Religion is not science. You don’t create new knowledge, unlike science. So anyone who is passionate about his/her religion would do their best to protect that knowledge, in whatever the way they feel is right. They might even believe that the things they do to protect their religion might earn them eternal damnation. But the desire to protect the religion cannot be refused. There’s also the fact that you can never prove that your religion is true. If you can’t prove your religion with evidence, then what can you do for it?

A science lover doesn’t have to protect science. He can do something better. He can make new knowledge. Also, no matter how much one would argue against science and technology, iPhones will still work.

If one is a buddhist, one believes in karma. Then, what is the karma of an action like that demonstrated by the Buddhist mob in Dambulla. My thought processes go something like this — they have:
1. Generated confusion in the minds of followers and others.
2. Generated fear and anxiety in the minds of the group perceived as the enemy.
3. Generated states of mind such as anger and depression in the minds of followers and others.
4. Presented a false face of Buddhism to followers and others, thus turning others and some followers away from this Buddhism.
5. Brought Buddhism to disrepute.
6. Generated actual and created causes for actual damage and harm to people and property.
7. Caused more harm to an already damaged country and people.
etc etc

Now lets just look at No. 1 from the karmic angle: If someone generates confusion in the minds of say 2000 followers, then that means one has generated 2000 causes for states of confusion to one day return to you. So, that is the credit this monk is adding to his own karma account in his bank of consciousness. He is also encouraging other Buddhists to do the same. We believe in other lives, the nature of which is determined at the point of the last breath: this is when one life ends and the other begins. At this point, a karmic roulette, which no amount of worldly power in this lifetime can influence, will spin and draw a cocktail of karma from this life and previous lives, to determine the nature of the next birth. Lets just say that the roulette spins and gathers the 2000 states of confusion into one lifetime; the next birth will be one of madness.

Not pleasant at all. Buddhist leaders who claim to be protectors of the dhamma must be very mindful that they truly walk the talk because the power they have in this life is temporary.

Let’s not follow this (my) thought in discussion in this column, but rather self-relfect – the language of spiritual experiences is ambiguous and therefore malleable and can be turned into guns or roses, depending on whose hands it falls into.

Dear Gamarala;

“The explanation I find most plausible for this phenomenon is that of an evolutionary propensity for such beliefs, coupled with cultural indoctrination.”

I think that is nothing but an arbitrary and arrogant conclusion of yours.

Thanks!

Hi Omi Gosh,

As promised, I will not pursue the subject further. However, I will issue one correction.

I cited Francis Collins and John Lennox not as my gurus, but as far more qualified people who also engage in magical thinking, as Ajahn Brahm does.

The explanation I find most plausible for this phenomenon is that of an evolutionary propensity for such beliefs, coupled with cultural indoctrination. Billions of people throughout the centuries who have believed in Gods, Demons, Karmic forces/Godly judgement (to provide divine retribution & justice), Rebirth/Heaven (a way of transcending death), Nirvana/Entering the fold of God (Attainment of ideals/perfection) and other super-natural forces stand as ready evidence for this explanation. The essence and structure of these beliefs are the same, only superficial details differ.

Thank you for the link. I listened to it twice, and all I saw a man with an agenda to debunk the subjects of his choice, and so he takes some words out of the monk’s mouth and presents them out of context. He misrepresents teachings – making it seem that Ajahn Bhram conconcocted Buddhism and all its premises, when all that this monk is doing is referring to the teachings. It also gave me an insight into the workings of the mind.

It is clear he has no real understanding of Buddhism – if he takes the trouble to experience it, he might think differently. I could unpack the sceptic’s choice of words, e.g. ‘bullshit’, and talk about use of such words in a message, in the context of semantics and not religion for pushing forward an argument — but as you say, it would just be futile. He accuses the monk of arrogance, but it is the quality lurking in the whole tone of the video. To me, this is a flimsy argument. Of course, the man is entitled to his opinion, and his choice of perspective.

The proof my choice of pudding has been in the eating, and I have tasted, understood and embraced Buddhism. I have taken the time to study it and to get the experience it, and in that personal interaction with this philosophy, I have realized its truth and its essence.

As was said in the earlier link, science (in this instance skepticism) can become a religion in itself, and become as dangerous as the mind of a fanatic prelate. Skepticism for the sake of being skeptical, religion for the sake of a label, is waste of time. But skepticism with an open mind for a better world, a religious practice for the sake of a better mind is immensely good. And, frankly, the way religions, including Buddhism, are being practiced by their so-called followers, makes them all very questionable. That is why I said, it is necessary to get back to the good heart of whatever faith one has accepted.

Here’s more food for thought from a guru of your choice, Lennox: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionreport/john-lennox/3165090

The topic of this discussion was the monk’s take on religious co-existence in Sri Lanka – it’s necessary to learn how to accommodate the views of the other if there is to be any sort of dialogue and harmony in the country. There are better ways to demonstrate lack of belief, understanding and interest in the views of the other, than use arrogance, intimidation and violence; all divisive forms of behavior that can only generate more anger, frustration and problems. Dialogue is smooth and healthy when anger is absent, and accommodation and respect for the other is present. Then, there can be communal and religious co-existence.

The last word. Have a good life!

Omi Gosh,

“For me, Buddhism is a discovery of myself – it has answered most of my questions: why this and why that, why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa. It has made sense of life.”

Once you accept an incorrect premise, you can build up an entire edifice on that premise, and everything will follow from it. Unfortunately, if the premise is wrong…

Secondly, you invoke Karma to explain why good things happen to bad things. There is a simpler competing theory. Merely saying that things happen through random interconnections explains the phenomenon equally well (has equal explanatory power, with a simpler construct). Yet you preferentially choose Karma. Ever wondered why?

Finally, thank you for the link to Ajahn Brahm but I’m sorry to say that I am yet to be impressed by his intellectual integrity. I refer you to this critique for brevity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KauGMZVBnjk
I’m not sure how being an astro-physicist has any bearing on this matter. John Lennox and Francis Collins are both theists, and far more “accomplished” men.

I’m sorry to be so contrarian, but unfortunately, you have provided no answer to my original question: there is no recognition of a phenomenon called rebirth or karma in any modern body of knowledge.

I contend that there are very good reasons for that, for those who actually care to find out. I propose that we not pursue this discussion, as these things generally turn out to be long-winded and fruitless. I am merely noting my objections. You are welcome to provide your closing argument, after which we can both part in peace 🙂

Dear Gamarala,

You make many good points, and I agree that skepticism is good and useful. The Buddha himself advised his followers to question the teachings, and their teachers – it’s healthy. It’s easy to get sucked into questionable areas of the numinous and one has to be discerning. The impulse towards the numinous can be very strong, and makes one vulnerable to manipulation. There are many questionable practices out there – there’s an entire spirituality industry, for example, with metered dispensation of teachings, and dubious behaviours by sections of the religious leaders of all faiths. I myself have often started to stray and have pulled back, thanks to skepticism.

All faiths are convoluted with tribal practices, so much so one can no longer see the woods for the trees. In Buddhism, for example, where does it say that traumatizing baby elephants is meritorious? I am still looking for this teaching to authenticate it! So, it’s for every practitioner of any faith to get to the good heart of their practice and hold on to it and develop it to move oneself to a better frame of mind and make the world a better place. And to turn their backs on the doubtful. Then we can have harmony and a good exchange.

My own faith and choice of belief are based on lived experience, and my reverence is not blind faith as such but more a love or delight for it – like the cool beer on a hot day, the delicious dessert after a dinner, the vacation after a heavy spell of work. Its something I look forward and enjoy. I like it so much, I have begun to study the texts formally. For me, Buddhism is a discovery of myself – it has answered most of my questions: why this and why that, why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa. It has made sense of life. As a Buddhist, I believe in karma and rebirth. They are core beliefs of Buddhism. It would be good for many of the practitioners, like the monk in Dambulla and some of these white clad, dhana-giving public figures, to delve into these particular areas of the doctrine and discover well for themselves what they are all about. There’s a Jataka story about that sort of ‘show’ of faith. Sincere practice is better. I applaud the good monk on this page for getting his act together — may he go from strength to strength.

I think you would like these 3 short talks from ABC on skepticism, science and the numinous by an astro-physicist, a molecular biologist and a Buddhist monk, Ajahn Bhram no less:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/03/bia_20120315_2005.mp3

I thoroughly enjoyed them.

Dear Gamarala,

Fair enough. BTW, if one was so inclined or let’s say for a friend in need, where would one get some of that quality acid you keep referring to?

Dear Gamarala;

“Given that much of the rest of the world, as well as the scientific consensus, does not recognize any such phenomenon as rebirth, other than as a common tribal myth prevalent in many cultures that wish to transcend death, your casual reference to it suggests too much contact with fork-lore.”

I have no idea to object your right to scepticism, but I think you have no right to insult anything off hand. I say because,

1. There cannot be a scientific consensus about “rebirth” as science cannot handle anything out of the physical world and rebirth is not a physical phenomenon. Therefore it is natural science has not recognize rebirth and this fact does not negate the existence of “rebirth”.

Just as you say I think others too have a right to scepticism to question your views as well. On what basis do you say it to be a tribal myth?

On the other hand I don’t think rebirth is prevalent anywhere else other than Buddhism.

I am not going to comment on meditation, as I do not have that experience. However, my experience is that many give casual general opinions on many things without knowing them. I have seen many are in the practice of rejecting everything just because they are mentioned in a religion on the high mindset of science. They are on the preconception that there cannot be anything true in a religion and there cannot be anything against science, which is neither scientific nor rational.

Do you have more reasons to negate “rebirth” than Omi Gosh has to claim it? I think if you cannot disprove something you will have to open minded and should not behave as you have already disproved it. That attitude is wrong, my objection is to that.

Thanks!

Dear Omi Gosh,

Thank you for the explanation. Truthfully, I’m not particularly interested in meditation at the present moment. Should I be particularly troubled by the lack of a virtuous state of mind, whatever one’s definition of virtuous might be, I am willing to accept your argument that meditation is a potential remedy.

My criticism was not particularly directed towards meditation. It was directed at the super-natural beliefs in Buddhism. Chief amongst these beliefs is the belief in rebirth that you so casually mentioned, as if it were an accepted truth.

Given that much of the rest of the world, as well as the scientific consensus, does not recognize any such phenomenon as rebirth, other than as a common tribal myth prevalent in many cultures that wish to transcend death, your casual reference to it suggests too much contact with fork-lore.

Secondly, you speak of Buddhism with much reverence. I consider reverence to be the first, and most critical step in shutting down one’s critical thinking facilities and accepting dogma as gospel truth. Desire for virtue, holiness, reverence etc. are ancient impulses programmed into our genetic code. They can be forces of great good, but also forces of great evil. IMO, the only antidote to these primal forces is a healthy dose of scepticism. No society in the world has been misguided because it questioned its fundamental assumptions too vigorously. But societies which believed their dogma too much – well, it’s more of a horror story – and I’m sure we can all think of enough examples.