engaging in a debate, is the ability to understand the language in which it is conducted.

        Apparently you do not posses that ability.

      • Gamarala

        Dear Off the Cuff,

        If you are willing to consider a fallacious argument (appeal to consequences) as valid personal grounds for following Buddhism, then I’m sure you’ll understand why Christians find their own fallacious argument (again, an appeal to the consequences of having a caring, loving god) just as sound a “personal opinion”.

        It is this doublethink that makes discussion fruitless. You must resolve such doublethink through your own efforts. Unfortunately, such efforts are made difficult in the echo chamber of self-congratulatory Sinhala-Buddhist conceit. A good way to depart from this is to keep disagreeing with what everyone else in your environment accepts implicitly. Best wishes!

      • yapa

        Dear Gamarala;

        Let me answer you query of November 19, 2011 • 3:23 pm and the preceding post addressed to Off the Cuff.

        There is no fallacy committed by Off the Cuff, but I will show you how you have committed a Fallacy of Generalization.

        I will answer you within a couple of hours.

        Meanwhile, I would like hear from you about my responses to you.

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        You wrote “If you are willing to consider a fallacious argument …….”

        You making an unsubstantiated statement does not make my argument fallacious even if a personal statement is taken as an argument.

        You have to prove that it is fallacious first and you have failed to do that.

        Good Luck.

    • Nihal Perera

      Sabbe Labban,

      In that case it is as if there is no omnipotent God to watch over and prevent evil? In other words the things would be the same even without His “almighty” presence eh?

      You are assuming that God exists to cure evil. Actually, if you think about it, everything in the Universe has an opposite. Life and death, happiness and sadness, man and woman, etc. The fact that everything has an opposite helps to create balance. In the theory of evolution, (genetic) variation increases the chances of a species surviving. So, it should be no surprise that evil “exists”, just as good “exists.” It would seem that the human thought process also follows a pattern similar to that of nature. For anything that we can think of, there is an opposite. So it is not possible for there to be good , unless there is evil. Once again, I do not know why everything in the Universe comes in opposites, other than the fact that it seems to serve some kind of useful purpose.

  • sabbe laban

    It would be incomplete if I don’t add this to my previous comment:

    Once I said,“Karma is basically different from Buddha’s other Niyaama Dammas or “Laws of the nature” as it is a moral law. A moral law is not in accordance with the flow of the nature and is in fact against it!”

    I have read that Nihal too has put this idea in different words. But he can’t defend his Almighty God using this argument, which he is desperately trying to do.(as I have pointed out in my previous post) Yapa, and OTC too can’t defend Buddha’s law of Karma as a law of the nature because it is not a law of the nature!

    “If you do good the consequences will be good; if you do evil the consequencies will be bad”
    In the nature there is no law like that! If there is, it should be “co-ordinated” by some controlling center of morality!

    • Off the Cuff
    • yapa

      Dear Saban;

      I think what you meant here by the term “nature” is the meaning given it to by Science.

      The term nature has different meanings in different environments and contexts.

      For a Nature enthusiastic tourist, nature is some interesting patches of lands having flora, fauna, water falls, sea etc, which are “prone” to his interest. For a nature activist, even the sea beds below several kilometers are a part of his nature, and he objects to depositing of nuclear waste in there. For a geologist, I think the scope is wider. For a biologist the whole flora and fauna on ground and sea are nature. For a Scientist lived before Newtonian era the earth was his center of nature. For Newtonian Scientists, matter became the nature. Anything belong to Mechanical Newtonian World View, that is the scope of Newtonian Mechanics/area that comes under its purview became nature for them. This is the most popular acceptance among its different meanings even now among people. However, it is nothing but another relative definition just as others’, defined in terms of their the area under their purview. Just as Newton’s nature is the material world, which is the area comes under his purview, a tourist’s view that some patches on the ground and on sea as nature is nothing but a reflection of his area under his purview. Every point of view represents the “Universal Set” under their purview.

      Therefore the concept of “nature” in Newtonian outlook to see it as the material world is not an absolute meaning and nature has no fixed meaning other than in a fixed contexts and in a fixed environment.

      I think under the purview of modern Science/Philosophy, everything material and non material is considered as “nature”.

      Therefore, if you mean nature by the Newtonian perspective, yes!, karma cannot be proved as a law in the nature. But this fact does not restrict the possibility of existing laws out side that nature, which are not in accordance with the Laws of nature. The Laws of Quantum World do not agree with the Laws of Newtonian world or Newtonian nature. This is an example that it is not mandatory, every law in the universe to be accordance with the Laws of (Newtonian) nature and if it is so to demand for a mandatory “controlling center.” Laws of Quantum World does not adhere to such a requirement. It is said that Laws of Quantum Physics are based on “uncertainty” and hence probability. Is there any obstacle for karma to be activated on probability or on any other such principle without co-ordination of some controlling center of morality?

      Though you said you want to quit the discussion, I think you would reconsider the decision to answer this post considering its total pointedness towards your subtle and valid queries raised in your post above and considering the scholarly value of a objective discussion based on it.

      I hope you would continue to be in the whole debate. That would be appreciated.

      Thanks

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Yapa,

    “Further, who told that all those outside the five sensory perception cannot be known(perceived). Can you know Mathematics? Is it within the five sensory perception?

    Outside of five human sense perception does not mean they cannot be perceived/tackled/handled by humans. Human mind can construct and tackle the things that cannot be perceived by five senses. That is why Buddhism consider man has six senses and mind as a very special sense among them. Unlike, other senses human mind can be developed and improved and improved minds can perceive the things others cannot. Einstein’s mind was not a similar mind to others, though his other senses were not that different from others. Improved minds can perceive special things that is evident.”

    Yapa,

    You have repeated this silly argument several times in this discussion. It is high time that I had responded to it.

    It is true that mathamatics can not be perceived with five senses. So are many other subject matter ranging from democracy, human rights, geometry, philosophy etc. In my view, they are conceptual devices constructed by human mind to explain certain phenomena, which have been perceived in the first place by five senses.

    Can a man devoid of five senses understand or conceptualize even a simple mathamatical equation? To understand 1+1= 2, one has to know what is meant by 1 and 2. Can a blind person understand what a pentagon is unless he is allowed to feel a model of a pentagon? How can he conceptualize the shape of a pentagon unless he is unable to sense it?

    Imagine Einstein devoid of five senses, would he be able to come out with his world famous discoveries?

    This whole notion of a separate mind is nonesense. There is no any credible proof that mind is a separate entity. A man, who is brain dead, although attached to a ventilator, is for all purposes considered to be dead although he breathes and beats his heart with the aid of the ventilator.

    Imagine a situation a man is dead and only the mind is alive. Can it see, feel, touch, smell or taste? How does it interact with the enviornment? This is not at least logical enough to accept it even as a plausible concept. Therfore, the stories of a mind hovering over a dying man’s body looking at how the doctors are trying to save his life is utter nonesense.

    The mind is a part and parcel of functioning brain. What it does is analysing the inputs comining into the brain from the five senses. Then it forms its own very individualized opinions on them. Therefore, maind can never be a 6th sense as Yapa claimed. If it is the 6th sense it should be able to stand without the other senses as there are blind and deaf people. You should be able to see a man with only intact ‘6th sense’ but all the other senses dead. There is no evidence to suggest this absurd occurrance.

    What Einesteing did was that he used the input he got from his five senses and analysed them using his extraordinary intallect. He must have observed great deal before he came out with his theory. If some body says that he used his ‘6th sense’ it is something not based on any scientific or any other form of facts. In Sinhalese we call them ‘Manasgatha’.

    • Gamarala

      Dear Pitasthara Puthraya,

      As you have correctly noted, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest an intimate relationship between the physical brain and the mind. One need only give a resounding whack to Yapa’s or Off the Cuff’s collective heads to ascertain this fact, although I suspect that in their cases, it may have no effect (by virtue of their own hypothesis).

      This competing notion of a “mind” existing without a physical form, has no credible evidence. Therefore, simple logic would indicate that the onus is on those claiming the latter to provide that evidence.

      I suspect however, that your time would be better spent explaining that concept to a brick wall.

      • Off the Cuff

        Gamarala,

        Instead of making cowardly wise cracks why dont you respond to posts addressed to you?

        http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38818

      • Gamarala

        Dear Off the Cuff,

        Because I believe nothing will be added to the conversation by repeating what has already been said. Those who are capable of grasping the point would have already grasped it, because their minds have not been calcified with religious convictions.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        And I believe that you have no factual counter and hence hide behind ad hominem attacks

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      I would like to address fully and specifically, the queries and allegation leveled at me in this post as well.

      ***”You have repeated this silly argument several times in this discussion. It is high time that I had responded to it.”***

      You are too early and also naive to call it silly. Anybody can use his mouth even without reasoning any thing if it is not prohibited by law to open it.

      ***”It is true that mathamatics can not be perceived with five senses. So are many other subject matter ranging from democracy, human rights, geometry, philosophy etc. In my view, they are conceptual devices constructed by human mind to explain certain phenomena, which have been perceived in the first place by five senses.”***

      Why you are talking about conceptual devices that exist outside and constructed by the human mind. It is true that there are mind created things that are not mandatory to be existent. However, there are things that exist and are not human construct but not perceived by five senses.

      Are you still courageous to call my claim is silly?

      My dear friend, I am not silly. you have a short memory. I showed you this, I think in this discussion itself.

      Do you believe electrons, protons, atoms, gravity, time, twin paradox, limit of the speed of light exist?

      If the answer is “yes” tell me whether they can be perceived by your mighty five senses.

      ***”Can a man devoid of five senses understand or conceptualize even a simple mathamatical equation? To understand 1+1= 2, one has to know what is meant by 1 and 2. Can a blind person understand what a pentagon is unless he is allowed to feel a model of a pentagon? How can he conceptualize the shape of a pentagon unless he is unable to sense it?”***

      My dear friend, you are sitting again on your tail. Perception of material world is done through Five senses, no one deny it. It is obvious. The scope of Science, as per conventional definition is the material/phenomenal world. Science in its definition itself say that anything beyond material do not and cannot be dealt by Science. Science has clearly demarcated its limits, does not poke into other areas with is five sensory tool, and also refrain from claiming or denying anything outside of its purview. Science has disciplined itself to be within its limit and not to poke the nose outside its boundary line. However, Science believers like you want Science to dismiss the “things” outside its boundary. Just like a fish cannot fight a deer eating in a meadow, your science cannot come out of its limited pond and “fight the things eating” in other planes of knowledge.

      Just because you mentioned about “Mind” can you perceive anything with your all five senses without the aid of mind? Your Science has not identified the significance of mind in perception. However, Buddhism has given it a foremost place as recognizing it as the sixth sense and also as as the mandatory and as the co-coordinating sense of all other physical senses.

      Buddhism does not claim that an average person can perceive even material world without five senses. But he can visualize many things even outside of the material world with his mind. Mind possesses, many special abilities than other material senses. It can act on basic five sensory perception and construct many new knowledge forms that cannot be realized by mere five senses. Five senses cannot act without the aid of mind , however, mind can perceive things all by itself. After getting acquaintance with the help of five senses once, mind does not need any material sense to process data related to that thing. An old person do not need the help of his five senses to know 1+1= 2. His leaning it with five senses in the Montessori 40 years ago would be sufficient for that. Not only that he can work out 2321465+32587+569845 without the use of five senses though he had not done the same before.

      ***”Imagine Einstein devoid of five senses, would he be able to come out with his world famous discoveries?”**

      Buddhism does not claim humans can do things without five senses. I think you know that Einstein is a man.

      ***”This whole notion of a separate mind is nonesense. There is no any credible proof that mind is a separate entity.”***

      Is there any proof to say heart is a separate entity(organ)?, Is liver a separate organ? Brain?, mouth, ears? eyes?.

      They are taken as separate for the convenience of understanding, not because they are separate entities.

      “A man, who is brain dead, although attached to a ventilator, is for all purposes considered to be dead although he breathes and beats his heart with the aid of the ventilator.”

      That is a belief in medicine, just as you correctly said. No medicine or Biology has understood what death is. Can you define death in terms of medicine or Biology and be certain and satisfied about the definition?

      By the way what do you mean by “brain dead”? Do you think if heart is dead, a person would survive?

      ***”Imagine a situation a man is dead and only the mind is alive. Can it see, feel, touch, smell or taste?”***

      This poses another interesting view. What do you mean by a man alive? Do you mean to say when five senses are active a man is alive? Really without five senses mind can be alive.

      ***”How does it interact with the enviornment? This is not at least logical enough to accept it even as a plausible concept.”***

      Do you mean to ask how the mind reacts without the aid of five senses? My dear friend how do you dream in sleep when all of your five senses are inactive? To think, to fantasize the way you are doing do you want your five senses? No just the mind does them, without any help of them.

      ***”Therfore, the stories of a mind hovering over a dying man’s body looking at how the doctors are trying to save his life is utter nonesense.”***

      That of course, I don’t know. Not only some Buddhists seem to believe a such thing it is equally popular among the people of different faiths. I have no idea to comment on that. However, I have not come across such an idea in any of the Buddhist doctrines(Theravada). I am of the view that it is not a Buddhist notion, however, it is my personal belief, I have no evidence to approve or deny the concept.

      ***”The mind is a part and parcel of functioning brain.”**

      Tell me from where did you get this idea? Are you sure it isn’t a brain child of yours? What proofs do you have in support of that?

      ***”What it does is analysing the inputs comining into the brain from the five senses. Then it forms its own very individualized opinions on them.”***

      That is just your opinion. What proofs do you have to say mind and brain are nothing but the same thing? Are going to say mind is nothing but matter itself?

      ***”Therefore, maind can never be a 6th sense as Yapa claimed.”***

      Your argument does not negate the mind or its function as a sense, as the 6th sense.

      What is the function of a sense? To extract some sensory data of an objective is its function. After processing this sensory data by mind with the help of the conscience(Vinnana)it gain some knowledge about the objective.

      Just as a material object is the objective for eye sense, sound is the object for ear senses, smell is the object for nose, taste is the object for tongue and touch is the object for the whole body, conscience(storage part of the mind and thoughts)are the object for mind.

      A human mind can focus on his thoughts or conscience and can extract sensory data of them. Can’t you focus on your mind on your thoughts? Can’t you focus your mind to the past incidents recorded in you conscience? Can’t the mind process the data so obtain and generate knowledge which other senses cannot generate? How did Einstein generated some special knowledge others could not do? How did he perceive that special knowledge? Through his five senses or with his extra ordinary mind? Why other scientist(with similar five senses)who followed the same course as Einstein did could not generate that special knowledge? To which sense of Einstein do you attribute his special perception/knowledge? To his five senses? Or to some other sense other than them?

      ***”If it is the 6th sense it should be able to stand without the other senses as there are blind and deaf people. You should be able to see a man with only intact ’6th sense’ but all the other senses dead. There is no evidence to suggest this absurd occurrance.”**

      I think I have answered this question , citing dreams and thinking. If what you mean by “all the other senses dead” is all other senses are inactive, yes, mind without when all the senses are dead(inactive). Otherwise you must precisely tell me how you relate death to five senses.

      ****”What Einesteing did was that he used the input he got from his five senses and analysed them using his extraordinary intallect. He must have observed great deal before he came out with his theory.”***

      Tell me what is intellect? Do you say it is purely material? Do you say there is no non material factor involved in that? Do you say no mind components in intellect?

      He also must have used “his mind” a great deal before he came out with his theory, without that I don’t think that great deal of observation would accomplish his mission. Do you say he is the scientist who did most of the observations than any other scientist?

      I doubt. He published his theory of Special Relativity, at his early age of 18years or so, when he was working as a clerk in a Patent office in Switzerland. I don’t think he could observe a great deal as much as a physicist worked full time for a period of 40years in a Science Institution or a university.

      ***”If some body says that he used his ’6th sense’ it is something not based on any scientific or any other form of facts. In Sinhalese we call them ‘Manasgatha’.”****

      By now I think you must have understood who is uttering Manasgatha. Your material world view has answers for material phenomena only. Science has humbly understood it. But not you.(Ignorance is bliss?)

      (Please reply very specifically.)

      Thanks!

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Yapa,

        Sorry for using the word ‘silly’.

        As I have already said the protons, electrones, etc is perceived by the instruments, which has extended our five senses. Still the scientists use their five senses to read the measurments or changes performed or observed by and through the special instruments. No scientist use their minds (6th sense) read the mesurments taken by any instrument in this world. Scientists working in LHC use their visual sense to look at the deviations created by the particles on a x-ray (?) film.

        You say “However, there are things that exist and are not human construct but not perceived by five senses. ”

        Can you prove by any convincing means that things exist, which are not perceived by five senses?

        You can theorize the existance of something but until you prove it no body acccepts the existance of it. ‘Dark Matter’ is something scientists logically think should exist. But unitil somebody found it the theory incompletes.

        You say “My dear friend, you are sitting again on your tail. Perception of material world is done through Five senses, no one deny it. It is obvious. The scope of Science, as per conventional definition is the material/phenomenal world. Science in its definition itself say that anything beyond material do not and cannot be dealt by Science. Science has clearly demarcated its limits, does not poke into other areas with is five sensory tool, and also refrain from claiming or denying anything outside of its purview. Science has disciplined itself to be within its limit and not to poke the nose outside its boundary line. However, Science believers like you want Science to dismiss the “things” outside its boundary. Just like a fish cannot fight a deer eating in a meadow, your science cannot come out of its limited pond and “fight the things eating” in other planes of knowledge. ”

        I do not say science can see everything. But if science can not prove the existance of something, then the existance of it can not be taken for granted. God and Nirvana, both, are such things. At least scietists agree that ‘Higgs Boson’ and ‘Dark Matter’ should logically exist as they can explain many natural phenomena if they exist. But existance of ‘god’ and ‘nirvana’ has not been required by them to explain any natural occurrance.

        You have confused mind with brain. There is no proof whatsover that mind exists as a 6th sense. The ability to anlyse the signals obtained by the five senses lies with the brain. The calculation of 1+1 can not be done if someone had not experienced the meaning of one either by visual or tactile sensation. That’s why when we were young we played with pebbles, Abacus etc to undersand the tactical and visual meaning of numbers. After we became grown ups we can use theses memories stored in the brain to calculate bigger things.

        The five senses are separate entities as people can loose the ability to use them separately. There are blind, deaf, anosmic, etc people and those who have lost tactile sensation and taste due to nerve damage. A person in ‘persistant vegitative state’ has only brain stem functioning. His all the senses are lost. But there is not evidence whatsoever that his ‘mind ‘ is active. Probably his brain may be active as they may have electrical activity in the brain. But there is no evidence to suggest that he can communicate with the enviornment using is ‘mind’.

        Death is defined as ‘total cessation of brain activity’. There is no confustion among the medics. The heart can functionn in a man who is brain dead. That is why brain death has been taken as the gold standard of ‘death’. People can live with artificial hearts, heart transplants etc that’s why heart is not important in defining death.

        When the five senses are inactive in sleep you dream. It is true. But it is not a proof of independently function mind as the 6th sense. Dreams are the reflections of the memories you have acquired with your five senses when you are awake. Have you ever dreamt of anything you have never expereinced before?

        The rest is for tomorrow.

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        “As I have already said the protons, electrones, etc is perceived by the instruments, which has extended our five senses.”

        Please tell me the specific sense used in perceiving each, of the following cases.

        1. Electron, proton, neutron, atom, Alpha ray, Beta ray

        2. Magnetism

        3. Gravity

        4. Potential energy

        5. Chemical energy

        6. Time

        List is long. But sufficient for the time being.

        Thanks!

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Yapa,

        The rest.

        Mind is a part and parcel of brain because there is no evidence of active mind in a person whose brain is dead. As far as the scientific evidence is concerned with the deah of the brain all activities ascribed to mind vanish.

        If possible please prove using whatever means that minds exists when the brain is no more. As far as the current medical knowledge is concerned there is separate entitiy called ‘mind’.

        Yes, I think all the current evidence available lead one to think that the mind is a reflection of matter. It is a direct function of the brain.

        However, this a very old debate.

        As far as I am concerned, there is no convincing evidence to suggest a separate entity called ‘mind’ or similar entity suvives death of a person and continues through births and deaths of its hosts until attain Nirvana apart from ‘logical’ theories of Buddhism and probably Hunduism and Jainaism.

      • yapa

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        **”Mind is a part and parcel of brain because there is no evidence of active mind in a person whose brain is dead. As far as the scientific evidence is concerned with the deah of the brain all activities ascribed to mind vanish.”***

        This argument of of yours I should say only a foolish one, not making any insult to you.

        A man to arrive at true conclusions he must have continuous conscious crystal clear critical thinking about the whole argument. You have not maintained it and have come to a hasty conclusion.

        I will explain with a simple example.

        You must have heard of “Ply Wheel” of some engines have. You know when the engine is running ply wheel too keep rotating. However, just as the engine is stopped, ply wheel stops is rotation and comes to rest with the engine.

        So, just because ply wheel stops simultaneously with the engine, do you say ply wheel is a part of the engine?

        My dear friend, problem is in your thinking process. You have not “developed you mind” for clear thinking. That is the reason for your frequent fallacious conclusion of your conclusions. That is why I frequently have to correct your conclusions. That is the reason for you incorrect understanding.

        Understanding does not come from what you have learned alone. You will have to focus your mind to what you have learnt and must critically analyze to see whether your ideas gained from learning are true or not. You must focus on your thought and analyze them. You must meditate on your thoughts to assess their validity. This is a part of “Vipassana Meditation” it improves your capacity to think clearly. This makes your accuracy of thinking/conclusions increase. Any thought that goes without the subtle scrutiny of mind has a more possibility of going wrong.

        That is how you improve you mind in Buddhism. You, Nihal Perera and Gamarala made many contradictions and fallacies in your arguments. I think Off the Cuff and I made only a few if any. The reason according to Buddhism is that “Unscrutinized thinking based on wrong views (Mtya Ditti)most of the time give rise to wrong conclusions. If I translate this into Formal Logic, wrong arguments based on wrong premises usually do not give rise to wrong conclusions. That is how Buddha advised to come at proper knowledge by improving the mind through Meditation.

        If you have a will you also can improve your mind to gain proper knowledge just like Off the Cuff and me. Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Further to to my post referred to two posts above…

        Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

        You argued mind is nothing more than part of brain, based on your argument that mind ceases functioning with the end of the function of brain. Then I can argue with the same reasoning that mind is a part of heart. Mind never functions without the function of heart. Just as the blood finishes supplying “food” to cells, life ceases and mind stops functioning.

        Does this say, mind is a part of heart?

        My dear friend guesses do not give rise to proper knowledge. Only “the Prthyakshaya”(I don’ know whether there is an equivalent term in English for this) gives rise to proper knowledge. How to arrive at Prthayksha knowledge is given in many places in Buddhism.

        However, Prathyakshya cannot be arrived at on wrong premises(wrong views/dittis)like “Creator God”.

        As you have once mentioned in one of your posts, wrong arguments based on wrong premises might give rise to true conclusions, but is is just an accidental one only. No consistent proper knowledge can be obtained that way.

        For example, I can say “I saw a dog flying” which is a wrong premise. However, I can use a wrong argument based on this to arrive at a correct conclusion. I would argue, seeing a dog flying is a sign of rain in the evening and I can conclude that it must rain in the evening. Now if it rains in the particular evening my conclusion based on the wrong premise and wrong argument become true.

        Do it ensure, my premise and argument are true?

        My dear friend wild guesses on wrong premises and and senseless arguments do not give rise to consistent true conclusions and hence to proper knowledge.

        So, your conclusion that mind is a part of brain and God created the universe are nothing but wild guesses, that never give consistent proper conclusions, but gives rise to contradictions and fallacies in further arguments. That is the reason behind my firm stance of the Creator God, that HE was a myth, it is not my belief. It is a sound logical conclusion.

        I never expect to cling on to beliefs based on wrong conclusions. If I am convinced any of the conclusions in the Buddhist doctrines is logically wrong, I never hesitate to refuse it an give it up. I will never hang on to Buddhism if I find some thing in Buddhism is logically proved wrong.However, I have not come across such a conclusion in Buddhism.

        It is open for anybody to show such a wrong conclusion in Buddhism, I think it would be a great service done to the man kind of the same significance as finding the modern Science to oust Newtonian Science to save the Human mind from wrong views it sawed in the human understanding.

        Thanks!

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Yapa,

        Definitely mind is a manifestation of the brain.

        When other organs are transplanted or diseased, a person’s mind is not changed unless by that process brain is damaged.

        If you have a slightest knowledge of the human body you would understand it.

        When the brain is dead all the five senses are vanished with the ability to think and analysed. This is a well known fact. And definitely not a my ‘flawed’ conclusion.

        If they ‘ply wheel’ stops with the engine, even if it is not a part of the engine it does not have an independent existance without the engine. Even if it is physically present, for all practical purposes it is dead. I do not know why a person with such a developed mind can not understand such a simple logic. Probably, too much ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ or ‘sometimes too much ego of self-righteousness hampers logical analysis’.

        Therefore, this is not the problem. The pbomlems are wheather the ‘mind’ is a separate entity or it is a separate ‘sense’.

        I think I have proved that both these assmuptions are logicallly and sicentifically false.

        If you want to see beings with only minds and without physical bodies you have to go to one of those ‘bamba lova’ where beings are with ‘sitha misa kaya nethi’.

        6th sense is another myth, which has never been logically or otherwise proved just like, other Buddhists concepts and ‘creator God’ (all the religious concepts come under this category). However, if one beleives in one set of concepts he does not have a right to dismiss the others. That has been my stance through out this discussion.

        Yapa, You are still to prove the existance of Karma, Punarbhava, Sansara, Nirvana, Four noble truth etc.

        You haven’t respond to my query about the notion that ‘life is sufferring’ either.

        Please stop hanging on to excuses and other deviations please concentrate on them.

        If you prove these concepts I will follow Buddhism without any hesitation.

      • Off the Cuff

        PitastharaPuthraya,

        Is Pain associated with the Brain?

        Can a Brain dead person experience pain?

        The following True story provides an answer.

        Our son was determined to be brain dead in 1993. Like most families in this situation, we had only a surface knowledge of brain death. The surgeon explained the process he would use to determine brain death. He said that if our son showed even a slight reaction to any test, he would not be considered brain dead. The worst happened. We donated our son’s organs in an attempt to derive something good from a terrible situation. We were told that our son was a perfect candidate for major organ donation. His brain stem had been crushed in an accident but he had no other injuries. He was on a ventilator. As you are probably aware, the patient is kept alive on a ventilator until all of the organs have been removed. This is done in a specific order with the heart being taken last so that the patient’s blood continues to flow through all organs until the moment of removal.

        A few years later there was a dispute in England among anethesiologists because of the reaction of brain dead patients during the organ retrieval process. Apparently if no anesthetic is used patients react to the pain of incisions by trying to move away from the scaple. At the moment the scalple cuts , the patients blood pressure and heartbeat increase dramatically as well. This is well documented medically but not commonly known by the public.

        We certainly were never informed of it. Had we been informed we would never have consented to organ retreival and would have let our son die naturally.

        I called the organ retrieval team in BC to see if they had used any anesthetic during the procedures on our son. I was told that they do not because the patient would not be considered brain dead if anesthetic were neccessary. The procedure would be considered euthanasia, which is illegal under Canadian Law. They acknowledged the fact that patients do react during the procedure but likened the movement to that of a chicken when it’s head has been cut off. You can imagine how this analogy was recieved.

        I feel great sympathy for people requiring organ transplants. I can understand the negative effect on the number of organs retrieved, if the above information became common knowlege. As a parent, I feel like I have unwittingly subjected my son to unknown pain. I feel that we were deliberately mislead. The only reason I didn’t pursue this legally is because of the devastating effects it would have had on other family members. However that situation will change within the next few years. When it does, I intend to lobby to have this situation corrected.
        Deborah Dimitrov, [email protected]

  • Gamarala

    Dear Yapa,

    You repeatedly claim a creator god can be disproved. While I too do not believe in creator gods, demons, karmas, rebirths, fairies, bigfoot and other kinds of super-natural notions common to all cultures, I do have the common sense to acknowledge that none of these notions can be “disproved” beyond a shadow of doubt, although for all practical purposes, their existence can be “disregarded”. Therefore, I’m curious to know how Yapa has achieved a level of certainty regarding a fact that none of the brightest philosophers to date have succeeded in demonstrating.

    Hear is a challenge to you dear Yapa (and to Off the Cuff too), and let’s hope you do not get needlessly sidetracked, and address this point, and this point only to prove your claim.

    Provide a convincing argument, that a creator god cannot exist, given that
    a. The creator god is not omnipotent
    b. The creator god is not omni-benevolent
    c. The creator god is not omni-anything, merely a super-natural creature who created the universe. (Please do not give the “Who created the creator” argument, let us assume that someone else created this creator)

    Now, kindly “disprove” the notion that such a creator god cannot exist in principle.

    If it helps you to reason about it, consider the creator god to be an advanced alien from a parallel universe. Now “disprove”.

    • yapa

      My Dear Smart Friend Gamarala;

      The God mentioned in the Bible is the Creator God and he is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent according to the Bible and its believers. The debate was basically about the truthfulness of Christianity and Buddhism. Therefore what a person who is debating against the Christianity should do is to dismiss its(Christianity) God and not any God else. I think asking me to disprove some other God without OOO and who was not the first and foremost Creator but a somebody like and alien from a parallel universe, you must have been convinced and accepted that the Cristian Creator God was dismissed by our arguments. However, to which purpose it serves disproving a God who has no any relevance to the debate? Even if I disproved it, it does not say anything about Christianity or Buddhism. On the other hand is there such a God in any religion or in any belief system?

      On the other hand by the present meaning assigned to the “Creator” it cannot have a predecessor as you claim. If that God is from a parallel universe, and if he did not create it, he is only living in that universe as a part of it, there must be another Creator as per Creation theory to create it before the present Creator. Again to create that earlier Creator there must be a previous one.

      So even if without OOO, theory of creation gives rise to an unending series of Creators. Without that such theory(Creator Theory) cannot exist.

      It must also be clear to you that Gods without OOO and didn’t engage in that unwanted thing of creation, Just like the monkey’s pulling the peg, would survive the theory of Gods. Just gods, such as Katatragama, Sumana Saman, Apollo or Minneriya Deyyo cannot be dismissed by these arguments. I don’t think any other theory has ever been devised to disprove them.

      Therefore though your contention that Creator God was not true is proved,justified and correct, your other contentions that demons, karmas, rebirths, fairies, bigfoot and other kinds of super-natural notions common to all cultures were not true as well is just a non-proven beliefs only. You cannot justify your claim though you can claim that you understood them from your common sense. If common senses tells you the truth, nobody is necessary to go to school to learn subjects. That is only unsubstantiated beliefs. If you want you can say some super natural being friend of yours told you that there are no super natural beings, to support your claim. Ha! Ha!! Or either you may claim that they are “self evident truths”. Huh! Huh!! Ha!

      There is no any other alternative for you to “justifiably claim”(I stress “justifiably”)that there are no super natural beings. Do you have any justifiable claim other than just claims?

      This does not imply I do believe in super natural beings, it is another matter. What I say is there is no any ground for me to deny the existence of humble supernatural beings without OOO and do not create universes. Therefore I have no reasonable ground to deny the existence of such beings. There is no room for any body else too to make such bold denial on reasonable grounds. Wild guesses and blind beliefs are exceptions. Ha! Ha!!

      Please keep in mind inability to deny, does not ensure existence. Therefore, I am not bold to say that there are supernatural beings on the basis of this fact. What I can say is I cannot deny and I also cannot say they are existing? Like Greek? No it is Logic. Ha! Ha!!

      So the logical conclusion is that we can be sure that the non existence of a Creator, non can reasonably say that there are no super natural beings.

      It is not your contention. Can you justify your contention by disproving super natural beings with some reasonable methodology? (Without appealing to common sense or to self evidence)

      Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Gamarala,

      You wrote
      “Provide a convincing argument, that a creator god cannot exist, given that
      a. The creator god is not omnipotent
      b. The creator god is not omni-benevolent
      c. The creator god is not omni-anything, merely a super-natural creature who created the universe. (Please do not give the “Who created the creator” argument, let us assume that someone else created this creator)
      Now, kindly “disprove” the notion that such a creator god cannot exist in principle.

      Who created the Creator is a valid argument because the assumption is that without a Creator the Universe would not exist.

      If a person with the power to create the Universe can “just exist” without needing a Creator of his own then the less complex Universe could also “just exist” without needing a Creator.

      When you say the Creator God is not “Omni anything” you need to ask yourself whether ANY Religion has put forward such a Creator. Neither, Christianity, Hinduism nor Islam has presented such a weak Creator.

      The moment Omniscience is claimed it gets negated by the abundance of flawed creations.

  • sabbe laban

    Yapa

    How can I ignore your request for a come back?

    Do the laws of quantum mechanics care about good and evil as you seem to assume?

    • yapa

      Dear Saban;

      “Do the laws of quantum mechanics care about good and evil as you seem to assume?”

      I never meant to say so, if I sad so, it must be my mistake.

      I very well know that Scope of Science does not go beyond Material world, and Morality is not something comes under it. I think I have clearly mentioned this status of mine, in many of the discussions, including the present one.

      Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    Yapa

    A kind word on “Mind and Brain” which intrigues you. You can even remove the heart of a person and the function of the heart can be taken over by a heart-lung machine;still the brain functions and ONLY when the brain ceases to function the person is dead. This might help to clear your dout about the connection between the brain and the mind!

    • Off the Cuff

      Sabbe Laban,

      Can Brain Death be accurately detected?

      Here is a True story of a person confirmed to be Brain Dead, apparently feeling Pain when his Organs were harvested subsequently.

      http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-39007

      Is interpretation of Pain signals a Brain activity?

      If that is True, can a Dead Brain detect Pain?

      • sabbe laban

        Off The Cuff

        It may be difficult to determine the exact point of brain death, but on the other hand there is no question that a dead bady can’t feel!

  • yapa

    Dear Saban;

    Thanks for coming back to the discussion on my request. I think your presence will be important especially in the overseeing capacity, if the the discussion continues further.

    With regard to your second post above, I really do not say and have no good reasons to say heart is more related to mind than brain. I too believe that brain has much more things related to mind. Really my intention of the argument was to provide an example against PitastharaPuthraya’s “assertion that mind is a part of brain”.
    However, I accept that as you have pointed out my argument of heart is weak, as the function of the heart can be undertaken by a machine.

    Same way it could be said that there is some shade of doubt about the relationship of brain and the mind. We no that brain destroyed frog can remain live for some time. We do this experiment in the Biology laboratory to demonstrate demonstrate “Reflex Action”. Even without the brain it reacts by shaking its legs to an electric shock given to the brain dead frog.

    It is true that Science classifies this as a non conscious action. Hoverer, I think this could be due to the pre-assumption of Science that conscious action can be done only with the involvement of the brain. I think Science had pre-defined and pre-decided and related “conscious actions” with the brain and hence it eliminate Reflex Action as “non conscious action”. I can argue there is no difference between a so called reflex action and so called conscious actions. Both actions are nothing but a response to a stimulus. I could argue only this pre-assumption of Science made the difference, but it does not reflect any difference in reactions. I would further argue that only difference is the places of the generation of the responses. Reflex action is generated at the Central Nervous System while the other actions are generated by brain (as per Scientific notion).

    I think just as the brain Central Nervous System too has undertaken some duties similar to the duties done by the brain. So, I would argue there is no reason to not to call actions of Central Nervous System to call “Conscious Action” if the brain action is called so. So, I would argue, if Science attributes conscious action to brain, it cannot limit it to brain alone, it has to extent it to Central Nervous System as well, on a reasonable argument.

    However, none of these arguments logically imply that mind is a part of the brain. It only implies that mind had a bearing on brain. However, I can argue it has a bearing on Central Nervous System as well.

    Combination of these two arguments proves that mind is not a part of brain, given that my argument of reflex action is sound.

    Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Saban/PitastharaPuthraya;

      I think we have side tracked from the original argument and I think we are arguing on an irrelevant focus.

      The original argument was whether there is a separate sixth sense called mind. In the point of view it is “yes” and in western Science’s view point is “no”.

      PitastharaPuthraya said there is no sixth sense other than five senses and then I said while in sleep all the five senses are inactive ( they do not react to stimulus) but you can dream during the sleep.

      At this stage PitastharaPuthraya made a fallacious action(I think without knowing it)attributing dreams to brain and said there is no separate sense called mind.

      Brain is not one among the five senses, but an organ of the body. Attribution of dream to an organ is not an attribution of it to a senses. So, attribution of dream to brain does attribute it to any of the senses. So clearly dreaming(some form of experience similar to other sensory experiences) is a function of some other sense. The sense dreams can be attributed is is known as mind: the sixth sense.

      Mind could be attributed to an organ/s however, it does not negate the sixth sense. Just like mind, all other senses can be attributed to body organs. vision-eye, sound-ear, smell-nose, taste-tongue, sensation-whole body. If attribution of senses to organs denies the existence of organs, one can say there is no any senses but only organs.

      Above is another example how easily mind can fall into mental traps and arrive at wrong conclusions or wrong ditties(wrong views). Just as you give up your scrutiny over each and every though(argument)of yours there is a great possibility that you embrace wrong conclusions/views. The way to improve the views is to be conscious contemplation of your though, that is Vipassana. When you make this practice a part of your life, it becomes a way of life and you tend to make less and less mistakes, and you begin to have flow of better thoughts that is you form a better view.

      In Noble Eight Fold Path, the first step is “Right View”, and above is the way to step on to the first step of the path to wisdom (Nirvana)according to Buddhism(through meditation.

      Do you think it is mystic?

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      Correction……

      “In the point of view it is “yes” and in western Science’s view point is “no”.”

      Should be corrected as,

      “In the point of view [of Buddhism]it is “yes” and in western Science’s view point is “no”.”

      Thanks!

  • Groundviews

    Dear all,

    The discussion on this post has become tedious and does not address the original topic. Please send in your final comments, following which comments for this article will be closed. Thank you.

    GV.

    • sabbe laban

      In conclusion:

      Nihal:

      After so much of deliberation you have failed to impress the bloggers that the Western society is more progressive than the Eastern due to their belief of an almighty God and a soul etc. In fact in many respects the East seems to have more morality as the West seems to be delved in individualism.

      The notion that a Creator God would simply “create” and thereafter make no effort to control evil doesn’t hold any water as all Middle Eastern religion preach about a compassionate and a communicating God! For instance in the New Testament Jesus is stated as saying(something to the effect),”if you ask for a loaf of bread, would your father(in heaven) give a scorpion instead?”. The prayer is an essential part of all the Middle-Eastern religions. In other words God is supposed to grant your requests!

      In this context as to why that God allows deformed and terminally ill children(with cancer and thalasemia) in the world would puzzle anybody’s rational mind. And the way out of this is given in the Old Testament in the form of a flimsy argument of “original sin”. Man was not supposed to access the “tree of knowledge”-it’s God’s territory! As Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, God revenged the whole human race! Therefore we became “sinners”. I previously questioned the rationale of this grave punishment for a minor offence, where God is supposed to forgive his children as a “loving father”. Can you see how a collection of Jewish fairy tales can truncate the rational human mind?

      P.P.:

      As a result the believers in the West and the rest of the Christian world have became the most backward and begotted lot. If you relegate yourself to a sinner for something that is supposed to have taken place in another place and time(according to the Bible) you become utterly helpless as an individual and your fear of God knows no lmits. As you have accepted yourself as a sinner, you attribute anything that happens to you to it. Luckily most Western societies have grown out of this mentality, but not the third world Christians!

      • Nihal Perera

        In conclusion:

        Sabbe Labban and Others,

        After so much of deliberation you have failed to impress the bloggers that the Western society is more progressive than the Eastern due to their belief of an almighty God and a soul etc.

        My goal was never to impress the bloggers that the Western society is more progressive because of a belief in the “almighty God.” On the other hand, Western economic, scientific, and political models are definitely superior to anything found in the East. And for that, there is plenty of empirical evidence. Some of the most spectacular evidence has to do with countries like Japan and India, which have adapted Western political models and Western economic models, and become fabulously wealthy. The only Eastern nation that has succeeded with an indigenous model is Singapore.

        In fact in many respects the East seems to have more morality as the West seems to be delved in individualism.

        The day that Mahinda Rajapakse makes his assets public, I will agree with you. The leaders of a society are often a good reflection of the values embodied by the rest of the society.

        The notion that a Creator God would simply “create” and thereafter make no effort to control evil doesn’t hold any water as all Middle Eastern religion preach about a compassionate and a communicating God!

        I have already explained how everything in the Universe has an opposite. Good cannot exist without evil.

        For instance in the New Testament Jesus is stated as saying(something to the effect),”if you ask for a loaf of bread, would your father(in heaven) give a scorpion instead?”. The prayer is an essential part of all the Middle-Eastern religions. In other words God is supposed to grant your requests!

        Religion is based on faith, not empirical verification. That is why religion is not “rational” in the empirical sense. On the other hand, as I have pointed out previously, it is impossible for man to be perfectly rational.

        In this context as to why that God allows deformed and terminally ill children(with cancer and thalasemia) in the world would puzzle anybody’s rational mind.

        Buddhists call it karma and blame it on wrong actions committed during a past life. Christians don’t blame it on a past life, but believe that the deformed and terminally ill children are worthy of compassion, just as much as everyone else. I have seen blind children attending universities in the West; the university goes out of its way to install a hydraulic lift on buses, for example. Can a blind person ride a bus in SL? Even women have a difficult time riding a bus.

        And the way out of this is given in the Old Testament in the form of a flimsy argument of “original sin”. Man was not supposed to access the “tree of knowledge”-it’s God’s territory! As Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, God revenged the whole human race! Therefore we became “sinners”. I previously questioned the rationale of this grave punishment for a minor offence, where God is supposed to forgive his children as a “loving father”. Can you see how a collection of Jewish fairy tales can truncate the rational human mind?

        You call it “dukkha”, we call it sin. There is no difference, at the end of the day, except that the enlightened Buddhist believes he will enter a state of nothingness, and the Christian believes he will enter Paradise. Neither of these things, Nibbana or Paradise, can be proved; it is beyond the rational scope of the human mind.

        As a result the believers in the West and the rest of the Christian world have became the most backward and begotted lot.

        Is that why millions of people risk their lives on boats to enter the West each year?

        If you relegate yourself to a sinner for something that is supposed to have taken place in another place and time(according to the Bible) you become utterly helpless as an individual and your fear of God knows no lmits. As you have accepted yourself as a sinner, you attribute anything that happens to you to it. Luckily most Western societies have grown out of this mentality, but not the third world Christians!

        There is nothing wrong with the idea of original sin. It is meant to convey the idea that evil is real, that only God is perfect, and that man can never be perfect. Of course, there are people who believe man, or certain races of man, can also be perfect. One of them, Adolph Hitler, did not end up as very popular with the rest of the world.

        Since this is my last post for the thread, let me point out one more thing. If Sinhala-Buddhism was the ultimate embodiment of rationality, then the impact of colonialism should have been negligent. In other words, Sinhala-Buddhist society, in 1948, should have easily been able to go back to the way it was BEFORE the colonials came. After all, if you are so enlightened, why bother adapting the other fellow’s view? Why adopt his technology, his science, political and economic models, etc? Is it because the pre-colonial Sri Lankan society is incapable of competing with the modern global society? Those water tanks and bullock tanks cannot compete with modern sanitation and Tata buses? Oh, what a shame.

    • sabbe laban

      Yapa

      Than you for the encouraging words. I would try to highlight some apparent discrepencies found in the Buddhist doctrines(in anecdotal form!) as I can discern. I hope you’ll have enough time to think and respond to them before the Groundviews say,”crtains!”

      The ultimate goal, Nirvana, according to Buddha is the ceasation of endless cycles of birth-death-and rebirth”. If you go back 4million years, all you find is our Primate ancesters undergoing this cycle. If you go further back you would find yourself among the Protozoans at one stage. Was Buddha talking about cessation of “Protazoan suffering” at that time?

      Oh, at least some of the 24 Buddhas must have been “…non-human” before the humans came into the picture! Considering the time period of priming (paaramitha)a “Bodhisathwa” needs, in order to attain the Buddhahood, at least some of the 24 Buddhas must have been “dinosaur Buddhas” or “Protozoan Buddhas”!Can you totally reject heaps and heaps of evidence of evolution in one stroke?

      This is not dissimilar to some raving lunatics believing that Adam and Eve lived alongside the Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden!

    • sabbe laban

      Yapa

      My lack of conviction of the law of Karma, I have illustrated in my earlier posts. I would like to make you thinking by adding this as well:

      The dilemma of The Law of Kamma
      ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
      Kamma is one of the five Niyaama Dhammas that governs the nature, according to Buddha. But Kamma Niyaama is quie different from his other niyaamas or “laws of the nature”, because it is supposed to be a moral law, as opposed to a natural law(in fact it is against the flow of the nature) Look at the following 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. 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 or fixes this ‘action packed drama’! IN DOING SO THE BANK ROBBER MUST HAVE GATHERED A VERY BAD KARMA TO HIS ACCOUNT! Apart from seeming to be “killing two birds with one stone”, this can hardly be considered a “MORAL LAW’, as claimed by the Buddh!

    • sabbe laban

      Yapa

      One final “famous” question that is often asked, but yet to be given a convincing answer:

      As there are a limited number of abodes(loka) namely four hells, six heavens(economy class) and seven “mind only” Brahma abodes and seven “body only” Brahma realms, and only one Human abode,(according to Maha Seehanaada Sutra) how can you explain the exponential human population growth inthe past hundred years, according to law of Karma in Buddhism?

      Have the gods who live in the supeior realms lost the meritorious effects of their karmas at the same rate inversely proportional to the population growth in the human abode?

      This is the only possible way the input should be coming, as it is almost impossible for a bacterium or an amoeba to be born as a human!

      In addition to this all the murderers, mityadrushtikayaas like me and other criminals must be going to one of the four hells after their death, so the hell’s population must be increasing as well, specially with inmates from Sri Lanka!

      The population in the “Manussa Loka” has exploded in spite of all these. Can you explain this with the law of Karma?

  • yapa

    Dear Gamarala;

    As promised I would like to answer the above posts you addressed to Off the Cuff.

    http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-38909

    http://groundviews.org/2011/10/15/we-the-sinhalese/#comment-39017

    In those two posts you have tried to refute the statement of Off the Cuff,

    ““It holds you responsible for your actions (no one can absolve you of anything). It makes you your own saviour. It does not prohibit inquiry.””

    citing the following article (alone) from the internet, with the caption of “The utility of something has no bearing on its truth value”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal%20to%20consequences

    Dear Gamarala; Do you really believe that caption and the content of the article is applicable to Off the Cuff’s argument?

    Assuming so alone you commit the Fallacy of Authority, just like saying “God said so, therefore it must be true.” But Off the Cuff’s statement does not belong to “Fallacy of Consequences”,at all and it was your wrong understanding of the fallacy is wrong.

    Dear Gamarala, please read the article carefully again again for several times before you understand it properly. As I am used to tell frequently, Logic is not for everybody.

    In an argument of Appeal to Consequences, benefits the premise from the “truth vale”.

    Please read the following from your quoted article.

    “In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise’s truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise’s desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.

    An argument based on appeal to consequences generally has one of two forms[1]:
    Positive form

    If P, then Q will occur.
    Q is desirable.
    Therefore, P is true.

    It is closely related to wishful thinking in its construction.
    [edit] Examples

    * “Pi is probably a rational number: being rational would make it more elegant.”
    * “Real estate markets will continue to rise this year: home owners enjoy the capital gains.”
    * “Humans will travel faster than light: faster-than-light travel would be beneficial for space travel.”
    * If you don’t behave, or you won’t get any presents this year!”

    [edit] Negative form

    If P, then Q will occur.
    Q is undesirable.
    Therefore, P is false.
    ………..

    Now, Off the Cuff’s statement is a Positive statement. Do you think it contains the properties given under the Positive form?
    It is reproduced here and we will try to identify P and Q equivalence in the Off the Cuff’s statement.

    Positive form

    If P, then Q will occur.
    Q is desirable.
    Therefore, P is true.

    P- Actions
    Q- You are responsible for

    Now tell me how “if Q is desirable , P in here is true?

    Does the desirability of “responsibility” affects the Truth of action?
    Does the action benefit from the good or bad nature of the responsibility? If the responsibility is of bad, is there no action?///

    Whether the responsibility is good or bad the truth of statement does not change.

    This is calle “Nodanna Demaleta gohin Varige naha Caeneema”. One must honestly handle what he understands and not what Wikipedia understands.

    If you thought simply without going to catch elephants, you would have understood the simple truth of Off the Cuff’s statement.

    Don’t you think if your son work hard for his exam he would get god results, in other words that responsibility of good result is his action?

    Same way if you tell a lie in a court of justice(like you do in your post)you are liable punishment. Do you think here the responsibility of bad result is not an action of your telling lies?

    It Does, in this case too the responsibility of the humiliation comes on you is a result of your action. Do you think it is good? No it is bad for you, still the responsibility of your out come does not negate its action.

    Like Greek? Logic is like that.

    Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Groundviews;

      If it is not “extremely inconvenient” to you please allow a several more (maximum 15 posts) posts to continue, as it would help us to summarize and finish the discussion with some final out come.

      Think you would consider favourably.

      Thanks!

      • Groundviews

        We’re counting. You’ve got eight left. Use them well.

        GV.

  • yapa

    Please see similarity of the independently developed thoughts of this western science genius to the crux of the Buddhist Doctrine.

    I think it is a pointing to a single destination of geniuses’ journeys in different paths.

    “A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. … The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. …
    We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.” (Albert Einstein)

    Thanks!

  • Groundviews

    And that’s all folks. Thank you for your final comments. Please feel free to write an extended post for publication on the subject of your discussion if you wish to deliberate further.

    GV.